In Physics, we study the motion of objects. And, as discussed, motion is the change of position after a period of time. However, what is position? And what does “a period of time” mean? We will explore these ideas the same way we did in the previous discussion.

Space is, simply put, an environment in which objects exist. We can intuitively imagine it like this: a toy boat is floating on the surface of water in a box. Can the boat float beyond the box? Obviously, it cannot, because it will hit the side of the box (unless you intentionally take it out). So, in this case, the “space” here can be understood as the box area. Now, it is essential to note that we used an important assumption there: the boat cannot exist outside of the box, which is obviously false. However, it is essential for us to use such an assumption to really imagine what space is. So, in reality, we consider everywhere that an object can exist to be “space”.

Now, can two things exist in the same point in space? Let us return to the boat example and ask that question again: can the boat… exist right where the edge of the box is? The answer is obviously no: you cannot “merge” a toy boat into a box, unless they were previously merged together (and thus become an object itself).

Now that we have defined space, let us tackle the next question: what is position in space? That is a question that requires a very complicated answer, so we will put it simply here. Let us start from observation again: in real life, how do we know where an object is? For example, when we play hide and seek in team (say the hiders are one team and the seekers are one team). Each team has more than 1 player. You are on the seeker side, and you suddenly spot a hider nearby who is hiding behind a tree (given that the playground has only one tree. I know it is absolutely odd, but it will simplify our example much more). Now, how do you tell the member in your seeker team where the hider is? If you say “Hey, there is a hider there!” (without pointing your finger at the tree), the other members of your team cannot know where “there” is, and cannot find the hider. So, you need to tell them “The hider is behind the tree!”, so that other members know where to look for. Why does this work? Because your teammates know where the tree, and since the position of the hider is tied to the tree (that is, the hider is behind the tree), they then know where the hider is. There is another notable thing here: your members do not know where they are on the playground, they only need to know where the position of the tree relative to their positions is. For example, if the playground is really vast, so large that you cannot see the edge of the playground, and you do not know where you are on that playground. However, you do know where the tree is compared to you. Again, this is the same idea of the tree and the hider.

So, how do we apply this idea into space? Let us recall the core idea we gained from our example: you do not need to know the position relative to the space (that is, the edge of the space), we only need to know where things are relative to us, or to another object that we can observe to physically “know” where the object is. There is a useful Mathematics concept we can use here, that is the Cartesian coordinates. Now, notice that there are other coordinates that you can use too, such as cylindrical coordinates that can also be used to describe this. Obviously, the choice of coordinates is an expression of the idea of specifying position, and it is not a necessity.

That is, from now on, we shall use the definition of a three-dimensional space for “space” in Classical Physics.


Comments

6 responses to “Space”

  1. Taylor avatar
    Taylor

    Hey, I was wondering—if we think of space as completely empty and without its own properties, how would we explain light bending near massive objects? Do you think that means space itself must have some kind of structure?

    1. Hi
      I am glad you asked me that question. Unfortunately, to have a proper answer to that question, a lot of concepts need to be clarified (for example, “light” needs to be defined, just like point mass, in order for us to derive any consequence. Another example is “massive object”: by massive, we would have to clarify what property does massive object have that, according to the question, bends “light” – again, another term we have not defined).
      Nevertheless, Physics is not Pure Mathematics. To answer your question: yes, space, at least in our models, has “structure”. As for whether we can observe the “structure” or not, I highly recommend you to look for ideas of “noumena” and “phenomena” presented in Philosophy. However, we can certainly observe the “effects” that the structure has on objects that are affected by it (by “it”, I mean space, or its structure). These properties will be discussed in future articles.

  2. Arthur avatar
    Arthur

    I still don’t understand where you get that conclusion from the example, can you explain in more detail?

    1. Hi
      I am glad you asked. The core idea of the example is that: we are unsure of the position of objects in space, as there seems to be no way to naturally describe an object’s position in space without an origin. In the example, particularly, the seeker should use an origin (e.g. a tree) to “report” the position of the hider to another seeker.
      In our model, we use this idea to describe an object’s position in space. Luckily, there are Mathematical tools designed exactly for this: coordinates. Nevertheless, this is the model we currently use in Physics. There is nothing that guarantees there is no other way to describe an object’s position in space. My example was intended to solely explain the reason why using Cartesian coordinates to describe an object’s position in space is a good idea.

  3. Hi, I might be missing something, but if space expands and causes redshift, what happens to the energy of that light?

    1. Hi
      I am glad you asked. In this article, we have yet to define “light”, “energy” and “advanced” phenomena like redshift. As I have answered to Taylor, it is unlikely we can derive any meaningful concept (such as what happens to the energy of light in redshift).
      Nevertheless, I shall assume the vague definitions we have in mind for “light”, “energy” and all those Physics terms. Then, according to what I know, during redshift, light loses its energy. Further discussion is beyond my knowledge in Physics, so I am unable to give a reason for that answer. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *