What Is The Material Structure of Spacetime?

a reply to: NorEaster

Gravity is the result of space-time, and light is apparently affected by that gravity, so no, they aren't part of spacetime's material composition.

How could they not be? Both fill the known Universe. maybe its right in front of you and you simply refuse to see it.

About spirits? Your statement is as subject as it gets. You don't see it so it doesn't exist. We can't "see" gravity, either.

Or radio waves, sound, wind, X-rays, etc.

You will of course say but we can measure them. Sure, "lately". What about before microscopes, telescopes and spectrum analysis?

Pecking on the surface.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: ATSAlex

originally posted by: NorEaster
gravity is the result of spacetime pressing down onto mass/volume objects ...

My understanding is the other way around, the mass of the object presses down on the fabric of space / time, I also beleve that it must be made out of something, maybe there is where all the dark matter / Dark energy is stored, whithin the fabric of space time itself...

I wonder if we could peek into the infinitesimal way past the particle size we might find that Space is porous, and if you have small enough particles they can fall off the space fabric. To where? I don't know, maybe to a different universe parallel to our own, to the void where the universe bubble is expanding to...

Or if you could take a picture of Plank time you could see between universes like between 2 pictures in a roll of film. would we detect another universe?

I wonder when and if that will be possible...

AlexGT

There is the idea that the actual space-time is more than the three-dimensional universe that we can perceive. Those other seven dimensions are scrunched up inside each sub-atomic particle.

Please define what you believe a dimension to be. Seriously. That word actually means something.

It's like looking at a sandy beach - we just see a two-dimensional space. But look closely and you see that each grain of sand is actually spherical and that there is a certain depth to the beach. That adds another three dimensions. Look even further closely and you see that some grains are actually porous and more like Swiss cheese. That adds even more dimensions.

The changes in perception don't add dimensions to what exists as materially present on a beach. That doesn't make any sense. Perception doesn't alter the dimensional structure of reality. Not at all. It just alters what's being perceived.

The heavier an atomic particle is, the more it gets attracted towards these higher dimensions and the harder it becomes to make it move; mass and inertia are all related.

What higher dimensions? Who taught you that there are "higher dimensions" that attract heavier particles? What proof exists that this is true?

Man, I really can't stand Youtube sometimes. We have an entire generation of people who believe that science has proven stuff that's never been proven at all as a result of idiotic videos on Youtube.

My answer to your question:

It is energy, in a state that we have not yet discovered.

Everything is made of energy, in some form or another, we just like to give it different names based on how we observe its behavior.

Space-time is no different, we just haven't figured it out yet.

It is in all likelihood, some substrate of some kind, that has not been quantified or measured yet.

~Namaste

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: NorEaster

Gravity is the result of space-time, and light is apparently affected by that gravity, so no, they aren't part of spacetime's material composition.

How could they not be? Both fill the known Universe. maybe its right in front of you and you simply refuse to see it.

Do some research into system theory. That's all I have to say about that.

About spirits? Your statement is as subject as it gets. You don't see it so it doesn't exist. We can't "see" gravity, either.

Or radio waves, sound, wind, X-rays, etc.

You will of course say but we can measure them. Sure, "lately". What about before microscopes, telescopes and spectrum analysis?

I agree with all of this, but that's not the question here. The question is concerning the material composition/structure of spacetime. Not about whether modern science is full of sh*t when it comes to what it insists can and cannot be existent.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
My answer to your question:

It is energy, in a state that we have not yet discovered.

Everything is made of energy, in some form or another, we just like to give it different names based on how we observe its behavior.

Space-time is no different, we just haven't figured it out yet.

It is in all likelihood, some substrate of some kind, that has not been quantified or measured yet.

~Namaste

Look up "energy". If you do, you'll discover that it is movement, and that's all it is. Period.

There may be forms of movement that we haven't discovered, or reasons for things to be in movement that we haven't discovered, but "energy" is still only movement.

What Is The Material Structure of Spacetime?

"Like" water...

a reply to: AceWombat04

The family of theories you refer to is called loop quantum gravity. It tells us that matter is made of spacetime, though, and not that spacetime is made out of matter.

a reply to: stormcell

The heavier an atomic particle is, the more it gets attracted towards these higher dimensions

I think it may be more correct to say that 'the more massive a particle is, the more it is extended along these other dimensions.'

Apart from that, you explain it well.

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: NorEaster

Matter is the kind of atomic phenomenon we've observed with protons, neutrons and electrons, so space-time has no material structure. You are putting the chicken before the egg.

I cannot engage in a physical relationship with something is it does not share a common substructure with it. That's simple system theory, and has been proven to be true again and again and again.

Most people accept a static model of the universe where there was a singular big bang or creation event and everything that exists came from that singular moment. Personally, I think things are popping in and out of existence all of the time and matter is just the most stable conformation of energy so that it is very unlikely to vanish.

Matter is what occurs when energy is met with resistance of some sort (mass), and entanglement occurs between historically sympathetic organizations of mass. Pre-matter physics isn't a field with a lot of approved theoretical statements to link to, so I'll leave it at that. Stable concentrations relative to where there are not stable concentrations is probably a good description of matter.

Why does matter accrue mass when it speeds up? Is it collecting something at a faster rate than that substance is vanishing?

This is a theoretical ramification based on Einstein's declaration that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and inalterable. There are several difficult notions that have emerged as default ramification of Einstein's Relativity theories, with the net impact being that science is declaring reality to be a lot weirder than it can possibly be while remaining a stable, reliable structure.

What if the cosmos is really made up of a cloud of energy/particles that are constantly popping in and out of existence and gravity is the effect of this cloud being attracted to energetic centers like the ones you find in matter. What if in any given moment, several possible futures are suspended ahead of you in the realm of the potential and theoretical and your fate is not sealed until a choice collapses the probability field and crystallizes the future into reality?

What if there are an infinite number of universes coexisting simultaneously and consciousness just happens to be along for a ride in this one, in this being at this moment. There is no reason we should remain bound to this linear causality. We are awareness and that is the purest force in existence. We are universal and timeless and we can go anywhere. ;p

I rest my case on the assertion that Einstein butchered 20th century theoretical science with his Relativity theories. There's no way that an intelligent, intellectually functional human being could have ever embraced this sort of thing without Einstein's theories scrambling the nature of theoretical science in as profound a manner as has been the case. It's faith-based science. Not much different than the theoretical science of the Dark Ages.

a reply to: NorEaster

If you had asked, simply, 'what is the structure of spacetime?', you would have been asking a question to which there are any number of well-informed theoretical answers, although, of course, there is no consensus on which of them (if any) is the answer.

But you asked, 'what is the material structure of spacetime?' That's easy to answer. It has none.

Structure of spacetime

originally posted by: Wifibrains

What Is The Material Structure of Spacetime?

"Like" water...

You mean "like" the Aether?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: NorEaster

If you had asked, simply, 'what is the structure of spacetime?', you would have been asking a question to which there are any number of well-informed theoretical answers, although, of course, there is no consensus on which of them (if any) is the answer.

But you asked, 'what is the material structure of spacetime?' That's easy to answer. It has none.

Structure of spacetime

Again - that's simply impossible. Look into System Theory and System Coherence. We can prove the tenets of both - unlike the conjecture surrounding Spacetime.

a reply to: NorEaster

Not about whether modern science is full of sh*t when it comes to what it insists can and cannot be existent.

"Modern science" is full of "s***". This is proven every time they move the goal posts.
Whatever the Universe is full of is its structure. Or the "echoes" of it.

a reply to: NorEaster

Look into System Theory and System Coherence. We can prove the tenets of both -

"Tenets of theories" are untenable.

Take off those blinders or just re-ask the question like Astyanax proposed.

a reply to: NorEaster

Who taught you that there are "higher dimensions" that attract heavier particles? What proof exists that this is true?

stormcell knows more physics than you do.

String Theory for Dummies

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: NorEaster

Not about whether modern science is full of sh*t when it comes to what it insists can and cannot be existent.

"Modern science" is full of "s***". This is proven every time they move the goal posts.

My actual point of this thread.

Whatever the Universe is full of is its structure. Or the "echoes" of it.

I'm just looking for one answer concerning what it is that's "pressing down on" me and everything else that's stranded on this rock.

Aklso, if it's gravity that's holding the Moon in orbit around the Earth, and if the gravitational field is stronger the deeper within the Earth's gravity well you are placed, then why is it possible for a leaf to gently fall to the ground, even as the gravitational strength is powerful enough to hold the Moon in orbit from 25,000 miles away from that gravity well's deepest positional proximity point.

And if it's Spacetime pushing in on everything, then why is the gravitational field increasingly stronger the closer you get to the center of Earth? The pressure should become uniform at a point of interaction between planet and "spacetime" if what's causing the increase is relative lack of spacetime movement over the material surface of the planet itself.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: NorEaster

Who taught you that there are "higher dimensions" that attract heavier particles? What proof exists that this is true?

stormcell knows more physics than you do.

String Theory for Dummies

String Theory is a crock.

a reply to: NorEaster

System theory is philosophy, not physics.

Mass in string theory, which is what stormcell was talking about.

a reply to: NorEaster

String Theory is a crock.

Quite possibly. However, stormcell's reply was more or less correct within its theoretical ambit, which you failed to recognize. If you can't tell the difference between legitimate physics (crock though it may be) and a YouTube woo video, is there any point in offering a scientifically correct reply to your question?

Physics has moved on a little beyond disputes over the aether and whether Einstein was right or not.

originally posted by: NorEaster

originally posted by: Wifibrains

What Is The Material Structure of Spacetime?

"Like" water...

You mean "like" the Aether?

Many words can be "like" "IT", but won't be it. Just a symbol of it. If you are looking for it in the world of intalect, it's hidden but its there.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Maybe it's nothing?

Nothing can escape the infinity of a black hole.

Nothing moves faster than light!

[According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, published in 1905, nothing can exceed the speed of light. That speed, explained Einstein, is a fundamental constant of nature: It appears the same to all observers anywhere in space.]

Nothing appears as it seems.

Word?