The idea of certain particles not being fundamental is familiar to us. We’ve gone from the atom to the proton to the quark, and now to strings. But what about the idea of space not being fundamental? Is this something that you are convinced by? Explain your answer.
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.
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.
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.
You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.
Send this to a friend