What is the fabric of space made of

[planck]

What is space itself made of? i.e. if you take both your hands and put them in front of you--parallel to your shoulders, what is the empty space between your hands made of.

Is this space just a void? Did this area of space between your hands exist before the big bang. And if it didn't, didn't this space need to be created?

 

[HallsofIvy]

The "fabric of space" is not made 0f anything- it is just space itself. No, space did not exist before the big bang, yes, it was created, along with everything else.

 

[PhilDSP]

Faraday, Maxwell and Thomson believed that the space fabric consists of something, force or energy, under pressure which had a type of fluidic response to deformation. De Broglie, Dirac, Bohm, Casimir and Puthoff among others have all drawn some particular aspect of that primitive conception into more refined but also more abstract terms.

Would it be fair to say that Einstein reduced that away? In doing so did he remove the pieces of the model that are actually useful to understanding why it works the way it works?

 

[Fredrik]

The theory that predicts the big bang (general relativity) doesn't say that space was created by the big bang. No theory does, at least no theory that's fully developed and experimentally distinguishable from general relativity. But I think a lot of people expect something like that to be a part of the "correct" quantum theory of gravity.

 

[Naty1]

No one knows exactly what constitutes space...nor time, for example.

The "fabric of space" is not made of anything

as posted above

just doesn't seem complete to me ... after all, quantum theory correctly predicts the random emergence of particles and antiparticles from "nothing" (space) which to me suggests it is "something" ...and we know quantum fluctucations, and dark energy, reside there in the form of the cosmological constant...

One way to imagine space is as Penrose Spin networks...which can be drawn out from string theory...theoretical, of course, but a geodesic type construct with volumes and areas integers of Planck length represented via edges and nodes of the geodesic...(just think of a dome shaped roof with flexible edges and nodes...) ...Or maybe space are multidemensional strings...membranes in other words...

Another clue for me is that space and time are inextricably linked in relativity...and both are "flexible", that is undergo length contraction and time dilation at relativistic speeds..again hard for me to agree are "nothing" when they vary with speed. What further solidifies the idea that space IS something is that spacetime curves, its the geometric foundation for gravitational (force) via general relativity...gravitational potential molds spacetime...it curves light..odd were it " nothing"...

Newton talked of absolute space, Einstein improved that via concepts of absolute spacetime...in his theory of special relativity...

 

[Dmitry67]

Physics = Mathematics (at least for TOE)
You don't ask 'what numbers are made of'?
The same here. Space is just a mathematical object.

 

[tiny-tim]

Welcome to PF!

What is space itself made of? i.e. if you take both your hands and put them in front of you--parallel to your shoulders, what is the empty space between your hands made of.

Hi Planck! Welcome to PF!

You may as well ask, what is time made of?

Time isn't made of anything, but we can still measure it.

Why shouldn't space be exactly the same?

 

[ZachN]

Would it be fair to say that Einstein reduced that away? In doing so did he remove the pieces of the model that are actually useful to understanding why it works the way it works?

Exactly, I agree... this is the problem in physics today. Einstein, I believe has set physics back 100 years not because what he developed is wrong but because it has gotten everyone else lost. It is impossible that a thing called space-time is affected by matter if space-time is actually nothing - nothing cannot be affected by something. Einstein was saying that we did not need to have a medium in order to describe what is happening - it is just a mathematical model which works. We can argue all day about what it is but this is a way to visualize and mathematically represent what is happening.

 

[Dmitry67]

It is impossible that a thing called space-time is affected by matter if space-time is actually nothing - nothing cannot be affected by something.

It depends on what you call a spacetime.
Spacetime in our universe can be affected by matter - but it is a brane and it is made of energy

In my first reply I meant an 'absolute' space(time?) of the Bulk (landscape)

 

[Dale]

What is space itself made of? i.e. if you take both your hands and put them in front of you--parallel to your shoulders, what is the empty space between your hands made of.

Is this space just a void? Did this area of space between your hands exist before the big bang. And if it didn't, didn't this space need to be created?

Spacetime is just the geometry of physics.

 

[Dale]

Einstein, I believe has set physics back 100 years not because what he developed is wrong but because it has gotten everyone else lost.

Relativity is not that complicated, lots of people understand it and are not "lost". I would challenge you to come up with any evidence supporting your claim that physics has been set back 100 years by Einstein.

 

[ZachN]

It depends on what you call a spacetime.

Agreed. It may very well be energy. But it isn't "nothing" - as in an absolute vacuum or some abstract notion of space and time - it must be comprised of something or be represented by something.

But go talk to engineering and physics students at any level and I will bet you that they do not connect the idea of sapce-time with anything of "tangibility" (not that it must be something that we hold in our hands).

e.g. - I had a discussion with one of my physics TAs and he has taken relativity or at least an introductory course and electrodynamics, etc. In this case we were talking about the EM field, I asked him: "A field in what?(referring to the EM field)" His answer: "a field in space". Asking for more clarification I think he said something like the fabric of space-time. But essentially a circular answer and would not dare say that space-time was actually comprised of something (not energy, not ether, non alia).

But our problem, as the quote in my previous post states, is that we have churned out generations of physicists who have blocked out the very direction of thinking which will get us the answer. TV shows draw up that table-cloth image of space-time fabric and show how a piece of mass "warps" it. So everyone goes around thinking that there is an abstract 2D sheet of spandex that curls and twists in hyper-dimensional knots to create "space-time" which creates gravity and maybe other things.

 

[Dmitry67]

I agree with you that OUR spacetime is made of something (it is a brane)

But I insist that the fundamental (bulk) spacetime is not made of 'something'. You say

it must be comprised of something or be represented by something

and this is wrong because it creates an unlimited sequence of elephants/turtles staying on top of each. You claim that spacetime is made of something 'X', and that 'X' - what is made it of?

Look at mathematic systems. Peano arithmetics, for example. What is more fundamental - number 1 or + ?

 

[Al68]

Agreed. It may very well be energy. But it isn't "nothing" - as in an absolute vacuum or some abstract notion of space and time - it must be comprised of something or be represented by something.

But go talk to engineering and physics students at any level and I will bet you that they do not connect the idea of sapce-time with anything of "tangibility" (not that it must be something that we hold in our hands).
.

That's because when they use the word "space", they are not referring to the contents of the space, whatever they may be. They are just referring to the three dimensions (4 with space-time). The fact that the word space is not being used to refer to its contents doesn't imply that there are no contents.

Al

 

[turbo]

Exactly, I agree... this is the problem in physics today. Einstein, I believe has set physics back 100 years not because what he developed is wrong but because it has gotten everyone else lost. It is impossible that a thing called space-time is affected by matter if space-time is actually nothing - nothing cannot be affected by something. Einstein was saying that we did not need to have a medium in order to describe what is happening - it is just a mathematical model which works. We can argue all day about what it is but this is a way to visualize and mathematically represent what is happening.

That was very early on. By 1920 (Leiden Address) he said that an etheric space was needed for the propagation of EM, and the emergence of gravitational and inertial effects. He reiterated this again more forcefully in his 1924 essay "On the Ether". That essay is chapter 1 of "The Philosophy of Vacuum" - recommended reading.

Pricey, so a good excuse to visit a library.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0198244495/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Phrak]

Agreed. It may very well be energy. But it isn't "nothing" - as in an absolute vacuum or some abstract notion of space and time - it must be comprised of something or be represented by something.

You are at odds with a phantom.

Einstein's Ether

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/2384"

and

"It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an ether velocity, instead of arguing the total nonexistence of the ether, for I can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities." A. Einstein

 

[ZachN]

Well, I agree with you all then. All I am saying is that a vast majority of physicists don't recognize an ether-like medium at all - they just think "space-time". I agree that Einstein did not intend to do away with a medium but that his work has accomplished that accidentally.

Looks like an interesting text - philosophy of the vacuum.

 

[turbo]

WLooks like an interesting text - philosophy of the vacuum.

It's "The Philosophy of Vacuum", edited by Saunders and Brown. Simon Saunders translated Einstein's essay from the German. Chapter 2 is an essay by Penrose. It's a great book - I'll have to buy a copy someday.

 

[stevebd1]

I'd like to think that the make-up of space has something to with the virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence in accordance with \Delta E\Delta t \ge \hbar/2 and that curvature might have something to do with a concentration of virtual particles around an object of mass.

 

[planck]

First of all, thanks to everyone for welcoming me to the forum and for contributing to my thread. You guys really know your physics so I'm going to enjoy reading your posts.

I'm not a physics major at all. I only took a high school physics class. But I've seen a ton of documentaries and read a bunch of michio kaku and brian green books.

Doesn't general relativity tell us that energy/matter warps space. So shouldn't that space be comprised of something.

But more importantly, why does the cubic volume of space between my hands that I mentioned in my initial post, have the ability to contain no density/mass. But in that same cubic volume, it has the ability to host a black hole.

Atoms and other particles of mass are allowed to freely move through that cubic volume of space, as einstein wrote:

"space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities."

yet you can also fit a supermassive amount of particles in it also. Why is that possible?

 

[Phrak]

It's "The Philosophy of Vacuum", edited by Saunders and Brown. Simon Saunders translated Einstein's essay from the German. Chapter 2 is an essay by Penrose. It's a great book - I'll have to buy a copy someday.

Good grief, turbo! I'd completely forgotten about your signature stuff under the line (what do they call it?) I just now noticed it in another thread. You've been putting it out there, all along.

 

[Dale]

Doesn't general relativity tell us that energy/matter warps space. So shouldn't that space be comprised of something.

Does it need to be comprised of something in order to have geometric properties such as distances and angles?

 

[wolram]

If space is nothing why did it need the BB to create it?

 

[ThomasT]

I'm not a physics major at all. I only took a high school physics class. But I've seen a ton of documentaries and read a bunch of michio kaku and brian green books.

Ok, so you're probably as thoroughly confused as I was when I started researching and thinking about this stuff.

Doesn't general relativity tell us that energy/matter warps space. So shouldn't that space be comprised of something.

Yes.

But more importantly, why does the cubic volume of space between my hands that I mentioned in my initial post, have the ability to contain no density/mass. But in that same cubic volume, it has the ability to host a black hole.

There's at least some wave activity and interaction happening in any volume of space. Black holes are volumes where the wave activity is so intense and complex that current physics has no way to talk about exactly what's happening inside them.

Atoms and other particles of mass are allowed to freely move through that cubic volume of space, as einstein wrote:

"space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities."

yet you can also fit a supermassive amount of particles in it also. Why is that possible?

You might think about it in terms of interacting standing wave structures. If you have a tub of water and let the surface become calm and smooth, then set it to vibrating at a certain frequency, what do you see? Then increase the vibrational frequency, what do you see?

 

[wolram]

If one thinks of the QG bounce, if space is nothing, nothing is contracting to a small radius,
and nothing expanding to a larger one, so nothing is happening?

 

[Hurkyl]

There's at least some wave activity and interaction happening in any volume of space. Black holes are volumes where the wave activity is so intense and complex that current physics has no way to talk about exactly what's happening inside them.

Most of a black hole is perfectly ordinary-looking. There is no local quality of space that can tell you if you're near, or even inside of a black hole. (especially if it's a large hole) Black holes can only be identified by studying a vast region of space-time that completely encompasses the black hole.

 

[wolram]

Every thing is nothing.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

Sort of strains the imagination, space is nothing, mass is nothing, energy is nothing.

 

[ZachN]

I'd like to think that the make-up of space has something to with the virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence in accordance with and that curvature might have something to do with a concentration of virtual particles around an object of mass.

Yes, a Concentration (of varying concentration - a density gradient) of virtual particles.

Sort of strains the imagination, space is nothing, mass is nothing, energy is nothing.

So all matter and energy is just our collective conscious agreeing that something of such and such form is "here" or "there". This is metaphysics.

 

[ZachN]

50% Cotton, 25% polyester and 25% Lycra Spandex.

 

[Pythagorean]

The "fabric of space" is not made 0f anything- it is just space itself. No, space did not exist before the big bang, yes, it was created, along with everything else.

This appears to be a contradiction to me. If space came with the big bang, then what was there before would be "nothing", thus space is "something".To the OP:

I don't think there's a well established answer to this question. If it interests you enough, maybe you can get a PhD in quantum field theory (or at least the equivalent education) and find the answer.

My point of view has always been that space is actually made of something, and further that the something is quantized. I predict this quantization might have something to do with the universal speed limit (speed of light), but these are wildly creative ideas lacking even anecdotal evidence

 

[ThomasT]

Most of a black hole is perfectly ordinary-looking. There is no local quality of space that can tell you if you're near, or even inside of a black hole. (especially if it's a large hole) Black holes can only be identified by studying a vast region of space-time that completely encompasses the black hole.

Ok, thanks, but why the ? Did my reply to planck contradict what you say above?

Conceptually, I try to think in terms of wave behavior. The idea is that black holes are regions of super-complex wave activity. Can you think of any reason(s) why that idea might be a non-starter?

 

[Phrak]

My point of view has always been that space is actually made of something, and further that the something is quantized.

Closed dimensions are quantized, but they don't seem to generate quantum mechanics...

 

[planck]

Does it need to be comprised of something in order to have geometric properties such as distances and angles?

Distances and angles are merely adjectives. But space is a noun that has dimensional properties.

Someone asked earlier about what numbers are made of? I guess it would the same as asking what shadows are made of ? Or what the word m-i-l-k is made of ? Well, they're not made of anything because they can't be affected by large amounts of matter/energy.

Ok, so you're probably as thoroughly confused as I was when I started researching and thinking about this stuff.

What's so confusing about this stuff. I think we should have a definitive answer to my question in a few more pages, right? lol

You might think about it in terms of interacting standing wave structures. If you have a tub of water and let the surface become calm and smooth, then set it to vibrating at a certain frequency, what do you see? Then increase the vibrational frequency, what do you see?

You would have a vibrating tub of water. But nonetheless, you would still have a tub of water where the medium would still consist of water.

50% Cotton, 25% polyester and 25% Lycra Spandex.

No high fructose corn syrup?

 

[planck]

Also, I'm not entirely sure about how exactly this would apply, but couldn't space be a higgs field?


In one of the documentaries I watched on string theory, It described a tube shaped string attached to a brane of some sort. And if the other end of the tube looped to attach itself to the same brane, it was particle with mass. But if the other end of the tube was just left dangling, then it was a massless particle. But I would like to know exactly what that brane is clinging on to.

And when we "rip" into space, are we ripping into the cubic volume of space between my hands, or a subatomic particle that is located within the space?

 

[tiny-tim]

50% Cotton, 25% polyester and 25% Lycra Spandex.

ah …

so what is the recommended spin-cycle? ​

and should the dark matter be on a separate spin? ​

 

[Phrak]

Distances and angles are merely adjectives. But space is a noun that has dimensional properties.

For more stuff-like, than property-like space, you might want to look at this thread.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=281754"

 

[Chrisc]

ah …

so what is the recommended spin-cycle? ​

and should the dark matter be on a separate spin? ​

There is no fabric of space, mass is the "fabric", woven from the
Warp(space) and Weft(time) that is the geometry of GR.
That's why space is Warped when there is no time Weft you silly wabbit.

 

[Dale]

My apologies in advance for the boring and pedantic grammar instruction.

Distances and angles are merely adjectives. But space is a noun that has dimensional properties.

No, "distances" and "angles" are nouns. The noun "distances" can be paired with a definite article "the distances" whereas adjectives cannot (e.g. "the red") and can be paired with an adjective "large distances" whereas a verb cannot (e.g. "large see"). Try the sentences: "The distances increased" and "The angles summed to 270º".

 

[ThomasT]

You would have a vibrating tub of water. But nonetheless, you would still have a tub of water where the medium would still consist of water.

The experiment I suggested illustrates one way to approach the issue that you brought up, "you can also fit a supermassive amount of particles in it also. Why is that possible?"

Also, I'm not entirely sure about how exactly this would apply, but couldn't space be a higgs field?

That's a mathematical model. What space IS, in reality, is anybody's guess. My guess is that any volume is pervaded and permeated by all sorts of wave activity -- and that the medium or media in which that wave activity is occurring is what space IS. Maybe all detectable particulate media are byproducts of some fundamental seamless medium. Is that what you're wondering about? This stuff will remain speculative even if it's a logical extension of what's known.

I don't understand your other questions.

 

[Dmitry67]

I think the reason why people are asking 'what space is made of?' is because of the intuitive perception that if something spatial is not made of something, it does not have a structure to support itself and collapses.

This is 'wired' (hardcoded) in our brain like the Neuton mechanics. Just compare, time and space are almost the same things but people ask about space 'what it is made of'? and regarding time they tend to ask different questions like 'is time actually moving'? etc.

This example illustrates that the 'requirement' that 'space must consist of something' to exist is nothing more then a naive vision based on our everyday experience and so called 'common sense reasoning'

When something is too abstract to deal with it in our everyday life people do not ask such questions, for example, people do not ask 'what energy is made of'? For the pure energy people somehow accept that it can just exist, without being consists of anything else.

 

[Fra]

I throw in some thoughts to fuel the fire.

I think the reason why people are asking 'what space is made of?' is because of the intuitive perception that if something spatial is not made of something, it does not have a structure to support itself and collapses.

This isn´t such a bad rational as it might first seem. I think it suggest an answer.

What are questions made of? What supports a question? All questions is based on premises, necessary for the very formulation of the question. Questions don´t float in space, that depend on questioners, and I personally often thing of the essence of a question, as a property of the state of the questioner.

The original example of two hands beeing a boundary of the void. The question of what is the void, is pretty much the same question as what is the relation between the hands? or the distributed boundary? would it be possible to even pose the question of what is the void between the hands if the hands weren't there?

So the idea of pure space (pure gravity) is possible as strange as to ponder matter with no place to "sit". I often think of it as two sides of the same coin.

Olaf Dreyers, having some own ideas in "internal relativity" phrases it like this

"In our view, matter and geometry have a more dual role. One can not have one without the other. Both emerge from the fundamental theory simultaneously"
-- http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4350

I guess what he says that there is little hope to find a consistent theory of say PURE gravity. Because the matter parts are required for consistency. I see this closely related to other obvious things, like that questions always live in a context. Measurements always live in context. The idea of ponder measurements, without an observers is to me the weirdest of all.

So my conclusion is that to ask what is spacetime is inseparable from the question what is matter, and how matter relates to itself.

So the question of what matter "is" in the mechanical sense might be a bad choice of question, but I would suggest the answer closest matching the question is that geometry is simply a state of matter. Then again, we are lead to ask what is matter. And they are related in an evolving relation.

/Fredrik

 

[Dmitry67]

So the idea of pure space (pure gravity) is possible as strange as to ponder matter with no place to "sit". I often think of it as two sides of the same coin.

Olaf Dreyers, having some own ideas in "internal relativity" phrases it like this

"In our view, matter and geometry have a more dual role. One can not have one without the other. Both emerge from the fundamental theory simultaneously"
-- http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4350

Interesting, but I am a fanatical adept of another religion :)

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646
The Mathematical Universe
Authors: Max Tegmark

Let me give you some quotes regarding the subject we discuss (but it is much better to read the whole article):

All these theories have two components: mathematical equations and “baggage”, words that explain how they are connected to what we humans observe and intuitively understand.
<skipped>
However, could it ever be possible to give a description of the external reality involving no baggage? If so, our description of entities in the external reality and relations between them would have to be completely abstract, forcing any words or other symbols used to denote them to be mere labels with no preconceived meanings whatsoever. A mathematical structure is precisely this: abstract entities with relations between them.
<skipped>
The ERH implies that a “theory of everything” has no baggage.
2. Something that has a baggage-free description is precisely a mathematical structure.
Taken together, this implies the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis formulated on the first page of this article, i.e., that the external physical reality described by the TOE is a mathematical structure

So all these questions like "Does time actually flows? What space is made of? What is a vacuum? What is matter?" these questions are all about the "baggage" so in the ultimate sense they don't have any sense at all.

 

[Chrisc]

So all these questions like "Does time actually flows? What space is made of? What is a vacuum? What is matter?" these questions are all about the "baggage" so in the ultimate sense they don't have any sense at all.

This sounds like a "theory" of mathematics that requires the "baggage" it denies to support it's claims.

 

[Dmitry67]

No, read the chapter "Physics from scratch"

 

[jambaugh]

What is space itself made of? i.e. if you take both your hands and put them in front of you--parallel to your shoulders, what is the empty space between your hands made of.

Is this space just a void? Did this area of space between your hands exist before the big bang. And if it didn't, didn't this space need to be created?

My view is that space is not a physically existent object so the question is meaningless. Space is our conceptualization of the relationships (with regard to interaction) of physical objects/systems. It is no more real (and no less essential) than say abstract numbers.

 

[Fra]

Interesting, but I am a fanatical adept of another religion :)

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646
The Mathematical Universe
Authors: Max Tegmark

I've read that paper before. Interesting, but I don't see the clear utility of the abstraction he advocates.

Put shortly, my main general objection is that he is focusing on the so called birds view (also called the external view). This is to me, a way of reasoning that is old, I tried it and it didn't work for me This external reality, as seen from a fictive omnipresent and unconstraint observer (the "bird") is an abstraction that IMHO lacks physical motivation.

I favour the opposite, I consider the intrinsic view to be the scientifically motivated one. I see the external views to be emergent, but always in evolution.

I think that since Tegemark is unlikely to actually find and nail such an external view and moreover to communicate it to his fellow frog scientists, his choice is focus is totally akward to me. He seems to be an extreme reductionist. I am probably more like those solipsists that will reject his ERH.

My reason for rejection is that the hypothesis seems to me to lack utility unless that external mathematical structure is found. His hypothesis doesn't as far as I see help in finding it. Therefore I question the utility of his hypothesis.

/Fredrik

 

[planck]

The experiment I suggested illustrates one way to approach the issue that you brought up, "you can also fit a supermassive amount of particles in it also. Why is that possible?"

That's a mathematical model. What space IS, in reality, is anybody's guess. My guess is that any volume is pervaded and permeated by all sorts of wave activity -- and that the medium or media in which that wave activity is occurring is what space IS. Maybe all detectable particulate media are byproducts of some fundamental seamless medium. Is that what you're wondering about? This stuff will remain speculative even if it's a logical extension of what's known.

I don't understand your other questions.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to illustrate with the vibrating tub of water, then. I'm correlating the water in the tub to being the medium in which objects in the tub are able to move in--much like the space I'm talking about.

So if space is merely "nothing," as some on this thread are suggesting. Then, wouldn't it be safe to assume:

1) Space had always existed, much like a solid-state, even before the big bang.

2) The big bang only introduced matter/energy into the universe.

3) Space is infinite.

 

[Dmitry67]

1) Space had always existed, much like a solid-state, even before the big bang.
2) The big bang only introduced matter/energy into the universe.
3) Space is infinite.

For the spacetime of our universe (a brane) answers are:
1. no
2. no
3. probably yes

For the 'bulk' space
1. yes
2. n/a
3. yes

 

[wolram]

Is fabric even the right word for space? fabric implies structure and AFAIK no one has found any structure to space.

 

[ThomasT]

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to illustrate with the vibrating tub of water, then. I'm correlating the water in the tub to being the medium in which objects in the tub are able to move in--much like the space I'm talking about.

Yes, the water is the analog of your space (or at least some media component of it), and depending on the vibrational frequency you see more or different particles, or more energetic wave behavior and more complex wave interaction -- different interference effects. I was just suggesting one approach to how a given volume could hold more and more particles. Just spitballing -- my two cents.

So if space is merely "nothing," as some on this thread are suggesting.

Or maybe there is a fundamental (seamless and therefore undetectable, fapp nothing) medium, from the agitation of which a hierarchy of detectable disturbances and media emerge, and it's some sort of mixture of all that that pervades and permeates the spatial volume defined by the boundary of our universe (if it has a boundary ... I think it's reasonable to assume that it does ... but who knows).

Then, wouldn't it be safe to assume:

1) Space had always existed, much like a solid-state, even before the big bang.

Not necessarily safe , but it does seem reasonable to assume some sort of fundamental medium that our universe is a disturbance in.

2) The big bang only introduced matter/energy into the universe.

It seems reasonable to assume some humongous initiating disturbance that shook up the existing medium and imparted a humongous amount of kinetic energy.

3) Space is infinite.