What Is Spacetime Really Made Of?

[Skepdick]

Real physical space (vacuum) is a 4-D growing crystal of (meta) elementary (dual) particles… Real particles are more or less stable specific defects in its structure and antiparticles are corresponding complementary defects…

So many reductionist/deconstructive theories!!!

What the hell is a "defect" in a real structure?

Seems a litle arrogant to assert that humans can rule on reality's "defectiveness".

[attofishpi]

What Is Spacetime Really Made Of?

It's not, "made of," anything. It is a fictional metaphorical way of, "picturing," certain physical phenomena which have no actual observable attributes (i.e. cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted) but are known indirectly by the behavior of that which can be observed and are described mathematically.

Bollocks.

Kick a football into the air, what you observe as it returns to the ground is the curvature of spacetime.

The fundamental nature that causes the curvature is SOME THING.

[RCSaunders]

What Is Spacetime Really Made Of?

It's not, "made of," anything. It is a fictional metaphorical way of, "picturing," certain physical phenomena which have no actual observable attributes (i.e. cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted) but are known indirectly by the behavior of that which can be observed and are described mathematically.

Bollocks.

Kick a football into the air, what you observe as it returns to the ground is the curvature of spacetime.

The fundamental nature that causes the curvature is SOME THING.

By, "something," I mean an actual entity or substance, i.e. some kind of, "stuff." There is no such, "stuff," as space-time. There is only the behavior of actual entities and substances. The behavior of projectiles in a gravitational, "field," (another fictional mathematical way of picturing the behavior of actual things) can only be described if you actually have a, "football," a real thing.

The phenomena being described by these fictions is real and exists (as a concept), but attributing actual physical existence to them is reification.

[attofishpi]

It's not, "made of," anything. It is a fictional metaphorical way of, "picturing," certain physical phenomena which have no actual observable attributes (i.e. cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted) but are known indirectly by the behavior of that which can be observed and are described mathematically.

Bollocks.

Kick a football into the air, what you observe as it returns to the ground is the curvature of spacetime.

The fundamental nature that causes the curvature is SOME THING.

By, "something," I mean an actual entity or substance, i.e. some kind of, "stuff." There is no such, "stuff," as space-time. There is only the behavior of actual entities and substances. The behavior of projectiles in a gravitational, "field,"

And, as I stated - the fundamental nature that causes curvature of spacetime is a THING.

(another fictional mathematical way of picturing the behavior of actual things) can only be described if you actually have a, "football," a real thing.

The phenomena being described by these fictions is real and exists (as a concept), but attributing actual physical existence to them is reification.

To comprehend reality is to look at it in abstraction from what we immediately perceive - reification is required to step beyond what you insist on your comprehension of reality - via those senses that you perceive reality through.

[seeds]

What Is Spacetime Really Made Of?

Well, if it is possible that the Berkeleyan vision of reality is true and the universe is the mind of a higher consciousness, then that would mean that "spacetime" is made of "mind stuff."

In other words, if you look into the inner-dimension of your own mind and view the substances and conditions that comprise and bind the totality of your mind together into a closed and autonomous (singular) bubble of reality,...

...you will, in essence, be viewing a (less ordered) parallel version of the same sort of "spacetime" reality you see when looking outward into the closed and autonomous bubble of the universe.

Again, if the Berkeleyan (and seeds) vision of reality is true, then the contents of the universe and the contents of our minds are made of the same fundamental stuff (again, with one simply being "less ordered" than the other)...



"As Above, So Below"

(I suggest that the above represents what it truly means to have been created in "God's image")

Now, of course, none of the above actually solves the mystery inherent in socrat44's initial inquiry, for it merely shifts the question from what is "spacetime" made of? - to what is "mind stuff" made of?
_______

[Age]

What Is Spacetime Really Made Of?

Well, if it is possible that the Berkeleyan vision of reality is true and the universe is the mind of a higher consciousness, then that would mean that "spacetime" is made of "mind stuff."

In other words, if you look into the inner-dimension of your own mind and view the substances and conditions that comprise and bind the totality of your mind together into a closed and autonomous (singular) bubble of reality,...

...you will, in essence, be viewing a (less ordered) parallel version of the same sort of "spacetime" reality you see when looking outward into the closed and autonomous bubble of the universe.

Again, if the Berkeleyan (and seeds) vision of reality is true, then the contents of the universe and the contents of our minds are made of the same fundamental stuff (again, with one simply being "less ordered" than the other)...

But this 'vision' of 'reality' is NOT true. So, the rest is moot.

"As Above, So Below"

(I suggest that the above represents what it truly means to have been created in "God's image")

Now, of course, none of the above actually solves the mystery inherent in socrat44's initial inquiry, for it merely shifts the question from what is "spacetime" made of? - to what is "mind stuff" made of?
_______

[Age]

What Is Spacetime Really Made Of?

How is the word 'spacetime' being defined here?

Work that out FULLY, and then the answer just falls into place.

[Cerveny]

Real physical space (vacuum) is a 4-D growing crystal of (meta) elementary (dual) particles… Real particles are more or less stable specific defects in its structure and antiparticles are corresponding complementary defects…

So many reductionist/deconstructive theories!!!

What the hell is a "defect" in a real structure?

Seems a litle arrogant to assert that humans can rule on reality's "defectiveness".

After all, I'm afraid that's the only reasonable explanation for reality. I can't understand otherwise why there is only a limited spectrum of stable particles, why spin and electric charge can only have a limited value, why particles can only apear in complementary pairs. What hinders other possibilities!!? So I strongly believe that all the properties of reality are derived from the (lattice) structure of its regular, discrete substrate, from the crystal of physical space. Please refer to the terms "crystal defects", "growth of screw dislocations" ~ spin…

[Skepdick]

After all, I'm afraid that's the only reasonable explanation for reality. I can't understand otherwise why there is only a limited spectrum of stable particles, why spin and electric charge can only have a limited value, why particles can only apear in complementary pairs. What hinders other possibilities!!? So I strongly believe that all the properties of reality are derived from the (lattice) structure of its regular, discrete substrate, from the crystal of physical space. Please refer to the terms "crystal defects", "growth of screw dislocations" ~ spin…

Your problem is not the physics. Your problem is your normatives (as usual).

You have some pre-conceived notions of "reasonableness", "explanation" and "understanding".
You actually believe reality is understandable to us, apes.

The crux of your problem is that you missed the word "model" in the "standard model of physics". Maybe you have a mathematical intuition for what a model is. Maybe you understand that given finite observations - infinite models are possible. Maybe you don't.

Maybe lattices aren't the correct mathematical structure in which to interpret the results and you need a bigger, higher-order structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

[socrat44]

How is the word 'spacetime' being defined here?

Work that out FULLY, and then the answer just falls into place.

an absolute Minkowski 4D "spacetime''

[Age]

How is the word 'spacetime' being defined here?

Work that out FULLY, and then the answer just falls into place.

an absolute Minkowski 4D "spacetime''

So, from what you are saying and showing here 'spacetime' is just an idea or concept, and therefore what 'spacetime' is Really made of is just 'human thought' only.

If, however, any one wants to KNOW what thee Universe, Itself, and/or 'space' and 'time' as well, are REALLY made up of, then that would, literally, be another question.

[socrat44]

How is the word 'spacetime' being defined here?

Work that out FULLY, and then the answer just falls into place.

an absolute Minkowski 4D "spacetime''

So, from what you are saying and showing here 'spacetime' is just an idea or concept, and therefore what 'spacetime' is Really made of is just 'human thought' only.

If, however, any one wants to KNOW what thee Universe, Itself, and/or 'space' and 'time' as well, are REALLY made up of, then that would, literally, be another question.

“The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
They are radical. Henceforth, (gravity) space (of planets) by itself,
and (gravity) time (of planets) by itself, are doomed to fade away
into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two
/ in reality, the union of the two can be seen only as the cosmic vacuum /
will preserve an independent reality.”
/ Hermann Minkowski /

[Cerveny]

After all, I'm afraid that's the only reasonable explanation for reality. I can't understand otherwise why there is only a limited spectrum of stable particles, why spin and electric charge can only have a limited value, why particles can only apear in complementary pairs. What hinders other possibilities!!? So I strongly believe that all the properties of reality are derived from the (lattice) structure of its regular, discrete substrate, from the crystal of physical space. Please refer to the terms "crystal defects", "growth of screw dislocations" ~ spin…

Your problem is not the physics. Your problem is your normatives (as usual).

You have some pre-conceived notions of "reasonableness", "explanation" and "understanding".
You actually believe reality is understandable to us, apes.

The crux of your problem is that you missed the word "model" in the "standard model of physics". Maybe you have a mathematical intuition for what a model is. Maybe you understand that given finite observations - infinite models are possible. Maybe you don't.
Maybe lattices aren't the correct mathematical structure in which to interpret the results and you need a bigger, higher-order structure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

I am to say that I have no problem. I just wonder if any brave physicists and logicians will at least try to indicate what could prevent the charge and spin values ​​from taking on different values ​​and what mechanism ensures that particles are formed only in complementary pairs. Please do not write the word "law" in any answer.

[Age]

an absolute Minkowski 4D "spacetime''

So, from what you are saying and showing here 'spacetime' is just an idea or concept, and therefore what 'spacetime' is Really made of is just 'human thought' only.

If, however, any one wants to KNOW what thee Universe, Itself, and/or 'space' and 'time' as well, are REALLY made up of, then that would, literally, be another question.

“The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
They are radical. Henceforth, (gravity) space (of planets) by itself,
and (gravity) time (of planets) by itself, are doomed to fade away
into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two
/ in reality, the union of the two can be seen only as the cosmic vacuum /
will preserve an independent reality.”
/ Hermann Minkowski /

So, again, what you are just saying is that this so-called 'spacetime' exists ONLY in 'human thought' ALONE.

[Skepdick]

I am to say that I have no problem. I just wonder if any brave physicists and logicians will at least try to indicate what could prevent the charge and spin values ​​from taking on different values ​​and what mechanism ensures that particles are formed only in complementary pairs. Please do not write the word "law" in any answer.

Potato. Potatoh.

Any mechanism made explicit which imposes the limits you imply exist qualifies as a "law".

Mechanical systems have limits.