Is the Universe Truly Empty or Filled with Potential?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter David Brill
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Container Spacetime
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conceptualization of the universe as a "container" of matter and energy, exploring whether the universe can be considered empty or if space-time necessarily requires content. The scope includes theoretical and conceptual considerations regarding the nature of the universe and its contents.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the definition of "container" in relation to the universe, suggesting that clarity is needed before answering whether the universe can be viewed as such.
  • One participant notes that a container typically exists independently of its contents, referencing Einstein's perspective on the relationship between space-time and matter.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that the universe should be considered as a metric rather than a container, emphasizing the changing distances and the nature of space-time.
  • Some argue that since the universe encompasses all existence, it is not meaningful to separate space from its contents.
  • A participant expresses a personal interpretation of a container as a material object, while acknowledging that the universe does not have external objects or fields to contain its contents.
  • One participant reflects on the possibility of the universe being empty, indicating that their understanding has shifted based on the discussion, particularly regarding Einstein's views and the discrediting of the Milne Model.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the universe can be considered empty or if it must contain matter and energy. Multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of the universe and the implications of defining it as a container.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ambiguity surrounding the term "container," the dependence on definitions of space and matter, and the unresolved status of certain theoretical models like the Milne Model.

David Brill
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Does it make sense to think of our universe as a "container" of matter and energy? If so, is there some minimal content?
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
David Brill said:
Does it make sense to think of our universe as a "container" of matter and energy?

It's hard to say until we have a clear definition of "container" (general principle: any time you find yourself using scare-quotes in a question, the question still isn't precise enough to have an answer).

Clearly the universe contains matter and energy, so maybe the answer is "yes". But you already knew that, so I don't think that's what you mean.
 
Hm ... a container usually can exist independently of its content, but I remember some quote from Einstein where he questioned that space time can exist independently from matter and energy.
 
David Brill said:
Does it make sense to think of our universe as a "container" of matter and energy? If so, is there some minimal content?
I always think of it as just a metric. Things have varying distances from each other and the measure of those distance is the metric of space. They change distances from each other and that is one way to formulate a metric of time. "Container" is just too loaded a word, as others have already pointed out.
 
Given the usual definition of the universe is all of existence, space and its contents are all a part of that same reality, so it makes little sense to assign a separate identity to either entity.
 
I would usually think of a container as being a material object which encloses other material objects.
(Well I guess it doesn't need to be strictly material, since there are things like magnetic confinement.)
However, there are by definition no objects or fields outside of the Universe, so therefore the contents of the universe cannot be said to be enclosed (or contained) by any such external object (or field).
 
Last edited:
I guess I shouldn’t have used the word “container”. Basically, I was just wondering if the universe could be empty. That is, could space-time exist without having anything in it?

After reading your replies, I get the impression that that’s not possible. One comment above says that Einstein questioned whether space-time could exist independently of matter and energy. Additionally, I couldn’t find much online except for a theory, the Milne Model, that has apparently been discredited.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
726
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K