What is Space?

Does it occupy or overlay space???

Today our fascination with space continues. We still tell tales about travelling to the stars. Some of these stories, like Star Wars, manage to capture the imaginations of people all over the planet. Yet, as easy as space flight and adventure seem in movies, books and traditional tales, the truth is we have only just started exploring our own tiny

area of the galaxy.

Hi klsraina, you wrote: "Yet, as easy as space flight and adventure seem in movies, books and traditional tales, the truth is we have only just started exploring our own tiny area of the galaxy."

I understand what you mean, but if we include our explorations by all the types of telescopes that we have, we have pretty much explored our observable universe. This, again, may only be a tiny area of the cosmos...

Regards, Jorrie

"The distance between mass?"

-----

About seven days.

-e

Simple: space is that which both can be found and can't be found, but once it is ever found, it then really doesn't matter--but it had to be found in order to know that.

The Space Shuttle and the International Space Station, must provide people working

in space with an artificial environment close to that of the Earth.

Expand please. ISS employees work in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, which by various perspectives is both space and not space. Your reply seem so suggest that space is so by virtue of being simply a "hostile" environment(?).

Space is the three dimensional domain in which all physical things exist.

Space is the three dimensional domain in which all physical things exist.

Fallacy alert. Begs the question. Space, even as an abstraction, is by definition a dimension. Simply calling is what it is perceived as being does not give it physicality, or even existence, physically speaking. Nor would the inference be true that physical "things" are not also themselves space--the domain of themselves, so to speak.

Fractals don't exist there, yet their effects are seen everywhere.

-e

Actually if you think about it we actually live in a four dimensional universe where space is one of the dimensions. The other three are time, energy and matter. Einstein managed to show that matter and energy were interchangeable so that really makes it a three dimensional universe. Since the relationship between matter and energy is elegantly simple it's logical to assume that there is a good chance that space and time are both related to matter and energy in a similar and equally simple and elegant way. That's the easy part, the hard bit is trying to prove it and much greater minds than mine have been trying to do this for over a century and havn't yet succeeded so I am not even going to leave that bit alone for the moment.

So if all this is true space is one of the fundamental elements of the universe and is tied to time, energy and matter in a similar, but as yet unknown, manner as matter is to energy.

I think, or maybe not, it's interesting and mind boggling and I can feel another headache coming on. If you're not confused and this all makes sense would you mind explaining it to me.

Actually, the 4 dimesions are Length, Height, Width, and Time

I disagree as length depth and width are things that we have invented and are only a way to measure a position within space. We could have just as easily used polar coordinates or complex numbers to describe a position. Time is also part of the way you describe a position within space time but it is fundamentally different from length depth and width. Also this type of reference system doesn't cover mass and energy which are also part of the universe so if we include these we have six dimensions.

The four things that describe the universe in its entirety are mass energy space and time. You may need more than one number to measure or describe on of the fundamental building blocks but the universe is, to the best of our knowledge, mad up entirely of these four building blocks.

Anyway it think that using mass, energy, time and space describe the universe more thoroughly than length depth breadth and time.

In our regular daily lives it is most simple to describe the physical world as simply length, width, height and time. Personally, I really appreciate the simple perspective.

But, if we wish to understand the universe, everything gets complicated. As mentioned time, mass, energy, motion, gravity.... you name it - is all tied together. The question "What is Space" has been studied by many intilligent people for centuries and I don't think that anybody here will be able to provide a simple answer that will satisfactorily explain the universe. Spend a few years studying at university, and I think that you still will not be happy with any strict definition of space.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that even the most apparently 'solid' matter is mostly just 'space' between protons, neutrons, and electrons.

So, I'll just be content with my few acres of 'space' here on this little planet for now.

I think masu is getting closer to the point. Also, remember that objects themselves take up space. So, space is not the stuff between objects, it's also the stuff that objects reside in and overlay.

I am sure that I can do no better than the scientists. Humans often want definitions of things that may only be a "thing" in our brains. If there were no humans, what would space be? Is a star considered to be "space'? Is it anything that is not Earth? Does it have to be empty to be space? Nothing is actually empty in reality.

So, to be honest, it can be whatever you want it to be. It's sort of like asking what life is. Is a virus life? Some "experts" say yes, others say no, but bacteria are. These categories and definitions are human-made. Perhaps for "truth" we need a different word for every single phenomena?

One word for this ripe green apple in my hand, and another word entirely for the unripe "red" apple that is now green that is in your hand. And another word for the ripe green apple in my friend's hand because it is not the apple in my hand. Then there would never be confusion, but we'd never get much done either.

Only four? You have obviously not explored Hilbert Space!

-e

I disagree, too. After Billy Davis, Jr., the remaining Four Dimensions were Ron Townson, LaMonte McLemore, Marilyn McCoo, and Florence LaRue.

-e

Ooo! Instant 60s flashback!

Up, up, and away - Stoned soul picnic - Aquarius

You just took my mind on a 30-second vacation to a VERY groovy place. THANKS. My Monday needed that.

If you can remember the 60s you can't have lived through them!

If you can remember the 60s you can't have lived through them!

-----

"Better Living Through Chemistry"

-e

As the time, nobody (and above of all the physicists as I am) knows something.

At my opinion, the best arguments regarding time and space were developed by I. Kant in the Kritik der reinen Vernunft and in the Prolegomena.

Come again? I Kant read Irish.

-e

Ah ah ah ah! But 200 years old.

That's a question I asked my Uncle when I was about 8. I could never buy the explanation that the volume of a vacuum chamber contained "nothing". But it made my head hurt so I quit thinking about it. The most recent news from the physicists seem to be eluding that "space" is filled with dark matter and dark energy and may in fact be DM and DE. Gotta go, my head's hurting.

It's the other end for me... I have asteroids!!!

While riding in the family car, I asked my mom what was the past. She pointed out of the back window and said "That is the past." That was the day I realized my parents didn't know squat; and didn't care that they didn't know squat. That was the moment I decided to stop using them as role models.

"I was raised on the end of a stick by a pack of wild corn dogs!"

Many different kinds of engineers are involved in space exploration. Very few get the chance to actually work beyond the bounds of our planet, but many spend their time on Earth figuring out how we could work, live and travel in space. Did you figure it?

Heck, I'm still trying to figure out what's beyond the walls of my cubicle.

-Dilbert

To truly know what space is, one must know what everything else is. Once one knows what everything else is, one then simply subtracts from everything that set of somethings comprised of everything that space is not. The residual something or nothing is what space is.

I like your approach. It would certainly solve our unemployment problems!

-e

The only problenm with that is no matter what we subtract from space, space keeps creating things that start filling it up again. Too bad my gas tank didn't work the same... $4.00 per gallon?!

That's because you live in Silicon Valley. I wouldn't mind living in Silicon Valley. Not at all, and I was in 'Frisco for a conference in '05 and loved it there. But insofar as paying $4/gal, I'd have to say that's a voluntary misfortune.

I used to have a ton of gadgets, gizmos, and other stuff I thought I'd need (and some I did need, actually, and got rid of...), but eventually I got to the point where I valued the space the stuff was in more than the stuff itself. I rid myself of a lot of "inventor's junk" and I don't miss it, and I know I don't miss it because I can't remember even half of what it was!

Today I'm devout minimalist. Life is good.

-e

I concur about the space.

However, if you live in Silicon Valley, it's drive a car or have feet like Daffy Duck.

Daffy Duck was rich and could afford a limo. Like Steve Jobs. You wouldn't happen to work at Apple, would you? Their industrial designers are the balls.

-e

No. I'm currently trying to get a job at Cisco Systems. Wish me luck!

I'm not much of a believer in luck, as it seems uncomfortably Random in its favors. But I will pray, which, in my direct experience, is far more deterministic.

-e

Any help is gladly accepted! Thanks!

Hmm. Wow. Such a simple question, and look how much discussion we're getting here!

(I really appreciate the Doug Adams stuff, by the way. He was a genius.)

So, how to define Space? It does not include Time, but is tied to it. It is acted upon by matter and energy, so it is neither of those. I guess the only attribute that truly applies to Space itself is the measurement of distance, area, and volume. When we measure an object, we actually measure the Space it occupies. The size of the measurement may vary (as Jorrie reminds us), but it Space is measurable.

So, maybe this: Space is the arena of physical dimensions in which our universe exists.

...Yes?

How about, "space is the infinite arena within which everything occurs"

But Space still exists when nothing is occurring, doesn't it?

And if it turns out NOT to be infinite, it's still Space, right?

I stated that it is "the arean within which everything occurs". it is still the arena, even if nothing is occuring. Infinite is my opinion of the definitions of the boundries of space. I don't believe that a man, standing on this earth, within our solar system, flying around our galaxy, staring infinitely outward into our universe can ever fully discover what is out there and what its limits are.

Space. It's what we are all taking up.

Speak for yourself. I'm virtual. Just a collection of characters on your screen. But I do consume energy. Have I passed the Turing test?

-e

QED

And one time I shot an elephant in my pajamas... How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know!

An appropriate way to consider what space actually is would be to consider to elements of what space consists of. First of all we know that space is infinite, or has no end. Therefore, if it has no end, the converse geometrically must also be true, as it must not have no beginning.

Secondly, the sum of all the quantities of known and unknown; visible and invisible particles within the space that occupies the universe as we understand it based upon our observations, spectrographic sciences, and the laws of physics consists of particles that have attributes of density which can be geometrically found by determination of their locus, or location; and particles, some found, some still hypothetical also exist, and occupy the space of our universe; having again attributes of density and locus.

So one could say that the sum of all known observable particles in existence visible and invisible having measurable density (photons, neutrons, molecules, elements, planetary dust, cometary dust, planetary rings, moons, asteroids, planets, gases, solids, liquids, plasmas, light, etc) and can be quantified by the measurement of the area it resides in, or (locus), as well as the volume of space it occupies within the total amount of infinite space existing within the total quantity of measurable finite universe.

There is only one issue with this definition currently plaguing astrophysicists and cosmologists. That is the fact, that after cosmology measures all known density and volume of occupied particulates within the universe, there exists a difference which they account for a substance not scene but like the wind cutting across the grass and bending the blades of ones front yard, the evidence is there of its existence. And that is called 'dark matter'.

So, now we sum the total quantities of all known (particulates) and unknown (dark matter) to result in a quantity of "occupied space". And if the universe as we have defined it consists of a value of total space that is greater than the total value of "occupied space". (and I think most likely does as our universe continues to expand) And since the universe is all expansive, then it is reasonable to assume the universe consumes any additional space available beyond the boundaries of what is known.

So there you have it. Three kinds of space. "occupied space" within our known universe, "dark matter" invisible but detectable within loci having the appearance of a vacuum or "pseudo-empty space"; and "residually empty vacuum" space. All three of which are in the known observable universe. However, as with 4 dimensions, with time being the 4th, consider the theory, that as the universe consumes additional space, and if the speed at which it consumes additional space beyond the known boundaries of the universe, that speed exceeding the speed of light, then their is the shape, and defining dimension, of the 4th one called time.

Respectfully submitted

Paul Hopkins

Space is the creation of matter. If there is room for all of us to ride upon Carl Sagan's Dandy Lion plume back to the origin of the present cycle of the Universe; let us imagine it as it was and not as it is conceived by contemporary thought.

At time "X" in the present cycle space did not exist because all matter was in one place. (First ridiculous assumption) Time did not exist because there was no distance between particles; mostly photons and smaller particles in the vernacular of glueons, clingons, and other coined names for the particles recently discovered in physics labratories.

Since time did not exist because distance did not exist, it is preposterous to propound all matter existed in one finite place. But we do think of it this way because we are flat landers trying to comprehend the third dimension.

Physicists think of all matter occupying an incredibly finite place 0.30x-10^18 This is a wonderful approximation of the loss of order rendering a universe collapsed to such a size with mass equal to the present Universe. This is also a preposterous concept because it implies a boundary containing the collapsed chaotic matter in the form of photon plasma and smaller particles; also implying order by its boundary. And this boundary is surrounded by what? Nothing as an answer implies space pre-existed the Universe when it was this incredibly small size. (This is a pretty ridiculous argument.)

Because there was no time or distance or order at that indescribable moment it is impossible for human philosophy to comprehend size, mass, or boundary. Because learned minds have been allowed license to obliterate reasonable discourse by freely using terms such as "At one second before the present Universe was born....." I also may use such terms to advance my points.

At time "X" the one singularity everyone seeks, but cannot see for the forest, is the inconceivable idea of orderlessness. Because there was no order, describing a finite size of any particle is impossible. No one can know the size of a photon at time "X" because space did not exist, distance did not exist, time did not exist. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume the present Universe existed as one photon. Commonly it is presumed the origin of the present Universe expanded from an incredibly hot sea of photons because these elemental particles still exist. (That is a great assumption.)

At time "X" the most ignored missing link is order. Common knowledge recognizes chemical bonds, breaking down during chemical reactions, release energy as new compounds are formed. Extending this, physics teaches us the same is true when nuclear reactions take place; an example is our own sun. Order is what is being changed in all reactions. Space is order.

At time "X" it is assumed some failure of bond (gravity?) occurred which propelled the contents of this finite cluster of photons into space which was being created as the failure of the glue holding it together occurred. (The language here is preposterous and presumptious) It is further assumed the particles disbursed as shotgun pellets into the space each pellet created as the expansion occurred.

After the failure of this constraining force, the photon, or sea of photons established the first order in that instant of the creation of the Universe. How much distance equaled the first second is not known unless it is assumed the contemporary standard of measure, speed of light was the standard of measure operating at time "X".

A light second would describe a sphere (again an enormous assumption but acceptable because it is known spheres have the greatest surface economy) A light second Universe would have been one-hundred-eighty-six million miles in diameter. In that first second three things were created, distance, time, order. Mass existed as a sea of photons. Temperature existed as the failed constraining force yielded to it. The failed force was annihilated. The pre-existing chaos of photon finite mass gave way to the order of expansion when the constraining force failed.

Now, the seconds ticked by through all the seconds of creation to this very moment. As the seconds ticked off, more and more space was created by the simple divergence of parallel particle displacement. The expansion of this sphere was the first order.

The second order occurred when the (expansion of the Universe) work absorbed the heat which failed the constraining force in the moment of creation. The work of expansion caused the expanding plasma to cool. Making space is hard work.

The third order occurred when the cooling plasma began to decelerate unequally. I say unequally because the (again preposterous assumption) outer surface of the expanding sphere lost energy faster than the core of the sphere. This created the third order as hotter core energetic particles collided with the slower colder outer sphere particles. This third order is gravity. At one second after the failure of the constraining force, gravity existed as a very weak force. The first matter ordered itself because of this weak force. Particles influenced one another because of this force as the expansion continued; simply by collision and derangement of the first order, constraining force failure, which created particle trajectory. As particle trajectory deranged, by the weak force gravity, these particles fell into each other and collided. Some particles further disintegrated and and others established orbital gravitational order which created the first mass. As the Universe continued to expand, it cooled more and more; ever propelled outward by core photon energy.

There are two kinds of space. Primary space is at the epicenter of the expansion of the Universe. It is unfathomable at this time and is bounded by the present Universe. It is unfathomable because it no longer exists in purity. As the Universe expanded, matter coalesced as it cooled; strengthening the weak force of gravity unequally according to aggregation. Space exists in matter by its organization which was ordered by temperature in the periodic chart of the elements. The reason the original epicenter is not a space vacuum is due to the rebound of particles caused by the curvilinear effect gravity; ultimately establishing orbital order.

The second kind of space is that which exists between particles. The space in the order of matter, as may be found in the Periodic Chart of the Elements, is the same space ,as may be found between the stars and dust, in the present Universe.

When a vacuum is drawn in a finite space such as a bell jar, the vacuum is maintained by temperature because the order of the bounding surface must not boil off to fill the empty void of the defined space. Temperature is order.

Space exists between particles now because it was previously created by the expansion of the Universe. At a time between time "X" and the present, the Universe was half it's present size and space was half the present size. Because of relativity, everything was in proportion and no one would have noticed an millimeter half its current size. When the Universe becomes again as large as it is presently; a millimeter will be twice its present size and no one will notice.

Temperature failed the constraining force. Trajectory was the first order creating space. Gravity and falling temperature were the second order creating matter as core photons collided with slowing sphere photons. Pure space existed only a few moments. Secondary space still exists and is in the greatest abundance among the stuff of the universe. In the present Universe, space exists between mass and within mass because of order which is temperature. If there was no periodic chart of the elements describing elemental order, the Universe would still be pristine photons endlessly disbursing and creating space. But expansion is work which absorbed constraining force temperature; which caused sphere surface photons to collide with core photons; which created gravity; which created order, which created secondary space; which is present space; the distance between mass.

Because energy, mass, are convertible but cannot be created or destroyed, the only thing the Universe can do is continue to expand. It will never run out of energy or mass. Space will grow infinitely large and the force of gravity will weaken to the point mass will disintegrate because the temperature of expansion will be completely lost by the work of expansion to the point the nuclear bonds of presently organized matter will fail. This will yield still more but much weaker energy as all order breaks down and matter ceases to exist in the description of the periodic chart of the elements of today's Universe. At time "Y", the Universe will become motionless temperature-less photons separated by distances so great photons will break down to smaller particles. A new expansion will occur in each of them; yielding new Universes born of the constraining force therein. Because of relativity, those Universes will go through the same stages as our contemporary Universe and the future inhabitants of unborn worlds will take little notice.

steamwright says: "Space is the creation of matter."

-----

sigh.

The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. Paul Valery, 1895

Relative to the gentleman's most recent perspectives upon the subject of what is space. I do intend to make a full and compelling response to your ideologies which conspire a photonic version of a universe created. However, I do agree with alot of thoughts you have, I would just like to let you know that I want to respond to your, present the data and evidence I have acquired, as it will take some time to assimilate all of it and collect my thoughts on such broad a topic as you have contributed. That way I entrust that you will be genuine and generous in regard to the ideas I intend to present, because I really want to know if I am incorrect on any assumptions I may make simply because I may not have heard or been exposed to other concepts or facts contributing and regulating all the processes we are in discussion about.

So please bear with me, and I will provide a plate full of comments. And again dont hesitate to share any incorrect thoughts I may present, as I think forums as these are some of the best ways to educate oneself in these areas.

Thank you,

Paul Hopkins

You dudes are really funny.

All matter occupies a place, a location, in our universe. Our universe is finite only in the sense that when it was initially formed it was formed at one quantifiable size. To me that makes sense. Order was not sorry to say, in the plans at the moment of the universe having come into being. It is a awesomely chaotic event when temperatures released 100's of times greater than the nuclear energy of a star in the form of heat and radiation, caused by a chaotice collapse or a big bang. Call it whatever one wants to call it. No matter what it was, collapse by photonic plasma expansion, or big bang by a perpetual release of energy from a big bang - which by the way at least 2 of the elements I am aware of that existed molecularly at the time the universe took up space in the neighborhood of "universal subdivisions", was mainly hydrogen (which is like photons, also still around today, even on earth, well above earth! haha) and traces of Lithium. Which is also around to. To me there is nothing more orderly than the end of the solar systems process of aggregation which reduced the population of heavenly bodies in transit around our sun from over a 100 to the now 9 planets that is if you like me still count little ole Pluto as the last planet.

In the beginning there was chaos, because there was extreme releases of energy; caused by either an explosion or as to one individuals prior opinion a photon collapse. Either way is was vicious, and pretty darn hot. When the universe cooled, and just because it did, doesnt mean it stopped expansion. And if there is no time, distance or space existing before our universe then what in the Sam Hill did this universe expand or collapse from or into. In simply could not have been a fairy tale explanation like we all came from the Nothing, as in the Neverending Story. And if and it is expanding, then what in the world is the universe expanding into. The laws of physics are supposed to work the same as far out as one can reach into the space and time of the universe as it does on earth. The universe simply cant be expanding into the Nothing, because there is no Neverending Fairy tale story. This a factual journey of common sense really.

Just like a balloon filling with air till it blows up because it cant expand anymore, may well be our fate in this universe. Another option I have heard is that as what goes up must come down, a relative thought is as what is stretched out, will snap back. In other words the universe may well be like an elastic rubber band, that will expand in an age old explosion over billions of years until it reaches the end of the explosive process because there is no more fuel left for the universe's energy to consume as it expands outward; and there are boundaries in this universe just like there boundaries in all the innumerable other universes outside of ours. Each one Cosmology suggests, has a membrane like exterior, with a property of plasticity or some give and take. So that when these universes bump into each other (for every action theres an equal and opposite reaction) portions of each are released, combined and form to grow and expand into a new universe. And just the other theory of matter, that states matter can neither be destroyed nor created, just reinvented into something else. The laws of conservation of matter and mass and energy laws should not be discounted simply overuled by a periodic table, or a few chemistry equations.

And if more proof and also if anyone wants the data and the data source, I have all of it available upon request. It is all available on several websites, and it all actual and current up to date experimentation.

Thanks

PH

first of all, give up on the big bang, it never happened! Until scientists understand that the universe in one, interconnected, living, growing life form itself, they will never figure it all out. and what is this i hear about "time" being another dimension. where does this crap come from? there are 7 dimensions of space and time. "time" is not one of them!

It's stuff like this that makes me glad this machine has a cord I can...

Exhausting isn't it!? I'm just glad it's there. To me its the scenic view I look at when I take the trash out late at night and what I've been staring at when I come back inside and my wife wonders what I was doing. It's also something I can teach my kids to dream about.

Not quite why I wanted to pull the cord. See preceeding post for clues...

That's really poetic. I bet a lot of us urbanites wish we had the life you lead.

By the way, my pot cooks spaghetti.

My spaghetti smokes pot. For its birthday last week I bought it a giant hookah. Don't tell anyone.

-e

I will simply put an end to your and everyone else's purported and unsupported belief system that there was no 'BIG BANG'! ok? In the 1st place the 'BIG BANG' is not mine to give up, for I never developed it. I simply read and study about it from the writings of 20 year Doctorates who write articles and literature that constantly refer it, or the, here it comes, 'BIG BANG'. And until someone else comes up I suppose with a far more scientific and mathematical theory to deal with origins, me - you - and everyone else can deal with the 'BIG BANG' theory just like all of society deals with any unproven theory. It explains a possibility, that is supported by facts. I for one am not about to give up on the 'BIG BANG'. You however, may do whatever you please. If you dont like reading about the 'BIG BANG'. Then my suggestion is to simply make a choice, and choose 1. not to believe in the 'BIG BANG'. (after all the last time I checked you like everyone else has that right to their own opinion). But you dont have the right to pass judgment of anyone's ability to communicate thought, principle, philosophy, or theory, just because it bugs you so much that the only comment you can make without providing any alternative is to "give up on it"? Give it a break, and go somewhere to a less intense forum where the topic is not so complex.

Or you can #2. Write to every scientific journal, cosmologist, astronomer, professor of sciences, etc. and tell them LOL, "To give up on it, the 'BIG BANG'.

Now, for the proof, or should I say, the stuff I used to base my thoughts which no one has to agree with, or disagree with. It would be nice however, to have an exchange of information wherein all parties participating provide resources upon which is the basis of what they say. And if some one makes a comment in error, then a more proper method of dealing with that is simply share on the forum the error of the remark, and present the data or information you base it on. But dont just tell people with an adolescent air of arrogance to "give up on it', unless you got the information to put your money where mouth is, my advice is to not go around correcting anyone if it cant be done respectfully. And yours was disrespectful.

Information source #1: from an article by Davide Castelvecchi, Science Writer based in Washington DC, entitled "Lights, Particles, Action!", on page 37, of New Scientest magazine, the January 27 to February 2, 2007 issue, New Scientest Vol 193, No. 2588, ISSN No. 0262 4079. (page 37 2nd paragraph), or simply check out the online version by going to http://www.newscientist.com.

"After 20 years of anticipation, the LHC is set to switch on this November, and soon thereafter CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, will become the proud operator of the world's most powerful particle accelerator. It will smash protons together with 7 times the energy and at 100 times the rate of the top collider to date, the Tevatron at Fermilab near Chicago. That will allow it to probe the interactions of particles down to the unprecedented scale of 10 to the negative 17th power centimetres, roughly the size of the universe a trillionth of a second after the big bang, when the known fundamental forces of nature were born. The LHC is widely expected to usher in a new era of particle physics, perhaps even pointing the way to the fabled "theory of everything" (I didnt say it, this guy wrote it)".

Why would a group of highly civilized nation states in consensus choose to come together and spend such enormous amounts of their national treasuries to construct such a monstrosity as the LHC, or Large Hadron Collider which has been excessively reported by numerous media outlets over the past 2 years, and at the time the article was published the new facility was not completed. However, today it is in use. And it has already been in the news more than 1, 2, 3, 4, or even 5 times. why?

1. Between 1995 and the publish date of this article, no new particles have been discovered. And the last particles in 95' to be found was the 'top quark' (the final of a group of 6 quarks which 'are among the building blocks of matter".

2. Todays scientests are in search of new physics or validation for the standard model .

To summarize, inside the detectors quantum shrapnel made by protons colliding will scatter at immediate contact. Einsteins E = mc squared proves that much of the proton energy mutates into mass, and the particles coming out as debris is heavier than protons going in. Scientests hope to discover from this process new particles.

And there are plenty of excellent reasons to have or desire to discover new particles. To name a few for example, the LHC could make particles turning into ephemeral, mini black holes; particles may be found that solve the mystery of 'dark matter'; particles that spend much of their lives in other dimensions of space; or even particles explaining why the universe seems so perfectly tuned for us to exist.

These type of particles are known as Rare Particles. They have short lives, with instant decay periods. Reconstruction of rare particle nature is done by observation of debris from the proton collision.

In 1970, the 'Standard Model' of particle physics was developed where quarks, electrons, neutrinos, photons, & other known particles are in fundamental roles. From this model, the event following a collision at a zillionth of a second gave scientests the ability to calculate particle patterns. It is also, and has always been the scientific measure of what happened a zillionth of a second after the universe was created from the 'big bang'. The equations to calculate this was invented by Richard Feynman in the 1950's.

Feynman diagrams indicate:

1. how old particles combine into new ones.

2. annihilation into pure energy.

3. procreation and the decay by splitting into other particles.

So there!

(And then we have the embarrassing fact of the Cosmic Microwave Background which fits predictions so well that its discoverers won the Nobel Prize for their efforts. Should anyone tell him?)

-e

yes I know about that. What I was doing was sweeping out the frustration of a 5 letter word ( My God, I dont think is actually definiable) called Space. I took a peek at the Wikipedia definitions for the word Space and like most words, this one has I believe as many meanings as there are people! But the Physics definition caught my interest, because the Wiki said that (Paraphrased) "Space is a uniform part of the structure of the universe. However, it is not definable until such time as that structure can be made more identifiable, or something better comes along!!"

So I found a real innovative definition that I honestly think if all agree, which most could if they put their minds to it, for the word space. And I found out that there are actually only 4 types of space:

Agoraphobic Space: is the fear of open spaces.

Astrophobic Space": is the fear of celestial space.

Claustrophobic Space: is the fear of enclosed space.

Kenophobic Space: is the fear of empty space.

So there you have it in a nutshell. It is official, there are only 4 spaces that can be defined. Open, celestial, enclosed, and empty space. Because if one has a fear of something, (open, celestial, enclosed, or empty spaces); then the something one has a fear of, must be predicated on the fact that it exists. Right? Because you cant fear what does not exist. Because if it didnt exist in the first place, one would no knowledge of it, and therefore no fear of it.

This then can be fit quite comfortably in the open-ended physics definition, wherein space as a structural part of the universe, not being definable, must wait until something better comes along; And that is what Wikipedias "Physics" definition for space is. And now that we have discovered, defined, and observed the fact and evidence of the existence of 4 forms of space; Agoraphobic space, astrophobic space, claustrophobic space, and kenophobic; These new 4 definiable space types have 'come along" and now can rest in the annals of physics history as the supreme measure, and great definition of space.

And now, I am going to say thank you for putting up with me! And having oodles of grace, mercy, patience and tolerance. For now I will not further beguile your intellect with anymore of this foolishness; least not for a month or so. lol

Cosmolograine: (noun) A severe pain in the frontal lobes of the brain and frequently extending to the visual cortex, caused by the trying to follow discussions like this one. I may also be associated with nausea and a state of disorientation and general confusion.

Cosmolopiles: (noun) A severe inflammation and pain in the rectum caused by trying to follow discussions like this one...

OK, I'll try this joke one-more-time!!! "Those are just your asteroids!"

Oh, come on! If you were any kind of a theoretical physicist, you'd be talking about fields of probability, or quantum horizon effects, or foaming space-time. At least put your hat in the ring!

Now I am confused, do you use Preparation C for cosmolopiles and Preparation A for asteroids or is there a generic that works for both?

Neither. You use jalapeno chilis... Hurts like heck, but at least you know your exact location in space-time, you're in pain and time gets really long!!!

Look again. You haven't defined four forms of space, you've defined four forms of fear!

The statement that something must exist to be feared, is incorrect. In my limited experience with psychology, I've met many people that fear things that no one would agree existed. To paraphrase that atheist guy, "Language allows us to run a foul all the time. For Instance, we can say 'All unicorns are hollow.' but that does not make it a fact nor does it make any sense."

I think Wikipedia and Websters for that matter are just good starting places. To find the real (or most current) concept of what space is, we need to delve into the realm were Steven Hawking rides his wheelchair.

vermin observes: "Look again. You haven't defined four forms of space, you've defined four forms of fear!"

-----

I was afraid you'd say that.

-e

As per your first post, woof!!! "Who put a quarter in you?!"

A couple of other things...

1. How long was Hoyle's run before he finally gave up the "steady-state" model?

2. Today, everything points to the big bang (which I also believe in), but when working with something as complex as a Universe, who knows what lies just around the corner.

3. The apparent acceleration of expanding space made a whole lot of astrophysicists suck their thumbs and cry for their mommies.

4. We are still really ignorant about how everything works, for example, those new particles they discover in bigger accelerators... It's important to remember the nature of these "new particles," which is, the guy running the accelerator notices at a particular energy there is a slight probability that the debris from the collision tends to be of a particular list of particles being ejected at a particular angle. This discovered tendency is called a "new particle," though the particle itself is never directly seen, and exists for far less than 10^-22 seconds. So these "new particles" are defined only by their probability of the appearance of the crap into which they decay. Even all discovered quarks fall into this category of particles - none seen, but "there's this probability at this energy..."

5. It gets worse than number 4... While there seems to be fairly acceptable definitions of electromagnetic force (virtual photons) and gravity (the bending of space/time), almost all other subatomic forces/qualities still illude science. For example, we talk freely about "spin," but physicists agree that it "really isn't spin," it's just that this subatomic behavior seems to act like spin - particles don't really spin, even though their angular momentum is also a quantum number, their just easy to describe under certain circumstances using the macroscopic analogy of spinning. The same is true about a bunch of other qualities of matter - the short list: strangeness, color, flavor, up, down, top, bottom, etc.. If we got all the figures correct and produced the TOE using these terms, we'd still be red-faced about what all these things are that we have yet to define.

6. This is why I asked the question "What is Space?" in the first place. It seems to me that until we really get a grasp on Quantum Theory and the nature of the manifold on which physics plays out, we may know the numbers but be completely ignorant of what the numbers mean, why they really work, and what neat stuff we can do now that we know the numbers. I'm guessing we need to understand the manifold (space/time {no matter how many dimensions}) before we can get to the really fun stuff.

Woof!!! Here's where I put the proverbial fox among the chickens!

I do know a few things...

1. There is a law in quantum theory that states that a something can spontaneously come into existence from (and within) nothing.

2. In the very first moment after whatever happened, I don't believe photons existed. The original stuff were exotic particles. It took a little time for the Universe (such as it was) to cool off enough for stuff that we're familiar with to begin to form.

3. When the term "order" is used, it simply means that at a very early time all of the forces of nature were in a situation such that they all had the same effect - strength, if you will. This is called symmetry. As the Universe expanded and cooled, symmetry was broken, and today we see the different forces as being of different strengths - symmetry was lost.

4. Space exists only within the Universe and was created by the creation of the Universe. What we're expanding into is anybodies guess. And, yes, the law of physics are the same anywhere within the Universe. I stress the word Universe, because there's no guarantee that they still work outside of the Universe.

5. "...but, but that can't be! No space?! We have to be expanding into something!" Possibly, but remember we see the Universe only through or little pea-brains. As quantum physics has shown, our common-sense is not always correct. St. Augustine argued "Every effect must be preceded by a cause." Guess what! Quantum physics has proved the old boy wrong!!! We now know that macroscopic analogies fall apart when we apply them to the microscopic - or subatomic.

6. This is why the major advances of the last century (and probably for several more) were made through the push-and-pull of relativity and quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics tells us stuff about the little fiddly-bits, while relativity explains a lot about the very large structures. And as a side note, now that that rat-bastard Neils Bohr is dead and the Copenhagen Interpretation is dying with him, we're finally starting to learn all sorts of stuff with quantum physics that we never could before!

7. will quantum physics and relativity ever be reconciled? Who knows, we're still waiting for the new Newton, or Einstein, or whomever to pull that rabbit out of his whatever. However, until their arrival, both paths seem to tell us an awful lot about reality, or at least our inability to deal with it. Sucks, doesn't it.

So, I ask again... What is space?

Space exists only within the Universe and was created by the creation of the Universe.

The universe was created??? By who? (Lighten-up. You guys know I had to ask the question.) Personally, I think space is the expanse between everything else that exists. To try to define space as "something" is only a philosophical discussion. Space itself is nothing, only the place that can be occupied by something. (There. How's that?)

But depending on your frame of reference it can be bigger or larger. For example, physicists have said for years that a photon sees no space between objects. Also, if you're about ready to fall into a black hole, things happening in the Universe (which you're about to leave forever) seem to whiz by. So it is something and it does have properties.

akashic58 writes: "You dudes are really funny."

-----

No, we're insane.

-e

Space is a volume that contains the laws of physics (the laws of the universe). Space has an energy. It's called "vacuum energy", and I understand it is a high amount, but I havn't got the formulas. Maybe Jorrie or someone can give them to us, yes?

Okay, without invoking spacial terms and their derivatives, what is volume? What is distance? Again, try defining these terms without invoking other terms whose meanings ultimately derive from an a priori concept of space. It's a little tough, to say the least, to do so without generating circular references, yes?

And saying "space has energy" as an attempt to define space itself is like saying I'm wearing a yellow shirt without saying anything at all about what I am. No amount of equations will help you here. They only serve to formalize the decription of space and its properties, not to define it outright as if to say, "Space is _____! Space exists quite independently of our puny mathematics, thank you.

-e

Space is the 'playground' where energy gambols to create matter.

What gives this "playground" extent? Distance? Area? Volume? Space?

-e

Space is an illusion, created by a race of pan dimensional creatures, who are infiltrating our universe disguised as white laboratory mice. Their plan is, that by sufficiently confusing us, we will never be able to think clearly enough, to deduce that the big bang was, in reality, an out of control laboratory experiment, that was being used by a deluded professor, in an attempt to discover the secrets of the total improbability drive.

Hear! Hear!

Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

-e

"I think so, Brain, but where are we going to get a duck and a hose at this time of night?"

From Outer Space, Pinky. The same place I got that giant magnet.

Ah, kindred spirits!

-e

Oh, hey - Pinky and the Brain!!

This is now officially the coolest thread I've ever seen. We've invoked Douglas Adams, the Fifth Dimension, Hawking, Einstein, Kant, Yoda, peanut butter, Legos, Pinky and the Brain, the Gong Show, and God Himself!

Way to go, fellow travelers.

I say we all meet at The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe. Vermin's buying, to celebrate his new job at Cisco!

-e

Finally, Someone with the Truth! Remember TRUST NO ONE!

I really think there is a way out of this circular reasoning, but it may reside in the ability to leave the everyday and macroscopic world behind.

Been there. Done that. Don't bother. I mean, really, have you any idea how cramped and nasty it is down there at the Planck Length? Have you? What with getting smacked on the head every few attoseconds by a virtual particle (curse you, Mr. Feynman!) and being thrown topsy-turvy by that damn foaming spacetime mess, its a wonder I got any sleep at all! It's even worse when you hang out by an electron.

Up here in MacroLand, at least, my chair gives me a comfortable illusion of stability and my lunch doesn't just suddenly disappear before I swallow and appear back on my plate. Down there I couldn't get any quiet time, because every time a thread of spacetime weaved its way between my hands, they'd slam together from Casimir forces. Ever clapped when you didn't want to? It's pretty embarassing. And here I have real bed made outta that memory-foam stuff, not some sparse network of that horrid existence/non-existence foam crap Mr. Planck dreamed up! The pox on that bastard, I say!

-e

It may be cramped down there, but I think that's where the real action is... And the answer to the question.

How about this: Virtual particle pairs (matter & antimatter) are being created and mostly destroyed (Hawking radiation being the exception) all the time and everywhere. Matter and antimatter both react to gravity in the same way. So, every time a virtual particle pair comes into existence, a very small, sudden, and brief gravitational field is created. If we added up all of these little bursts of gravity from all over the Universe, would it add up to equal dark-matter. And since E=MC², is dark-energy the energy inherent in space from which all these pairs are created?

Just a thought.

Interesting... One question your theory will need to answer is why then isn't dark matter isotropic? Particle pair formation isn't preferential, as far as we know, nor does a particular pair persist for any length of time. Yet, dark matter persists and is not distributed uniformly at all. Nor does it interact with electromagnetic radiation. This places severe constraints on what actually constitutes dark matter in terms of particle-pair production.

On the other hand (I have five fingers), your theory may have merit if the net equivalent mass density of free space due to particle-pair production has some sort of correspondence to the estimated density of dark matter over the volume of space. The fact that dark matter seems to clump is a huge problem here. There are even dark-matter "galaxies."

I need to give more thought to this, and much more to the dark-energy part.

For now I'll settle with this as being merely another manifestation of the Dark Side of the Force. Where's that old fart Obi-Wan when you need him?

-e

Admittedly, these pairs exist for a very short period of time, but it is finite, thus exhibiting gravity, if for only Plank's time unit. Also, I'm not so sure that pair production occurs evenly throughout space. I have a sneaking suspicion that normal matter and energy my influence pair production - either closer to stars, galaxies, etc., or further away from them.

Also, as Douglas Adams was quoted earlier in a posting, space is really big! So at any instant there must be a really big number of virtual particle pairs popping into existence, and visa versa

Move over neutrinos! You're not the only annoyingly difficult particles to work with.

"have a sneaking suspicion that normal matter and energy my influence pair production - either closer to stars, galaxies, etc., or further away from them."

-----

Your sneaking suspicion is correct. Particle pair production goes off the charts near, say, an electron (which is why I singled it out in my Cramped & Nasty post). Scattering cross-section experiments with electrons seem to indicate that electrons have no size; at least to the resolution of the instruments. They seem to be infinitely small, and yet they have an electric charge. As innocuous as this sounds, it posed a huge problem for classical physics: follow the electric field to its source and the field strength approaches infinity. But it doesn't, really, because the energy density represented by the electric field very, very close to the electron spawns a seething mass of virtual particles whose production keeps the mathematics from going off the deep end. For another, we run into problems with things being smaller than a Planck Length. So, whatever is producing that electric field has surely got to be one friggin' mess at its core.

-e

Not to mention Pauli's wave-nature of matter!

Hi vermin, your idea of particle-antiparticle pairs may be related to the cause of the dark energy, that (presumably) accelerates the expansion of the universe. The original inflation period was, according to theory, fueled by a so-called "false-vacuum" that then "supercooled" and changed to the "normal vacuum".

The big issue is that some part of the false vacuum could perhaps remain, but the best calculations show that the vacuum energy would then have been a few orders of magnitude larger than what is inferred from observations.

The other issue is what Europium has mentioned: the dark energy seems to be isotropic, while the dark energy is not, as observationally indicated. But, with the complexity and the number of unknowns, I still think all bets are on - so you could somehow be right!

Regards, Jorrie

Then.....The space define the form of his recipe, or is the recipe who define the space than contain ? (the problem of the egg and the chiken)....

And one question ? If all the things that exist have mass, how many weight a idea...?

Bersen,

I think that an idea falls into the same category of objects of which the rainbow belongs. You can measure it, photograph it, count the bands, and so on. However, if you try to run up and touch it, the rainbow goes out of existence. The rainbow is a real object but its existence is caused by the interaction of many other things, and without those "things," the rainbow can't exist.

Thoughts or ideas (I would say) are somewhat similar to the rainbow... Ideas are real things, and we truly experience ideas and can communicate them to others, but they only exist in relation to neurons, axions, neuro-transmitters, etc.

By the way, have you ever thought about the idea that the human brain is the only physical object made up of quantum particles and fluctuations that actually is aware of it?

The brain is not aware of anything, the mind is. That is a whole other topic though.

FROM BERSAN....

Then we fall again in the methaphisic debate that I have with Europium, How we will be sure that the things we looks and feelings trought our senses are the right reality of this things, what happens when one inmaterial idea (a space phenomenon) like the energy formula o Mr E. will blow up all ours material and palpable asses to the hell.

Over what space are developing our expanding universe, have to be a empty space for be filled with other space with mass, are our minds the rest of this space that was surrounded for the new chaos of mass ?, Are our ideas the atempt of this old space to know the new cuasi-reality. In this point we will fall in a large debate between the links science-religion...

Guest, AKA BERSAN, declares: "Then we fall again in the methaphisic debate that I have with Europium,..."

-----

Debate? What debate? I really love a good debate and I'm sorry I missed this one!

-e

Did you really understand what Guest just said, because I sure didn't!

Jeeze, for just a moment I thought you were Masu after a barbeque! That black avatar thingie you've got there. Think we should send Masu a case of Visene? Poor guy.

-e

Well, after seeing all the cool images others were using, I decided I had to come up with one of my own. Something appropriate to my name.

Have you been playing around with Australian mains power again Vermin?

I have seen effects like Vermin's avatar when you plug 110 V US designed electronics into 240 V Australian power sockets.

Actually it was 440 3-phase in the US! I let the smoke out and WHAM! It didn't work anymore!