What is "spacetime" really?

[Michael Mooney]

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

Your bias comes across as condescending judgment once again in the phrase, "empty conjecture." In this regard, you blatantly contradict yourself below, saying:

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).

 

How is it that string theory, having not yet been validated and being untestable (as it *is*... not just "maybe"... "Tells us important things about the universe?" How is it (unvalidated and untestable) *not* "empty conjecture?"

 

 

 

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).

Again, if its "concrete predictions" are unvalidated and untestable, how does it it become a "useful idea" telling us "something specific and concrete about the universe?" Your stance in this regard, including your bias against me is clearly absurd. One must wonder how you can be a moderator here with such a confused mind.

....

 

 

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.

Again you have failed to address my post on "What is time?" repeatedly referenced above.

 

I said that there are two aspects to "time"... the conventional observation of *selected* event duration... the natural revolutions of bodies and their orbits and the larger scale natural cycles,

....its use as an integral component of velocity (not quite the "illusion" conveyed in your intentional distortion of my take on time...)

and the ultimate reality that there is no thing "time"... that the present is ongoing eternally... simultaneously everywhere... no "time" between the not-yet-present "future" and the not-still-present "past."

There it is again for you. Address it if you will. Tell me with what part you disagree. Then tell me how "time" can run faster or slower beyond the fact that clocks do under conditions of different forces acting upon them.

 

It would be *so* refreshing if you would at least address these challenges point by point rather than just dredging up more of your dogmatic indoctrination and totally ignoring my questions.

 

Michael

[HydrogenBond]

I have done this before. If we took at action photograph and the shutter speed is off, we will get motion blur. The photo stops time, yet the motion blur will create the impression of motion with time stopped.

 

 

The difference in shutter speed means time is left in the photo. The way we see the time is through uncertainty in distance since space-time is integrated. The guy in the middle has no uncertainty in distance because his motion and the shutter speed don't cause any residual time to remain in the photo at that spot.

 

Let me add something. Distance is a passive variable in the sense that we can measure it with a passive device like a meter stick. Time is a dynamic variable such that measurement requires an energy source, such as sand in an hour glass, spring, battery or electric wire. The photo is still and therefore analogous to a passive device. Because space-time is integrated, the time variable uses the passive distance variable or distance uncertainty, to approximate the energy of time.

[HydrogenBond]

Let do this the other way. Let us use a dynamic measurement to measure the passive distance variable of space-time. As an example, we are on a train moving at 10 meter/sec and wish to calibrate a meter stick outside the train laying on the ground. If we know how much time it takes to pass, which is 0.1 sec, we have the distance.

 

Say we do this experimentally with a dynamic film called a movie. Since a movie is based on frames/sec, if our frame rate is not the same as the relative motion, each frame in the movie could end up with motion blur. Based on that film, the 1 meter is not clear cut due to the uncertainty in distance created by the residual time in the experiment. We would present the result as 1 meter plus or minus 5%. The time difference equals distance uncertainty creates the requirement of a statistical addendum for our experiment. This can be eliminated with a little time trick using the concept of time potential.

 

With our film, if we know the frame rate is not correct, we could correlate the distance uncertainty to this time difference. The time adjustment changes the image fuzziness to make the image clear. So now we know it is exactly 1.0 meter. What I call time potential can explain the appearance of uncertainty in space-time that we currently try to model with random uncertainty. This is not always due to experiment but can also be due to time potential creating uncertainty in space-time.

[Michael Mooney]

In view of Modest's smart-*** remarks :

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

...

 

And Erasmus's refusal to clarify his self contradiction in praise of string/M-theory in spite of the impossibility of validating it... same broad brush with which he paints my cosmology...

 

and everyone's refusal to express exactly how they disagree with my repeated take on "time"... that "it" is not some "dimension" that can speed up or slow down, tho actual events can vary in duration.

 

This post will again turn to subjective idealism as the basis for the general belief that there is no such thing as actual distance between objects, i.e., that all distances are subjectively dependent on observer point of view.

 

I have (twice or more) suggested a thought experiment in which humans never evolved but otherwise the cosmos remains as is. The point is that the cosmos would remain as it is without human perception of it as limited to local perception and lightspeed delay of what is seen when by whom.

Earth would remain an average of 93 million miles or 8+ light minutes from the sun... likewise the distances from the sun to the other bodies in this solar system as can be found in any science forum, as above (somewhere in this thread) and likewise the "objective distance" to Alpha Centauri remains 4.7 (or whatever) light years away, etc None of the above actual distances change with subjective observation from local points of view.

 

To claim otherwise is to exalt relativity to the level of absolute reality and to endorse subjective idealism as the indisputably correct and only legitimate "Philosophy of Science."

 

This is the dogma of choice adopted by moderators of this forum, which they insist is the only true and correct philosophy.

Who besides me disagrees?

Michael

[Moontanman]

Ok, guys, if we are going to keep "quoting" Star Trek lets get it right. warp 9 is far faster than 50 seconds to the Sun. Warp 9 is about 1,516c not 9c.

 

Warp drive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The warp factors above warp 10 in the TOS, such as the one above, were slower than warp 10 on the new scale. According to The Star Trek Encyclopedia, warp 6 (new scale) is equal to 392c (392 times the speed of light, c) and about warp 7.3 on the old scale, whereas the new warp 9.2 is about 1,649c and warp 11.8 on the old scale. Under this new definition warp 9.2 translates to 494,357,763,242 m/s (494,357,763 km/s or 307,179,673 miles/s). Travel to Proxima Centauri from Earth would only take 22.53 hours.

[Erasmus00]

Your bias comes across as condescending judgment once again in the phrase, "empty conjecture."

 

Of course I'm biased- so are you. No one can assess an idea without developing some bias one way or another!

 

How is it that string theory, having not yet been validated and being untestable (as it *is*... not just "maybe"... "Tells us important things about the universe?" How is it (unvalidated and untestable) *not* "empty conjecture?"

 

As I said- string theory makes important predictions. It predicts that for every particle we know, there is a partner particle that hasn't been discovered. If the LHC finds a bunch of partner particles, string theory will be validated. It predicts extra dimensions, which lead to specific behaviors for particles. The key point is that string theory makes IN PRINCIPLE testable predictions. If we had an accelerator that could go to arbitrarily high energies we could test string theory right away. We don't.

 

Your idea hasn't furnished a single testable prediction EVEN IN THEORY. I don't ask that a prediction be practical, merely that there be some predictions.

 

I said that there are two aspects to "time"... the conventional observation of *selected* event duration... the natural revolutions of bodies and their orbits and the larger scale natural cycles,

....its use as an integral component of velocity (not quite the "illusion" conveyed in your intentional distortion of my take on time...)

and the ultimate reality that there is no thing "time"... that the present is ongoing eternally... simultaneously everywhere... no "time" between the not-yet-present "future" and the not-still-present "past."

There it is again for you. Address it if you will. Tell me with what part you disagree. Then tell me how "time" can run faster or slower beyond the fact that clocks do under conditions of different forces acting upon them.

 

I'm asking you to take your idea "there is no thing "time"" and run with it. Develop it, and develop a physics based on it. Mathematical models of physics should be built on the "ultimate reality," and so there should be some way to develop a model based on your idea.

 

I personally disagree that there is no "time" between the past and present. I believe that time is a dimension similar (but not the same as) our three spatial dimensions. I believe that anti-particles really are particles moving backwards in time. Not only do I believe this, but I can build mathematical models based on these ideas- and guess what- they make testable predictions that checkout.

[arkain101]

We look into space. We see from earth:

 

one object moving 0.5 C --->

one object moving 0.5C <----

 

We have no idea of the origin of each objects acceleration.

 

How can special relativity create a correct answer? How do you determine, if its the objects, or the earth that is going to be considered to have the velocity, and kinetic energy?

 

Would not the time dilation equations show the same result for both earth and the object? This is the twin paradox, only, no concept of origin of acceleration.

 

Typically I've heart the answer being that you just apply the dilation to the object, and not the earth, but with no concept of which object is moving faster, how can any accurate prediction be made?

[Michael Mooney]

Being as this is the "Philosophy of Science" section... any interest here in debate on the philosophy of subjective idealism which is the basis of the belief that distances between objects depends on subjective perception... which is dependent on differences in delay time for observation due to lightspeed and the differences in its travel time to different observers?

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Being as the ontology of "time" is an appropriate subject for a "Philosophy of Science" section of a science forum...

Anyone interested in resuming discussion of "What is Time?" Specifically, if the future is not "here" yet (not yet real/present) and the past is gone (not still real/present), then what is the nature of that which is here, now, commonly called "the present?" To say it another way (to the point of tedium, perhaps!), If the future isn't present yet and the past isn't present still, what is left besides the ongoing present?

Now, the above statements of the obvious do not even address the "where" but only the when... always now. It is also obvious that "now" is simultaneous and ongoing everywhere.

As previously discussed... when a supernova explodes many lightyears away, we on Earth don't see the explosion for many years after it has happened. This speaks to the relativity of local perception. But the ontological discussion of time must agree to the obvious, i.e., that now (the present) is omnipresent, even though "the present" for the supernova, by the time we see it is now long past its explosive phase that we now perceive.

 

Once the above ontology is clearly understood, it becomes obviously absurd to create a "dimension, time" which is something in and of itself, capable of speeding up or slowing down. But the nature of reification is such that if the scientific community repeats the phrase "time dilation" often enough over a long enough period of indoctrination... as per a whole career of scientific study based on the concept of "time dilation" then time takes on a pseudo-reality of its own... as in mainstream science today.

 

Comments?

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Continuing the theme of "the philosophy of science", from subjective idealism vis-a-vis "the distance between objects" to the ontology of "time"...

 

What if... space is actually emptiness and the forces of gravitation, elctromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces actually traverse empty space (both on macro and micro levels) without a material medium or carrier agent? There is no denying that object trajectories (and massless light) are "bent" or curved by gravity, for instance. But these are observable things in space... space itself being defined as above as the absence of "things.)

Since Newton, materialistic science has denied the above possibility of "action at a distance", i.e., without such "agent or medium" filling the empty space between "things."

 

Now we have "entangled particles" in quantum physics experiments in constant contact, sharing information at a distance (so far unlimited distance)... sans any known medium or agent between them.

 

I propose that the mystery agent in all the above cases is omnipresent consciousness itself. I base this proposal on some 40 years of meditating an hour a day, experiencing a dimension which transcends the materialism of "modern science." This is not a "religious" experience, per se, in that there is no church doctrine of any sort involved. It could be called a spiritual experience, but this dimension too transcends the limits of the present dominance of scientific materialism as a worldview or dogma thoroughly indoctrinated by the modern materialistic scientific community. (One can not pass physics classes at any academic level without accepting such indoctrination as "reality.")

 

So, rather than the requirement (so adamantly insisted by the moderators here) that I prove that space is emptiness and that forces can traverse this space without a materialistic medium, I challenge that the onus is on theoreticians who posit manifest, material or force-field carrier agents between all forces to "prove it" or cite evidence in support of the bias that space can not be emptiness.

 

This concludes the reiteration of my primary challenges vis-a-vis "what is spacetime, really?"

 

I welcome responses which actually address the challenges here (again) presented.

 

Michael

[Erasmus00]

Once the above ontology is clearly understood, it becomes obviously absurd to create a "dimension, time" which is something in and of itself, capable of speeding up or slowing down.

 

This is of course only true IF you choose the above ontology. We can choose a separate ontology, if we like, one where time is a dimension like those of space. In our 4-dimensional reality, we can posit that all stationary objects really move at the speed of light along this dimension. Counting uniform ticks on a clock allows us to count uniform progress along this dimension.

 

By this ontology, if an object increases its speed in the spatial directions, it is traveling slower into the time dimension. Hence, its progression through time slows down. In this sense, it is perfectly natural to think of "time" as something that can be dilated. Further, by this ontology, the "present" is different from vantage point to vantage point, and cannot be uniquely defined.

 

Each of these ontologies is self-consistent, and could very well be true, but both cannot be. So how can we decide between them? Only by experiment. So, why don't we do this- I'll develop some mathematical implications of my ontology, you develop some implications of yours. Once we have some of these implications, we can try and devise ways to test them.

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus:

This is of course only true IF you choose the above ontology. We can choose a separate ontology, if we like, one where time is a dimension like those of space

 

We can also "choose" to "believe in" time travel or fairies or that the gods of mythology are actual beings. Not reasonable, but we are as you say, free to believe whatever we want.

 

I ask you yet again... with exactly what part of my often repeated exposition on time (and its erroneous reification) do you disagree. Do you believe that now (the present) extends into the past or future or that now is not omnipresent? For openers, please address how exactly you disagree with the ontology of time which I have so often repeated and claimed as obvious to any reasonable person.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Backing up a bit to address stuff not mentioned in my 3 part summary...

Erasmus:

Of course I'm biased- so are you. No one can assess an idea without developing some bias one way or another!

False. You have not experienced true scientific objectivity, it seems. Not everyone has a personal axe to grind. In successful meditation one transcends personal point of view. This perspective is called "spiritual" or "impersonal" as contrasted with personal and has evolved into a new branch of psychology called "transpersonal." Just because you are not personally familiar with this "dimension" does not mean that it is not real or is false belief.

 

MM: "How is it that string theory, having not yet been validated and being untestable (as it *is*... not just "maybe"... "Tells us important things about the universe?" How is it (unvalidated and untestable) *not* "empty conjecture?"

E:

"As I said- string theory makes important predictions. It predicts that for every particle we know, there is a partner particle that hasn't been discovered. If the LHC finds a bunch of partner particles, string theory will be validated. It predicts extra dimensions, which lead to specific behaviors for particles. The key point is that string theory makes IN PRINCIPLE testable predictions. If we had an accelerator that could go to arbitrarily high energies we could test string theory right away. We don't.

 

Your idea hasn't furnished a single testable prediction EVEN IN THEORY. I don't ask that a prediction be practical, merely that there be some predictions."

 

If you can explain the nature of the 7 dimensions of string/M-theory as anything but esoteric math with no traction where the rubber meets the road in the observable cosmos... then I will be very attentive to your insights.

 

Meditation, as a "sacred science" predicts that anyone who directly experiences transcendental consciousness will know, from this direct experience the, the nature of the actual universe as "consciousness manifesting." This is reproduce-able, just like good scientific experiments. Everyone who enters this "transpersonal, transcendental" dimension of consciousness knows... by resonant identity... the part with the whole... as per my holographic metaphore the nature of consciousness as beyond the "separate consciousness" of the individual egocentric "self."

Science is new to consciousness studies, but the field is growing.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus:

I'm asking you to take your idea "there is no thing "time"" and run with it. Develop it, and develop a physics based on it. Mathematical models of physics should be built on the "ultimate reality," and so there should be some way to develop a model based on your idea

I have repeatedly acknowledged the practical aspect of the *convention, time* as per event duration (elapsed time for any *selected* event.* It is called the "dimension" beyond the spacial three which allows things to pass through the same space at different times. This, however does not make it a malleable, dilate-able "thing." This is a meaningful ontological distinction which I have nearly hammered to death, but which you apparently to not yet acknowledge. And If you think that "antiparticles" are defined by their "travel backward" along the continuum of time, then you are more deluded than I imagined.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Moontanman:

Ok, guys, if we are going to keep "quoting" Star Trek lets get it right. warp 9 is far faster than 50 seconds to the Sun. Warp 9 is about 1,516c not 9c.

 

Warp drive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

OK, I confess that my use of the fictional "warp factor" borrowed from Star Trek was in error.

 

I simply assumed that the number following "warp" indicated the multiple of lightspeed.

Mea culpa. Maybe I should stick to real science.... and the metaphysical possibilities that are actually possible.

Still sounds like the license of sci-fi to claim that anything could travel the distance between sun and earth in less than a minute going less than lightspeed. It does in fact take real light over 8 minutes to go the real distance.

 

Gotta go.

 

Michael

[modest]

We look into space. We see from earth:

 

one object moving 0.5 C --->

one object moving 0.5C <----

 

We have no idea of the origin of each objects acceleration.

 

How can special relativity create a correct answer? How do you determine, if its the objects, or the earth that is going to be considered to have the velocity, and kinetic energy?

 

Kinetic energy is frame dependent. The earth, for example, would have little kinetic energy from a person's perspective because it isn't moving under our feet. From the sun's perspective the earth has a good amount of kinetic energy which is why (in a Newtonian sense) it stays in orbit.

 

In special relativity total energy (invariant mass) is invariant which is to say it doesn't depend on which particular frame is viewing it. In the example above both the ship and the earth would calculate the same total energy of the ship/earth system regardless from which perspective the system is looked at.

 

It's useful in SR to use,

 

Four-velocity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Four-momentum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

[HydrogenBond]

In special relativity total energy (invariant mass) is invariant which is to say it doesn't depend on which particular frame is viewing it. In the example above both the ship and the earth would calculate the same total energy of the ship/earth system regardless from which perspective the system is looked at.

 

This is only true for two unit systems. Let me add a third and change it slightly. Here is the experiment. We start with three ships. Two remain stationary but are separated. The third we add enough fuel energy to get it to go at 0.5C. The ship loops back, so all three ships can see each other. The two stationary ships will see the moving ship, and will see each other stationary, to get the correct energy balance. The moving ship, if he uses relative reference, will see the two ships moving at 0.5C, for twice the energy. With two ships it is ambiguous as to which ship has the energy and which is stationary. If we remove the third ship (tie breaker) we are back to 50/50 odds of getting it right.

 

Even if we don't know who has the energy, because we were all asleep when the experiment began, using the tie breaker, we would know one reference is saying twice the energy of the two others. From that we should be able to tell who is moving, in reality. In this example, the reference seeing the most energy out there is actually the reference that has all the energy.

 

Let us look at past, present and future. The past told us how much energy was added to the three ships. The present is ambiguous to the past in one of the references, which is seeing extra energy that is not there. The two stationary references, with the correct energy balance, have the past and present in agreement. As for the future, if we could get all the energy back, the two stationary reference's future will be consistent with their present. The other reference, can't define that future, because their present does not line up with the original past.

 

Grasshopper, you must chose your reference wisely, or time will not follow line from past to future. How would grasshopper, try to explain this break in time and energy if he did not chose wisely. There were two parallel universes. Their energy, met in out present and went back to their own dimension in our future. If grasshopper chose wisely he would say, the other guy had the energy and we got it back.