What is "spacetime" really?

[watcher]

So, if humans never evolved, cosmos would not exist? (Get a grip!)

 

to me its a misconception that consciousness is a human property. if two fundamental particles interact to create everything, don't you think that interaction would only take place if the particles acknowledge the presence of one another. so to a sense at least there is a primordial awareness already implied in the process of the fundamental interaction. and not merely something that happened to humans.

 

You are demonstrating the strict dogma that "everything is relative" rather than being open to a transcendental view of the cosmos, at least as a thought experiment.

 

i am not. but i see no use in trying to junk relativity to do so,

and besides QM is already here to transcends the classical view of the cosmos to give us a different view of the universe.

but instead of space as something absolute, spacetime itself is enfolded and unified.

 

From the latter perspective, now is the omnipresent present. Anticipation of the future does not make it present. Neither does remembering the past or reviewing recorded history. There *is* only now... the simultaneous present everywhere. And, as a whole, cosmos is not fragmented into individual observer perspectives as relativity demands.

You and other relativity dogmatists here simply can not see the Whole Picture *in the mind's eye* of course.

 

of course i can imagine an eternal now. what i am trying to say is that an eternal now must be non-local and nondual. and if you demand an absolute perspective, an absolute observer must at least be assumed to exist. this will agree with my line of thinking that consciousness is also fundamental and universal in nature.

 

So you are indeed a solipsist who believes that reality/cosmos is "created" by our human perception and resulting awareness of it! I find this an absurd "philosophy of science" in the extreme! No, Watcher, the cosmos is not a virtual reality game created by homosapiens!

 

again depends on how you see consciousness. we cannot deny the role of consciousness, after all your "theory " sprang from the faculty of your perception. what you "see" is simply a state of consciousness. a glimpse of "oneness". this of course is real, it gives us a clue about the underlying reality of our cosmos. but relativity is not necessarily wrong. it actually compliments what you see. as bohm used to say .. fragmentation of something implies that something whole is being divided.

i would like to think that the classical world of relativity is an emergent system sprang from what you have envisioned.

 

Well, as others have pointed out, cosmic consciousness is not the subject of contemporary science but belongs in religion, spirituality and transpersonal psychology.

I have "seen" cosmos from the perspective of such cosmic consciousness for forty years, an hour a day in meditation, and it is the basis of the vision from which my cosmology springs and that which transcends the local perspectives and limitations of lightspeed intrinsic to relativity.

 

But no one here is "grokking it" even though it is another philosophical "take" on the ontology of the cosmos. It is flat-out denied by the died-in-the-wool dogmatic relativists here.

 

maybe you have a wrong interpretation of your visions. in the realm of the photons, there is no space between objects to speak of. (in my transcendental view) light is simply prior to spacetime. that is how relativity can be transcended. you can treat space as geometry or energy density but you cannot isolate it with everything on it. imo

 

for example, faster than lightspeed based on particle entanglement of QM is a wrong assumption since speed is a classical idea. but we can infer an omnipresent dynamics (for lack of better terms) to explain the instantaneous interaction of classical particles.

 

No, I can not devise experiments for empirical verification. Neither can the M-theory camp.

Mine is just another cosmological hat in the ring.

 

Michael

 

well i can agree with you that relativity doesn't have the final say in physics. :thumbs_up

[modest]

Don't go away Michael, I for one am enjoying your posts and I too see some of what you are saying. I have often thought of the idea of a universal time as seen from an observer outside and existing in a higher dimension. Such an observer could see the entire cosmos as a "now" and all the things we see as relative time is really localized distortions that would appear as such to an outside observer. I have been in the M theory camp for some time (a camp follower really) but the idea makes sense to me on a level that is best described as transcendent. Of course i don't have the math or the training to make any real claims or to espouse theories but it makes sense to me so carry on, some of us are lurking on the side lines trying to wrap our minds around the "big" ideas too.

 

I previously pointed out your 15179 thread to Mr. Mooney... :hihi:

 

~modest

[watcher]

But this whole thread is a challenge to the common error of reification of time as if it is something that can "dilate" etc. So part two of my quote is the simple truth that "it" is always, perpetually now, the present... everywhere. (The "future" is not yet real/present and the "past" is not still real and present....

 

if i understand you correctly, "now" is something that is present in all points of space and in all points of timeline. but there is nothing that exists in all points of space but space it self. same with time. so by your idea it appears that this "thing" you called now is a non-reified, ontological equivalent of spacetime itself? yes?

 

and there is no "time" at all "between" future and past. The present is always present. Now is always now. And the cosmos is dynamic, always in process of change, always now.

 

okay the whole process of change just happens or contained within the non-reified spacetime you called now.

 

if were on the same page here, i am interested (aside as a thought experiment) how do you qualify and quantify the " now" . perhaps relativity was already the quantification and qualification of the undivided cosmos you are talking about.

 

"now" as a unified non-reified spacetime whose vector components were space is the x-axis and time in the y-axis. orthagonal to each other,

 

if this is the case, i cannot think of any way to bypass all the mental construct and directly accessing this "now" other that from our experience. and what is the vehicle of our experience?

[Michael Mooney]

Mm:

see, i happen to know that the actual distance (space) between objects does not vary with observer perspective. (it varies with orbit irregularities, cosmic expansion, etc., of course.)

 

you actually do not know this- you believe this but you have never performed experimental tests. But lets take your cosmic objectivity seriously and begin an exercise.

excuse my radical honesty but i *do* know that the actual, objective distance between objects does not vary with differences in subjective perception dependent upon the limits of visual perception as conveyed by photons as image carriers.

 

Your empirical verification fixation ignores the whole realm of the philosophy of science, specifically the inquiry into objective vs subjective dimensions of reality. I *know* that the cosmos exists *as it is* independent of subjective perception. I *know* this from 40 yrs (an hour a day) of transcending subjective perception. You must deny this since you have never experienced it.

Yet this *is* a forum with broader scope than "empirical verification" upon which you obsessively insist, oblovious to the title and scope of this forum.

 

 

the rest of your post assumes the perspective and math language (lets let letters stand for concepts rather than speaking plain english...) of experimental science ignoring the perspective of omnopresent perspective and the timeless present (which is omnipresent0 which i present here... As a philosophy of science... Which you totally ignore ... Based on your bias... Your absolute predjudice that emprical verification of subjective perception... Limited by lightspeed... Is the lat word in science.

 

It is not.

I may or may not be back to address the rest of you post . Basic criticism already precluding further engagement in your "math-mind" exclusive focus.

 

Later... Maybe.

Michael

 

please correct me if i say something you wouldn't agree with.

 

If a cosmic perspective exists, we can imagine a defining a function f that encodes the position and velocity of every particle at t = 0 (i.e. Now) in this perspective (i.e. The cosmic, objective positions and velocities). To define positions and velocities we need to set up a coordinate grid in this empty space, but we can imagine our cosmic observer picking a point to be x=y=z=0 and setting out lines of string with equally spaced beads in every direction and using them to form a coordinate grid. This is reasonable is it not?

 

Physics can make predictions (take this is an empirical fact), so our cosmic observer must be able to predict what will happen in the future. In this case, this will involve setting up a map h that takes f to some new function g. This function g encodes all of the particles positions and velocities in the universe at some future instant. I.e. H encompasses all the rules the universe use to produce the "new present" from the "old present." are you with me so far? Does this seem like a reasonable approach to defining physics from your universal observer?

 

 

 

This is not true. It would require traveling at .992c (give or take a little) to travel 8 light minutes in one minute. This is slower then light speed.

 

Also,yes, if you accelerate a magnet, it will give off light (or rather e/m radiation).

[Michael Mooney]

forum:

Shotgun approach tonight... maybe more continuity in reply tomorrow...

(I'm a busy man... most of us are... but I'm off grid at my center for several days at a time)...

MM:

I know that lightspeed is constant and can be used as a measure of distance, as in light seconds, minutes, years. I know that objectively speaking the sun is 8+ light minutes from earth. I know that it takes light 8+ minutes to travel that distance. So even your virtual clocks (as in exercise #4 referenced by Modest) would require a virtual/fictional velocity of over nine times lightspeed to reach the sun in 50 seconds.

Erasmus:

This is NOT true. It would require traveling at .992c (give or take a little) to travel 8 light minutes in one minute. This is SLOWER then light speed.

 

What is "true?" Lightspeed is constant. (true) It travels at 186,000 mps. (true.) The average distance (considering orbital variation) between sun and earth is about 93 million miles... (or equivalent kilometers or earth-diameters or light minutes.) The latter *measure of distance* is standardized at a little over 8 light minutes... the actual time it take light to travel the actual distance. (It is not dependent on subjective thought experiments as per "from the perspective of a photon"... or "as recorded by various speeding clocks from various moving loci at different speeds,... as they no longer keep accurate time after accelleration into different velocities... tho the inaccuracies can be accurately calculated and compensated... thanks to relativity...

 

 

I'm again called away... enough for tonight.

See ya tomorrow.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Don't go away Michael, I for one am enjoying your posts and I too see some of what you are saying. I have often thought of the idea of a universal time as seen from an observer outside and existing in a higher dimension. Such an observer could see the entire cosmos as a "now" and all the things we see as relative time is really localized distortions that would appear as such to an outside observer. I have been in the M theory camp for some time (a camp follower really) but the idea makes sense to me on a level that is best described as transcendent. Of course i don't have the math or the training to make any real claims or to espouse theories but it makes sense to me so carry on, some of us are lurking on the side lines trying to wrap our minds around the "big" ideas too.

 

Hi Moontanman,

I appreciate your support and understanding.

I have repeatedly asked the moderators here to tell me how they disagree with my two part analysis of "what is time" transcribed from the thread of that title to this one, above not too far back. No reply, as they insist on reifiying time.

(Post #186, p. 19)

Maybe it requires forty years of transcending "time" to actually "grok" the timeless, omnipresent now and see time for the mere convention it is as the human perspective on selected event duration (selected being the key word.)

Clearly local perspectives depend on the limit of lightspeed and relativity has become a fine tool for predictions dependent on lightspeed. But hardly anyone here will look at the cosmic picture as transcending local perspective.

 

I too have followed developments in "string theory" from its early days to its present "M-theory" formulation, but i see no merit in it. If you or anyone here can explain the "seven dimensions" beyond the obvious spacial three and "time", as required in the 11 dimensional version of M-theory, I will reconsider its merit, but it reads like sci-fi with contrived esoteric math to me.

 

And then there is the "space" component of "spacetime." Can anyone here tell me how positing "curved space" adds anything to the scientific body of knowledge of object trajectories as they travel *through empty space* as all masses pull on each other gravitationally? So far the answer is "no."

 

Again, thanks for your reply.

Oh, will you give me the link (again) to your work mentioned above by Modest? Thanks.

Michael

[Moontanman]

Again, thanks for your reply.

Oh, will you give me the link (again) to your work mentioned above by Modest? Thanks.

Michael

 

Here is the link

 

http://hypography.com/forums/physics-and-mathematics/15179-universal-time-constant.html

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus,

Just a brief follow up in further reply to your last post;

 

You wrote:

If a cosmic perspective exists, we can imagine a defining a function f that encodes the position and velocity of every particle at t = 0 (i.e. Now) in this perspective (i.e. The cosmic, objective positions and velocities). To define positions and velocities we need to set up a coordinate grid in this empty space, but we can imagine our cosmic observer picking a point to be x=y=z=0 and setting out lines of string with equally spaced beads in every direction and using them to form a coordinate grid. This is reasonable is it not?

 

Physics can make predictions (take this is an empirical fact), so our cosmic observer must be able to predict what will happen in the future. In this case, this will involve setting up a map h that takes f to some new function g. This function g encodes all of the particles positions and velocities in the universe at some future instant. I.e. H encompasses all the rules the universe use to produce the "new present" from the "old present." are you with me so far? Does this seem like a reasonable approach to defining physics from your universal observer?

 

The cosmic perspective I have seen in vision all my adult life is as if a "God's eye" perspective. I have always presented it as outside the scope of empirical verification and frankly spoken of it as metaphysical... which has its appropriate place among visionaries proposing cosmological theories.... way prior to any means of verification.

 

The cosmic perspective does not claim omniscience as to all details of all "particles", however minute or "virtual"... as your above scenario implies. Nor does it imply a grid and vector projection of all particles in the universe with ability to predict "the future" of each. It does claim that local perspective does not encompass the reality of the whole universe.

 

Rather than a

...map h that takes f to some new function g. This function g encodes all of the particles positions and velocities in the universe at some future instant. I.e. H encompasses all the rules the universe use to produce the "new present" from the "old present."

...

 

The cosmic perspective is more like a cosmic hologram in which each locus of its minutia reflect the whole on progressively smaller scales... as per the "nesting holons" of Ken Wilber's integral philosophy...

"...holons all the way up (to the whole universe) and all the way down" (to the smallest... "strings" or whatever.)

 

And there is no "new present" produce out of any "old present." There is always only the present, ongoing, everywhere, perpetually, eternally.

 

I hope this clarifies what I mean by cosmic perspective even though it does not engage your challenge to make a map of everything and all dynamics in the universe... as a "belief in God" might claim as "The Omniscient One."

 

(I was a bit sloppy in my reply last night due to a wedding party. Sorry.)

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Moontanman,

Thanks for the link.

I agree with Reason that:

It is our perception of time that distorts reality, and our perception is limited by the speed of light. But all of the objects in the universe exist in some condition simultaneously at any given moment in time, even as we are unable to perceive of it. That condition is what is relative to universal time as I see it.

...

And his/her further elaboration in post # 10 there.

 

Modests objection is simply that if we can not observe it from local perspective it ain't worth nutin' to science... i.e., "It's all relative." Period!

 

There is more "known" than empirical science can verify. Transcendental perspective falls into the epistemological category of "a-priori knowlege" as for instance resonance in identity with the greater whole... as holgraphic minutia resonate in scaled down unity with the whole hologram. (Actually quite a descriptive metaphore in my experience transcending the a-posteriori epistemology of empirical science.)

 

Michael

[Erasmus00]

Michael- you seem to not understand the point of science. You start from an idea (speed of light is constant, or, in your case, there exists a "cosmic perspective") and you extend the idea, and explore it mathematically.

 

The reason you explore it mathematically is to test its validity. Mathematical development is important- it lets us transcend what we can easily visualize. If your "cosmic perspective" doesn't illuminate some aspect of the universe it is worthless. If it DOES illuminate some feature of the universe then it must make predictions.

 

If I know how hard someone throws a ball, and at what angle, I can predict where the ball will be in a few seconds. With enough information about where Mars is, and how fast its moving, I can predict where Mars will be in a few months time, etc. How does this fit into your cosmic perspective? What does it mean to predict in your cosmic time? If you want anyone to take your ideas seriously then actually develop it.

[watcher]

michael,

 

in the spirit of breaking new grounds of understanding about our universe, i'm with you. eureka and aha moments were always been a major factors in the pursuit of new knowledge in science. the math just follow suit, or even invented for the purpose of the insights.

 

i know there is an inherent difficulty to understand the "mechanics" prior to spacetime. and finding new ways to express an insight in a scientific and acceptable ways is like going to the gauntlet. in my opinion, some the ways we can overcome this to present a scientific view of an eternal now, we must find at least :

 

1. new (preferably a non-relativistic) frame of reference,

2. invent non-commutative mathematics,

3. new postulates about light, gravity and other phenomena.

4. understand and differentiate scalar independent forces active in our universe (this is to free us from the bondage of relativity hee hee)

and a lot more .

 

be well

[Michael Mooney]

=Erasmus00;254171]Michael- you seem to not understand the point of science. You start from an idea (speed of light is constant, or, in your case, there exists a "cosmic perspective") and you extend the idea, and explore it mathematically.

 

What a condescending attitude you moderators share on this site!

I have been an avid student of science for some 50 yrs now. There is not just one "point of science" which fits into your particular empirical bias. I agree that empirical validation is a vital part of science. So is the visionary aspect of theoretical science, looking beyond the well validated aspects. Of course empirical validation through experimentation is vital as a bridge between visionary metaphysics and the predictability of physics which you so harshly demand.

 

I have asked you how you see string/M-theory in this regard, with no reply. It is metaphysical cosmology all dressed up in a fine coat of esoteric math without observable/verifiable referents in "the real world." Yet it is a "respectable cosmology" in mainstream science,

How is it that you hold me to a different standard?

 

The reason you explore it mathematically is to test its validity. Mathematical development is important- it lets us transcend what we can easily visualize. If your "cosmic perspective" doesn't illuminate some aspect of the universe it is worthless. If it DOES illuminate some feature of the universe then it must make predictions.

 

Please explain how string/M-theory makes predictions or establishes its validity, as challenged above. Is it too "worthless?" Perhaps your myopic understanding of "the point of science" will be revealed in your answer, as it seem to have no appreciation of the role of invalidated exploration in visionary, theoretical science.

If I know how hard someone throws a ball, and at what angle, I can predict where the ball will be in a few seconds. With enough information about where Mars is, and how fast its moving, I can predict where Mars will be in a few months time, etc. How does this fit into your cosmic perspective? What does it mean to predict in your cosmic time? If you want anyone to take your ideas seriously then actually develop it.

 

You continue to demonstrate a clear bias toward tangible, predictable results... the forte' of empirical, experimental science. Is this the full range of your understanding of the role and "point" of science?

 

Finally, addressing the "time" component of this thread's challenge, I challenge you to respond directly and specifically as to how you disagree with my criticism of the reification of time... as in my thrice repeated answer to the question, "What is time?" referenced again above... post #186, p.19.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

michael,

 

in the spirit of breaking new grounds of understanding about our universe, i'm with you. eureka and aha moments were always been a major factors in the pursuit of new knowledge in science. the math just follow suit, or even invented for the purpose of the insights.

 

i know there is an inherent difficulty to understand the "mechanics" prior to spacetime. and finding new ways to express an insight in a scientific and acceptable ways is like going to the gauntlet. in my opinion, some the ways we can overcome this to present a scientific view of an eternal now, we must find at least :

 

1. new (preferably a non-relativistic) frame of reference,

2. invent non-commutative mathematics,

3. new postulates about light, gravity and other phenomena.

4. understand and differentiate scalar independent forces active in our universe (this is to free us from the bondage of relativity hee hee)

and a lot more .

 

be well

 

Thank you, Watcher. I appreciate you insights.... especially that " eureka and aha moments" ("visions" in my case as a longtime meditator) are the leading edge of science, and the validation, with any luck comes afterward as empirical evidence maybe even within an integrated mathmatical context.

 

...and finding new ways to express an insight in a scientific and acceptable ways is like going to the gauntlet.

 

Too true for this particular forum. I've been told repeatedly that my challenge in this thread is just wrong "and everybody here knows it."

(Basically that the relativity of local perspective has been so well confirmed as to invalidate my "cosmic perspective or render it irrelevant. I have granted the predictive results of relativity for local perception and the clock anomalies which relativity corrects.)

 

The cosmic overview does (in theory... or in the mind's eye) offer a

" new (preferably a non-relativistic) frame of reference."

 

I have also offered the insight that space can remain emptiness and yet allow the force of gravity to act across it and that gravity works upon the momentum of light exactly as if it had mass... all without a mentally fabricated malleable medium, "spacetime" curving and dilating... my meaning for "malleable."

 

Finally, as to your #4 above,,, perhaps the primary "scalar independent force" is omnipresent consciousness itself as an elusive "medium" which will eventually, as science becomes enlightened beyond its present materialism, be *realized* as the long sought unifying force or carrier of all four cosmic forces.

 

Michael

[modest]

Again, thanks for your reply.

Oh, will you give me the link (again) to your work mentioned above by Modest? Thanks.

Michael

 

Here is the link

 

http://hypography.com/forums/physics-and-mathematics/15179-universal-time-constant.html

 

A good way to think of it would be with the expanding universe. Distant galaxies appear 10 or so GLyrs away and 10 Gyrs younger than they would currently. But, 'right now' they're actually mature galaxies, just like the milky way, and they're actually 'currently' more like 25 or 30 GLyrs distant.

 

We do not see distant objects as they are in our present moment.

 

~modest

[Erasmus00]

I have been an avid student of science for some 50 yrs now. There is not just one "point of science" which fits into your particular empirical bias.

 

Science is so powerful because it lets us move away from empty conjecture.

 

I have asked you how you see string/M-theory in this regard, with no reply. It is metaphysical cosmology all dressed up in a fine coat of esoteric math without observable/verifiable referents in "the real world." Yet it is a "respectable cosmology" in mainstream science,

How is it that you hold me to a different standard?

 

String theory, if correct, makes concrete predictions about the universe- the universe is supersymmetric (for every particle we know there is a "super partner" to that particle), the universe is much higher dimensional (which means gravity gets stronger at short length scales, and has implications for very high energy scattering cross sections), etc. Every useful idea tells us something specific and concrete about the universe. These predictions have not yet been validated, and may well be untestable, but they do tell us important things about the universe (again, if string theory turns out to be correct).

 

You continue to demonstrate a clear bias toward tangible, predictable results... the forte' of empirical, experimental science. Is this the full range of your understanding of the role and "point" of science?

 

I'm a theoretical physicist by trade.

 

Finally, addressing the "time" component of this thread's challenge, I challenge you to respond directly and specifically as to how you disagree with my criticism of the reification of time...

 

If we understand time as a dimension, we learn things about the universe that appear to be true- there is a maximum speed, no clock can remain synchronized if it changes relative velocity, etc.

 

If we instead treat time as an illusion, with only the present "real," then what insights and predictions do we gain? You've provided none.

[modest]

Michael, I really see no significant difference between what you're describing and Newtonian relativity (or, Galilean invariance). Consider the comparison below—doesn't it seem awfully familiar?

 

Newton's theory versus special relativity

 

A comparison can be made between Newtonian relativity and special relativity.

 

Some of the assumptions and properties of Newton's theory are:

1. The existence of infinitely many inertial frames. Each frame is of infinite size (covers the entire universe). Any two frames are in relative uniform motion. (The relativistic nature of mechanics derived above shows that the absolute space assumption is not necessary.)
   
2. The inertial frames move in all possible relative uniform motion.
   
3. There is a universal, or absolute, time.
   
4. Two inertial frames are related by a Galilean transformation.
   
5. In all inertial frames, Newton's laws, and gravity, hold.
   

In comparison, the corresponding statements from special relativity are:

1. Same as the Newtonian assumption.
   
2. Rather than allowing all relative uniform motion, the relative velocity between two inertial frames is bounded above by the speed of light.
   
3. Instead of universal time, each inertial frame has its own time.
   
4. The Galilean transformations are replaced by Lorentz transformations.
   
5. In all inertial frames, all laws of physics are the same (this leads to the invariance of the speed of light).
   

 

Galilean invariance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Notice number 3 in particular—universal or absolute time. Also, number 4: "Two inertial frames are related by a Galilean transformation", this can be translated into Moonean hand-waving by saying that the sun is absolutely and objectively 93 million miles from the earth and a clock would need to travel at warp 9 to reach it in 50 seconds—that distance and duration don't actually change as viewed by different frames of reference—that any other consideration is a mind game that physicists daydream about because they worship Einstein and want to go back in time so they can fall in love with him and have his babies... or something like that

 

~modest

[watcher]

I have also offered the insight that space can remain emptiness and yet allow the force of gravity to act across it and that gravity works upon the momentum of light exactly as if it had mass... all without a mentally fabricated malleable medium, "spacetime" curving and dilating... my meaning for "malleable."

 

it's interesting that light and gravity can interact without effects on space and time.

it could tell a lot about the "place" of light and gravity in our cosmos.

but still space is a property of two objects represented as a distance between them, therefore space is a property of matter and viceversa

 

otoh, void as something absolute is not necessarily space. we can imagine void as the absence of forms or physical property. so void can be thought of as a priori of spacetime itself. a void can be anything that has no coherence or lost its coherence and therefore undifferentiated. a pre big bang condition of infinite density is an example of void. blackholes and singularities are candidates. an infinite energy that seemed to propel photon to lightspeed can also be called void.

 

Finally, as to your #4 above,,, perhaps the primary "scalar independent force" is omnipresent consciousness itself as an elusive "medium" which will eventually, as science becomes enlightened beyond its present materialism, be *realized* as the long sought unifying force or carrier of all four cosmic forces.

 

referring to your insight that light and gravity interacts without effect on spacetime, can mean that light and gravity (or their origin) are scalar independent forces. such an idea though would have us to rethink our understanding of spacetime and forces. iow, instead of forces as derived from spacetime, we reverse our point of view. spacetime (at least our local ST) will now be assumed to be derived from these forces.