B Understanding the Expansion of Space: Galaxies Moving Away and Proving Expansion

[Richard lanning]

How does knowing that galaxies are all moving away from each other and the farthest ones are moving more quickly prove that space is itself expanding and not just that the galaxies are moving through it?

 

[kimbyd]

How does knowing that galaxies are all moving away from each other and the farthest ones are moving more quickly prove that space is itself expanding and not just that the galaxies are moving through it?

Galaxies are, on average, moving further away from one another at a rate proportional to their distance. That statement is what is meant by, "Space is expanding." The two descriptions are one and the same.

Edit:
One way to think of it is by looking at the Einstein Field Equations which describe General Relativity. They can be written as:

$$G_{\mu\nu} = {8\pi G \over c^4}T_{\mu\nu}$$

I'm sure this looks like a bunch of incomprehensible characters, but the basic premise is simple: on the left is what is known as the "Einstein tensor" which describes space-time. When people say, "space is expanding," they are talking about the behavior of the Einstein tensor.

On the right hand side is what is known as the "stress-energy tensor". This object describes the matter content of the universe. When people say, "galaxies are moving away from one another," they're describing the behavior of the stress-energy tensor.

The two terms are equal, so they're just different ways of looking at the exact same thing.

 

[Richard lanning]

Thank you for the reply...another question if I may...If we happened to be at the "center" of the big bang or the "center of the universe" whatever that means, would we not see the same movement of the galaxies and their speeds that we see now??

 

[Orodruin]

If we happened to be at the "center" of the big bang or the "center of the universe" whatever that means

It does not mean anything, there is no such thing. The expansion would look the same wherever you are. In fact, it is one of the underlying assumptions behind the standard model of cosmology.

 

[Richard lanning]

It does not mean anything, there is no such thing. The expansion would look the same wherever you are. In fact, it is one of the underlying assumptions behind the standard model of cosmology.

It does not mean anything, there is no such thing. The expansion would look the same wherever you are. In fact, it is one of the underlying assumptions behind the standard model of cosmology.

Thanks for the reply...

 

[mfb]

The redshift/distance relation we see is incompatible with the idea of things moving through space.

 

[Orodruin]

The redshift/distance relation we see is incompatible with the idea of things moving through space.

Depends on how far away you go. If you do not go too far away, it can be interpreted exactly as things moving through space, which was Hubble's original interpretation.

 

[rede96]

The redshift/distance relation we see is incompatible with the idea of things moving through space.

From a relativity point of view isn't the statement 'things moving through space' just as wrong as saying 'things static in space'? All we can talk about is how things move relative to some frame of reference.

As regards expansion I always got confused over questions like 'Is 'space' expanding' and never really got a satisfactory answer as opinions seem to differ.

For me is a much better way of thinking of expansion is from our point of view, in simple terms, everything is moving away from us and the further away something is the faster it is moving away. But that same can be said from any frame of reference we chose in the universe.

 

[Orodruin]

From a relativity point of view isn't the statement 'things moving through space' just as wrong as saying 'things static in space'? All we can talk about is how things move relative to some frame of reference.

In cosmology, there is a preferred reference frame. The geometry of space-time does give a particular frame preference in much the same way that there would be preferred directions on the surface of an ellipsoid. When one talks about "moving in space" it typically refers to motion relative to that frame (called the "comoving frame"). This is also the CMB rest frame so you can actually measure your motion relative to it. Most of the dipole contribution to the CMB temperature comes from our motion relative to the CMB rest frame.

 

[kimbyd]

In cosmology, there is a preferred reference frame.

I think it's very misleading to call this a "preferred reference frame". There is a convenient reference frame. You can do all the math in a different frame and get the same result. It's just that the math is easier if we choose a reference frame that matches the symmetry provided by the expansion.

 

[mfb]

Depends on how far away you go. If you do not go too far away, it can be interpreted exactly as things moving through space, which was Hubble's original interpretation.

Well, but we do go far away.

As regards expansion I always got confused over questions like 'Is 'space' expanding' and never really got a satisfactory answer as opinions seem to differ.

Space is expanding, and the (educated) opinions don't differ there.

For me is a much better way of thinking of expansion is from our point of view, in simple terms, everything is moving away from us and the further away something is the faster it is moving away.

Don't do it. This leads to various misconceptions.

 

[Orodruin]

I think it's very misleading to call this a "preferred reference frame". There is a convenient reference frame. You can do all the math in a different frame and get the same result. It's just that the math is easier if we choose a reference frame that matches the symmetry provided by the expansion.

Fine. I will sign off on that. Clearly you can use any coordinates you like. Let's call it a "singled out" or "natural" frame.

 

[Orodruin]

Well, but we do go far away.

We do, but Hubble didn't, which is something I think is important to understand in order to get the connection between modern cosmology and the historical context. In other words, the first thing people usually hear is about "things moving apart" and then later we tell them that things are not moving (relative to the comoving frame), but space is expanding. Locally, it is the same thing, just different simultaneity conventions.

 

[kimbyd]

We do, but Hubble didn't, which is something I think is important to understand in order to get the connection between modern cosmology and the historical context. In other words, the first thing people usually hear is about "things moving apart" and then later we tell them that things are not moving (relative to the comoving frame), but space is expanding. Locally, it is the same thing, just different simultaneity conventions.

"Distances between objects are increasing on average" is in some ways less misleading than "space is expanding".

They both describe the same thing, but "space is expanding" can lead to some misconceptions about the nature of space-time.

 

[Orodruin]

"Distances between objects are increasing on average" is in some ways less misleading than "space is expanding".

Both are to some extent misleading and convention dependent. Distances increasing comes with its own set of problems.

They both describe the same thing, but "space is expanding" can lead to some misconceptions about the nature of space-time.

So does ”distances increase on average” so I don’t really see a clear preference for one or the other from this point of view. I have been here long enough to see both multiple times.

 

[Ken Ucarp]

Galaxies are, on average, moving further away from one another at a rate proportional to their distance. That statement is what is meant by, "Space is expanding." The two descriptions are one and the same.

Edit:
One way to think of it is by looking at the Einstein Field Equations which describe General Relativity. They can be written as:

$$G_{\mu\nu} = {8\pi G \over c^4}T_{\mu\nu}$$

I'm sure this looks like a bunch of incomprehensible characters, but the basic premise is simple: on the left is what is known as the "Einstein tensor" which describes space-time. When people say, "space is expanding," they are talking about the behavior of the Einstein tensor.

On the right hand side is what is known as the "stress-energy tensor". This object describes the matter content of the universe. When people say, "galaxies are moving away from one another," they're describing the behavior of the stress-energy tensor.

The two terms are equal, so they're just different ways of looking at the exact same thing.

So if I'm understanding you, the left side is an abstraction which manifests itself concretely by measurements of the physical universe that fit the right side. And the right side could have been otherwise, but just so happens to be as noted. I'm also guessing that there are some solutions to this whereby the left side would be 0, i.e. no expansion. It's just that that's not what is observed.

 

[Orodruin]

I'm also guessing that there are some solutions to this whereby the left side would be 0, i.e. no expansion. It's just that that's not what is observed.

If the left-hand side is zero, then so is the right-hand side. This corresponds to a Universe empty of content and indeed such solutions exist. The simplest one is just the Minkowski space of special relativity.

 

[PeterDonis]

the left side would be 0, i.e. no expansion

The left side of the Einstein Field Equation does not mean "no expansion"; it means "no stress-energy", i.e., as @Orodruin said, no content. Such solutions are usually called "vacuum" solutions, to emphasize the fact that there is no matter, radiation, etc. present.

For a spacetime to describe "no expansion", it needs to have a property which is called being "stationary". There is no simple way to express this criterion in terms of what you would see on the left side or the right side of the Einstein Field Equation; at least, I'm not aware of one. This property is neither equivalent to nor disjoint from the property of the left side of the EFE being zero: there are solutions which have both properties (vacuum and stationary), solutions which have only one (vacuum or stationary, but not both), and there are solutions which have neither property. The solution that describes our actual universe is of the latter sort (neither vacuum nor stationary).

 

[Orodruin]

For a spacetime to describe "no expansion", it needs to have a property which is called being "stationary".

Could you specify what you mean by "no expansion" here? As we discussed a few days ago, Minkowski space (or rather, the interior of the future light cone of any event in it) can be described by a FLRW-type metric with a linearly growing scale factor, yet it is certainly a stationary space-time.

 

[PeterDonis]

Could you specify what you mean by "no expansion" here?

I mean that the spacetime is stationary, in the technical sense of having a timelike Killing vector field. Yes, I know Minkowski spacetime, strictly speaking, doesn't fit this, because it has a timelike KVF but also can be described as "expanding" using an FLRW-type metric. For a "B" level thread I think it's better to put that aside as an edge case than to try to elucidate it.

 

[Orodruin]

For a "B" level thread I think it's better to put that aside as an edge case than to try to elucidate it.

Agreed, I was only asking out of interest in if I was missing something.

 

[kimbyd]

I'm also guessing that there are some solutions to this whereby the left side would be 0, i.e. no expansion. It's just that that's not what is observed.

Only if the universe is completely empty. If there is any matter/energy in the universe, then a solution which is neither expanding nor contracting is unstable, meaning it will eventually transition to either expanding or contracting.

 

[PeterDonis]

If there is any matter/energy in the universe, then a solution which is neither expanding nor contracting is unstable, meaning it will eventually transition to either expanding or contracting.

Note that this is true given the underlying assumptions of the FRW models, i.e., that spacetime is homogeneous and isotropic. There are other non-vacuum solutions of the EFE which are stationary (for example, a solution describing a spherically symmetric star surrounded by empty space), and are not unstable in the way you describe.

 

[ObjectivelyRational]

Just following up - with the goal of extracting an accurate conception of reality implicit in the statement "space is expanding" or "the universe is expanding" which is accessible to a layperson:

How would you answer an 8 year old who wanted to an accurate picture of reality and asked the following questions:

Is there 'more' "space" (in the universe) now, than there was, say, a million years ago, and was there 'more' "space" then (in the universe) than there was, say, a billion years ago? If yes, in what sense, is there "more space"?

 

[PeterDonis]

How would you answer an 8 year old who wanted to an accurate picture of reality

I would tell him that I can't give him an "accurate picture of reality" in the sense he means it. The best I can do is to describe our best current models.

Is there 'more' "space" (in the universe) now, than there was, say, a million years ago, and was there 'more' "space" then (in the universe) than there was, say, a billion years ago?

Mu. The question presupposes that the question "how much space is there in the universe?" has a well-defined answer. It doesn't.

Some people might prefer to sugar coat the above by trying to find a way to answer the question. However, any such answer would be moving away from your stated goal, which is an accurate picture of reality.

 

[ObjectivelyRational]

I would tell him that I can't give him an "accurate picture of reality" in the sense he means it. The best I can do is to describe our best current models.
Mu. The question presupposes that the question "how much space is there in the universe?" has a well-defined answer. It doesn't.

Some people might prefer to sugar coat the above by trying to find a way to answer the question. However, any such answer would be moving away from your stated goal, which is an accurate picture of reality.

Second Follow up (addressed to everyone also):

How would you answer an 8 year old who, wishing to decide how to take and/or trust what scientists tell him, i.e. how to take what a statement made by a scientist means, asks:

When a scientist says "space is expanding" or the "the universe is expanding" should I believe him? If yes, in what sense should I believe what he is saying about space or the universe is accurate?

 

[PeterDonis]

When a scientist says "space is expanding" or the "the universe is expanding" should I believe him?

Not unless you understand, in precise terms, what he means by "space is expanding" or "the universe is expanding". Scientists use everyday words with meanings that are different from their everyday meanings; so when a scientist says "space is expanding" or "the universe is expanding", it doesn't mean what those words would mean in ordinary conversation. What the scientist actually means is not something that can be explained in a sentence or two.

in what sense should I believe what he is saying about space or the universe is accurate?

It's accurate in the sense that, once you understand the precise technical meanings of the words the scientist is using (i.e., what they actually refer to in the mathematical model the scientist uses to make predictions), you will agree that the statement is true with those meanings given to the words.

 

[ObjectivelyRational]

Not unless you understand, in precise terms, what he means by "space is expanding" or "the universe is expanding". Scientists use everyday words with meanings that are different from their everyday meanings; so when a scientist says "space is expanding" or "the universe is expanding", it doesn't mean what those words would mean in ordinary conversation. What the scientist actually means is not something that can be explained in a sentence or two.
It's accurate in the sense that, once you understand the precise technical meanings of the words the scientist is using (i.e., what they actually refer to in the mathematical model the scientist uses to make predictions), you will agree that the statement is true with those meanings given to the words.

Suppose the 8 year old is in fact your son whom you wish (I will assume) to honestly inform. Are the above your final answers to him as he stares at you with inquisitive eyes? And in your opinion is there any other alternative statement(s) in everyday language which would be more accurate for your 8 year old son to hear?

This may or may not be true, or accurate:
e.g. Son, the galaxies and other large parts of the universe are flying apart from each other, and faster the farther they are from each other AND from what we know, it looks like that from any point in space. There is no Nothing, which these parts of the universe are flying into, but since the distances between all of these large structures is continually increasing, we refer to this as an expanding universe. Space is not a thing which is being created by the expansion of the universe to fill in the "Nothingness", as I said there is no Nothing, but the magnitude of the relationship "distance" between each and every thing (on a large scale) is indeed increasing.

 

[AdrianDW]

Hi Peter,
In my idea, all of this is easy to explain...even to an eight year old.
From my perspective you are too 'close' and too schooled to see something big and obvious.
I am not expecting a reply, just saying.

 

[PeterDonis]

Suppose the 8 year old is in fact your son whom you wish (I will assume) to honestly inform. Are the above your final answers to him as he stares at you with inquisitive eyes?

If he doesn't ask any follow-up questions, yes. In my experience of 8 year olds, however, I would expect plenty of follow-up questions.

Notice that the question as you phrased it does not ask for my explanation. It just asks if the 8 year old should believe what "scientists" are saying.

And in your opinion is there any other alternative statement(s) in everyday language which would be more accurate for your 8 year old son to hear?

Statements of what? Of whether he should believe scientists? I don't think you should believe anyone about anything without doing some sanity checking.

This may or may not be true, or accurate

It's not a bad start at an explanation at the 8 year old level. The main follow-up question I would expect is what "there is no Nothing" means.

Here is another possible way of describing our best current model to an 8 year old in a few sentences:

When we observe distant galaxies, we see that they appear to be moving away from us, and the farther away they are, the faster they appear to be moving away. Scientists describe this by saying that the universe is expanding; but that does not mean (as it would imply in ordinary usage) that there is some pre-existing space that the universe is expanding into. It is just the best word we can find in ordinary language to describe the detailed model that scientists have built to explain what we observe.

 

[PeterDonis]

In my idea, all of this is easy to explain

If you think it is easy to explain, I think you don't understand it well enough. Any "easy" explanation is going to leave out a lot of complications. But the complications don't go away or become less important because you leave them out.

 

[ObjectivelyRational]

If he doesn't ask any follow-up questions, yes. In my experience of 8 year olds, however, I would expect plenty of follow-up questions.

Notice that the question as you phrased it does not ask for my explanation. It just asks if the 8 year old should believe what "scientists" are saying.
Statements of what? Of whether he should believe scientists? I don't think you should believe anyone about anything without doing some sanity checking.
It's not a bad start at an explanation at the 8 year old level. The main follow-up question I would expect is what "there is no Nothing" means.

Here is another possible way of describing our best current model to an 8 year old in a few sentences:

When we observe distant galaxies, we see that they appear to be moving away from us, and the farther away they are, the faster they appear to be moving away. Scientists describe this by saying that the universe is expanding; but that does not mean (as it would imply in ordinary usage) that there is some pre-existing space that the universe is expanding into. It is just the best word we can find in ordinary language to describe the detailed model that scientists have built to explain what we observe.

Thank you (finally) for your answer. I think the 8 year old would be satisfied, and more importantly, properly informed.

 

[kimbyd]

Second Follow up (addressed to everyone also):

How would you answer an 8 year old who, wishing to decide how to take and/or trust what scientists tell him, i.e. how to take what a statement made by a scientist means, asks:

When a scientist says "space is expanding" or the "the universe is expanding" should I believe him? If yes, in what sense should I believe what he is saying about space or the universe is accurate?

You might have guessed from the other responses here, but it turns out to be remarkably difficult to describe the behavior of the universe in words and get it right. The fundamental problem is that the language of the universe is mathematics, and words are simply not precise enough to capture things. The best you can get with words is a glimpse of the underlying mathematical description. It's sometimes possible to make a statement that is correct, but it's generally going to incomplete.

But I agree with PeterDonis: it's accurate to say that distances between galaxies are increasing. Most everything is getting further away from most everything else.

One complication that can be added to the above is that not everything is moving further away from everything else. We aren't moving further from the Earth, and the Earth isn't moving further from the Sun (at least, not by much and not because of the expansion of the universe). Some things are orbiting other things. The Andromeda galaxy, the nearest big galaxy to our Milky Way, is moving towards us and will collide with the Milky Way in about 4 billion years. But far-away things are always moving away from one another. And the further they are, the faster the distance between them is increasing.

 

[Metmann]

The central number to mention should be $H = h\cdot 100\, \frac{\text{km}}{\text{s}}/\text{Mpc}$ with $h \approx 0.67$. In our vicinity, gravitational interactions can be strong enough to erase the effect of cosmic expansion and may lead to attraction. On large enough scales cosmic expansion dominates. One should keep in mind, that standard (isotropic) cosmology describes the Universe on scales above $\approx 100\, \text{Mpc}$. Sure, expansion (i.e. in fact redshift) can be observed on smaller scales than this, but one should never confuse the local evolution of the Universe with the global one.

 

[Graeme M]

I've always struggled to understand what is meant by "space is expanding" but have never really tried to grapple with it. This thread is a bit over my head, but it might be clearing up some of my conceptual confusion. This is sort of what I get from what has been said above.

The material universe we observe contains objects (galaxies?) which are "moving" apart from each other. That movement apart exists in all possible directions - that is, over time the (true? actual?) distance between any two objects relative to the CMB will increase, even if those two objects have no velocity relative to the CMB (ie are stationary). Thus, the "expansion of space" just means that true distances between galaxies are increasing (so galaxies are not actually "moving" in this context, in the common sense of the term "moving").

Questions.

Often this idea talks of "space" as some kind of thing, yet isn't that just a term for distance? I mean, if it is the case that the matter in the observable universe causes all physical phenomena such as gravity, time, movement etc, then if we were to absent the material universe from space there would be nothing at all? I mean by this that there would still be an infinite "space" which has no properties other than the potential for such quantities as "distance". In effect, that would mean that objects are not moving "through" space, they are simply increasing/decreasing distance between themselves. In fact, if there were no other objects to measure motion against, one couldn't say that a moving object is even moving.

If "space" without matter is nothing at all, does that mean that it is this nothing at all that always exists (if one can even say such a thing) and that our physical universe emerged into this nothing and thereby caused time and gravity and galaxies and so on to come into being (which is what the Big Bang is all about)?

 

[jbriggs444]

I mean, if it is the case that the matter in the observable universe causes all physical phenomena such as gravity, time, movement etc, then if we were to absent the material universe from space there would be nothing at all?

In the absence of any possible experiment, the scientific answer is "we do not know". That answer is not the same as "nothing at all". However, we can extrapolate from what we do know...

The equations for the theory of general relativity have what are known as "vacuum solutions". These are descriptions of space-time within a universe that is devoid of matter and energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_solution_(general_relativity)

A number of vacuum solutions are known. One of those is the de Sitter Universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_universe

 

[ObjectivelyRational]

In the absence of any possible experiment, the scientific answer is "we do not know". That answer is not the same as "nothing at all". However, we can extrapolate from what we do know...

The equations for the theory of general relativity have what are known as "vacuum solutions". These are descriptions of space-time within a universe that is devoid of matter and energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_solution_(general_relativity)

A number of vacuum solutions are known. One of those is the de Sitter Universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_universe

I think Graeme M is wondering about space as such... i.e. in absence of anything else whatever, and that would include energy, fields, probabilities of every kind. Is it a thing in itself. If there were no things whatever to relate by distances or specify by position, i.e. no As, or Bs to say A is distant from B, or A has a magnitude of A1 at point X or B has a probability of B2 at point Y, no As changing into B from time T1 to T2, absolutely nothing, what could the concept of space-time be used for by scientists? If it is only for relating things and events it would be inapplicable to a completely "empty" universe. If however, it were something in and of itself, one could not dismiss it, after all, it would still "be there".

IMHO the hypothetical universe Graeme is raising does not include anything capable of being described as a something about space-time or something at or within space-time or related by space-time, his hypothetical is what if there were literally nothing but space-time itself...

Your answer (we don't know but) "not the same as nothing at all" is supported with "vacuum solutions" which on a reading by a layperson (translated) means either

1. the answer is identically zero. No matter no energy nothing to cause gravitation, and what looks like, no space-time "tensor". OR
2. IF a universe had dark energy (cosmological constant) but no "normal" matter flat space is a solution.

Of course this is a fiction and he is really just trying to get at what space-time actually is, is it math or something real, out there, independent of things in or at (or when) it?. Is it a relationship between things and a parameterization of "at" and "when" things interact or exhibit properties etc.or is it something in and of itself quite real and independent of everything else.

 

[jbriggs444]

IMHO the hypothetical universe Graeme is raising does not include anything capable of being described as a something about space-time or something at or within space-time or related by space-time, his hypothetical is what if there were literally nothing but space-time itself...

In other words, "tree falling in a forest". Pure philosophy. Unacceptable subject matter here.

My response was aimed at drawing the conversation back to something with a scientific basis.

Edit:

1. the answer is identically zero. No matter no energy nothing to cause gravitation, and what looks like, no space-time "tensor".

That would be a mistaken interpretation.

2. IF a universe had dark energy (cosmological constant) but no "normal" matter flat space is a solution.

It is not the only such solution.

 

[ObjectivelyRational]

In other words, "tree falling in a forest". Pure philosophy. Unacceptable subject matter here.

My response was aimed at drawing the conversation back to something with a scientific basis.

Edit:
That would be a mistaken interpretation.

It is not the only such solution.

OK so the hypothetical is invalid, it is an exercise in unreality, the universe is not in fact a nothing, and asking a WHAT IF it were what it is not is of no use here.

Agreed.

Back to something with a scientific basis. The question for which Graeme wants an answer is a perfectly valid one (and need not invoke the philosophical hypothetical we both agree is inappropriate to science)

On the basis of all of the experimental, perceptual, empirical evidence of reality gathered by physicists to date, what do physicists know (or claim) about the status of space-time itself. It is a thing in itself or only a relationship/parameterization relevant to other things and their properties and interactions? I'm curious too.

 

[jbriggs444]

It is a thing in itself or only a relationship/parameterization relevant to other things

What difference does it make?

What experiment can you run whose result will depend on the answer to that question? If there is none then it's not a scientific question.

 

[ObjectivelyRational]

Every field, every particle, every bit of energy, all their complicated interactions and systems, molecules, things, everything in the universe has causal interactions with something else. Understanding this, the nature of things, all of it, is what knowledge and science and experiment is for. It is crucial to understand the nature of everything, and hence, if space-time is another thing that could have a nature, its something we need to investigate and understand.

To have within our equations a concept, "space-time" whose referent "might be" one of those very things about which its nature and effects and possible applications would be crucial to know VERSUS simply a background parameter for relating and describing the real things in the universe, is incredibly important distinction relevant to our knowledge.

The very question of whether something is one of the things we are studying and gaining knowledge about versus simply one of our tools to help us understand all other things (the real things) is not trivial nor unscientific. It is fundamental to the exercise and understanding of science.

If it were true that space-time in fact was something, then it would be possible to design an experiment which could show in some way the nature of space-time and its interaction with other things, for example could it be balled up and stored in a smaller space, could it be converted into energy or matter or anything else, can it be used to cause something or interact with other things. The number of possible experiments and indeed applications and technologies is endless... certainly that is if it IS a thing in itself.

 

[PeterDonis]

IF a universe had dark energy (cosmological constant) but no "normal" matter flat space is a solution.

It isn't.

It is not the only such solution.

With a nonzero cosmological constant and zero stress-energy tensor, flat spacetime is not a solution at all. The solution is de Sitter spacetime.

 

[jbriggs444]

Every field, every particle, every bit of energy, all their complicated interactions and systems, molecules, things, everything in the universe has causal interactions with something else. Understanding this, the nature of things, all of it, is what knowledge and science and experiment is for. It is crucial to understand the nature of everything, and hence, if space-time is another thing that could have a nature, its something we need to investigate and understand.

To have within our equations a concept, "space-time" whose referent "might be" one of those very things about which its nature and effects and possible applications would be crucial to know VERSUS simply a background parameter for relating and describing the real things in the universe, is incredibly important distinction relevant to our knowledge.

The very question of whether something is one of the things we are studying and gaining knowledge about versus simply one of our tools to help us understand all other things (the real things) is not trivial nor unscientific. It is fundamental to the exercise and understanding of science.

If it were true that space-time in fact was something, then it would be possible to design an experiment which could show in some way the nature of space-time and its interaction with other things, for example could it be balled up and stored in a smaller space, could it be converted into energy or matter or anything else, can it be used to cause something or interact with other things. The number of possible experiments and indeed applications and technologies is endless... certainly that is if it IS a thing in itself.

That's a lot of words. But nothing that describes an actual experiment to distinguish between "thing" and "not a thing"

 

[PeterDonis]

"vacuum solutions" which on a reading by a layperson (translated) means either

Neither of your "translations" are correct. "Vacuum solution" means a solution with a zero stress-energy tensor. Pretty much any GR textbook will tell you this.

 

[PeterDonis]

what do physicists know (or claim) about the status of space-time itself

GR models spacetime as a manifold with metric whose geometry is determined by the stress-energy tensor via the Einstein Field Equation.

There are various attempts to go beyond that (and beyond GR), but all of them are speculative at this point and we have no way to test them experimentally.

 

[PeterDonis]

Every field, every particle, every bit of energy, all their complicated interactions and systems, molecules, things, everything in the universe has causal interactions with something else.

The causal interaction of spacetime with "everything else", in GR, is captured by the Einstein Field Equation.

 

[ObjectivelyRational]

The causal interaction of spacetime with "everything else", in GR, is captured by the Einstein Field Equation.

I thought the Einstein Field Equation and the stress energy tensor provide a prediction of the causal consequences which would happen to a thing or things (at particular places and times .. i.e. if they were "there" "then") due to distributions of matter and energy i.e. other things. Is this incorrect?

 

[timmdeeg]

OK so the hypothetical is invalid, it is an exercise in unreality, the universe is not in fact a nothing, and asking a WHAT IF it were what it is not is of no use here.

It depends on what you mean saying "nothing". If you mean the absence of matter, radiation and $\Lambda$ and thus zero energy density then this model is known as 'empty universe' which is expanding linearly.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm see the spacetime diagrams
http://www.dark-cosmology.dk/~tamarad/papers/thesis_complete.pdf Chapter 4 The empty universe

 

[PeterDonis]

this model is known as 'empty universe' which is expanding linearly

Actually, this spacetime is flat Minkowski spacetime, just in unusual coordinates. (More precisely, it's the future light cone of the origin of Minkowski spacetime in unusual coordinates.)

 

[PeterDonis]

I thought the Einstein Field Equation and the stress energy tensor provide a prediction of the causal consequences which would happen to a thing or things (at particular places and times .. i.e. if they were "there" "then") due to distributions of matter and energy i.e. other things.

The Einstein Field Equation is just what I said: it expresses the causal relationship between stress-energy and the geometry of spacetime.

Given the geometry of spacetime, yes, you can predict the trajectories of objects; but the Einstein Field Equation does not do that, it just tells you the geometry of spacetime.