Is the fabric of space smooth or frothy?

Frothy due to random energy fluctuations in vacuum, some of which are energetic enough to cause the pair production of virtual particles. In fact, what we regard as "empty space" is an artifact of the coarseness of our perceptions; we can only see a broad average of a large number of states, not any of the details. A few vacuum fluctuations might involve at least the energy equivalent of a Planck mass, partitioning itself behind an event horizon created by its own gravity. This might be how universes are created, since the energy would then be in a metastable (due to gauge symmetry) singular state and in violation of the uncertainty principle in its own frame of reference.

Once that symmetry is broken, the singularity can become plural because its internal energy content would span either side of its own vacuum ground state; i.e., there would be force-bearing particles, with energies higher than the ground state, and there would be exchange particles with potential energies less than the ground state. A big bang would result, driven by the Planck maximum in degeneracy pressure, with the expansion of space, which really is the rapid increase of interrelating quantum addresses, and the creation of subatomic particles.

Hi Mr. Immortel,

Smooth or frothy? The answer is distance scale dependent – space is smooth at large scales, but frothy at the smallest of scales.

Our two most successful physics theoretical frameworks – general relativity and quantum mechanics – cover both possibilities. General relativity works perfectly at large scales, and treats the fabric of space as a smooth four dimensional spacetime. Quantum mechanics works perfectly at atomic scales, and predicts that at the smallest of all possible scales – the Plank length scale (1.6 × 10^−35 metres) – the fabric of space is a spacetime foam, with the energy levels of quantum fields oscillating wildly, virtual particles appearing and annihilating, and spacetime breaking up into a dynamic froth, as visualised here:

• Spacetime Foam, clip from NOVA’s “The Elegant Universe”, by Brian Greene

» video, 0:58 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfoEJoXEj7s

The biggest embarrassment of physics is that we know these two theoretical frameworks prove to be incompatible at the rare places where we need them both at once – the singularities of black holes and the big bang. So the physics community is seeking to formulate an encompassing theory of quantum gravity:

• Scientific Progress – Understanding Gravity with Encompassing Theories

» image – http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/dalinian61/...

When that aim is achieved, it will most likely bring with it a deeper and richer understanding of the nature of the fabric of space.

As for your other questions…

1. Does the fabric of space have a woven structure? — No.

2. Is there a warp and weft to the structure of space? — No.

3. Are there mini black holes in-between such threads? — Not applicable (no such threads).

4. If so, do they absorb energy or emit energy? — Not applicable (no such mini black holes).

5. Or do you think space is a mere stagnant void? — No, but that’s a separate question.

HINT: Yahoo Answers works best with ONE question per posting, with the ‘Now add a little more detail’ field clarifying the single question, rather than asking another FIVE questions.

Hope that’s broadened your understanding,

Share and Enjoy, Peace-&-Love, Dalinian – ★ ☮ ♥ ꂨ ♻

——————————————————————————————————————

• Dialectical materialist

• Cosmology connoisseur

• Physics aficionado

because we are contained in the area time universe . we can in straightforward words do mathematical mind's eye of what it "would quite be" Einstein develops recommendations that are in accordance with very stepped ahead mathematics and mind's eye "dimensions" at the instantaneous are not in basic terms what we see yet mathematical varialbes like ( x,y, z, t, p, q, r ) math equations could have as many dimensions because the mathemetician desires for the mission there are some those who've theories that require 11 dimesnions to describe the universe. that does no longer recommend the concept is "splendid" in straightforward words that even if that's a good description of what quite is, then it takes 11 variables to describe it that's in basic terms about no longer a chance for most folk to understand ( which includes me) they could be no more desirable than "Harry Potter magic" except he makes very certain predictions about the orbit of Mercury, the mild from distant stars that bypass close to to the sunlight ( we can in straightforward words see them for the time of and eclipse at the same time as the bright sunlight is blocked) and an evidence of means and mass that does expect Atomic bombs there's a asserting: Mass tells area the thanks to bend and bent area tells Mass the thanks to flow sounds gorgeous yet what does it recommend?

Very frothy at quantum scales of size, what with virtual particles popping in and out of existence at quantum scales of size.

It is fluffy with beautiful gold and scarlet threads and the occasional applique.

*snort* Actually it is slightly bumpy (see current string theory).