What is "the fabric" of space-time?

My understanding is that dark energy and dark matter are somehow related, but it's still fairly theoritical. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.On your comments on this "field" or perhaps "realm" is a good way to think about it being nothing, you are correct. It is something, but an immaterial something. From a layman's concept of energy, it certainly seems to have energy, but it's not physical energy, just the capacity to become physical energy. Most likely, it is spiritual (non-physical) energy. Scientists don't want to use the term "spiritual" but they cannot handwaive away the fact that this "field" is exactly what many religious traditions including the Bible suggest about reality, namely that the spiritual realm is real, integral to the universe, and gives rise to the physical world.

I don't think the physics world are prepared to say that mass and energy don't exist. Is that what you are saying?I do think they don't exist in the way people previously thought, as some self-existing things. They are descriptions from a certain perspective, that is true, and that's exactly my point. They are derived properties. The real universe is not physical and to think of the universe as physical is in some respects an illusion. That doesn't mean working from that perspective doesn't yield good results, but what everything stems from is an immaterial state. Well, you can redefine physical if you want. Under that definition, God is a physical being. The problem is you are just changing the meaning of the term "physical." The reality is that the field is non-physical and immaterial, hence cavediver's admitting it is "nothing", though he's been conspicuously absent since then in explaining that more fully.Clearly, it is something, but it is nothing physical.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I agree. We need a broader definition of energy rather than saying no energy exists there.

It's intensely physical but has no energy or mass?Maybe you thought I was referring to dark energy instead of the fundamentals of what gives rise to space-time?

How about here? Or here? You might take note of my response to you which you never fully answered. After a partial response, I followed up with: And.... So?

Let me add.... So you admit they have no matter or energy, right? And that they are not made of "anything", but here you say they are a "physical, material element"?What's your definition of physical then?

So mathematics are physical, eh?What is offensive is you patently ignoring the question and misrepresenting me. I already stated "design" here isn't even a reference to God or a Designer, but a reference to information and order, and even stated you can call it X if it offends you.Instead of trying to dodge and weave and avoid real discussion, why not address the questions I raise, and do so honestly please, something you seem unwilling to do and yet self-righteously condemn me for merely trying to discuss the properties and qualities of what indeed is the fabric of the universe. The labels mean nothing. What is relevant is not the words you choose but the qualities that this fabric has.You say it has no energy or matter, and yet is eminently physical. Please follow the rules here and respond. Explain yourself and comment then. Under what definition is something without matter and energy "physical".I suspect you will simply resort to snidely avoiding answering and hide behind the admins perfectly willing to ban me for daring to expect you to answer.And guess what? Math is not an answer. Just in case you didn't realize that despite those 30 plus years of studying it, math is not a physical science. Math is not physical. The fact "math" appears to have such an impact is evidence for what I am saying, not the other way around, namely that information and principle are fundamental and come before physical existence. It's a shame you are not brave enough to admit that fact.

Percy my off-hand reference to dark energy is simply a response to someone that asked it. If you had read the thread, you'd see I was basically saying maybe someone else can comment on that.Cavediver specifically commented that whatever you want to call it, it doesn't consist of anything. I asked him to respond and explain that, but he hasn't. I assumed that he meant nothing physical because it does consist of something, and then he said it was physical but he earlier stated it has no energy.One frustrating thing is I have just asked very simple and basic questions about his statements and offered reasonable comment, and right off the bat, he avoids responding and posts snide comments misrepresenting me. He took issue with the word "design" when he could probably tell I was just saying this field or whatever certainly has specific characteristics, and I clarified, but he still avoided clarifying and then once again, offensively imo, suggests I am merely trying to talk of design, meaning ID, which ought in itself not to be wrong, but I made it clear, pick any word you want, the whole point is this field may have no matter or energy but it sure has PROPERTIES.Cavediver imo is merely trying to avoid real discussion and deliberately misrepresenting my comments.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Ok, thanks for answering. I became a little angry at your previous response which seemed to just be trying to misrepresent my comments.Saying that whatever is in the universe is physical would mean if something were immaterial or non-material or non-physical or spiritual, it would by definition be physical.That seems like an unsatisfactory definition, correct or not?Certainly, "physical" should mean something specific with specific qualities rather than just everything there is. Under that definition, if there is a God, then God is physical too.Making the definition of physical that elastic serves to make the word essentially meaningless as a descriptive term.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Yea, but it'd still be interesting to see how someone can define something with no energy and no mass as "material" or "physical."

We can let cavediver speak for himself but he already stated they had no mass, nor energy, but that these concepts are derived from these fields.In reality, these fields or whatever you want to call them are more fundamental. That's the point, and they do not conist of mass, nor energy (as defined by physics). I'd argue they do consist of energy, just not physical energy.One way to illustrate this basic immaterial aspect of the universe is the phenomenon of entanglement or non-locality. Note: this is not making an argument based on quantum uncertainty as some have suggested though the same basic QM principles demonstrate quantum uncertainty and so that is related. It's an argument based on observed, repeatable science first predicted by quantum theory. Einstein didn't like those predictions, deriding it as spooky action at a distance, but Einstein turned out to be wrong as entanglement has been amply demonstrated just as it was amply predicted.For anyone not knowing what it is, the short version is that 2 distant particles that became entangled at some point act as one system. Depending on how one observes or how a particle is observed (we can discuss that later on a different thread), the particle becomes either more wave-like or particle-like with specific characteristics within the physical universe. If we can determine it's path, it propagates in our perspective/universe in one path as if it was a particle along one path. If this information is not determinable by the way we observe it, then it propagates like a wave on all paths. The dominant interpretation of quantum physics is that until one of these observation events takes place, it doesn't exist in any discrete physical form at all, but exists as a potential for form (physicality). This process has often been referred to as collapsing the wave function, which used to be thought of as irreversible, but not necessarily now due to lab experiments.Well, grasping that takes some effort the first few times one ponders it......the next part involves the fact that how one particle collapses or becomes discrete (aka as a physical form with definite, observable properties) the other entangled particle must take on specific properties as a counterpart. That's even if the other particle is on the other side of the universe. That's why Einstein called it "spooky" because there is no observed physical connection between the entangled particles, and it's not considered possible for there to be some superluminal (faster than light speed) particle to communicate and even if there was, which is not considered possible, it would have to vary it's speed to make the collapse of both particles instant.So in summary, we have evidence that somehow differently spaced partices are connected and act as one system, but we also have strong evidence there can be no physical connection between the particles. Informationally and behaviourally, they are connected and act as one system, but physically they are separated with no ability we know of for them to be connected by another particle.What does this show?This shows that the connection is immaterial or non-physical and that it is an informational connection outside space and time.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

No, I am taking that into account. In fact, that's my point. The fields, realms, whatever we call them are fundamental and physical properties such as energy and matter are derived, secondary properties, which is why the universe is fundamentally immaterial. It's pretty simple really when you think about it. It's a non-physical realm with the potential for physical mass and energy. So it has properties similar or analogous in some respects to energy.....it has physical effects.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Tipler already did that.

Already answered it, PaulK.Not my fault if you cannot understand it.Maybe trying a new tack with you would help. Do you think entangled partices are connected via a field as an explanation for their inseparability or not?

Actually, I fully answered you and you are ignoring the answer.1. The field is fundamental.2. It is immaterial since it has no energy, nor matter. If you have a different, provable definition of "material" or "physical", please post it.3. The field or fields can produce physical effects and so despite not possessing any physical energy, it has energy like properties and my positing non-physical energy.Now, are you going to answer the question I posed to you?Are you saying the particles are connected via a field, or not?Edit to add for more clarity: you say the particles are part of the field.1. What field?2. What does it consist of?3. How does it effect simultaneous collapse over any distances whatsoever?Edited by randman, : No reason given.