What is "spacetime" really?

[Michael Mooney]

Arkain,

I don't see how you get from my quote on time to:

So this brings me to a thought. Going by your logic, I see it as, that which is real at the most fundamental level is a level where no event can be finite in its own nature and separated from the rest of the fundamental level that is infinite and chaotic.

 

First, I have recognized the conventional usage of time as event duration and of course as a component of velocity as in miles per hour.

 

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.... 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.

 

So how did you get from the above to your quite obscure (to me) conclusions in your last post?

 

And, Modest... What is the point of calculating the exact velocity a mass would require to go earth to sun in 50 seconds since no mass can travel at lightspeed, let alone over nine times lightspeed?

 

And how is it that actual distances between actual objects in space changes with the perspective of the observer? Do you believe in the philosophical idealism of Berkely and hume? Can you imagine a cosmic perspective on the cosmos as it is independent of what observer sees what and when within the limited paradigm of info via lightspeed?

 

I would think that in a forum called "the philosophy of science" one would be able to assert that all is not relative to local observational perspective, that, in fact true objectivity transcends subjective perspective.

And finally, in what way do you disagree with my (now thrice posted) quote on the two aspects of time above such that you still insist that "it" is something that "dilates."

 

Michael

[watcher]

That is a confusing mouthful. But what it is getting at is that, if we exclude the notion of time as being any real directional dimension, and accept this as our basis of point of view, then we are dealing with that which is infinite, and as a whole undefinable.

 

Furthermore, on this basis of reasoning, there appears to be an obvious problem (paradox) when one considers how can space be both; comprehended as a void of nothingness, and be considered filled with physical properties which influence the motion of even the largest objects. Though, I think insight is found into this paradox when learning more about how we (as human minds) manifest a concept of reality in the first place. That is, you can't get your mind wrapped around a unified idea when the entirety of your thinking is based upon a whole, yet, non-unified and invidualized opertation (ie, particles and meaningful locations).

 

that cleared up things a bit.

[modest]

And, Modest... What is the point of calculating the exact velocity a mass would require to go earth to sun in 50 seconds since no mass can travel at lightspeed, let alone over nine times lightspeed?

 

Nothing is going faster than light. The question is one of special relativity. In SR, matter cannot be accelerated to the speed of light.

 

As I've previously indicated, it is question 4 under exercises and problems on this page:

SPECIAL RELATIVITY - School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Modest,

A little history of our recent exchanges, just to be clear:

Originally Posted by modest

I will understand your system better if you could demonstrate an example using your transcendent perspective, such as how fast a person must go in order to reach the sun (from the earth) in 50 seconds. This would help me understand how distance and motion work in the cosmic, transcendent perspective. Doing the same in special relativity then comparing the two will help even more.

 

MM:

So... what if man (or clocks in Modest's link... exercise #4) could travel at over "warp nine" (see "Star Trek" fiction) and get to the sun in 50 seconds. ...

Truth is no mass can travel at lightspeed, much less at over nine times lightspeed, so the "what if" above is moot.

 

Modest:

Nothing is going faster than light. The question is one of special relativity. In SR, matter cannot be accelerated to the speed of light.

 

As I've previously indicated, it is question 4 under exercises and problems on this page:

SPECIAL RELATIVITY - School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology

 

So... You first ask how fast a person must go to to reach the sun in 50 seconds. I answer, as above that no mass (as in "person" or "clock"... citing the link you repeated can reach lightspeed, let alone over nine times lightspeed.

 

Then you assert that "nothing is going faster than light" and repeat what i already said... that matter can not reach lightspeed.

 

Finally I asked you several questions which you didn't address at all, as follows:

 

And how is it that actual distances between actual objects in space changes with the perspective of the observer? Do you believe in the philosophical idealism of Berkely and hume? Can you imagine a cosmic perspective on the cosmos as it is independent of what observer sees what and when within the limited paradigm of info via lightspeed?

 

I would think that in a forum called "the philosophy of science" one would be able to assert that all is not relative to local observational perspective, that, in fact true objectivity transcends subjective perspective.

And finally, in what way do you disagree with my (now thrice posted) quote on the two aspects of time above such that you still insist that "it" is something that "dilates."

 

I can not imagine a less responsive exchange on your part.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

watcher:

spacetime is an experience. not that we don't know it, we do, we just can't accurately translate it into symbolic language. that is all

 

Are you saying, like Modest that "It's all relative" to local point of view or even to the way humans experience cosmos?

 

Do you deny that there is a real cosmos independent of human observation?

Are you a solopsist who thinks that the world/cosmos would/does cease to exist when you are not observing it and aware of it... or does the collective experience of humanity project cosmos into existence and sustain it via our collective observation of it?

 

These are the kinds of philosophical questions that the moderators of this forum refuse to answer, though they continue to insist that relativity (and lightspeed as the conveyance of what is seen/known) is and must be the last word in Reality... even to the extent that there are no "objective" distances between objects, as they vary with observer perspective.

 

What say you?

Michael

PS:

Still wondering...

... if there are any "philosophers of science" in or lurking about this forum who are not stuck in the dogma that relativity is the ultimate perspective and absolute reality, specifically in cosmology.

[watcher]

watcher:

 

 

Are you saying, like Modest that "It's all relative" to local point of view or even to the way humans experience cosmos?

 

to some respect, yes. relativity is here already to tell us that nothing in the known universe is absolute nor has an independent existence of it's own. to say that there is an eternal now simultaneously occurring between here and the other side of the universe is just an intuitive knowing. it has no physical basis since the physical world is governed by relativity. eternal now means that t must be equal to zero. (t=0). timeless existence is not the realm of science. it has nothing to say to that.

 

Do you deny that there is a real cosmos independent of human observation?

i would say that there is no absolute cosmos independent of consciousness.

consider a computer no bigger that a cubic meter but can create a virtual universe inside that box and yet the human observer can experience the same expanse of space and time for it. in a perfectly simulated virtual reality, an observer could not differentiate if his inside the box or in the "real" universe out there.

 

Are you a solopsist who thinks that the world/cosmos would/does cease to exist when you are not observing it and aware of it... or does the collective experience of humanity project cosmos into existence and sustain it via our collective observation of it?

solophism is flawed because two solophist will never cease to argued which of them is the real one, hahahahaha

but these statements would make sense if consciousness is assumed to be universal and not simply a human thing or the by product of matter/brain.

 

These are the kinds of philosophical questions that the moderators of this forum refuse to answer, though they continue to insist that relativity (and lightspeed as the conveyance of what is seen/known) is and must be the last word in Reality... even to the extent that there are no "objective" distances between objects, as they vary with observer perspective.

 

What say you?

Michael

 

because these are not the concerns of relativists, the enigma to understand the spatial relationship of perceived objects belongs the study of visual perception. imho

[Michael Mooney]

Arkain,

I missed a piece in my reply to you as it was imbedded in a context which I found confusing and irrellevant to my "time" piece you quoted.

 

On the nature of space you wrote:

Furthermore, on this basis of reasoning, there appears to be an obvious problem (paradox) when one considers how can space be both; comprehended as a void of nothingness, and be considered filled with physical properties which influence the motion of even the largest objects.

 

If you have been following this thread, you know that the latter is thought of as a given by Modest and other moderators, while I have consistently argued that the former is true, i.e., that space is a void, emptiness... nothingness.

 

It is a basic tenant of "scientific materialism" that there can be no "action at a distance"... that space must be "filled" with some-"thing" ("aether" or whatever) as a mechanism for the conveyance of forces such as gravity. (Even Newton abhored "action at a distance.)

 

We all know that all masses pull on all other masses ("directly with massiveness and inversely with the square of distance between masses.") We just don't know how it works, and most scientists are convinced that there must be some mediating "substance"... as this is an axiom of the above belief system.

 

Yet I have repeatedly cited the fact that "entangled particles" in many well controlled quantum physics experiments demonstrate informational continuity without any known medium of its conveyance.

I've even cited the most simple example of a magnet pulling an iron bar through a lab 'vacuum' without any substance (but a few stray atoms) between iron and magnet... nothing to be a "carrier" of the magnetic force... yet the force is conveyed through empty space.

 

So, again... "spacetime" is the scientific equivalent of "fabric" of "the Emporer's New Clothes." Only the scientifically sophisticated can "see" or understand it.

 

Again I say emphatically that the "emporer" is parading naked before his hypocritical admirers... the whole scientific community which believes in the "spacetime fabric." (They wouldn't want to contradict Einstein and look foolish! I don't mind!)

 

Michael

[watcher]

that space is a void, emptiness... nothingness.

 

how do you correlate this to zero point energy?

[Michael Mooney]

how do you correlate this to zero point energy?

 

Just so that we are all on the same page defining it... the briefest quote from Wiki:

Zero-point energy is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum energy, an amount of energy associated with the vacuum of empty space. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one of possible explanation for the cosmological constant.[1]

 

I see "vacuum energy" as a serious misnomer, given that the common understanding of a vacuum is true emptiness. (Scientists often make something out of nothing in the realm of theory which contradicts common knowledge... usually with tons of math to "back it up" but with no-"thing" (as in the classical vacuum) but human theory in defiance of what "vacuum" means.)

There is another explanation for the cosmological constant. Multiple bangs and crunches can explain it via "shells" of cosmic matter beyond our cosmic event horizon pulling the known cosmos outward at an increasing rate of expansion. But that is "theory" way beyond present scientific empirical verification.

 

If space (and all vacuums) are defined as emptiness, then whatever *occupies space*, whether energy or matter or plasma or mysterious combinations of them, is the proper subject of scientific study. Emptiness remains void... vacuum... nothingness while whatever it *contains* constitutes the dynamics studied by science.

 

Zero point energy is vaguely defined as "an amount of energy associated with the vacuum of empty space." "Associated with??" Energy/matter/plasma is something *in* the vacuum of space not the emptiness which defines the vacuum! (Technically the emptiness... the vacuum... is the space in between the "things." The space which matter or energy occupies is not a vacuum.)

 

Like "infinite mass density in a point of zero volume" (Hawking's definition of the primordial "singularity" from which he once theorized that the cosmos came... before he joined up with M-theory cosmology)... zero point energy is the same kind of nonsense... in denial of the possibility of actual, true emptiness *occupied by* matter, energy... cosmic 'stuff.'

 

Good night. Time to go out and play.

Michael

[Erasmus00]

So... You first ask how fast a person must go to to reach the sun in 50 seconds. I answer, as above that no mass (as in "person" or "clock"... citing the link you repeated can reach lightspeed, let alone over nine times lightspeed.

 

To reach an object 8 light minutes away in about 1 light minute you would need to travel at about .992c. This is a standard relativity problem- it does not require exceeding light speed.

-Will

[Erasmus00]

I've even cited the most simple example of a magnet pulling an iron bar through a lab 'vacuum' without any substance (but a few stray atoms) between iron and magnet... nothing to be a "carrier" of the magnetic force... yet the force is conveyed through empty space.

 

The force is well known to be carried by photons. If you pull the magnet very quickly, it will leave photons behind to radiate away and be detected.

 

So, again... "spacetime" is the scientific equivalent of "fabric" of "the Emporer's New Clothes." Only the scientifically sophisticated can "see" or understand it.

 

I have repeatedly suggested the following- you develop a theory based on a truly "empty" space- and make testable predictions with it. I propose the following- you cannot develop a physics based on a "cosmic perspective" that works to describe reality. If you prove me wrong, I will gladly eat my words.

[watcher]

Just so that we are all on the same page defining it... the briefest quote from Wiki:

 

 

I see "vacuum energy" as a serious misnomer, given that the common understanding of a vacuum is true emptiness. (Scientists often make something out of nothing in the realm of theory which contradicts common knowledge... usually with tons of math to "back it up" but with no-"thing" (as in the classical vacuum) but human theory in defiance of what "vacuum" means.)

There is another explanation for the cosmological constant. Multiple bangs and crunches can explain it via "shells" of cosmic matter beyond our cosmic event horizon pulling the known cosmos outward at an increasing rate of expansion. But that is "theory" way beyond present scientific empirical verification.

 

If space (and all vacuums) are defined as emptiness, then whatever *occupies space*, whether energy or matter or plasma or mysterious combinations of them, is the proper subject of scientific study. Emptiness remains void... vacuum... nothingness while whatever it *contains* constitutes the dynamics studied by science.

 

Zero point energy is vaguely defined as "an amount of energy associated with the vacuum of empty space." "Associated with??" Energy/matter/plasma is something *in* the vacuum of space not the emptiness which defines the vacuum! (Technically the emptiness... the vacuum... is the space in between the "things." The space which matter or energy occupies is not a vacuum.)

 

Like "infinite mass density in a point of zero volume" (Hawking's definition of the primordial "singularity" from which he once theorized that the cosmos came... before he joined up with M-theory cosmology)... zero point energy is the same kind of nonsense... in denial of the possibility of actual, true emptiness *occupied by* matter, energy... cosmic 'stuff.'

 

Good night. Time to go out and play.

Michael

 

or more simply, the whole thing implied that there is no such thing as a pure vacuum.

an ideal that does not exists in the material universe.

 

perhaps when you mean void, it is the same as saying it has a non material make up?

or what additional understanding can we derived from assuming that space is an independent and absolute entity of pure nothingness?

[Michael Mooney]

MM: "Are you saying, like Modest that "It's all relative" to local point of view or even to the way humans experience cosmos? "

W:

"to some respect, yes. relativity is here already to tell us that nothing in the known universe is absolute nor has an independent existence of it's own."

 

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

 

W:

to say that there is an eternal now simultaneously occurring between here and the other side of the universe is just an intuitive knowing. it has no physical basis since the physical world is governed by relativity. eternal now means that t must be equal to zero. (t=0). timeless existence is not the realm of science. it has nothing to say to that.

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.

 

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.

 

W:

i would say that there is no absolute cosmos independent of consciousness.

consider a computer no bigger that a cubic meter but can create a virtual universe inside that box and yet the human observer can experience the same expanse of space and time for it. in a perfectly simulated virtual reality, an observer could not differentiate if his inside the box or in the "real" universe out there

 

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!

 

W:

but these statements would make sense if consciousness is assumed to be universal and not simply a human thing or the by product of matter/brain.

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.

 

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

[Michael Mooney]

The force is well known to be carried by photons. If you pull the magnet very quickly, it will leave photons behind to radiate away and be detected.

 

Are you saying that "virtual photons" become "real photons" in the above case and that a magnet will give off light when pulling an iron bar?... or do the photons run back and forth between magnet and iron bar "conveying the attractive force? If so, this is news to me.

 

 

I have repeatedly suggested the following- you develop a theory based on a truly "empty" space- and make testable predictions with it. I propose the following- you cannot develop a physics based on a "cosmic perspective" that works to describe reality. If you prove me wrong, I will gladly eat my words.

 

I have repeatedly said that all observable gravitational effects can be explained as force fields across empty space... only that *how it works* is not yet understood by anyone... and that positing curved spacetime adds nothing to the body of knowledge but a convenient metaphorical aid to visualization.

 

My cosmic perspective remains in the realm of metaphysics. Do you hold the M-theory camp to the same challenge? It too is metaphysics, as made clear recently by two well credentialed critics at the end of a recent "NOVA" program on string/membrane theory and cosmology.

 

I ask you to read my above two-part answer to the question "What is time?" and tell me how you disagree. Seems it puts the lie to "time" as a thing. From the perspective of the timeless omnipresent now, there is a possibility to transcend local obsession with what observer can see what event and when relative to another observer. It is the thought experiment from the transcendental perspective of one omnipresent cosmic observer and yield a cosmic objectivity impossible to relativity.

From that perspective one can also "see" (in the mind's eye) that see that space is empty between actual objects *in space* and that this emptiness does not "bend, curve, etc" but rather that the trajectories of the the observable objects are curved, not empty space.

 

I reckon I am wasting my breath here. May soon leave for keeps if no one here here will even engage "cosmic objectivity" as a mental experiment. 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.)

 

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.

 

No, relativity is not, ironically absolute. Distances between objects are independent of the local perspectives dependent on light's speed limit. And how clocks keep time at high velocity... or how none can keep *accurate, earth commensurate, standardized* time is a subject I've exhausted earlier in this thread.

(See, a standardized "second" is one sixtieth of an hour, which is one twenty-fourth of an earth revolution as measured relative to a "fixed" (far away) star. So all this "time dilation" is actually a farce. See again my piece on "What is time?" above.

 

Feeling done here unless someone has a sense of my meaning.

 

It's been good exercise anyway.

Michael

[Erasmus00]

I reckon I am wasting my breath here. May soon leave for keeps if no one here here will even engage "cosmic objectivity" as a mental experiment. 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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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).

[Moontanman]

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.

[arkain101]

Arkain,

I don't see how you get from my quote on time to:

 

 

First, I have recognized the conventional usage of time as event duration and of course as a component of velocity as in miles per hour.

 

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.... 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.

So how did you get from the above to your quite obscure (to me) conclusions in your last post?

 

Michael

 

My 'confusing' reply was based upon the premise of the quoted section in Red. It is in my opinion - whether considered a professional or amature form of insight - that if the very concept of time is removed as a functional dimension, then in accordance to this, our very logical point of view must change aswell.

 

I failed to give a detailed explanation. Instead supplied a paragraph in the form that assumes the reader is aware of all of these details.

 

Allow me to elaborate on my previous post in question.

 

The change in our point of view resulting from the exclusion of any and all concepts of time is one where, if we hold the stance that no object can exist indefinitely we must dismiss:

1) all possibilities of individualized objects as a fundamental function.

2) the concept of the universe as we see it existing - anywhere other than in our mind and its 3 dimensional concept of reasoning -.

 

Why?

 

All possibilities of individualized objects as a fundamental function.

 

If we exclude time, then this in turn applies 'immortal' (infinite) and static properties to the smallest indivisible functioning "part" the generates the operation that is, universe. The notion of dismissing this model is not motivated on the liking or disliking of the concept but is based on the laws of physics; That, 1)Energy can be neither created or destroyed. 2) Mass(matter) and Energy(phantom matter) equivalence. If the basis of nature is unchanging(static) and infinite, then it can not necessarily be considered to change in the forms of 1 and 2, in the context that we exclude the notion of the creation or destruction of the universe.

The concept of the universe as we see it existing - alike or any place (reality) other than in our mind and its 3 dimensional concept of reasoning -.

 

Basing this section on the validity of the logic in the above paragraph; With the exclusion of the time concept in the field (of study) of fundamental functions, all things subject to change must be excluded from this particular field. For example: A human cell exists in accordance to us -the human mind- because of the shape, size, color, texture, and other such properties we can distinguish of it. Likewise, the human body exists in accordance to us because of the shape, texture, size, color and cells that make up this body. Although, the body, and its cells are made up of several properties that not distinguishable by the human mind. These properties are only imaginative comparisons of the priors. Furthermore, these imaginative comparisons are only applicable to the estimated value of approximately (wild guess) 0.0000001 % of the probable locations where there is not a probability of 99.999% 'empty space'.

 

Conclusion

 

As such, several 'objects' are best considered mere concepts suited to serve reasonable purpose in relation to other mental constructs of reasonable purposes, which are all irrelevent to the field of fundamental functions.

 

Extension

 

Why does science run into so many road blocks? This has been my main avenue of investigation for the past few years, and my conclusions is that we run into very few road blocks. What we do run into are many mind blocks. I have thought that in order to understand nature and our science of it, we must -just as importantly- do our best to understand the tool that we use to try and understand this science. This tool is our human mind. As we learn both science and the nature of our tool, much needed and required insight is brought forth for these road blocks.

 

 

I will be inclined to make a second post for explaination of the other section of my original post which is in question.