Expansion of space-time

[HydrogenBond]

Here is something that came to me the other day. If we assume the expanding universe is related to the expansion of space-time and if we call our earth reference, the zero reference, is some of the universe expanding into something loosely analogous to negative space-time, since the middle of the universe, more or less, it is already zeroed out at earth? Or is the universe still expanding toward the real zero reference such that the earth is not really at zero reference, except by human convention?

 

The first scenario leads to some interesting results. If the universe is expanding into negative space-time, one would expect something analogous to time and distance expansion affects relative to zero reference. Instead of things appearing to last longer, via SR, things are happening faster. This could explain what appears to be an accelerated expansion. It could explain the very energetic explosions at the perimeter. Phenomena should last billions of years are being used up much quicker, relative to our reference, resulting in the extreme energy output.

 

The second scenario, leads to an new SR consideration. Has anyone worked with the reciprocal of SR, where relative velocity lowers mass, for example. As an application, say one was part of a huge space exploration program, with a city sized space-ship. It is made to travel near C. The journey takes hundreds of years and many generations. One day it is voted to call the inside of their ship zero reference, out of mathematical convenience, rather than continue to tie the reference, to vague memory of earth.

 

They finally reach their destination, after many more generations. There is a beacon signal from their final port of call. If one used relative velocity and SR, relative to them being called the zero reference, the beacon would not come out right, but would appear to be a new phenomena. It should be time dilated, since it has a relative velocity is near C, relative to the ship. On the other hand, if you used reciprocal SR and plugged in V, it comes out right. The reason I asked this is, if the universe is expanding toward the real zero reference and the earth is not zero reference, except by convention, this might be useful.

[snoopy]

Here is something that came to me the other day. If we assume the expanding universe is related to the expansion of space-time and if we call our earth reference, the zero reference, is some of the universe expanding into something loosely analogous to negative space-time, since the middle of the universe, more or less, it is already zeroed out at earth? Or is the universe still expanding toward the real zero reference such that the earth is not really at zero reference, except by human convention?

 

The first scenario leads to some interesting results. If the universe is expanding into negative space-time, one would expect something analogous to time and distance expansion affects relative to zero reference. Instead of things appearing to last longer, via SR, things are happening faster. This could explain what appears to be an accelerated expansion. It could explain the very energetic explosions at the perimeter. Phenomena should last billions of years are being used up much quicker, relative to our reference, resulting in the extreme energy output.

 

The second scenario, leads to an new SR consideration. Has anyone worked with the reciprocal of SR, where relative velocity lowers mass, for example. As an application, say one was part of a huge space exploration program, with a city sized space-ship. It is made to travel near C. The journey takes hundreds of years and many generations. One day it is voted to call the inside of their ship zero reference, out of mathematical convenience, rather than continue to tie the reference, to vague memory of earth.

 

They finally reach their destination, after many more generations. There is a beacon signal from their final port of call. If one used relative velocity and SR, relative to them being called the zero reference, the beacon would not come out right, but would appear to be a new phenomena. It should be time dilated, since it has a relative velocity is near C, relative to the ship. On the other hand, if you used reciprocal SR and plugged in V, it comes out right. The reason I asked this is, if the universe is expanding toward the real zero reference and the earth is not zero reference, except by convention, this might be useful.

 

 

Yeah I thought about this some years ago but dismissed it as being wrong because it didnt really feel right.

 

There is no absolute zero reference and negative spacetime cannot exist after all spacetime is created at the big bang so you have to ask where the negative stuff was created if not at the big bang.

 

But interesting isnt it.

 

Peace

:)

[Qfwfq]

Space is space. Coordinates can be negative, according to choice of reference, but space is just space. And Earth isn't at the centre of the universe!

[HydrogenBond]

The idea of negative space-time is a relative concept. It depends on what we call zero reference. If we were traveling at 0.99C and called this our zero reference, the earth reference would be negative relative to this. But negative relative velocity doesn't change the result of the SR equations. But the reciprocal added up properly. This simple assumption can do the same thing as more complicated approaches. It is new only in the sense of a new twist on a well proven set of equations.

 

For example, if we assume negative relative reference to earth, what should happen is space-time appearing to expand. This will not only create a red shift, but will create the appearance of acceleration. It will also cause things to speed up relative to our reference. With the speed of light constant, it will appear like very energetic affects. Thats the universe in a nut shell.

 

Using this approach, the dark matter and energy would amount to the conversion of mass due to the expansion of reference. In other words, if we increased velocity toward C, we would gain relativistic mass. This mass gain is connected to E=MC2, with the energy coming from the velocity. If we put on the brakes, this relativistic mass still needs to follow the conservation of energy. But since it is not part of the slow reference, due to SR, it needs to change into something else.

 

If we take negative space-time literally, it would imply matter hitting a cheese grater, i.e., loss of mass. In other words, if it was placed in such a reference, it would burn out quicker due to the distance-time expansion and the requirement of it also needing to lose mass. This different than shedding relativistic mass since it is starting with real mass. But it still may result in relativistic mass-energy, i.e., dark.

[UncleAl]

8.5x11 piece of paper, pen, enlarging photocopier. Draw five small circles randomly near the center of the paper and serially number their insides 1,2,3,4,5. Number the corner of the paper 1. Copy it with enlargement, say 10%. Take that copy, number its corner 1,2, and copy it with 10% enlargement. Take that copy, number its corner 1,2,3 and copy it with 10% enlargement. Number the last copy 1234

 

100% (1), 110% (1,2), 121% (1,2,3), 133% (1234) net enlargement start to finish, (1.10)^3.

 

Superpose #1 and #123 then hold the sandwich up to the light. Align each numbered circle in turn. All the other circles have moved no matter what circle you choose as a reference point. That's how the unverrse works. EVERY point is at the exact center. EVERY direction at EVERY point exactly points to the Big Bang EXACTLY the same distance away.

real zero reference

Aint no such, even in principle.

[snoopy]

If we take negative space-time literally, it would imply matter hitting a cheese grater, i.e., loss of mass. In other words, if it was placed in such a reference, it would burn out quicker due to the distance-time expansion and the requirement of it also needing to lose mass. This different than shedding relativistic mass since it is starting with real mass. But it still may result in relativistic mass-energy, i.e., dark.

 

 

Yeah negative spacetime would be horrific but I dont think it exists.

 

Where would it come from ?

 

Qfwfq says space is just space but I dont think it is as simple as that.

 

After all space is made up of fields so it just isnt space its also interwoven explicitly with time into a 4 dimensional spacetime.

 

So space just isnt space its spacetime.

 

But that said I dont think negative spacetime exists.

 

Peace

[HydrogenBond]

One of the three SR equations is based on relativistic mass. This mass increase has a connection to the kinetic energy associated with velocity via E=MC2. This mass increase implies velocity on an absolute scale.

 

The conceptual problem, many fall into, is SR has three equations and relative velocity often uses only D, and T to make space-time. This partial use of SR can create the illusions of relative reference. Once you add M and the conservation of energy, there is absolute scale. Based on this absolute scale, measurements from a moving reference, relative to one with less relativistic mass, can be modeled with negative reference.

 

Relative reference, because it is based on 2 of 3 SR equations, will lead to the violation of the conservation of energy. Say we had one rocket in motion. We expended X energy to double its mass. We also have 10 stationary reference points at various positions, to view it. If we look out the moving rocket and see all 10 relative references at the same time, will we see then sharing a total of 10X energy? Even if we saw this, we know it can not real, since it would violate the conservation of energy and be a type of perpetual motion machine. If you just use one stationary and one moving reference it is easy to get tricked. If we add SR mass, we get an absolute scale that is velocity-energy dependent. In the above example, if any of the stationary references look at all the other ten reference the energy adds to X.

[steve 9]

Here is something that came to me the other day. If we assume the expanding universe is related to the expansion of space-time and if we call our earth reference, the zero reference, is some of the universe expanding into something loosely analogous to negative space-time, since the middle of the universe, more or less, it is already zeroed out at earth? Or is the universe still expanding toward the real zero reference such that the earth is not really at zero reference, except by human convention?

 

The first scenario leads to some interesting results. If the universe is expanding into negative space-time, one would expect something analogous to time and distance expansion affects relative to zero reference. Instead of things appearing to last longer, via SR, things are happening faster. This could explain what appears to be an accelerated expansion. It could explain the very energetic explosions at the perimeter. Phenomena should last billions of years are being used up much quicker, relative to our reference, resulting in the extreme energy output.

 

The second scenario, leads to an new SR consideration. Has anyone worked with the reciprocal of SR, where relative velocity lowers mass, for example. As an application, say one was part of a huge space exploration program, with a city sized space-ship. It is made to travel near C. The journey takes hundreds of years and many generations. One day it is voted to call the inside of their ship zero reference, out of mathematical convenience, rather than continue to tie the reference, to vague memory of earth.

 

They finally reach their destination, after many more generations. There is a beacon signal from their final port of call. If one used relative velocity and SR, relative to them being called the zero reference, the beacon would not come out right, but would appear to be a new phenomena. It should be time dilated, since it has a relative velocity is near C, relative to the ship. On the other hand, if you used reciprocal SR and plugged in V, it comes out right. The reason I asked this is, if the universe is expanding toward the real zero reference and the earth is not zero reference, except by convention, this might be useful.

 

 

 

 

Tell me what evidence you have that leads you to believe that this concept of space-time is a physical thing? Break it down if you want to, What makes you believe space or time is a real physical thing?

[steve 9]

Yeah I thought about this some years ago but dismissed it as being wrong because it didnt really feel right.

 

There is no absolute zero reference and negative spacetime cannot exist after all spacetime is created at the big bang so you have to ask where the negative stuff was created if not at the big bang.

 

But interesting isnt it.

 

Peace

:)

 

You say space-time is created. What are the ingredients? What reference do you have that states space-time is a physical thing that exists?

[steve 9]

8.5x11 piece of paper, pen, enlarging photocopier. Draw five small circles randomly near the center of the paper and serially number their insides 1,2,3,4,5. Number the corner of the paper 1. Copy it with enlargement, say 10%. Take that copy, number its corner 1,2, and copy it with 10% enlargement. Take that copy, number its corner 1,2,3 and copy it with 10% enlargement. Number the last copy 1234

 

100% (1), 110% (1,2), 121% (1,2,3), 133% (1234) net enlargement start to finish, (1.10)^3.

 

Superpose #1 and #123 then hold the sandwich up to the light. Align each numbered circle in turn. All the other circles have moved no matter what circle you choose as a reference point. That's how the unverrse works. EVERY point is at the exact center. EVERY direction at EVERY point exactly points to the Big Bang EXACTLY the same distance away.

 

Aint no such, even in principle.

 

 

According to what observed phenomenon?

[steve 9]

Yeah negative spacetime would be horrific but I dont think it exists.

 

Where would it come from ?

 

Qfwfq says space is just space but I dont think it is as simple as that.

 

After all space is made up of fields so it just isnt space its also interwoven explicitly with time into a 4 dimensional spacetime.

 

So space just isnt space its spacetime.

 

But that said I dont think negative spacetime exists.

 

Peace

:)

 

 

You say space is interwoven. Interwoven with what? Show me a scientific reference that states this and show me a reference that states space is a physical thing. You have a misunderstanding of the terms SPACE, TIME and DIMENSION.

[modest]

You say space-time is created. What are the ingredients?

 

Pyrotex answers that in this post:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/12189-why-there-not-nothing.html#post188284

 

-modest

[modest]

You say space is interwoven. Interwoven with what? Show me a scientific reference that states this and show me a reference that states space is a physical thing. You have a misunderstanding of the terms SPACE, TIME and DIMENSION.

 

steve,

 

Time is a fundamental quantity in physics. This means it cannot be defined using something more basic about the universe. This is true of other fundamentals like length (space) or mass. Physics is a discipline of comparing and predicting nature. We have found (as humans) that there is nothing more fundamental in our pursuit of doing so as these quantities. I challenge you to show me an equation or theory in physics that is not derived from or does not have these basic quantities.

 

You will notice if you look around, there are many threads here hundreds of posts long that not only focus on the nature and substance of what space and time are - but are filled with people denying their existence. Sometimes people do so cleverly, but more often it's just a game of "show me this stuff", "show me this space-time" "give me a chunk of it to chew up in my mouth and spit out on the floor for my dog 'Independence' to eat with a side of gravy - then I'll believe it exists".

 

You will also find that people here who know what they're talking about won't define space-time every time they mention it. They accept the fundamental value of these fundamental quantities without which physics would not exist. They do so knowing there are questions about the ontology of space and time. Some are philosophical and some are valid concerns of physics. But they are not a roadblock to every conversation. They do not prevent valid and good predictions of science and physics.

 

If you are serious about starting a discussion on this subject, it would probably be better to read something like "The Ontology of Spacetime" or something better that I can't think of off hand and start a thread with specific questions or concerns rather than turning each thread into such a debate.

 

best intentions,

 

-modest

[freeztar]

You say space is interwoven. Interwoven with what? Show me a scientific reference that states this and show me a reference that states space is a physical thing. You have a misunderstanding of the terms SPACE, TIME and DIMENSION.

 

Steve,

 

If you would like to discuss space-time, or the proof of time, space, or dimensions, then please make a post in the "Philosophies and Humanities" forum. The "Physics and Mathematics" forum is for scientific discussion of...well...physics and mathematics. Hijacking every thread that contains the word spacetime with questions concerning its physical reality is not good practice around here. Start a thread and we can discuss these things there. Thanks.

 

edit: I see you beat me to it Modest. :)

[steve 9]

Pyrotex answers that in this post:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/12189-why-there-not-nothing.html#post188284

 

-modest

 

 

No scientific facts or any exact details found on the link that you said would answer my question. Did this actually answer what space and time are for you? Can anybody give a reference that states how space or time can be real physical things? Anybody?

[steve 9]

steve,

 

Time is a fundamental quantity in physics. This means it cannot be defined using something more basic about the universe. This is true of other fundamentals like length (space) or mass. Physics is a discipline of comparing and predicting nature. We have found (as humans) that there is nothing more fundamental in our pursuit of doing so as these quantities. I challenge you to show me an equation or theory in physics that is not derived from or does not have these basic quantities.

 

You will notice if you look around, there are many threads here hundreds of posts long that not only focus on the nature and substance of what space and time are - but are filled with people denying their existence. Sometimes people do so cleverly, but more often it's just a game of "show me this stuff", "show me this space-time" "give me a chunk of it to chew up in my mouth and spit out on the floor for my dog 'Independence' to eat with a side of gravy - then I'll believe it exists".

 

You will also find that people here who know what they're talking about won't define space-time every time they mention it. They accept the fundamental value of these fundamental quantities without which physics would not exist. They do so knowing there are questions about the ontology of space and time. Some are philosophical and some are valid concerns of physics. But they are not a roadblock to every conversation. They do not prevent valid and good predictions of science and physics.

 

If you are serious about starting a discussion on this subject, it would probably be better to read something like "The Ontology of Spacetime" or something better that I can't think of off hand and start a thread with specific questions or concerns rather than turning each thread into such a debate.

 

best intentions,

 

-modest

 

Lets cut to the chase here. You tell me of a standard scientific reference that states time or space is a real physical thing. Any reference, including the book that you think I should read. What physical evidence have you perceived that leads you to believe that space or time are real things? Why do you believe space and time are physical things?

 

In order to have a serious discussion on this subject we need to define our terms first. You tell me what definition of space or time that you are working with and then we can start.

 

Here are some basic definitions of time and space based on standard reference books and observation.

 

TIME: Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time.

 

 

 

SPACE: The term space is used to describe that area of nothing between objects. That area between you and what you are observing, that is space. Space is caused by looking out from a point. The concept of space comes about from the idea that one perceives through something when looking out from our point of view. There are objects that exist other than where we are viewing from, and by looking out to these items we create the idea of space. If space were a real physical thing don’t you think that reference books would state that space is a real thing. If space were a real physical thing it would have to exist in a location in space, that would not be logical. This thing called space if it were real would have an atomic structure, yet there is no such structure called space.

 

 

O.K. Now you give me your definitions that state that time and space are physical objects.

[steve 9]

Steve,

 

If you would like to discuss space-time, or the proof of time, space, or dimensions, then please make a post in the "Philosophies and Humanities" forum. The "Physics and Mathematics" forum is for scientific discussion of...well...physics and mathematics. Hijacking every thread that contains the word spacetime with questions concerning its physical reality is not good practice around here. Start a thread and we can discuss these things there. Thanks.

 

edit: I see you beat me to it Modest. :shrug:

 

 

What are the scientific definitions of space that state space or time are physical things. The terms space and time are used liberally in many science books. You tell me what the scientific definitions of space and time are, and then you will see that there are no definitions that will state or explain how space or time are physical. You seem to think that space and time are physical things, what reference or observation has lead you to believe that space or time are physical. What I am asking has everything to do with physics. The terms space and time are used in physics, so tell me what definition of these terms are being used in the field of physics.

 

The thread starts here, show your references that state space or time are physical things.