What is "spacetime" really?

[Essay]

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/17037-what-is-spacetime-really-67.html#post261915

...from my "reality slows" post # 662:

"Realizing that at any instant, a given atom's electron might be all the way across the universe--albiet the very low probability."

 

So yes,

....an alternate way of thinking should be to assume that space is resonant waves.

...the potential of all those electrons--being everywhere.

 

~ :QuestionM

[lemit]

I have another of my naive assumptions.

 

It seems that we don't understand the nature of either space or time, and therefore philosophy and conjecture have rushed in to fill the void.

 

You know, I kind of like the void.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. I'm thrilled to see the return of civility (at least for now) and happy to have NomDePlume's refresher on philosophy. 40 years have rendered my memory of philosophy classes as curved as space.

 

Oops!

[watcher]

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/17037-what-is-spacetime-really-67.html#post261915

...from my "reality slows" post # 662:

"Realizing that at any instant, a given atom's electron might be all the way across the universe--albiet the very low probability."

 

So yes,...the potential of all those electrons--being everywhere.

 

~ :QuestionM

 

yes that speaks the randomness of those electrons.

but what is interesting is before an electron can gave a fixed location in space no matter if they are found to be all the way across the universe.

iow words, where is the electron before it is found?

due to its probabilistic nature, we can't say its somewhere else in the universe neither it is nowhere in the universe, both ways of thinking is contradictory to its probabilistic nature.

if we say it exists before the measurement, the probability of its position is 100%

if we say it is non- existent, then the probability is 0 %.

but 0 % and 100% are certainties and a violation of probability theory.

[Essay]

both ways of thinking is contradictory to its probabilistic nature.

I think you're thinking too much!

Let's leave it at:

"iow words, where is the electron before it is found?"

 

...anywhere with potential?

[lawcat]

This is how I see it:

I agree with DoctorDick's first page post. Any attempt to view spacetime geometry as static must be fatal. Spacetime must be viewed as dynamic.

 

If we start from geometry of space as euclidean, and time as polar--time has a moment, oscillatory nature--at every point in space; Imagine euclidean x-y, 2d system, with point 0,0 spinning. Then, every point on axis is spinning. Then, every point mapped in the quadrant is spinning, because it is ascribed the nature of the input from x and y axis.

 

Now, spacetime--the quadrant space--has permeability, which is a function of frequency. Since time has some oscillational characteristics it has some frequency. Although, a point in spacetime may not have any resistance, it nevertheless must have reactance due to the frequency. Since the point in time has reactance it has energy. Due to time, every point in space has energy.

 

Since energy must be preserved at every point, a moving frame takes energy from every point, it reduces time in favor of movement (a part of moment is converted to linear motion)---thus time is shorter on the moving object. However, there is a limit on the velocity, because of the reactance--larger objects can not travel at high speed because they face high reactance. (E=mc2, is all kinetic energy, and photon mass).

 

Since in the moving frame, an object takes away from time, then time is changing. Since time is changing, spacetime has hysteresis. Then, a moving object, which enters spacetime hysteresis under influence of another object, will have to adjust its movement to accomodate both. And, all is happening in 3d.

 

Once the moving object leaves the point in spacetime, the time will adjust to its natural energy level. However, as long as the object is moving in spacetime, that point will display depression in time, because some of the energy is imparted on the moving object and hysteresis of spacetime prohibits immediate adjustment.

 

Spacetime is: permability of space coupled with momentum of time. Part of the momentum vector of time is translated to velocity vector of the moving quanta, under Lorentz. If nothing is moving, time vector is preserved. If something is moving, time vector is converted.

[watcher]

I think you're thinking too much!

Let's leave it at:

"iow words, where is the electron before it is found?"

 

...anywhere with potential?

 

existing as a probability doesn't have a location in space.

[NomDePlume]

Alright, to start with it seems that everyone who responded does agree that an ontology should not have a prediction that disagrees with an empirical model.

 

Michael- I believe (but if I put words in people's mouths, correct me) that the main argument people have raised with your ontology is that they believe one of the consequences of your ontology is that the speed of light will not be constant. IF this is true, you can see why its a problem, right?

 

I believe the above paragraph summarizes the back and forth argument that has gone on for more than half of this thread.

 

Now I will answer the questions people have directed specifically at me:

 

Questions from Michael:

 

I'll study the link asap. Meanwhile, can you explain how there was absolutely nothing...

And then... (what... "Presto!)... the cosmos appears??

 

What about Augustine's argument- how can we ask "what happened before time?" The question is contradictory.

 

Further, there are two possibilities for our universe. We can extrapolate from our everyday intuition that "every effect has a cause," and extrapolate back infinitely far. Either the chain of effects eventually breaks and there is a "first cause," or there isn't and the universe is infinitely old, and always has been.

 

The problem with the latter is entropy. Now, I have only a vague conception of entropy, but I know that it always increases, which gives the universe a one way type character. This implies that something very special happened to give the universe a very low entropy sometime in the past. This pushes me toward first cause.

 

What I have been calling "empty space" in this thread is merely the absence of things/stuff between and beyond them.

 

But how do we know there is ever an absence of stuff? What if what we perceive as void is actually a material entity, Aristotle's quintessence or Aether. Your objection that "void" cannot have properties can be dealt with by saying that quintessence CAN have properties. It is my understanding that the Higgs field is this sort of quintessence or Aether that fills all space.

 

Hence, the universe may have "matter stuff" and "void stuff" but is nowhere empty.

[Essay]

existing as a probability doesn't have a location in space.

Right, it could be anywhere--a location which pervades the universe--kinda like gravity.

 

And consider [thought experiment] an electron that has, for a Planck instant, turned up several feet away from its nucleus: Shouldn't that affect the "space" between the electron and nucleus?

Well, maybe it doesn't affect the space, but it would affect a probe in that space--being felt as a slight force of some sort--depending on what the probe measured.

But I like to think of that electron as in some way contributing to the generation and maintenance of that space "around" the nucleus--however small the contribution--even up to "all the way across the universe."

===

 

As a crazy metaphor, I think of all the electrons in the universe always doing that--but including ranges farther than several feet--and that on "the way out" they're generating vacuum energy; and on the way back--generating gravity [or in some way affecting things].

...But please--that's just a crazy picture to help me remember what goes on--that we don't know about--on the Planck scale of spacetime. ...And it help's me see how connected everything is--and how this manifestation is just a shadow of some larger dimensional [FSM] space.

===

 

...but back to ontology... :shrug:

[lawcat]

Basic principle of ontology is that: if something is, then it is not not-something.

 

If space is not time, then time is not space. If space is euclidean, then time is not euclidean. If space is static, then time is dynamic. If space is linear, then time is non-linear. If space can not be lost, then time can be lost. If space has no energy, then time has energy. If space is infinite with finite subsets, then time is a point--the limit to 0.

 

Combine the two, and you get the ontology.

[Pyrotex]

The Cosmos is, by definition, a closed system, as it is "all that is".

Entropy is NOT the sum total of all matter and energy as implied by MM.

Entropy is a measure of order/disorder of that matter and energy.

If a Cosmos had all its matter and energy at one point, then entropy would be maximum.

If a Cosmos had all its matter and energy equally spread out everywhere, with no gradients, then entropy would be minimum.

[watcher]

There is no logical reason why electromagnet and gravitational forces require a "medium" (as some"thing" other than empty space) through which to proagate. This is the fundamental fallacy of the materialistic worldview which simply denies the possibility of "action at a distance."

 

first : forces don't propagate in space. it is the em and g waves that propagate in space. and it is a logical necessity that waves have a medium to propagate. because waves are moving radiant energy. energy is simply the capacity to do work. the transfer of energy needs a medium.

 

2nd: if you insist that empty space is the medium, then it would make the emptiness of space only as an appearance for the sake of convenience. and not an ontology. and your ontology is doomed.

 

3rd: an action in the distance could mean a lot of things other that to imply that space is emptiness. on a contrary it lends support to multidimensional space.

 

I do have a theory as to how these forces propagate through empty space... but it is not presently respected as "scientific."

 

Omnipresent consciousness a Presence with no scientific, empirica evidence. It does not qualify as "real" under the rules of observability. So it is not submissable as real evidence.

 

are you saying then that consciousness is the medium of these propagating forces?

my guess it that in your cosmic perspective, what you saw is an aspect of this omnipresent consciousness with a timeless and an empty spacelike expanse property. perhaps you have a "belief" that this consciousness is the ground being of the material universe and here you are asserting that the ontology of space is nothing and time as imagined.

 

either you have a misinterpretation of your insights or your ontology from space and time to omniconsciousness is so abrupt it doesn't make sense. anr, what you see is consciousness mirrored and not the external universe.

 

BTW, "entropy" is applicable to defined local spaces... not to the universe as a whole.

 

that is a mouthful of statement. entropy are energy states. energy states are levels, layers, dimensions. local spaces, ahh reminds me of nonlocality of spaces and limits of 3d space, the universe as a whole, what that might be? given that we exist in a universe where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.... and if i may add, the whole is not the same as its parts...

 

All energy/matter/plasma (weird matter) etc. exists and can be retrieved by the "cosmic gravitational net" if there turns out to be enough matter in the universe for "critical cosmic density" to reverse the expansion phase and commence the contraction phase toward the "big crunch" prior to the next cyclical "big bang." )This too would account for "where it all came from... once we get over the linear "beginning of time" childishness.

 

wow did i see the use of the word expansion phase and contraction phase ?

so what contracts and expands? there might be some progress here.

 

see this is my dogma.

 

1, time is not constant

2. space is not constant

3. light speed is constant

4. planck's quanta is constant.

 

what does it mean ? when something traveled the sun and earth in 1 minute, instead of saying that it traveled faster than the speed of light, i will say no, space contracts for it. so at lightspeed it traveled less time. why ?because, when push comes to shove, lightspeed wont budge. and if something has to move, its gotta be space. so in your big bang.crunch cycle, space is not left out. space goes with the cycle.

 

lets take the planck's quanta . h = E x t where h is the planck's constant, e is energy and t is time as an inverse of frequency.

 

the relationship of energy and time is mediated by plancks constant . at any given energy state, same principle as above. the quanta wont budge. so it must time that move. iow, at high energy,the frequency is reduced to a point . the period for an object existence is short. at low energy, frequency is low and periods are longer.

 

time dilates when two objects are not in sync. two objects are not in sync if they exist in different energy states/level. to find this simultaneous now, you need to go where everything is at sync. that would be in the realms of photon. so instead of saying there is no time but now, it is more accurate to say that time is an emergent phenomena of now. it is the meaning of get over the linear time.

[Boof-head]

You might consider (actually, you do) that "now" is "then", that time is "backwards looking" literally.

 

(c.f. Aristotle, Descartes, Boole)

Therefore "positive time" must be an illusion, because of "positive space".

 

That is, positive space induces negative time, and since space cannot be zero-dimensional (actually, it has a certain 3-dimensional "flavor", don't you think? HA, I know you must think this, since thinking must logically require space to think in) then time must "have" to be able to reach a null-point.

 

In fact "now" is the null-related curve between you and the rest of the universe's causal structure; q.e.d.

c.f Hawking, Meyer, Penrose, t'Hooft, Lloyd, Einstein et alia.

[watcher]

to put it simply : my motion minus other motion equals here and now hehe

[Boof-head]

I'm gonna, erm, expand a little on the null-related aspect of the above.

 

First up, this is for those who can solve Rubik's puzzles - let's make the Pocket a "trivial case" in the logic.This thing came to mind for an architect when he started putting rubber bands around some wooden cubes. What else he did, as he put more cubes and rubber bands into it, was think about what he was connecting together and in what way, the design implies the puzzle itself is 'deep cut', since all the original parts, used in his prototype were discrete. So he realized, that structure-wise it had critical points, of failure. The algorithm halted at certain places, he needed to make both an inductive, and deductive step that represent "initial logic" and then have successive places in a list, that starts with rubber bands and blocks and goes to a deep-slice, complete vector space (affine logic) with Coxeter groups and [math] M_{12} [/math].

 

The prototype represents the successive, marketable product. Then we take the structure and step to 3 slices, which needs a different critical-point to 'keep the logic together", physically and homeomorphically in math-speak - all the groups in the first member transform into the second.

 

Or of course, the way it "really happens", the 3-slice is constructed first, then the inductive step is backwards.

 

The structure of spacetime has an inner product space that has vectors, tangent to our null-geodesic "in time", over this structure - the inner space has outer or external vector products. GR describes a spacetime in a, or as a Lorentzian manifold [math] (\mathcal{ M}, g) [/math] with connected [math] \mathbb C^{\infty} [/math] Hausdorff manifold [math] \mathcal{ M} [/math] with a globally defined, nondegenerate symmetric [math] \mathbb C^{\infty} [/math] tensor field. [math] g [/math]

 

Orientable spacetime

 

Two points in [math] \mathcal{ M} [/math] are connected (related) if they are either timelike or null-related. A point is timelike if an interval exists, on a curve over [math] \mathcal{ M} [/math] , and if there is a smooth map which takes [math] \mathbb R \rightarrow \mathcal{ M} [/math] for the interval.

 

A point is spacelike if it has a null timelike curve. Two points are null-related, if there is a curve connecting them as a timelike curve does - the tangent space. If there is a "time-direction", there is a causal relation in this manifold.

 

Hint: spacetime has a structure, so do lots of things - Rubik may have also thought about what space and time mean when he "doodled" a puzzle design together.

 

[math] \mathbb C \in \mathbb C^{\infty} [/math], if there is a smooth map that takes vectors to [math] \mathcal C \rightarrow \mathcal C^6 [/math], then [math] \mathcal M \rightarrow \mathcal C^6 [/math], where [math] \mathcal C [/math] is "a color"

 

Here we go some more: if the cube has six colors distributed equipartitionally, as one per face, each face has an equal probability, or eigenstate, of having all facelets over faces the same color, or any of 6 colors; there are 9 facelets and 6 colors so some faces will have pairs of them colored the same - the certainty of constraint . Only a subset corresponds to "allowable" groups that intersect with this 'same' eigenstate, with eigenprobability out of the entire color-map problem, the factory-reset mode.

[Boof-head]

Finding a null-point

 

The structure of spacetime implies that time is polarized along an axis of 'causality'; motion generates distance - distance changes time (or time changes when distance does).

If you know there's a direction along a curve, you know you can change direction - you can look along the curve both ways. If you are a null-point on a surface you are on a geodesic over the surface (this is a great circle for the unit sphere or any scaled version of it).

 

If you are a reasoning kind of zero-dimensional being, you figure that since you can look both ways, you are flipping around, or that you can send and receive something (distance) in 2 dimensions. You figure you must be rotating your perspective, you imagine you can look along a one-dimensional "circumference" instead of just "both ways" along a one-dimensional line - you expand both of the ends that you can see, into two adjacent semicircles; you say there is another dimension than the one you think you are travelling along.

 

You must have extent, in that case, so you have to give yourself another dimension too, so now instead of a point you're a small line interval, a set of bounded points on a line embedded in the plane you can see at the sides of the one you know really exists - the timeline you're on (through spacetime). You can give yourself an area by rotating, so you're two-dimensional

 

Since you reason you are looking "around" instead of back and forth, you figure the circumference (instead of the two ends of your timeline) you can see when you do, has no preferred direction either, you can look around it as well, or "above" and "below" it, you have to give yourself another dimension as well, now you have three, plus the direction of time, as you move along it.

 

Time can be positive or negative - you can look forwards and backwards in that dimension; therefore you must be at the centre of this timeline. Your three other dimensions are tangent with this null point.

[lemit]

Thank you, Boof-head, for your translation--I assume--of your previous post. I am both an agnostic and a mystic--any visions I have are really blurry. I love the mystical in theoretical physics (which I have mostly encountered in an annotated edition of "Altered States").

 

I will assume the math supports your statement. I hope so. I really liked it.

 

--lemit

[Boof-head]

Alrighty then:

 

Null-cones

 

The set of null-vectors in [math] T_p \mathcal M [/math] = the tangent space of p, or [math] X [/math] (X is either "ex" or "chi" a measure-space) are timelike or null when [math] g(X,X) [/math] is negative or zero. When it's positive the vectors are spacelike.

 

This set is called the null-cone at p; p is a point with a Lorentzian (metric), or signature that looks like a list, with a head which is the negative sign.

This signature is the orientation of the manifold.

 

(Now you can get your cone on, and get down wit it)