One of the fundamentals of our world might be that very energy that always has driven what we call space, beginning with the (trans-)formation (creation) of energy to space (in 9 spatial dimensions). Beginning with the inflationary phase of the Big Bang and continuing at a lower level today, energy transforms into space, still driving the universe apart, time being one of the intrinsic properties of space itself, which might be called “reactivity” of space, i.e. defining the smallest possible action, which we know as Planck’s constant.

Space cannot be fundamental. If it was, how could it expand?

In my understanding, in the context of string theory, it is not fundamental. Even, in larger scale , the space is expanding in the accelerating manner. And the existence of gravity of large heavenly objects like black hole, gives some serious effects on the space-time continuum. And what if it also affects the properties that Makes us to say that space is so called fundamental , according to our frame.

In string theory space is not fundamental. White hole and black hole are the most extreme examples in addition to the expanding Universe.

My view point has been space and time are emergent qualities of quantum theory. But if string theory is a deeper explanation, it could only look like space and time emerge from quantum theory.

I believe the deepest secrets yet to be discovered lie within, or underneath, space itself. If we go microscopic enough, you find the void is mother to all creation. The duality of light and space/the void being quantum entangled and creating all versions of reality is unfathomable, but possibly even quantifiable in the not to distant future.

Space not being fundamental actually does make sense. We are yet to unravel lot mysteries for eg. how dark matter, black or warm hole interact with the space is still unknown to us, even the bending of space by gravity.

I believe space must be an emergent property as it only exists at large scale’s likely as a byproduct of quantum strings. Similar to how waves are a property of the sea but do not exist in every individual atom that create the surface of water when separated. Time and space are one but time is not a constant And experienced at the same rate all over the universe and by every observer which I believe supports the idea that they are both emergent properties

I understand a LIttile bit about strings but i will be more happy if i see them expermentally , those very very microscopic things with planck’s length so i will keep looking courses which are done based on string theories. i hope this kind of predictions about joining qunatum mechanics with general theory of relativity.

Because the Universe is expanding wouldn’t that negate the notion of strings being fundamental?

A possible marriage between string theory and loop quantum gravity may bring some surprises or new concepts.

I think both space and time are emergent from something “more fundamental” like quantum entanglement. I think Stephen Wolfram is onto something with his computational ideas. The fact that spacial dimensions themselves can change in number and maintain the same underlying structure and the Maldacena duality point to the fact that space is not fundamental. Time probably isn’t, either – maybe what we understand as time is just a superposition of all the possible configurations of the universe, something that Don Page proposed back in 1983 if I’m not mistaken.

Wait some more years and you will get your answer from Quantum Realm.

I personally believe that space is just a coordinate system. I believe that space is the stage where energy differences are played out. Different energy levels at ‘near by’ points give rise to emergent properties. So even dimensions must be an emergent property and most likely the number of dimensions at various points in space are different. The more intriguing question is what is energy and what is time.

Science has progressed our understanding of reality throughout history, a journey marked with milestone names such as Galileo, Darwin, Newton and Einstein. At school I was taught that the Atom was defined as the smallest, indivisible particle of matter – it was a good approximation at the time but we now know better.
Special relativity implied that Space and Time are emergent properties that can act in unison to alter their respective values to ensure that the constant nature of the speed of light is maintained – from any point of view.
This would indicate that Space and Time cannot be fundamental, they simply emerge from the constancy of the value of the speed of light.
The future will enlarge our understanding of reality, and perhaps String Theory holds the answer – only Time (though not fundamental) will tell.

hm

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

Eleven dimensions, some curled up, can coincidence in my mind with tons of new quark type building blocks of matter.

The idea space is not fundamental may seem odd, but in my Natural Health Diploma studies, we see Auyrevedic systems contain a fifth element often called space.

In Chinese five element theories we see the fifth element called gold, or metal, and often called wood.

This seems to be a regional difference.

I am simply new to this and would like to listen and learn further.

great idea

idk, I’m still wrapping this info. It’s at a trickle.

I am convinced by the idea that space may not be fundamental. Over the course of scientific progress, we have witnessed a remarkable shift in our understanding of the fundamental building blocks of the universe. From the atom to the proton and eventually, to the discovery of quarks, we have continually peeled back the layers of reality to uncover even smaller constituents.
The concept of strings, proposed in string theory, takes this exploration even further by suggesting that particles are not fundamental entities but are tiny vibrating strings of energy. This idea challenges our traditional notions of point-like particles and offers a potentially profound shift in our understanding of the fabric of reality.
In a similar vein, the notion that space itself may not be fundamental resonates with me. The prevailing view of space as an empty, infinite expanse has been greatly enriched by theories like general relativity, which describes space and time as a unified fabric that can be curved by matter and energy.
However, emerging theories such as string theory, loop quantum gravity, and various approaches to quantum gravity suggest that space may have a more intricate and dynamic nature. These theories propose that space could be composed of discrete, granular structures or emerge from more fundamental entities or interactions.
The idea that space is not fundamental aligns with my inclination to embrace the ever-evolving nature of scientific understanding. It invites us to question and transcend our conventional assumptions, enabling us to explore new avenues of research and open up possibilities for deeper insights into the nature of the universe.
While this idea may still be in its early stages, and much research and experimentation are needed to validate or refine these theories, I find the concept of space not being fundamental, both intellectually stimulating and promising for our ongoing quest to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos.

String Theory is composed of eleven dimensions, all of these carry many different properties and values such as warps, curves, spirals etc., these change our conception of space just as strings change our conceptions of fundamental particles. Space is shown to be host to the game of matter and energy, something that Einstein’s theory of general relativity showcases. Understanding that space is not fundamental is simple to understand, mathematics and abstract thought can branch into different areas of known and unknown physics at all levels. Mathematics is the universal language of science and through this we discover the different ideas of the cosmos. If spacetime is emergent and not fundamental, then that is what it is. From this, I think quantum cosmology is an answer to the unknowns and is why we need string theory.

Space to my present understanding is not fundamental.Neither, distance nor topology nor dimensions confirm to invariant concept leading to present conclusion.

Mathematically,R^3 space not being fundamental makes sense to me but physically i dont see how someone would get the intuition to think in that direction,
One explanation relies on a theorem of Malament that the causal structure of spacetime determines the metric upto a conformal factor. And this factor can be determined from specifying a density. Sorkin uses this in causal set theory with the spacetime manifold being emergent as a continuum approximation where order and number give geometry.