The Ambiguity of Space
August 23rd 2010 13:47
What is space? The reader might think this to be a funny question, which it probably is. Space is the reader’s large and comfortable lounge, the spacious family car, but also, when gazing at the night sky, all the vast distances between the various stars, constellations and variegated celestial bodies. When we look at the universal space this way, a question can fairly be asked: what is space?
I see space in two ways: (a) the space occupied by a body and (b) the space between bodies. No doubt other ways to look into space could be found, but these will get us started. So, what is the space occupied by a body?
When I was a little kid my father told me that no two bodies could coexist in the same space, which made me wonder a lot. In fact, you couldn’t put the Earth and the Moon in the same space – neither could gobble the other and both cannot concomitantly exist in the same space.
But you can say that each of these two bodies, Earth and Moon, occupies a certain space. In this context, what then is space? I think that the only logical answer here is that space is nothing. Or more precisely, space is the absence of anything and everything. Otherwise these two celestial bodies would not fit there, anywhere you want to consider. In other words, if space is something, then nothing fits within it. Only space being nothing allows for what we see around.
If we can conclude that the space occupied by a body is nothing, what can we then think of the space between two bodies? If you jump on the next space shuttle and get into orbit, with your new perspective of the Earth and the Moon, what really do you see between these planet and satellite? I suppose the answer is nothing. Between them there is nothing. The Earth has its atmosphere but then, beyond it there is nothing until you reach the Moon. So, space as what exists between bodies must also be nothing, the absence of anything and everything.
After these considerations it would be easy to think of space as nothing, the inexistence of anything and everything. The question at this stage would be whether there would be any other ways of looking into the phenomenon of space.
Amazingly enough, our universe is defined by two groups of categories: mater and energy and time and space. Space, being nothing, is one of the dimensions of our universe. Would that mean it is something, even though we have already concluded that it is nothing? Let’s see.
Let’s be boundless on imagination and jump straight into a spaceship that could travel directly to the border of the universe.
Once we got there and supposing that we would turn around, we could reasonably say: wow, there’s so much space in our universe! If the reader gets the felling of it, when you say this you are stating that space exists and therefore must be something. This seems to make sense because space as seen this way seems to be a part of our universe. How funny, just after you concluded that space must be nothing.
On a universe basis, space must be the context that holds all its bodies within one big whole. Therefore it must be something, even if just one of the four dimensions of our universe. A question can then be asked whether space can be compressed or stretched, made denser or lighter, can conduct light and energy faster or slower, and so on. If space is something it must share some of these qualities.
But on an up close examination, and considering the two initial situations above, space must still be nothing. And this is the ambiguity with space, that it is both nothing and something. How funny!
Fernando Monteiro
Sunday, 17 January 2010
I see space in two ways: (a) the space occupied by a body and (b) the space between bodies. No doubt other ways to look into space could be found, but these will get us started. So, what is the space occupied by a body?
When I was a little kid my father told me that no two bodies could coexist in the same space, which made me wonder a lot. In fact, you couldn’t put the Earth and the Moon in the same space – neither could gobble the other and both cannot concomitantly exist in the same space.
But you can say that each of these two bodies, Earth and Moon, occupies a certain space. In this context, what then is space? I think that the only logical answer here is that space is nothing. Or more precisely, space is the absence of anything and everything. Otherwise these two celestial bodies would not fit there, anywhere you want to consider. In other words, if space is something, then nothing fits within it. Only space being nothing allows for what we see around.
If we can conclude that the space occupied by a body is nothing, what can we then think of the space between two bodies? If you jump on the next space shuttle and get into orbit, with your new perspective of the Earth and the Moon, what really do you see between these planet and satellite? I suppose the answer is nothing. Between them there is nothing. The Earth has its atmosphere but then, beyond it there is nothing until you reach the Moon. So, space as what exists between bodies must also be nothing, the absence of anything and everything.
After these considerations it would be easy to think of space as nothing, the inexistence of anything and everything. The question at this stage would be whether there would be any other ways of looking into the phenomenon of space.
Amazingly enough, our universe is defined by two groups of categories: mater and energy and time and space. Space, being nothing, is one of the dimensions of our universe. Would that mean it is something, even though we have already concluded that it is nothing? Let’s see.
Let’s be boundless on imagination and jump straight into a spaceship that could travel directly to the border of the universe.
Once we got there and supposing that we would turn around, we could reasonably say: wow, there’s so much space in our universe! If the reader gets the felling of it, when you say this you are stating that space exists and therefore must be something. This seems to make sense because space as seen this way seems to be a part of our universe. How funny, just after you concluded that space must be nothing.
On a universe basis, space must be the context that holds all its bodies within one big whole. Therefore it must be something, even if just one of the four dimensions of our universe. A question can then be asked whether space can be compressed or stretched, made denser or lighter, can conduct light and energy faster or slower, and so on. If space is something it must share some of these qualities.
But on an up close examination, and considering the two initial situations above, space must still be nothing. And this is the ambiguity with space, that it is both nothing and something. How funny!
Fernando Monteiro
Sunday, 17 January 2010
| 71 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
