From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.




n mathematics one examines spaces with different numbers of dimensions and with different underlying structures.


In mathematics one has to distinguish between geometrical spaces, in which 'point', buttville'line' and 'plane' have their intuitive meaning of olden times, and abstract spaces (sets) like function spaces, in which 'point' means hardly more than 'element'. Geometrical spaces can have different numbers of dimensions and different underlying structures.

Ldboer (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

generally, the goal of replacing buttsacks are big things is accuracy or clarity, as well as relevance. Yours maybe gets the accuracy, although you don't source that so its just a guess, but fails the other two. Theres no good reason. Also, what does space have to do with a racehorse from the early 1960s? (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

grammatical error[edit]

In the first sentence of the article, "in which objects and events occur" should be "in which objects exist and events occur." I cannot correct this because it is currently locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


Currently this article is evenly split on -ISE and -IZE spellings

  • idealised
  • formalised
  • characterized
  • specialized

However, the second version of the article used "modeled", which is the American spelling, not the British spelling, "modelled".

This 2005-JUN-17 edit introduced -ise and -ize at the same time (popularised, specialised) and (characterized)

This 2005-JUN-18 edit removed "characterized"

This 2005-AUG-12 edit added "generalize"

This 2006-JAN-16 edit added "defineable"

As I understand it, British spelling accepts both -ise and -ize, giving -ize some claim also to being more "international". That claim is reinforced by -ize also being the spelling used in most Canadian style-guides. Based on initial use of "modeled" and subsequent mixed usage of -ise and -ize, it appears that "-ize" spelling and "American" engvar has presumed preference.--JimWae (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

British spelling does not accept -ize endings (otherwise WP would have standardised on them a long time ago I think): I have to stop my spell-corrector "fixing" American spellings like that when editing articles, and occasionally force myself to use them for consistency, but such spellings still look odd to me despite my time here.
this seems to be the earliest version that's not a DAB page, and it has one use of -ize, two of -ise and a modeled, so two each of US and British spellings. The change was "(Merged in content from Physical space, Space (astronomy), Space (philosophy), Space (physics) and Space (mathematics) as per vfd on Physical Space)", so there's no clear first editor or edit.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

According to this source, British spelling does accept -IZE. (I have found other support for this before, and will look for it again). The article started out as a non-DAB page, and the very 2nd version back in 2001-OCT-03 used "modeled". It appears, WP:RETAIN would call for "American" spelling for this article.--JimWae (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

These Wikipedia sources support -IZE in British usage:--JimWae (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And I'll just add that Oxford University Press standardizes on the -ize endings for all of its publications (unsurprisingly). One of the great authorities on the English language, Fowler, was clear that British English should not sacrifice the etymology of those verbs ending in -ize just for the sake of simplicity in remembering which take -ise from etymology (surprise, analyse) and which take -ize (from Greek -izein)... See: this entry in Fowler's Modern English Usage (not so modern now!). GKantaris (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


When people say "nothing go's on forever" do they mean it literly because if "space" is empty and there is nothing in it, that would me nothing does go on forever. So where does space end/begin? And if noting is at the end/begin of space it truly does go on forever. urName (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a question for the wp:Reference desk/Science. DVdm (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Using Britannica's definition?[edit]

I was a little surprised to find this article lifting its opening (definition) sentence from the current edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (albeit with attribution). I know that some entries in Wikipedia are/were originally taken from out-of-copyright editions of Britannica, but the definition given here is taken from the current edition (and the 1911 out-of-copyright edition does not have a succinct definition because it treats Space and Time together under a philosohical discussion). Looking back in the Archive, I see a lot of disagreement over the definition in the lead, so it may be that the use of Britannica was decided on as the only feasible solution, but it does seem like something of a cop out! GKantaris (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. Further, I think the Britannica definition ("Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.") is flawed. I don't think "direction" is a valid concept without the dimension "time". Therefore, there should be no mention of "direction" in the definition. --WithGLEE (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Space a valid concept without the dimension time? Can the two be meaningfllu described as separate?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC) and we dont know.

THIS MIGHT HAPPEN IN 20,000,000 YEARS.......[edit]

So your probley wondering what will happen in 20,000,000 years. I will tell you right now what will mabey happen in 20,000,000. The sun might grow so big it will "breath in" 3 plants (Mercury,Venus and Earth.) So the world may end...........D: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbylw7 (talkcontribs) 01:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Scary!! MadZarkoff (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Read the statement at the top of this page:This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.Hellbound Hound (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article[edit]

I feel this article should be nominated for featured article. It's well written and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghunc (talkcontribs) 06:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


WHere is there any mentnion of the first meaning kids learn ???? Space is above our atmosphere. Completely neglected. This is a travesty. WHH???? (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's why there's a hatnote (the very first sentence) saying This article is about the general framework of distance and direction. For the space beyond Earth's atmosphere, see Outer space.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Is space boundless?[edit]

space is inside your body and outside your body , matter makes your body.

space can be inside and outside at the same time but matter is inside space you can't touch space . space is mystery and you can't solve it . space is limitless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Since it is unknown what exist outside our own universe, and it has become a scientific assertion that our universe indeed has bounds, then to define space as boundless and 3 dimensional seems to be inaccurate. In the spirit of simplicity i understand that we are not going to have a existential discussion about the nature of the universe or its size. But i would caution the use of the term boundless as it is quite assumptive. Perhaps something more accurate like "Space is a word used to describe 3 dimensional measurements within our universe" . maybe you can come up with something better. Aperseghin (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC) a have added the [dubious ] template to this statement because i believe it isΔρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, current mainstream conjecture remains that the universe is infinite in extent (the shape described by the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric). A few alternatives are presented at Shape of the Universe, but despite multiple searches, no evidence for closed shapes has yet been found in the cosmic microwave background (you'd see various types of repeating pattern if the universe was sufficiently small). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Um according to what we know of physics and the big bang, the universe has an AGE and therefore has BOUNDS because it expanded at a measurable speed from the beginning and has done so for the entire TIME. SPEED x TIME = DISTANCE (aka bounds). the universe != space . SPACE is 3d area the universe is space + time + its forces. Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
No, that's just the size of the observable universe (the distance light from the beginning of the universe could travel to reach us). Per big bang, when space itself is expanding, different parts can be expanding faster than light relative to each other (everything outside the observation horizon is moving FTL relative to us). Space's size is also independent of its expansion rate. Consider a balloon: I can inflate it as slowly or quickly as I like. Measuring how fast the surface of the balloon stretches tells me nothing about the size of the balloon. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The current info on NASA's site shows the universe to be flat, with a extremely small (0.5%) margin of error. It also explains that no rules are violated with infinite space, because everything in space has a finite lifespan. (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
aND TO QUOTE THEM "All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe." NOW THAT WAS IN 2001. So my point is that since that time (2001) we have learned alot including that though we cant see past observable space (AGE x C distance from us) somewhere out there, it ends. (ask hawking)Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing several things. Hawking's work concerns black holes, not the observable universe. There has been no discovery of an "end" to space, so I have no idea where you're getting that from. The edge of the observable universe is, and remains, the cosmic microwave background emitted during the time of decoupling of matter and light (when matter ceased to be ionized and light could finally pass through it). Objects nearer to us - quasars - are routinely described as being 40+ billion light-years away, so your claim of "age x C" is incorrect, per my previous reply to you. You can find out where those numbers come from by looking up "Comoving distance" and "Proper distance". For distances larger than a few billion light-years, the metric expansion of space gives you a longer distance than your value (your value is only true if space doesn't expand). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
ok lets dumb this down for a moment. Singularity > Bang > Expansion (faster than the speed of light)> time passes (time that according to hawking did not exist before the bang)> we get to NOW. So NOW the expansion has been happening for a set TIME. Speed * Time = distance. does not matter how much distance, its a measurable distance, therefore finite and not boundless Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
That would assume that there is no space beyond the farthest objects. That would be assuming that space is some kind of entity that is constantly being created, rather than (3) dimension(s). That would be assuming that objects are moving toward a "no-place" where space does not yet "exist" (toward "no-space"). There's a difference between space and space that has been occupied. --JimWae (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
An infinite space can still expand. That's exactly what the metric expansion of space is, and what the FLRW metric describes. For any given points, the distance between them later is larger than the distance between them earlier, no matter where you choose the points to be in the infinite range of coordinates available to you.
Having a singularity at the beginning doesn't change this; it just means that as you track time back to zero, the distance between any two points becomes zero. This happens no matter where you choose the points to be at nonzero time, in the infinite range of coordinates available to you.
The simplest example of a system like this: consider a space expansion scheme where . Particles at rest some distance apart at time t are twice as far apart at time 2 t, half as far apart at time 0.5 t, and at one singular location at time t = 0. Points far enough apart will be moving FTL relative to each other, and so be outside each others' "observation horizons". Because it's space itself that expands, FTL is allowed.
The actual expansion formula is more complicated than this, but not by very much, and has similar features. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Our concept of a possible volume of space is an orthogonal 3 dimensional concept, and there is no reason to consider it to be lass than boundless! With reference to our Universe there are reasons to consider it to be less than boundless in spacial volume due to physical considerations. The idea of an orthogonal 4 dimensioned spacetime continuum is a misconception because there are no orthogonal 4 dimensional spaces. What there are with relation to the existence of matter within a spacial volume are noted instance events related to the relative positions of matter in space that change over intervals of time. Then the logic of Mathematics tries to rationalize the noted variability of the spacial dimensions with the time dimension and winds up with mathematical formulae that disagree with our classical independent dimension concepts. This has resulted in the concept that matter may move an infinite distance through a 3 dimensional space during a zero time time interval!WFPM (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)This defies our logic with relation to the sequencing and integration of instances of time into the interval units of the time continuum.WFPM (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, we have made elaborate efforts to determine the velocity of light through space to a high degree of accuracy and have defined its value to 10 significant figures. We know for example that the time of existence of the universe advances by approximately 2.5 seconds while a light from the earth goes to the moon and is reflected back to the earth's transmission point.WFPM (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a physicist, but doesn't an actual infinity lead to logical contradictions, like Hilbert's hotel room paradox?

From your osition in space the boundary of space is far away 'there'. From the position 'there' the boundary of space is where you are now. Since the observer can be in any point of space the boundary of space is in every point of the space. Therefore the boundary is not at a distance in straight line, instead it is 'here' in the smallest unit of space. Beyond that boundary there is immaterial space time to which the observer has no access with his material senses and his body made of electromagnetism and atoms and existing in the space time of the material Universe. KK ( (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC))

What are the meaning of "Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent..."? Does it mean while space is boundless, but yet finite? Space don't have any topology, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It means there is no physical limit to space. There is no end of area, and if something could move in one direction forever, it would never reach an end. The part that's finite is the part that has stuff in it, but it continually grow. There is a border of sorts, made up of the things which are the farthest away from the center at any given time. But space itself continues beyond it, without any end of any sort. There's just nothing there yet, except possibly a higgs field. This idea makes sense, but our minds seem to be incapable of imagining an infinite amount of area, so it can cause confusion. (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2014[edit]

Selvakumar srs (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Please resubmit your request with any necessary sources detailing the changes you would like made. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 15:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracy or ambiguity[edit]

"time goes more slowly at places with lower gravitational potentials" What does the "lower" mean here, either lower potential, which would be at points further from the gravitational mass (and the statement would be factually incorrect) or lower towards the gravitational mass (which would make the statement factually correct but a confusing use of language)

I think this phrase should read "time goes more slowly at places with stronger gravitational potentials" <<< and I'm not sure the terminal "s" is needed either! This phrasing is then consistent with the description in the first paragraph of the related link : — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Lastly, and more trivially, I'm not sure time "goes" anywhere, perhaps "proceeds"? or "passes"? or "evolves"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2015[edit]

Previous research has illustrated that space constraints can increase regulation of motor and social activity. Data collected both internationally and within the U.S. showed that people in more populated areas have lower leve lof revanlence in overwierght and obesity as well as lower rates of road trafiic accidents comparing to less populated regions. The effect of spacial constraints revealed that people tend to be less motivated to purchase products and less likely to comsume high-calorie foods while standing in smaller spaces[1] (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Xu, Alison Jing and Dolores Albarracín (2014), “Space Constraints Facilitate Behavioral Control: Field Data and Laboratory Evidence,” presented at presented at the Association for Consumer Research Conference (competitive paper), October, Baltimore, Maryland.
Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 14:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Three-dimensional space should redirect here[edit]

Pls weigh in here: Talk:Three-dimensional space#2nd merger. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

space — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2016[edit] (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


Nothingness ‘0’ is contradiction of Totality’1’. The trinity of Nothingness, the Totality and the difference ‘<’ between them can be noted as (0<1). When Totality ‘1’ consists of ‘c’ parts of 1/c one part 1/c is the observer of this plurality and it is a unit of measurement of magnitude of the Totality and of each of its parts. Existence of the observer changes existence of Nothingness to non-existence. Isolation of the observer 1/c from the Totality of c makes the duality of Nothingness and Totality imperfect as (0<(c-1)). The imperfection changes observation of the duality in the first ‘now’ to observation of four elements in the next ‘now’, two of them ’independent ‘outside’ and two ‘inside’ as memory of contents of the first ‘now’ At the same time the observation moves location of self of the observer in opposite direction namely from increase in plurality to decrease.. Each time the observer changes his ‘now’ from ‘n’ to (n+1) he doubles plurality of parts of the Totality and halves magnitude of each part.. Each point ‘u’ on the difference < between two realities is the Trinity (0<1) in which ‘0’ is Nothingness and the beginning containing memory of non existing past and ‘1’ is the end and the imperfect totality of ‘now’. A part of the difference is u=n/c where (0<n<c) while (0<c<oo). Continuous change of ‘now’ creates our reality which is static as Totality of ‘1’ but which is dynamic internally The difference < varies from identity to contradiction. ( (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC))KK bottom line is you know NOT A thing about space and you will never know!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)