Premise: Space is NOT a thing. Space has no structure or
substance. Space is a mental concept of the human mind that we use to
picture the imaginary container real stuff resides in. I find no
credibility in the alternative, that space-is-a-thing with structure and
substance. Why? Here's why!
Every experiment has failed to show evidence for space-as-a-thing.
But
the big no-no is that space-as-a-thing violates the First Law of
Thermodynamics. If the standard model of cosmology is correct, then the
Big Bang event created space-as-a-thing from scratch; from absolutely
nothing. Though postulated as a given, no one has yet to come up with an
adequate or even credible how that happened or even could happen.
Worse, that process is ongoing. Recall that the late Sir Fred Hoyle was
bucketed for advocating the Steady State Universe which required the
creation of matter from nothing - something like one atom of hydrogen
per cubic mile per year or some such order of magnitude figure akin to
that. Hoyle could give no mechanism. Of course his retort was that the
alternate Big Bang event created everything from nothing all at once,
again without any mechanism given, but that was apparently okay while
his creation from nothing wasn't. Well creation from nothing is NOT okay
in any cosmology.
I really have to admire the audacity of some
cosmologists in their popular writings. In one chapter they will state
the First Law of Thermodynamics about how energy (hence matter) cannot
be created or destroyed but only changed from one form into another. In
other words, there is no such thing as a cosmic free lunch; you can't
create something from nothing. Yet in another chapter they will note how
the energy density of the cosmos is unchanging or how it is a constant,
even though the Universe is expanding. That immediately contradicts the
First Law of Thermodynamics. Since space-as-a-thing translates into the
creation of dark energy and dark energy translates back into the
creation of space-as-a-thing (each creating more of the other out of
absolutely nothing) that's a free cosmic lunch. They - cosmologists -
contradict themselves. If they don't realize they've done it, they don't
deserve to be in academia. If they realize this contradiction without
commenting on same, they deserve to be kicked out of academia.
So
if you are advocating space-as-a-thing then you are advocating the
creation of something from nothing therefore advocating that the First
Law of Thermodynamics is being negated even as I write and as you read.
Good luck with that premise.
Motion, and variations thereof
(acceleration, deceleration, momentum, rotation, etc.) is entirely
independent of space-as-a-thing or even of space-as-a-not-thing. Recall
that famous early 20th Century "New York Times" editorial that rocket
travel was pure bunk on the grounds that in space there was nothing for
the rocket's exhaust to push against. That editorial was retracted on
the day of the Moon landing! So space travel via rocket-ship is possible
even if space is NOT a thing since all relevant forces operate
independently of the existence or non-existence of space. If one
persists in trying to link motion and space-as-a-thing, find an equation
that involves motion that also has space-as-a-thing as one of the
required parameters.
Twenty Questions (give or take): If space-is-a-thing...
Why
the phrase "the vacuum of space"? What 'thing' do you have to remove
from space in order to achieve a perfect vacuum? What is the 'thing'
composed of? What is its chemistry? Since it is right in front of your
nose, what does it smell like? Could you stick out your tongue and taste
the 'thing' that makes space a thing? What other properties does it
have that you (or instrumentation) can detect? What are the associated
particles, forces and fields that make space-as-a-thing strut its stuff?
What is the density of space? If space has a density then could we in
theory fly like a bird to the Moon if we could construct a pair of wings
large enough? How does space-as-a-thing alter the standard model of
particle physics? Would the Universe be any different today if the
thing-ness of space had never existed? If so, how would it be different
and if that were the case might you not even be here to worry about it?
In other words, is the thing-ness of space required or vital for your
own existence? Could we with our advanced technologies change the nature
of that 'thing' property of space by some physical process or other? Is
the thing-ness of space a resource that we could make use of akin to
how we could mine the asteroid belt for resources? The speed-of-light is
slower in glass than in water, and slower in water than in air and
slower in air than in space, so if space is a thing would the
speed-of-light be even faster than it is now if you could remove the
thing-ness from space?
Proof That Space Is Not A Thing
If
space were a thing, then nothing could move. A state of nothingness has
to exist, along with a state of something (the standard model of
particle physics and resulting emergent stuff like atoms, molecules and
human beings), in order for those some-things to get from Point A to
Point B unhindered. If space were a thing then the some-things part and
parcel of the standard model would be akin to 100 people jammed into a
standard elevator (or lift), or say 200 people crammed onto a what would
have to be defined as a crowded bus. You couldn't move from the back of
the elevator to the front; from the back of the bus to the front door
of the bus. There's no state of nothingness for the people at the back
to move through. You can only move because there is some nothingness for
you to move into or shove other stuff into to make room for you. If
space is a thing then there is no nothingness at all in the Universe;
the Universe is entirely full of stuff (the standard model plus
space-as-a-thing) and no motion is possible.
Anyone who advocates
that space-is-a-thing has to wear the burden of proof on their shoulders
and provide at least some solid slab-in-the-lab evidence. Either that
or they should cease prattling on about it as if the concept of
space-as-a-thing was set in stone and the matter of the nature of space
was now settled for all eternity. It's not settled.
Science librarian; retired.
No comments:
Post a Comment