What is "the fabric" of space-time?

ORGANICMACHINATION, you said in post # 3 the following:

“The three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time are intertwined and form a smooth fabric, what we call the fabric of space-time. Gravitation is caused by the presence of matter on this fabric. Consider a bowling ball on a taught rubber sheet. When the ball is placed on the sheet, the sheet bends downward, and the ball sinks. Now, a coin or another ball dropped on the edge of this hole starts falling inwards. This is how gravity works. Any star or planet or anything bends space-time downwards, and gravity is us falling down that slop to the bottom of the pit.”

After reading a post like this I have to wonder what scientific references you are referring to. It seems that you have taken the liberty of adding statements that are a bit embellished. For example;

1. “Three dimensions of space and one dimension of time are intertwined”

Get your hands on a good dictionary and define the words DIMENSION, SPATIAL DIMENSION, SPACE, TIME. There is no standard definition or reference that states that any of the above terms describe actual real physical things. So there could be no actual physical combining of these things.

2. “The three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time are intertwined and form a smooth fabric, “

Smooth fabric? Has anyone seen, let alone touched this “fabric”? How does anyone know that this fabric is smooth?

3. “Gravitation is caused by the presence of matter on this fabric. Consider a bowling ball on a taught rubber sheet. When the ball is placed on the sheet, the sheet bends downward, and the ball sinks. Now, a coin or another ball dropped on the edge of this hole starts falling inwards. This is how gravity works. Any star or planet or anything bends space-time downwards, and gravity is us falling down that slop to the bottom of the pit.”

What is pulling this matter down into the fabric? Why would matter move in a downward direction? If gravity is not the responsible force, then what is?

You say that the above statement #3 is how gravity works. All the above statement says is gravity will pull things down against this thing that is supposed to be made of two human concepts, time and space. There is no explanation of what gravity is in your original post.

Again grab a good dictionary and start clearing up your misunderstood terms.

We do not speak of the fabric of speed/distance. Why would we treat space/time differently? "Space" according the the latest fermi lab testing is comprised of neutrinos.

If space is made of neutrinos then what is between these neutrinos? More neutrinos? And on and on it goes, more neutrinos making up more space between neutrinos. When does it stop?

Does this discription of space sound O.K. to you? Why must science try to make the idea of space more than it is. The scientific community does not dispute any of the definitions of space in standard dicitionaries, which make the statement that space is a measurement of distance, or is an area between objects. No definitions claim space to be a physical thing. Yet the scientific community has an idea that space is a real physical thing. Makes one wonder if they even look around them and decide what the term space is really. If space is a thing, it would have to exist in a location, thereby making it more of an object that exists in something. And so then these guys would try to find out what SPACE is existing in. Round and round they go.

First of all, don't try and tell me to use a dictionary to define what I'm talking about. The definitions one will find in a dictionary are not scientific definitions. They are general ones defining general concepts known to laymen. When cosmologists talk about space-time, they don't mean what you think they mean. They don't mean the space between objects exactly. The "fabric" of space-time is a mathematical object, which, although not tangible, is seen in mathematical models of gravitation and quantum mechanics. You should look up these mathematical concepts yourself so that you can better understand them and know them before you try and argue against them.

What definition of space are these cosmologists using when they use this term space?

You say that the fabric of space-time is a mathematical object, which means that it is a concept and not an actual real physical object. So space and time are not physical. Look around you, use your experiences from life and tell me what perceptions of space or time make you think that they are real physical objects. Why do you think space and time are real physical things? Have you been told so, or have you perceived these things to be physical. Space and time are either real things or imagined (concepts). What scientific evidence can you show that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that space and time are real physical things?

Second, nothing is pulling the matter down the fabric of space-time. Matter and energy can only exist on the fabric itself, and so when it is curved by the mass of things like stars and galaxies, matter and energy have no choice but to follow that curve. Again, the fabric is a mathematical model that explains everything we see. Don't argue against it until you understand it.

Why would the matter follow a path down into the curve? The top of the warp is higher than the bottom. For matter to follow this path from one position and change course to follow another it must be acted upon by an outside force. Something has to motivate the mass from the top to the bottom.

Newtons first law of motion: Unless acted upon by an unbalanced force, a body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will continue moving at the same speed and in the same straight line.

Again you say the fabric is a mathmatical model, which means it is a concept and not a real physical thing.

When you say that a mathmatical model explains all that we SEE, what you are saying is that a concept explains all physical objects and phenomenon.

That is akin to saying that the existance of God explains all that we see. You have to believe in God to agree with that kind of thinking,just as you have to believe that the model explains all that we see, because the model is just a mathmatical concept and is not an observable fact.

And "time" and "space" are not human made concepts, but are aspects of the natural world. They are as much human made concepts as diffusion is a human made law. Scientists seek only to explain these concepts by using models, the "fabric" of which I speak being one of those.

You say time and space are not man made concepts, so if they are not man made then they must be naturally occurring, right? You are telling me that time and space are just things that have always existed, existed like all the other things in this universe. Everything that exists, exists in some form of energy. So if these things existed on their own, before man, then some time in the past someone would have discovered one of these objects and gave it a name. You see man gives names to two types of things, those things that he perceives existing in the world around him and those things that exist in his head, (ideas, concepts, dreams, thoughts.) So time and space were given a name by man either because he came across these objects or by way of describing a concept. If time and space are real objects, like you say, then there would have been someone in the past who encountered one of these physical things and gave it a name. You see an object exists and then man gives it a name. So if time or space is an object who was the first to discover one of these objects? Where and when were these things discovered? If these things are physical they will occupy a location.

Diffusion is an occurrence that will happen whether it is a law or not. Man has observed this occurrence and codified it into law. Yes, the laws regarding the occurrence of diffusion are man made laws. The occurrence of diffusion did not come with a ready made tag with the laws on it.

You can put this debate to rest by showing scientific definitions of space and time that state that these things are naturally occurring or these things are real physical things. Just show me the definitions of time and space that these scientists are using when they talk of the warping of space-time.

My viewpoint on this topic is based on standard scientific definitions and observations of the world around me. I do not choose to believe this viewpoint, this viewpoint is based on established irrefutable facts and observations, not mathematical models or opinions from other people.

You have only made statements that are the standard answers to this topic given by those that believe that space and time are real physical things. I am asking you to define your terms, find out what the words time and space mean. Then tell me how these things could be real physical things.

You seem to be coming into this debate with as much knowledge of the concept as a city boy has knowledge of farming. You only know what you hear from other people and what you choose to believe. Before you come in here trying to debunk a standard explanation of gravity, try and understand what the explanation is saying instead of viewing it through warped and clouded eyes.

I think this quote was meant for you.

Science doesn't try to make the idea of space more that it is; it tries to define it.

Science already has a definition for space. Check your scientific dictionary.

There are those in the scientific community that are still trying to find out what space is made of. Yet there own technical dictionaries tell them that space is not a physical thing.

Space is physical.

According to what scientific reference?

If space were physical it would have to exist in a location just like the rest of the physical things that exist in this universe do. Something that is physical is not space, it exists in a location we call space. For space to be physical it would have to occupy a location, this is fundamental observation in physics.

And while we're at it, you might want to try learning physics from a physics book rather than a dictionary.

I learn physics from the standard books issued to students who are enrolled in a physics courses. When I want to get a better definition of a term or get a better understanding of a term I use a standard dictionary.

Dictionaries are an essential tool in learning any subject. Let me ask you, where did you get your definition of space from?

So you're effectively arguing that because space and time are not tangible, physical objects, that they cannot be used to describe natural phenomena?

That is not my argument. I am saying, like you just did, that time and space are not tangible, physical objects. Since these things are not physical they do not exist physically and so do not bend, warp, or slow down. They are considerations that we have when observing motion and distance between objects. There are those things that exist physically in the world around us which we perceive to be real, and there are those things that we imagine, consider or create, (emotions for example) these things are just as real to us but are not things that exist out of us as some physical object. A rock for example exists whether we know about it or not. It is an object that exists on its own. Emotions, thoughts, considerations are not physical objects that exist in the physical universe, we create these things and so they are real in that respect. Our concept of space or time is just that, a concept. Space and time are not things that exist as an object or substance in the world outside of our ideas of them.

What are your emotions then? What are your feelings? What are your memories? What are your sensations? A thing need not be tangible to exist and affect things around it. Space is simply that, the medium in which matter exists,

Emotions, feelings, memories, these are things that did not exist before you created them. If you feel a certain way, yes it is real to you and your manifestations of that feeling or emotion can be sensed by others by your expressions or actions, but they are not physical things that have always existed and will continue to exist after you have stopped creating them. The real physical objects that exist in the world outside of us have persistence, and will continue to exist after we take our attention off of them. Anyone can readily perceive those objects that exist in the world around us. Our memories, emotions and feelings could be said to only exist in our own personal world. The real things in the world around us are different than the real things that exist in our head.

If space and time were real physical things that exist outside of our ideas or considerations of it, science would have said so by now.

Space itself is not a tangible thing.

Newtonian physics are valid only within our physical universe. When the fabric of space-time is curved, our actual physical universe is curved, and Newton's laws work within that curvature. Newton's laws will not force an object to continue along a straight path unless that path is part of our universe, within which our physics make sense. Therefore, an object traveling along space-time will not require energy to follow a bend in it, because the bend is the only part of the universe that the object can travel upon.

First of all, the concept of this space-time fabric is part of a theory and not established scientific facts. It is not a real physical thing. You are just stating what the General Theory if Relativity states, not observed phenomenon. It is one mans idea of a possible explanation for gravity. It has never been tested nor can it ever be tested.

No. When I say that a model explains what we see, you know as well as I do that what I mean is that a model explains the observable phenomena for which that model is created. The model of space-time explains the laws of physics and why they hold in our universe, and how Gravity works. However, our knowledge of Gravity is not complete, and there might need to be made some changes in our model to account for new information. You however, seem to have no idea what in the hell the model actually states, and yet are insistent on debunking it.

A mathematical model can be of a real or imagined scenario. Just because something is shown in a mathematical model does not mean that it is a real world phenomenon. So no, the idea of space-time cannot be considered a real world explanation of gravity since it is just based on a theory, and not standard scientific observations. Space-time is not a real tangible thing so it cannot be used to describe real tangible occurrences.

I know what the model states and I am not debunking the model, I am correcting you on your idea that the space-time model explains real world phenomenon, and that there is some real physical fabric that is warped by mass.

Jeezus Christ. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Time and space have existed since the Big Bang, and perhaps before.

Really, so far you have only repeated things that you have read or were told.

You do not think I am well informed on this subject. Lets see; is time defined as a real physical thing? No

Is space defined as a real thing? No.

If time and space exist as real physical things, then you have to ask what is their physical structure.

In this universe, if something exists in the universe then it has a location. Time and space, if real physical things, would occupy a location.

Tell me how you perceive these things called space and time. What senses do you use to know that they exist? Touch? Sound? Sight? (light is reflected off these things) Smell? Taste?

Why do you personally think that time and space are real physical objects, when there is no evidence to support your view?

Just because we came up with terms for them later does not mean that they came into existence the moment we thought up what to call them. Surely, you can see what a ridiculous position you are implying.

Re-read what I said here. You misread it.

I never said that time and space are real objects, only that they exist and that our current theories about space-time and the 4 fundamental forces of the universe predict and explain their existence.

For the record. You are stating that time and space are not real objects. I agree, that is what I have been saying all along.

You say that space and time are not real objects, yet they exist. Exist where? And in what form?

You cannot have it both ways. Pick a stance and stick with it. Time and space are either real objects or they are not. That’s it.

Those theories that you keep talking about are not empirical irrefutable rock solid observations that have been thoroughly scrutinized and tested. They are ideas on probable ways in which the universe works based on the idea that time and space are real physical objects. Without these ideas that space and time are real things the whole theory goes out the window. So these theories are based on terms that have been misused or misunderstood so as to support the theory. Time and space are not defined in any reference book as being real physical things, yet these theories are read by some people who think that time and space are real things and so the theory makes logical sense to them.

“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”
Bertrand Russell

What are you getting on about? You seem to think that I believe that time and space are objects like a ball and some wooden cube that one can just pick up and play around with. Where in the hell did your reasoning go so wrong that you've come to think this?

You have made statements that time and space are real, then you say they are not real. you tell me. do you think time and space are real physical things? If so then show me some evidence to back up your claim.

Again, I will emphasize that you understand this topic before you try and argue against it.

Define the terms time and space and you will get a better understanding.

My viewpoint on this topic is based on what references to these topics say. My viewpoint is backed up by standard references and observation.

Where are you getting your understanding?

As it stands, none of your questions have been insightful, rooted in any modern cosmological theory, or even made sense.

I am asking if you think time and space are real, you want it both ways. you know that there is no standard scientific reference that states that time and space are real physical things so this fact collides with your understanding of time and space causing some confusion on your part. That is why it does not make sense to you.

All of my statements are based on facts and help clarify this subject. You have based your statements on repeating what you have misunderstood. If you define the terms time and space you will see that when you say space and time are real physical things you will see that this is not possible.

If what I have said does not make any sense to you it is due to the fact that it goes against what you believe. Look up the terms time, space, theory, mathematical model, and see for yourself that what I have said makes perfect sense. You just need to clear up some misunderstandings in this subject.

You seem to be coming at the topic of cosmology from a philosopher's point of view without realizing that it is philosophy, not time or space that is a man made concept.

I am coming at this topic with all of my terms defined per standard scientific references. This is a simple topic. Are space and time real physical things or not? that’s it.

I say no, with references to back up my viewpoint, you want it both ways. You have said that space and time are real and then latter say that they are not real.

Real simple question. Space and time are real physical things? Yes. No.

This is not philosophy. Time and space are real physical tangible things or not.

Get your favorite science dictionary and find out the answer. Simple as that.

john 6zx wrote: "First of all, the concept of this space-time fabric is part of a theory and not established scientific facts. It is not a real physical thing. You are just stating what the General Theory if Relativity states, not observed phenomenon. It is one mans idea of a possible explanation for gravity."

cavediver wrote:

One man plus THE REST OF THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY... how does one get so clueless? Surely you cannot produce anything more stupid than this?

You show me any scientific reference that states that this space-time thing is a physical thing. Go ahead. What observeable data backs up your claim that this space-time thing actually exists.

In fact show me any reference that states time or space are real physical things. What observable physical phenomenon have you experienced that leads you to believe that space or time are real physical things.

Put your money where your mouth is and give undeniable physical proof of the physical existence of space or time. Why do you believe that these two things are real physical things? Do not avoid the issue, just put this whole subject to rest by showing physical proof that is backed up by any standard reference books that states time or space are real physical things. The ball is in your court. GO!

johnfolton wrote:

String theory is based on the idea that the smallest known subatomic particles, such as electrons, are not really pointlike objects when viewed close up, but rather very small extended bits of "string."

String theory is based on the existence of extra physical spatial dimensions. Show me any scientific reference or any personal perception that leads you to believe that spatial dimensions are real physical things.

So you are defining physical as something that has a location? What if something has no definite location but merely the capacity to be or become in a specific location? Edit to add: it appears this should have been directed to someone else as I mistakenly hit the wrong reply button. Nevertheless, besides john, it would be interesting to see how you answer these questions. John seems to be claiming time and space are mere human descriptions and not physical things. Is that your view, and if so.....?

You tell me. Do you have any reference or personal experience that shows that space and time are physical things?

You will need to define the terms physical and object and find out for yourself if a thing can exist without a location.

Organicmachination, we can both agree that space and time exist for us. I say that space and time are concepts, you disagree, so in what way do you think that space or time exist? Do you think that they are physical things? They exist, but in what way?

randman wrote:

I agree with you or partly. Time and space are more descriptions of distance between physical things from our perspective. However, they are in one sense physical in that they are a reference to physical relationships and so have a location from one perspective. I wouldn't call either absolute and not even sure time itself can accurately be given a specific quanta or point....there is no point in time.....it is always a varied "space" of time that depends on perspective.....in other words, it's not point-like. Moreover, I do believe the fabric of space-time is essentially non-physical and informational.

Objects are physical. There is distance between these objects. Is there also a physical thing existing between these objects? I think that the first question we need to ask is, Is space a physical thing or not? In what way does space exist for you?

I say space is a consideration and nothing more. My basic definition of space is:
The term space is used to describe that area of nothing between objects. That area between you and what you are observing, that is space. Space is caused by looking out from a point. The concept of space comes about from the idea that one perceives through something when looking out from our point of view. There are objects that exist other than where we are viewing from, and by looking out to these items we create the idea of space.

john6zx wrote:

I say space is a consideration and nothing more. My basic definition of space is:
The term space is used to describe that area of nothing between objects. That area between you and what you are observing, that is space. Space is caused by looking out from a point. The concept of space comes about from the idea that one perceives through something when looking out from our point of view. There are objects that exist other than where we are viewing from, and by looking out to these items we create the idea of space.

Modulous responded with:

Well it's nice that you have your own view of space, but since this is a science thread on a debate forum I feel compelled to ask: Why does light bend as it travels near objects in such a manner as to act in exactly the same way as if gravity had warped space? There seems to be very strong evidence that gravity influences the shape of space - but your conception of space seems to imply that it is constant and flat. The question, in simple terms then, is how do you account for the evidence that would indicate to the contrary of your position?

Yes this is a science thread. So if something exists in the physical universe it is going to be made of some form of energy. Everything is made of energy. That energy will be condensed and form what we call matter or it will not be as condensed and be in the form as a wavelength. Either way it is a form of energy.

So, if you say space is a real physical thing then it will be made of some form of energy. As far as light bending near gravity because of space being bent. That would mean that space has a physical structure that is influenced by gravity and that space is a thing that can be influenced by a force. A force can exert it's energy against space. Gravity is pulling on what when it comes to space? What is the force of gravity "grabbing" hold of when it bends space? And what is space bending in? A material of the universe cannot exist in any universe without something in which to exist. If space is a thing that can be influenced by a force, then space is a thing that can be moved off course, or just moved. This thing you call space was existing in one location and a force moved it. So, as Newton's 1st law of motion states "A physical body will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity along a straight path, unless an external net force acts upon it."

So gravity is the external force, what is the physical body of space made of? You have to realize that your idea of space means that space is a thing that can change location. Change location in what? Space of course, what a contradiction, so if an object can bend or change direction due to an external force, then that thing is an object, and objects exist in an area that is called space. Look at my definition of space and rethink your concept of space. If space is a THING that can bend, then tell me what this thing is made of?

As far as you saying that my concept of space is that space is constant and flat. NO! I did not say that. Space as far as I am Concerned has no shape because it is not a thing? Space is the area between objects, we as humans gave that area a name..... SPACE.

What type of physical, observational data do you have that space is being bent? Einstein never showed physical proof, so that whole spacetime thing is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What science do you have that proves what you are saying?

IamJoseph said:

Ultimately, nothing can be physical. As energy [non-physical, or nearing it] gives mass [physical], it is also seen that behind matter lies particles, which are matter's smaller components, and behind it still, would be a force.

So what is it? non-physical OR nearing it?

We have those things we all call physical, so what is it? nothing or something? These physical things are undeniable. They are real for us. So what do you mean nothing is physical? What are you saying about force? Force is not a thing, a physical thing. Force is an influence that tends to change the state of rest a body and its uniform motion. Force is an action that acts on physical things. So force is NOT found as the irreducible part of matter. Force is what moves matter.

Now what is a force? Is it the assembly of base particles in a certain formation - or is there something which is non-physical here? Lets examine one force, such as gravity. In the beginning, Newton saw this force as being emitted by a mass, such as the sun, and he posited his equations on specific, definitive and constant equations which are embedded therein. Here, Newton gave a premise of the sun actually emitting its forcefields, like tentacles, keeping the planets in its vicinity and stablised. But this was incorrect. The formulae were right, but its underlying reasoning incorrect. It was corrected by Einstein's Relativity equations, which showed that the force of gravity is nothing more than the springing and swaying motions created on a matrix bed of space, when an object is placed on it. He equated this to the ripples seen in a lake when a stone is thrown in, and a mattress which makes similar waves when a body is placed upon it. The bouncing movements are the force, its equations being based on the exertion factor between two masses in the same matrix. Basically, this is a reflex action, and is alligned with things finding their own levels.

A matrix bed of space? What is that exactly? An object is placed on this thing? What is this thing?

Look! When you drop something in your enviroment right now, like a pen, what Force is moving it?

The waves become the force fields, and these in turn effect other areas [ripple effect], all being a process of an in-built trait to return to the status quo position and also become subject to outside influences impacting on it: this is a display of a returning to a pre-set position. Here, the play of returning and being deflected, is what becomes the measurements of the force of gravity. We find here, that the gravity would destroy all existence, but for the outside planets which create certain waves, which are forces, and this becomes the force of gravity. There is a dual and inter-reliant interaction occuring here. But behind all this there is no physicality, matter being the result of forces. The deeper factor here is, the status quo is precedent of the later gravitaional results, and the enigmatic factor is, it appears both were anticipatory for the universe and life. If we track down the making of a car, where do we stop: at the instruction manual, the attributes of the material used, the energy of the fuel, the person driving the car, or a thought?

According to what science? Look up wave and electromagnetic wave and find out how and what makes waves.

Depends what you mean by 'actually'. I guess in 'actuality' spacetime is bent, and light is just following the bent path which gives the impression of the light wave being 'bent'.

Again, spacetime is made of what?

Posted by IamJoseph.

This concerns views of the unknown, and IMHO, based on the universe being finite, everything came from nothing. Physicality is a denser cluster, whereby matter is a clumping of atoms more densely, as in iron and wood - the densest is the later, accumulated, more compressed stage. At one primal stage, all matter would have been gaseous, and before that a force, preceded by a program or some form of directive or directional inclination - namely the program had to be at least precedent or even pre-ordained. Physicality [matter] is a result or effect.

Are you speaking in tongues? What are you saying exactly?

Is energy a physical thing or not? Yes/No?

Posted by IamJoseph

A sublimity would have occured,

What is a sublimity?

A sublimity would have occured namely when a state is bypassed, as with a solid leaping over the liquid state and going directly to gas, whereby the solid 'sublimed' [towards non-corporeal or spirituality] - only this occurs in the reverse mode. Here, any action of any kind, would require some form of a triggering device, as in an external impact. And since a finite realm had no other parts preceding it, it could not have emerged from other things - excepting only a program, which acts like a thought or will to an action. So all physicality, by the reverse mode, had to once been non-existent or nothingness. I see no other way in a finite realm.

What are you trying to say with all of this double talk? Can you be more scientific? What did this communicate? Anybody want to try and decipher this?

Just say what you think, is energy a physical thing or not?

Edited by john6zx, : No reason given.

Posted by IamJoseph

Spacetime is a quotient, namely an equation which represents the interaction of space and time.

Quotient and equation are man-made terms and concepts, is that what you are saying spacetime is, a man-made concept?

So is spacetime a physical thing? Yes/No?