Have you ever had thoughts, questions, and speculations, and you wished you had someone with whom you could discuss them- I mean serious stuff, not “It’s hot for this time of year” or “How about those Cubs?”
If you have someone like that, good for you. If you don’t, you might consider an AI tool like ChatGPT, for instance.
I enjoy science. I subscribe to Wired, Discover, New Scientist, Scientific American, and The Week. That is not nearly enough to make me an expert in any field, but it is enough to spark my curiosity about many things.
When I have a question or an idea, I bounce it off my AI. I recognize that any answer might be a hallucination, but of course, that can be true of any information source.
If you do this with your ideas, one caveat: Always tell your AI, “Don’t be nice; be truthful.” Otherwise, all you’ll get are responses that tell you what a great idea you have.
For the past few weeks, I’ve been reading about things we don’t know. The reason: When there is a well-agreed-upon hypothesis that has some areas of important mystery, it could be a sign that the hypothesis itself is wrong.
Examples:
- Quantum entanglement. No one knows how that “spooky action at a distance” works, yet it seems to exist. How and why?
- Gravity. There should be gravitons, but we can’t find them. Why, and why is it so weak?
- Black holes. There should be singularities, but they require infinities, with which no one is comfortable. And then there is the information paradox, which seems to imply that all the information about the matter sucked into a black hole isn’t actually in there at all, but possibly on the surface—if there were a surface.
- Dark matter. We keep looking for it. We see its gravity. But we don’t know what it is. Why can’t we find it?
- Dark Energy. In a space-only universe, dark energy may not be energy at all, but an emergent effect of global spatial curvature — the large-scale “relaxation” or “pressure” of space itself as it unfolds its intrinsic shape.
If you are a science buff, like me, these things fascinate you. Your imagination tries to solve problems that experts have failed to solve. One might thing that might give you the humility to give up. But I can’t. I keep asking myself, “What if . . .?”
So, out of curiosity, and with no one else to ask, I asked ChatGPT a series of “what ifs,” and we talked and talked. This is what I finally asked: “What if the universe is made of space?”
We believe space is not an empty void. Every cubic centimeter is loaded with every kind of photon, gravity, and other fields, as well as a few atoms, some of which are thought to pop in and out of existence. So space exists, and it has physical properties, like every substance with which you are familiar.
In the distant past, if you asked, “What is the universe made of, the answer might have been earth, water, air, and fire. Recently, the same question might have elicited the answer: six kinds of quarks, electrons, fields, and forces.
But if you drill down from there and ask what the six quarks, electrons, and the many fields are made of, you arrive at the limits of current knowledge.
With help from my AI friend, I constructed a brief speculation. If you’re a physicist, it could be an idea starter. If you just enjoy science, like me, it could be an interesting read:
What If the Universe is Made of Space?Abstract
This paper proposes a simplification of physical reality: that space itself is the one fundamental substance, and that all phenomena — particles, fields, forces, and gravity — emerge from the geometry and topology of space.
Rather than treating space as a passive container or requiring additional entities like strings or multidimensional branes, let’s consider the possibility that space itself is the sole foundational, dynamic, self-structuring, physical entity.
In this framework, mass arises from localized geometric or topological features, gravity is a manifestation of space curvature, and even “dark matter” becomes a purely geometric effect — a feature of shaped space without particle content.
Topology, rather than particle composition, becomes the primary mathematical language of fundamental physics.
1. Introduction: What Is Everything Made Of? Physicists routinely answer this ancient question with layered complexity. Electrons are elementary particles; protons are made of quarks and gluons.
String theory offers vibrating strings. Loop quantum gravity speaks of spin networks. But beneath each proposal lurks a deeper question: What are these things made of? What is the most elementary thing?
This paper explores the possibility that everything — particles, mass, gravity, and even charge — arises from the shape, structure, and fluctuations of physical space itself.
Not space plus matter. Not space plus fields. Just space. It’s not chemistry. It’s not quantum mechanics. It’s topology.
2. The Failure of Substance-Based Models Traditional physics builds up the world from “things”: particles, fields, and forces within space. But this model has failed to answer certain fundamental questions.
We don’t know what particles are; we only know how they behave. We assign mass and charge, but don’t explain their origins. Dark matter resists detection — is it even “stuff”?
Singularities (in black holes, the Big Bang) produce infinities — a sure sign of a model breaking down.
3. The Proposal: Space Is All There Is We propose a single physical postulate: Everything is made of space.
This is a physical hypothesis with testable implications. The idea is that space is not a void, but a structured entity with features, curvatures, and possibly quantized topologies.
All observed phenomena arise from local or global behaviors of this structured space.
4. Gravity and the Geometry of Space Einstein’s general relativity already describes gravity as the curvature of spacetime. But it assumes that mass-energy causes curvature.Yet the field equations are symmetric. Either side of that “equals” sign can be the cause, and either side can be the effect. We can equally well interpret curved space as the source of the appearance of mass.
In this view, mass is not a source but a symptom — the visible behavior of a shaped region of space.
5. Particles as Topological Features Particles are modeled as stable topological structures in space — localized twists, knots, or curvature concentrations. The electron is not a tiny object within space — it is a shaped portion of space.Mass arises from the strength or complexity of this physical structure.
6. The Dark Matter Reinterpretation If structured space can create gravitational effects without particles, then “dark matter” is simply space shaped in a way that produces the appearance of gravity without interacting with light.
This explains why gravity interacts gravitationally, but not electromagnetically, because it is space.
7. A World Without Infinities Singularities are the seeming result of forcing substance into zero volume. If there is no “stuff” separate from space, then singularities vanish, replaced by extreme, but finite, geometry — a tight knot in the fabric of space.
Black holes and the Big Bang are not violations of physics; they are specialized shapes.
8. Implications and Outlook This perspective replaces the particle zoo and quantum field landscape with a unified geometric foundation.
Future research might reframe conservation laws as topological invariants, build models where particles emerge from geometry, and experimentally search for gravitational anomalies in “empty” space.
9. Block Universe Revisited: Space as the Only Substance If space is the only fundamental entity, and all things are simply configurations of it, then distance and time may be emergent illusions — coordinate labels applied to evolving patterns.
In this view, the universe may be a timeless structure — a “block” — in which all events are spatial configurations. The illusion of motion arises as consciousness tracks spatial transitions, like a needle reading a record groove.
10. Black Holes as Structures of Space: Holography Without Paradox In standard theory, black holes are defined by mass collapsing past an event horizon into a singularity — an undefined “inside” that traps all information.But in the space-only model, black holes are simply extreme, self-sustaining distortions of space. The “interior” does not exist as a separate location but as a deeper fold of space itself.
There is no need for a substance to collapse to an infinitely small point. There is only shaped space.
This view aligns with the holographic principle, which posits that all information about a black hole is encoded on its event horizon. That’s exactly what we’d expect if the black hole is a geometric structure, not a container for hidden matter.
In this view, what we call the “interior” of a black hole is not cut off or hidden — it is not a place beyond the horizon. Rather, the horizon itself is the full expression of the structure.
The event horizon is not just a boundary, but the black hole itself. The entropy-area law, previously surprising, becomes natural: surface curvature stores information.
The infamous information paradox evaporates. Since there is no “interior,” there is nowhere for information to be lost. A black hole is not a mystery box — it is an observable surface behavior of space.
There is no deeper layer beyond the horizon that must be resolved — the horizon itself is the complete object.
Entanglement, too, may emerge as a shared topological structure in space. What appears as “spooky action at a distance” becomes a manifestation of connected curvature.
The ER=EPR conjecture — that wormholes and entanglement are the same — finds a home here. In a universe made only of space, all connection is curvature, and all curvature is physical.
The black hole does not hide anything behind it; it is what it shows. The event horizon is not a veil but a shape. It’s all there — visible, measurable, present. The black hole is what the space is doing right in front of us.
Conclusion Instead of asking, “What is matter made of?” we ask, “What does space do that makes it look like matter?”
This leads to the fundamental idea: The universe is not made of things in space — it is made of space itself.
Everything is shape.
==========================================
Terminology Note. Throughout this paper:
Structure refers generally to any persistent organization in space.
Shape implies a recognizable geometric configuration.
Curvature specifically denotes mathematical deviation from flatness.
Topology refers to features that are consistent under continuous deformation, such as connectedness or the presence of holes.
These terms overlap conceptually because the hypothesis under exploration treats all physical properties as expressions of spatial configuration, at varying levels of mathematical abstraction.
============================================ Objections and Brief Responses- “Is this just another version of general relativity?” It’s inspired by GR but goes further: it denies the existence of mass or energy as causes of curvature. Instead, all phenomena are treated as expressions of space itself.
- “If space is everything, what defines scale?” The model assumes that curvature and topology can define effective quantities, such as mass and size, without referring to anything external to space.
- “How does this handle quantum behavior?” One possible avenue for examination is whether quantum effects reflect topological transitions or limitations in the continuous deformation of space.
- “What about symmetries?” They may emerge from the ways space allows localized configurations to maintain equivalence classes under deformation — that is, symmetry may be topological rather than algebraic at root.
- “What about gauge symmetries?” In conventional physics, gauge symmetries are just mathematical tools and may not reflect physical realities. The need for a gauge field arises only when we demand a certain kind of measure, not because nature requires it.
- “If this model is right, where’s the math?” This is a conceptual paper. Future work must rigorously connect this framework to formal geometry, particularly differential topology and possibly twistor or spin network theory.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;
MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;
……………………………………………………………………..
A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.
MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
Where does the space geometry come from? You end up with an Ultimate Being, and both are the same to me.
On the other hand, you can be headed down the wrong road, like Ptolemy’s geocentric model of the sun orbiting the planets. The more he tried fudging it, the more confusing it became—Copernicus and Galileo set it straight. My question is, are you overlooking something?
If space is a form of gravity, then space and Dark Matter are also mathematically regulated according to Newtonian law. Essentially, you’re talking about a universe constructed from general mathematical and geometrical principles. For example, unity begins at 2; no matter how large or small an object, there exists a concave inside and a convex outside—a pure empirical principle of geometry. Somewhere along the way, these “old” principles have to be satisfied in the general scheme of any new theory of complete unification.
LikeLike
Why I believe the universe is “made of” space.
Modern physics teaches that mass and energy are two sides of the same coin. This is not just a mathematical equivalence. It is an identity.
When we say E=mc2 , we’re not just converting units. We recognize that what we perceive as “mass” and what we perceive as “energy” are both something deeper.
Electrons, for instance, are not little lumps of material. In the quantum view, they are disturbances in fields — pure energetic events.
I suspect the same is true of quarks and everything else we classify as “fundamental.” They are not “made of” something. They are something happening, something shaped, something structured, something stable.
What allows these events to take place? What governs their shape and stability? Gravity.
We tend to treat gravity as just one of four forces. But gravity is different, and that difference, rather than being a puzzle, is a clue.
Unlike the others, gravity is not a field operating within space — gravity is the shape of space. It doesn’t act on space; it is space behaving geometrically.
Think of the transformations that make the universe dynamic: stars burn, collapse, explode; black holes form; galaxies swirl; particles emerge and decay.
Every one of these transformations –mass becoming energy, energy condensing into matter — is governed by gravity.
It is gravity that compresses the cores of stars. Gravity that leads to collapse, to nova, to supernova, to black holes. Gravity that sets the stage for fusion, fission, and the very formation of atoms after the Big Bang.
Without gravity, there would be no atoms or molecules, no substance. I propose that gravity causes substance, not the other way around. Gravity is the engine of creation.
But if gravity is just shaped space, then what we’re really saying is that space itself generates everything.
Not a passive container, but the active substance from which all form emerges.
This aligns with the equations of general relativity with the cause to the left of the equals sign, and the effect to the right.
It aligns with quantum field theory, where particles are not little billiard balls but ripples in continuous fields.
And it might help make sense of the deep mystery of dark matter and dark energy, which we detect only gravitationally, and cannot observe directly.
If these are features of space, not separate “stuff,” then their invisibility makes sense.
Some might argue that this picture merely shifts the burden of explanation — that instead of asking “What is matter made of?” we’re now asking “What is space made of?”
But I think that’s the wrong question. Space is not made of anything, but rather, the universe is made of space. It is the baseline. Everything else is a structure, a fluctuation, or a fold within it.
Why do I believe the universe is made of space?
Because the more we probe mass, energy, and force, the more they dissolve into geometry, interaction, and pattern. All roads lead back to geometry. And geometry is what space does.
Enjoy the exercise in thought.
LikeLike
gravity causes substance, not the other way around. Gravity is the engine of creation.
If gravity causes substance, then gravity is the universal CEO. How does Newton’s law of gravity figure in and why the second power? And what causes gravity? Or is it an eternal law without beginning or end, the causer, not the causee?
LikeLike
Thanks for the fun, engaging read. It will be re-read with more thought applied.
LikeLike
In algebra, the equals sign (=) does not indicate causation, just identity. But causation often is implied by traditional use. For instance, E=MC2 or simply E=M, depending on starting values, can mean that Mass leads to Energy or Energy leads to Mass.
In our day-to-day lives, we often experience Mass creating Energy (for instance, fire). Seldom do we see Energy creating Mass. But in the extreme environment of a nova, we may see the opposite, and that is where matter comes from. But the equation still holds.
When I say Space is Gravity, and the Universe is made of Space (and so, the universe is made of Gravity) the fundamental equations for gravity (aka Relativity) may not change. What changes is the arrow of time.
Most researchers believe Mass creates gravity. I suggest the possibility that Gravity (space) creates Mass and topology is the key math.
This is all a speculative way to approach several problems (dark matter, dark energy, infinities in black holes, information loss in black holes, the inside of black holes, etc.) that don’t seem to be yielding to standard cosmology.
Any proofs will be in the maths, which sadly are beyond me at this late stage of my life.
In essence, I am saying to all who will listen, “You’ve tried many paths and none of them have led you to an answer to some important questions. Here is another path you may not have tried. I’m too old to go more than a step or two. If you think it has possibilities, you try it. Good luck.”
In the previous posts and in a few upcoming posts, I’ll try to take a few steps down the path, but to go all the way will require someone with more abilities.
LikeLike