What Defines the Fabric of Time in Space?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 36grit
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of space and time, exploring whether space can be defined as a fabric of time and how the past, present, and future are physically delineated. It highlights the concept of spacetime as a four-dimensional manifold influenced by mass and energy, as described by Einstein's equations and Minkowski's framework. The conversation also touches on the idea of the "Absent," a theoretical construct representing quantum processes that affect our observable universe. Participants express skepticism about the existence of a definitive "substance" of space, suggesting it may be an abstract mathematical construct rather than a physical entity. Ultimately, the dialogue emphasizes the complexity of understanding space and time, indicating that definitive answers remain elusive.
  • #31
36grit said:
What is space? it's got to be the biggest thing in the universe. I'd even go so far as to say it defines our universe from (if there are any) other universes.
but what is it?
Is it literally a fabric of time? If so then how and/or what defines the past, present, and future physically?
Are there space specialists? What would you call someone who specializes in the study of the space time fabric?


Space. the distance between one point and another.
also known as, the dream, game board we play our reality on.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Fredrik said:
It's a big ball of wibbly wo...no wait, that's time. :confused:

wibbly wobbly, timey wimey... :biggrin:
 
  • #33
harrylin said:
Einstein concluded that space determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum under influence of nearby matter - thus in his view, the gravitational potential and force relations are not space, but they describe the state of that space. That's the subtle difference between physics and math. ;-)

So your point is that if Einstein takes something for granted, that's enough to accept it as fact? If it wasn't, would you have any other basis for reasoning that such a thing as space/time exists beyond the interspursing of gravitational fields? If gravity takes place in space instead of itself constituting space, shouldn't there be some theoretical and/or empirical situation in which space is present and gravitation is not? What kind of situation would occur in space without the presence of gravitation?
 
  • #34
brainstorm said:
So your point is that if Einstein takes something for granted, that's enough to accept it as fact? If it wasn't, would you have any other basis for reasoning that such a thing as space/time exists beyond the interspursing of gravitational fields? If gravity takes place in space instead of itself constituting space, shouldn't there be some theoretical and/or empirical situation in which space is present and gravitation is not? What kind of situation would occur in space without the presence of gravitation?

No, why would you think that? Einstein had suggested the contrary for a while. That wasn't my point and thus I did not mention the arguments that made him finally change his mind. As I highlighted in bold, my point was the difference between the mathematical space concept and the concept of "the biggest thing" that the OP asked about. Anyway, the OP seems to have moved on.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fluid
best answer I've found so far. When looking at theories, I tend to judge based on two things: simplicity and explanatory power. I think that this theory has both, and gets rid of the two biggest issues I have with the current Standard Model of the universe: Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
 
  • #36
Naty1 said:
If you read books by Smolin, Thorne, Kaku, Susskind,Thorne, I don't think any would agree with Fredrick's (and others) earlier posts which he seems to be reconsidering.
Excuse me? You're suggesting that several of my posts in this thread have questionable content. I just made one claim that was too strong, in one post. My other posts were definitely good.

The comment was "science can't tell you what anything really is". I've had time to think about it, and I think the comment was definitely too strong, but there's more to it than that. A lot more. I might explain it in a much longer post later. I don't have the time right now.
 
  • #37
Fredrik said:
My claim that "science doesn't tell you what anything really is" may be too strong.

Yeah, you better believe that statement is too strong. That's why I like to call people on that when they make such defeatist statements. Your answer may be the best current answer, but that doesn't mean it isn't a lame answer still.
 
  • #38
I just made one claim that was too strong, in one post. My other posts were definitely good.

yes...that's all I was saying...and who knows, ultimately it may be proven it wasn't too strong...
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
3K