Can anyone actually PROVE that time and space are real entities? Think about it. Why does "time" need to exist? The world is just a big open space with chemical reactions happening. What we call "time" is just a series of events we witness.
And as for space, people always say it's expanding. WHAT is expanding? Reality? That doesn't, on it's own, make any sense. Space is not an entity, it's the ABSENCE of particles. Right? Nothingness isn't expanding into nothingness. I'd argue that space, as it is, always existed, and didn't have a beginning. The big bang, however, or whatever caused all the particles and gases to spread occurred within space. But reality itself must have always existed. If you go to space and move your hand around freely, that's just nothingness. Space can't be expanding into more space. There is no end to space, because how can there be an end to something that isn't there? It's just openness. There's always more room.
>its not real cause muh intuition just cause you cant see it does not mean its not there your intuition is the illusion
Luis Brooks
Care to elaborate, "friendo"? Space is nothingness, so what exactly is expanding? And how can time be proven to be a real thing.
Jaxson Perez
except space isn't really empty, is it.
according to everything we 'know' exists in terms of particle physics, there's nothing there. But as soon as we work out what 'dark energy' really is then I'm sure space will no longer be classed as 'empty'.
Ian Hill
Virtual particles etc >inb4 BUT HOW CAN THERE BE SOMETHING FROM NOTHING
Liam Sullivan
That's a fair point. But, with that being said, is there any aspect of space that is actual emptiness? Or lack for anything at all? A complete blank slate that anything can pass through?
Jace Johnson
No
Henry Young
I do believe that there can be something from nothing. Quantum physics, from the few videos and speeches that I have seen, make sense. Virtual particles have been demonstrated to exist, right? But what bothers me is the space they appear into. Space itself is the lack of substance, is it not? Maybe I'm just mis understanding.
Thomas Lopez
No its not. Yes you are.
Nicholas Roberts
I'd say space is the lack of anything significant (as far as we know), rather than the lack of anything at all.
Jace Morgan
If you define substance as "not nothingness" then yes, all of space is permeated by fields. Space itself is fields.
You should rather think of particles as high-energy "peaks" within these fields, rather than billiard balls. Like magnetism, particles are basically force fields on the quantum scale. You push on an object and it pushes back, the same way that same poles of two magnets repel. That should clear up everything.
Jack Ward
Keep in the question on whether or not space and time exist has nothing to do with science.
So, no there is no scientific proof of space and time for the same reason you cant define a word using the word.
Adam Lee
Interesting concept, I suppose that's a good way to explain it. Is there, however, such thing as true nothingness? A space that is without fields, particles, or anything that would define that space other than location alone?
Samuel Bennett
Location, too, would lose all meaning in such a "place". You would not be able to call it a place.
If any of the multiverse theories are true, maybe there is nothingness "in between" universes. I would rather describe that as chaos though, rather than a place or a space. Whatever you want to call it, given that it is chaos, it's probably incomprehensible, and certainly inscrutable, to pattern-seeking beings like ourselves.
Logan Gutierrez
...
Eli Campbell
>As I described in an article this week on a new theoretical attempt to explain away dark matter, many leading physicists now consider space-time and gravity to be “emergent” phenomena: Bendy, curvy space-time and the matter within it are a hologram that arises out of a network of entangled qubits (quantum bits of information), much as the three-dimensional environment of a computer game is encoded in the classical bits on a silicon chip. “I think we now understand that space-time really is just a geometrical representation of the entanglement structure of these underlying quantum systems,” said Mark Van Raamsdonk, a theoretical physicist at the University of British Columbia.
hope this helps
Samuel Nguyen
Hello. My name is Simon.
You could try and communicate with me. I do have a skin-sack.
I even doxxed myself.
Humans are weird.
Jonathan Peterson
>Researchers have worked out the math showing how the hologram arises in toy universes that possess a fisheye space-time geometry known as “anti-de Sitter” (AdS) space. In these warped worlds, spatial increments get shorter and shorter as you move out from the center. Eventually, the spatial dimension extending from the center shrinks to nothing, hitting a boundary. The existence of this boundary—which has one fewer spatial dimension than the interior space-time, or “bulk”—aids calculations by providing a rigid stage on which to model the entangled qubits that project the hologram within. “Inside the bulk, time starts bending and curving with the space in dramatic ways,” said Brian Swingle of Harvard and Brandeis universities. “We have an understanding of how to describe that in terms of the ‘sludge’ on the boundary,” he added, referring to the entangled qubits.
Bentley Taylor
>The states of the qubits evolve according to universal time as if executing steps in a computer code, giving rise to warped, relativistic time in the bulk of the AdS space. The only thing is, that’s not quite how it works in our universe. Here, the space-time fabric has a “de Sitter” geometry, stretching as you look into the distance. The fabric stretches until the universe hits a very different sort of boundary from the one in AdS space: the end of time. At that point, in an event known as “heat death,” space-time will have stretched so much that everything in it will become causally disconnected from everything else, such that no signals can ever again travel between them. The familiar notion of time breaks down. From then on, nothing happens.
Nathan Smith
>On the timeless boundary of our space-time bubble, the entanglements linking together qubits (and encoding the universe’s dynamical interior) would presumably remain intact, since these quantum correlations do not require that signals be sent back and forth. But the state of the qubits must be static and timeless. This line of reasoning suggests that somehow, just as the qubits on the boundary of AdS space give rise to an interior with one extra spatial dimension, qubits on the timeless boundary of de Sitter space must give rise to a universe with time—dynamical time, in particular. Researchers haven’t yet figured out how to do these calculations. “In de Sitter space,” Swingle said, “we don’t have a good idea for how to understand the emergence of time.”
Daniel Bennett
>One clue comes from theoretical insights arrived at by Don Page and William Wootters in the 1980s. Page, now at the University of Alberta, and Wootters, now at Williams, discovered that an entangled system that is globally static can contain a subsystem that appears to evolve from the point of view of an observer within it. Called a “history state,” the system consists of a subsystem entangled with what you might call a clock. The state of the subsystem differs depending on whether the clock is in a state where its hour hand points to one, two, three and so on. “But the whole state of system-plus-clock doesn’t change in time,” Swingle explained. “There is no time. It’s just the state—it doesn’t ever change.” In other words, time doesn’t exist globally, but an effective notion of time emerges for the subsystem.
Zachary James
>A team of Italian researchers experimentally demonstrated this phenomenon in 2013. In summarizing their work, the group wrote: “We show how a static, entangled state of two photons can be seen as evolving by an observer that uses one of the two photons as a clock to gauge the time-evolution of the other photon. However, an external observer can show that the global entangled state does not evolve.” Other theoretical work has led to similar conclusions. Geometric patterns, such as the amplituhedron, that describe the outcomes of particle interactions also suggest that reality emerges from something timeless and purely mathematical. It’s still unclear, however, just how the amplituhedron and holography relate to each other.
Jose Reed
>What we call "time" is just a series of events we witness.
wow, good job. it's almost like that's what time fucking is.
