What is "spacetime" really?

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus:

]I have not at all talked about redefining straight as "the path of light." You put words into my mouth in order to fit what I'm saying into your misconception. I'm talking about straight lines in space as perceived by some observer in one specific instant.

 

The " redefining straight as "the path of light" comment was not addressed to or attributed to you.

Here is the post of reference in full:

 

Pyrotex (p.49 post #490):

A quick note on straight lines in the universe.

There is the Platonic Ideal of a straight line, and I believe this is (I think) what Michael believes the universe can be "drawn" with.

 

There is the Constructed or Observed straight line that we (as non-deities) are limited to dealing with.

How do you define a straight line?

There is only one way I've ever heard of -- use the flight-path of a photon. Photons always take the minimum energy path between two points. That's also the minimum time path. It's also the path of zero effort, meaning that no additional force or energy is required by the photon. This is probably the ONLY "unique" path in our universe between two physical points.

 

But photons are affected by the Sun's gravity!

 

To make a long story short, the Sun doesn't "pull" on the photon with a force, but it distorts the normally "flat, Euclidian" space that the photon normally travels through.

 

So this is the Truth according to Pyrotex... including the dogmatic reference to distorted space... assuming that it couldn't possibly be simply gravitational force "pulling" on light, since it has no mass. (See my repeated refs to light's momentum giving it the inertial (momentum at ultimate speed) quality of mass.

 

Back to your reply:

 

Making up curved slices of 3-d space and calling them triangles with over 180 degrees doesn't cut any ontological mustard. The kid with the protractor will find 180 degrees in every triangle he measures. What kind of "proof" do you want?

 

Further, GR stipulates (AND DEPENDS ON) the fact that a triangle drawn with straight lines drawn in real space will NOT have 180 degrees.

 

"Real space?" Don't you mean "non-Euclidean space" and jump to the ontological conclusion that Euclid's geometry is now proven false by Einstein and Co. with their "curved spacetime.?"

 

You repeatedly claim that the "math" of GR is right, but the "reification" wrong. At the same time- you contend that a triangle drawn in real space would have 180 degrees. Your assertion about "real triangles" destroys GR, as it contradicts the foundation.

 

Do you see that GR and your ontology are contradictory?

 

You are ignoring the ontological difference in "reality quotient" between the "spacetime metric" (and its math) as a coodinate system and "real triangles" drawn with actually straight lines in "real space." The math and its conceptual metric work just fine without (yawn!)... reifying spacetime.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

In reply to Pyrotex's belabored farce above... post # 559:

(Maybe if I just keep repeating the obvious....)

MM:

Well there is empty space between objects, and "empty" means absence of things, as in nothing in between things. Things or objects occupying space render the space occupied no longer empty! Doh!

[modest]

So this is the Truth according to Pyrotex... including the dogmatic reference to distorted space... assuming that it couldn't possibly be simply gravitational force "pulling" on light, since it has no mass. (See my repeated refs to light's momentum giving it the inertial (momentum at ultimate speed) quality of mass.

The question of a photon’s path near the sun has been addressed in this thread previously.

 

3.4.1 The deflection of light

 

A light ray (or photon) which passes the Sun at a distance d is deflected by an angle

[math]\delta \theta = \frac{1}{2}(1 + \gamma) \frac{4M_{\odot}}{d} \frac{1+cos\Phi}{2}[/math]

It is interesting to note that the classic derivations of the deflection of light that use only the corpuscular theory of light (Cavendish 1784, von Soldner 1803), or the principle of equivalence (Einstein 1911), yield only the “1/2” part of the coefficient in front of the expression in Equation). But the result of these calculations is the deflection of light relative to local straight lines, as established for example by rigid rods; however, because of space curvature around the Sun, determined by the PPN parameter [math]\boldsymbol\gamma[/math], local straight lines are bent relative to asymptotic straight lines far from the Sun by just enough to yield the remaining factor “[math]\boldsymbol\gamma[/math]/2”. The first factor “1/2” holds in any metric theory, the second “[math]\gamma[/math]/2” varies from theory to theory. Thus, calculations that purport to derive the full deflection using the equivalence principle alone are incorrect.

The prediction of the full bending of light by the Sun was one of the great successes of Einstein’s GR.

 

...the development of radio-interferometery, and later of very-long-baseline radio interferometry (VLBI), produced greatly improved determinations of the deflection of light. These techniques now have the capability of measuring angular separations and changes in angles to accuracies better than 100 microarcseconds.

 

In recent years, transcontinental and intercontinental VLBI observations of quasars and radio galaxies have been made primarily to monitor the Earth’s rotation (“VLBI” in Figure 5 ). These measurements are sensitive to the deflection of light over almost the entire celestial sphere (at 90°from the Sun, the deflection is still 4 milliarcseconds). A 2004 analysis of almost 2 million VLBI observations of 541 radio sources, made by 87 VLBI sites yielded [math]\mathbf{(1+ \boldsymbol\gamma )/2=0.99992 \pm 0.00023 }[/math], or equivalently, [math]\mathbf{ \boldsymbol\gamma - 1 = (-1.7\pm4.5) \times 10^{-4}}[/math].

 

Tests of Post-Newtonian Gravity

In other words, theories of gravity which do not rely on the curvature of space do not correctly give us the deflection of light by the mass of the sun. Thus, "assuming that it couldn't possibly be simply gravitational force "pulling" on light" is not an assumption, but a well-tested demonstrable fact which was predicted before it was observed.

 

~modest

[watcher]

Well there is empty space between objects, and

 

only as you imagined.

the evidence proved that objects are interconnected by waves.

you can say " remove the waves and empty space is left. duh".

but its more likely that if you remove the waves nothing is left. space objects and all

can you see the difference?

 

"empty" means absence of things, as in nothing in between things.

 

non sequitir. empty does not unconditionally means absence of things.

empty again is a descriptive pronoun.

existence of nothing between things is a fallacy of elevating and reifying "nothingness" (your ontological space) into some special state of existence. the more logical choice is that emptiness is a property of space between objects. iow, empty space is a spatial property of objects.

 

here, the spatial properties of an object cannot be essentially or absolutely nothing. For it would be absurd to suppose that the spatial location of an object could exist without the object itself -or, conversely, that there could be an object without space to locate it. Hence, space and object are co-dependent.

 

Things or objects occupying space render the space occupied no longer empty! Doh!

 

consider the big bang vanilla flavor

 

1. at t @ 0, infinite energy density, atomic size universe.

2, time ticks

3. space expands

4. energy dissipated into matter and {empty} space.

 

the universe's descend to low energy density means longer wavelengths and long period of time for waves. it is possible that the "present" size of the universe is the sum of these wavelengths and empty space is the sum of all destructive interference of these energetic waves. the point is empty space must be a construct rather than an absolute nothingness.

 

we can say that the universe expands into nothingness, but notice that this nothingness and the space part of the universe are not the same thing. you must consider the logicity that empty space is a relative term and not absolute term.

[jedaisoul]

So, can we now "get over" the "making something out of nothing" reification of "spacetime".... and re-write all the textbooks on relativity which do reify "it?"

Why do the text books need re-writing? A number of us here have explained at length that what you consider to be reification of space is simply your misunderstanding of what the terminology means. So long as everyone understands the terminology, there is no need to re-write anything.

 

So now we are "bending" the "description", not empty space "itself" as an entity? Good dodge. And, in this paradigm we are keeping the non-Euclidean nonsense about 'no such thing as straight lines' and the non-entity space still curving, expanding, frame-drag wrinkled, foamy, etc. Yet we still have no ontological (real world referents) basis for this concept.

This is not a dodge. This is how spacetime is defined. Everyone here is agreeing with you that space should not be reified. We also agree that spacetime is not an ontological concept.

 

However, we disgree on two things:

1) Your idea that we are reifying space. We have explained at length why that is simply a mistaken impression.

2) Your view that Euclidean space is consistent with the scientific evidence. It simply is not so. Well, that is unless you can show where the evidence posted by Modest is wrong?

[HydrogenBond]

If we look at a mass accelerating into the topology of curved space-time of a large mass source (increasing space-time curvature continuum as we approach the mass source), the units of acceleration are distance/time/time and not space/time. In other words, the mass (acceleration) is dimensionally reacting to something analogous to space-time-time and not space-time.

 

Energy is different than mass. Energy moving into the same topography of space-time curvature will wavelength and frequency shift with the dimensionality of the effect adding up to the same thing as space-time.

 

Sorry to quote myself but it was easier than rewriting. If you look at SR, the operative variable is velocity which dimensionally is distance/time or space-time. With GR the derivation involves momentum which is also the dimensionally space-time. The equations were built upon the assumption of space-time. But gravity based acceleration is not dimensionally consistent with only space-time, but space-time-time. This observation led to the conclusion maybe space-time has additional time dimensions, with space-time-time simply the second dimension of time. What we have assumes 1-D time and tries to force that to fit. The math gets hairy when it really doesn't have to be.

 

Dimensions of time within space-time are different than dimensions of distance. The (x,y,z) of distance implies position and direction. Time dimensions are not based on the position or direction of a time line. Time dimensions have to do with adding time based change (d/t) to time based change (d/t/t) to time based change (d/t/t/t) or additional time processing to time processes.

 

The 1-D time assumption, naturally leads to uncertainty. The analogy is say we only had one dimension of distance in space-time. Anything that appears to be discontinuous with that line would be called uncertainty, by convention. For example, if we overlap a sine wave with that 1-D line, we could call it quantum jumps, since only what touches the line is what we will mathematically see. If we add 2-D distance, we reduce the uncertainty of the position, since now we can see other parts of sine wave, even if it part of it is within the z-direction. If we add 3-D we know the exact position and we lose the original uncertainty. The same is true of the time dimensions.

 

For example, what would happen if we accelerate an acceleration or use the 3rd dimension of time. We have a force and expect to see a 2-D time affect, but 3-D time is also in effect appearing to break that connection. The object will reach a point before it should be able to get there using the 2-D time-force assumption. The 1-D time assumption would assume the uncertainty attributed to some distortions in 3-D space/1-D time. This is actually true since 1-D is changing from a conceptual 1-D time line to a 3-D time ball.

[maddog]

The last sentence is spot on. The obvious implication then is that spacetime is not an extant entity."it" is emptiness and has no properties "of its own." No "dilation of time" or expand/contract-ability, curvature, etc. of space. Space is the emptiness in which "objects" exist... and space is not empty where objects do exist.

First: "it" being Spacetime "IS NOT" an "it". It is a coordinate and/or reference systems. Period. No properties ascribed to have any Ontological character. Period. :)

So, can we now "get over" the "making something out of nothing" reification of "spacetime".... and re-write all the textbooks on relativity which do reify "it?"

As my wife tells me of one of her father's sayings, "It's like pounding sand in a rathole!"

I see no "reification" going on. Apparently "only" you do. So maybe produce some titles of book needing a re-write because "reification" had been used in them. I do need some examples. :eek:

So now we are "bending" the "description", not empty space "itself" as an entity? Good dodge. And, in this paradigm we are keeping the non-Euclidean nonsense about 'no such thing as straight lines' and the non-entity space still curving, expanding, frame-drag wrinkled, foamy, etc. Yet we still have no ontological (real world referents) basis for this concept.

Non-Euclidian anything is not nonsense. Only to you who refuse to consider anything other than upholding Euclid's 5th Postulate as an Axiom and an Idealized Tautology

(self evident truth). :shrug:

"Nothing demands?" Logic demands that anyone who posits a medium with the above properties show evidence of real cosmos referents... which the non-Euclidean fantasy (I mean "thought experiment") does not.

It still doesn't fly in the real cosmos.

You deny any evidence to the contrary. I told you would no like anything non-Euclidian

by holding on to the 5th Postulate so strongly. :)

In fact space is (has always been and always will be) nothingness... the emptiness between (and within) "things." And time is the "when" of it all. It all"takes time to happen," so then time is reified as some "stuff" that "dilates", etc. (Bogus!)

I fail to see how dilation of time is a reification of time. Space to you is some Greek: Platonic Idealized notion

that has not kept up with the pace of the modern world.

Space has lots of contexts. Space can be refered to as dimensional volume or area.

This can be thought this way independent of things or thingness. So I would challange your statement of "Space is nothingness" (at least not in all contexts). Or are we

saying anything that Michael thinks must be true in and of itself.

Also "nothingness" can be thought of as "that which has no items that have thingness about". What about that which has items that don't have thingness. What about that.

I agree Space being defined as an absense of things is one of its dictionary contextual definitions. This is NOT all in conclusive. :naughty:

(It is really unbecoming to brag, but i do have 18 IQ points on him.)

Who him ? ;)

 

maddog

[maddog]

So this is the Truth according to Pyrotex... including the dogmatic reference to distorted space... assuming that it couldn't possibly be simply gravitational force "pulling" on light, since it has no mass. (See my repeated refs to light's momentum giving it the inertial (momentum at ultimate speed) quality of mass.

While you adhere to Euclid's 5th Postulate as Idealized Truth you will Never see anything other than your limited "worldview". GR will Always be "foreign" to you.

The curvature of Spacetime is something that Manifolds get to do -- deform. Euclid does not have dominion over this. Doesn't mean Euclid is Not valid. He just didn't think of it (anything other than "parallel lines"). :eek:

Making up curved slices of 3-d space and calling them triangles with over 180 degrees doesn't cut any ontological mustard. The kid with the protractor will find 180 degrees in every triangle he measures. What kind of "proof" do you want?

In a Euclidean/Cartesian World, you are absolutely right. In any other you are the opposite, Absolutely Wrong! ;)

"Real space?" Don't you mean "non-Euclidean space" and jump to the ontological conclusion that Euclid's geometry is now proven false by Einstein and Co. with their "curved spacetime.?"

I would not have use the word "real" there either. Physical space would have been more appropriate. I for one don't think of the attributes "real" and "physical" as being equivalent. IMHO I think there is phenominae that can have physicality and yet not be "real". I struggle to find and example. One's thoughts maybe. You can't locate them in physical space, nor measure their size, mass or magnitude. We see evidence, somewhat derived of their existence by noting an EEG machine. Yet that is not the Ontological being of the thought itself. :)

You are ignoring the ontological difference in "reality quotient" between the "spacetime metric" (and its math) as a coodinate system and "real triangles" drawn with actually straight lines in "real space." The math and its conceptual metric work just fine without (yawn!)... reifying spacetime.

I am getting bored with your continual diatribe about spacetime being reified. We are not! You are! Speaking makes it so. :)

 

maddog

[Pyrotex]

People before me believed that if all the matter in the universe were removed, only space and time would exist. My theory [general relativity] proves that space and time would disappear along with matter.

-Einstein

No Albert... Say it isn't so! ;)

 

(What a fun thread this is!) :)

[AnssiH]

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You said on one hand that "ontologically real" goes beyond our definitions and refers to "how reality actually exists behind our definitions."

 

I totally agree.

"Sound" happens in the real world as air is compressed and "sound waves" then travel through the air. This is objective reality whether anyone "hears" a given sound or not.

But then you followed with:

" if I were to claim "sounds are ontologically real", what I would be claiming is that sounds are fundamental entities of reality or just exists metaphysically as "sounds". As oppose to "sounds" being a specific interpretation of a specific motion (or manifestation) of something else. In this case, fluctuations on air pressure."

 

My statements immediately above do not claim that "sounds are fundamental entities of reality or just exists metaphysically as "sounds". (Fundamental entities??) Just that sound waves a real physical (not metaphysical) effects of real forces compressing real air... in the real world... objectively... independent of our definitions or perceptions. They are obviously "real", not just "specifically defined measurement " of air pressure, etc.

 

Maybe just one step at a time here, OK?

 

You need to think this through really carefully now. I don't want to put in the time to undergo a long back and forth conversation, so I'll just lay it down here and you take it for whatever it is worth.

 

Yes, there is some objective reality behind our perceptions. Our perception though, is "made of" the set of entities and concepts that we have defined. We perceive some patterns as sounds, there is some objective reality behind those patterns, but we do not know what is the real ontological nature of so called "sound".

 

If by your definition of "ontologically" you can say "sounds are ontologically real" on the basis "sounds exist in reality in some form", that means that by your definition spacetime is also "ontologically real", because behind that idea of a spacetime is reality in some unknown form.

 

Like I said; "Ontologically real" is not meant to refer to things that can be validly defined. If it did, the whole concept would become meaningless.

 

Understand, the whole reason that the concept of "ontology" exists is that we can certainly model and understand reality in countless of different (predictionwise valid) forms, but we also understand that not all of those forms can be ontologically valid.

 

For example, we can model atoms as if they are little planetary systems with electrons orbiting around the nucleus etc. That doesn't mean, that ontologically atoms are like that. Also, we can model the electron in terms of the superposition of its orbital. Doesn't mean there is a superposition, or even an orbital, in any ontological sense.

 

And, what do we mean by "an atom"? Perhaps the most important ontological question you should ask is, "what constitutes an identity of a thing?"

 

You can point at a tornado because it is a somewhat persisting pattern. But does the air and the flying debris constitute an ontological identity to the tornado? All the "matter" that the tornado is made of, is constantly changing, so ontologically the tornado is not a "thing", it is just a pattern we have named out of usefulness, yes?

 

Same thing for quite many patterns that we identify as "things" in our everyday thinking. Shadows (and lights), you name it. These are all quite obvious examples.

 

Ask yourself then, what do we know about the identity of "matter". Does it have a persisting identity? How do you know? Does it make sense to have decided that some persisting patterns that you have a name for, are however you see they are? What we call atoms have got a persisting stability to them, but do we know what is that stability a manifestation of?

 

All human comprehension is based on some set of "ontological entities", i.e. we do order and classify reality into a set of stably persisting entities, whose histories we track and whose future we predict. If we didn't, how could we predict the future of anything? For example, all the alternative QM interpretations are ENTIRELY ontological assertions; essentially they are functions of whatever ontological entities have been assumed to exist, quite arbitrarly so, as "identity" of a thing is always a tack on some persisting pattern.

 

That is what the phrase "Whatever you say a thing is, it isn't" is referring to.

 

Look up "noumenon", and re-read my post about map and territory. Also please re-read my post about the definitions of space.

 

 

Next, reading the other posts in this thread, I am quite surprised that your viewpoint is so strongly naive realistic. I.e. the idea that "reality is how we perceive it". You need to understand the epistemological aspects of our perception before you can appreciate how meaningless your ontological assertions really are. It is exactly like a person saying that there must be a fundamental force keeping the moon in the sky since we can clearly see it is not falling down like all the other objects. It should be understood that there are quite many ways to "understand" why the moon will not fall, as long as we are willing to shift our viewpoint a bit.

 

Just as an example, your idea of "space is nothingness" means absolutely nothing if you don't define what then is "something", and those definitions can be quite arbitrarily created. And this means more than just "is electromagnetism something". It also entails the question, "where does an atom end and space begin", and even before that, how did we come about to identify that "atom" as a "thing" with identity.

 

That quote from Einstein in post #552, about how physical objects are not necessarily "in space" but "spatially extended", I did not know Einstein had made that comment but if you had actually read that post about "definitions of space", you would have seen me commenting on that exact issue.

 

Think about an atom. Our idea of the solidity of matter is that it's the electromagnetic forces keeping atoms apart from each others. There is no ontological wall and ontological collision between atoms. There is no position where an atom ontologically ends and space begins. Atoms can be said to "communicate" with each others through electromagnetic vibrations, but just as well you can define an atom as an entity that is the whole size of its influence, and by that definition all the atoms are overlapping each others and by that definition there is no empty space anywhere. I.e. atoms know about each others because they are inside each others.

 

From the pointview of GR, additionally what we call "space" is something whose properties are a manifestation of all the overlapping "matter" that exists in the situation. What Einstein is commenting is that you don't need to suppose "space" is an entity that is shaped by matter, as you can just see it all as the "same stuff".

 

Overall, that whole comment is just another example of how we can quite arbitrarily suppose a different ontology and cast it onto the same exact reality; i.e. understand the "same thing semantically differently". Which form is real, that information is just not available to us. I don't think it was smart of Einstein to make those comments without the disclaimer that this is certainly just one way to view the issue.

 

Last but definitely not least:

 

The math instrument of relativity works without its reifying assumptions about space and time, as above. I think that the invariance of lightspeed is evidence that a different principle of physics applies to massless phenomena (as "waves" or "particles") than to objects with mass. I don't claim to *know* why, but I do not deny the confirming experimental results. (Hope you got the latter... at last.)

I can "visualize" the interface between the mass of a bullet and the energy of the powder exploding (as shot ahead of the speeding spaceship at a cumulative velocity of both ship and bullet. Then I can "see" how a laser "shot ahead" in the same manner will not "push" the massless light in the same way to achieve cumulative velocity... which it does not. Here the "interface" of the speeding laser gun has no mass to "push against" as does the explosive gas against the bullet. So there is no cumulative effect. Lets just call it a layman's guess and leave it at that.

 

The invariance of light speed does not mean "there is no cumulative effect". It means that too, but it means a whole lot more. You should not leave it at that kind of "layman's guess" because there is an answer to that riddle, and by that I don't imply you should accept relativistic spacetime as an ontological entity.

 

First you should realize that, if you accept the invariance of the speed of light as ontologically real, and then work out the necessary logical consequences, you will come to see simultaneity as relativistic (like Einstein did when he worked out the logical consequences of that exact assumption)*

 

But, you do not have to view the invariance of speed of light as an ontologically real phenomena, but as something that arises from the nature of all natural observers as something they measure. I'm referring to a different (arbitrarily chosen) ontology, that does cast validly on the same exact reality.

 

Pay extra attention to the differences between newtonian "motion", and relativistic "motion", as per the definitions that have been given to them. Note, that there are inertial frames where relativistic motion is not really "motion", or another way to put it, where it occurs "instantaneously", or yet another way to put it, where its "infinitely fast".

 

The isotropy and the finity of that same speed comes from the definition of "time measurement" by all the natural observers (and also the clock synchronizations). Pay close attention to that fact and the definitions that give rise to this view.

 

The reasons why those definitions are valid (incl. all the logical consequences), that issue is in my opinion well investigated by DD's treatment. A lot better than what I have seen anywhere else. I have never been able to accept the ontological idea of "spacetime", but DD's analysis is in my opinion a complete explanation as to why we identify reality in terms of relativistically behaving entities, without saying anything about what the ontological reality is like.

 

You commented that your IQ is very high, I suggest you use that IQ to really look at DD's analysis. If you can follow it, I'm sure you would find it quite rational and satisfactory explanation.

 

Sorry if that was overly long, I just wanted to lay it all down so you can digest it however you wish. Thanks.

 

-Anssi

 

*Let me be more accurate; I have not been able to see any alternatives to that (Maybe alternatives exist by letting go some tacit assumptions).

[Michael Mooney]

Re: The implicit assumption of "space curvature" as an ontological error... projecting the successful coordinate system and attending math of GR as an assumed "real medium," space as, for example, being "space curvature around the sun" as in the quote above offered by Modest.

 

The quote continues:

 

"The prediction of the full bending of light by the Sun was one of the great successes of Einstein’s GR."

 

Over and over... No one here is arguing against this "great success." Yet no one here seems to understand the leap from the success of the analytical system, (hammered on again in Modest's quote), its math and Epistemology to the ontological error or false assumption: 'Therefore the space around the sun is curved.'

 

Can anyone here (besides Doctordick and AnssiH) see this discrepancy, this ontological error of assumption?

 

Maybe if I just wait for someone to to address the above before further argument about the details... then some progress could happen re: the thread title challenge.

 

Modest:

"In other words, theories of gravity which do not rely on the curvature of space do not correctly give us the deflection of light by the mass of the sun. Thus, "assuming that it couldn't possibly be simply gravitational force "pulling" on light" is not an assumption, but a well-tested demonstrable fact which was predicted before it was observed."

 

So, given what I just said (yet again) about the difference between the "curvature of the (conceptual ) metric/model" as a fine-tuned coordinate system ( and its math) and the assumed "curvature" of some real medium around the sun (not just empty space)...

Does anyone here see the difference?

 

Look: "Curved space" is posited to make up the difference here, *assuming* that gravity can not pull on massless light... yet the momentum of light (at ultimate velocity) gives it inertia as if it had mass. This remains a great mystery to science. All the cards are not yet on the table in this inquiry into gravity curving the path of light. Anyone here familiar with the "box of mirrors" experiments (which I've summarized repeatedly) demonstrating the inertial component of light? (I'll look it up again if no one has a clue what that's about.)

 

What is "it" again, for the thousandth time, that "has curvature around the sun?"

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Well... this is becoming a chore because of false assumptios folks are making about my meaning. But, just because its no fun anymore is not a good reason to quit.

The Reality of Spacetime (or not!) is at stake.

 

Maybe the most basic square one misunderstanding is the most obvious. I understand that "things" including "atoms" are not solid little pieces of matter. "They" are miniature energy fields with various "shells of energy" defined by each nanosecond of "observation" but constantly changing... "location" of electron "clouds" for instance, being energy potentials/manifestations in constant dynamic change.

 

OK so far on "atoms?" Then the whole atomic chart of elements catalogues the specific differences between the kinds of "atoms."

No, AnssiH, I was not born yesterday.

Then you have the atomic density question of how these little swarms of energy are distributed in space. If you say that there is no space between atoms... even in "deep space" where there is maybe one hydrogen "atom" every few light years... then we have nothing more to say to each other. You say there is no "empty space,"... that it's all "filled" with energy/matter manifestaion, whatrver you prefer to call it. I have just defined "things" as I understand energy/matter(and plasma) manifestations, and I *know* that there is "empty space" within "atomic" nuclei, between energy shells and electron "manifestations" within shells, between the "atoms" of say H and O in water, and on out to the molecular and macro-body levels on cosmic scale.

So if you deny such "empty space" and I know there is such space between these "manifestions" on all scales, then there can be no meaningfull conversation between us.

 

I am, however, glad you brought up the philosophical distinction between Kant's "noumena" and percieved "phenomena"... an argument central to the ontology of "what is real. (I "cut my philosophical teeth" on the question.)

Here for reference is Wiki"s intro to the subject:

 

wiki:

The noumenon (plural: noumena) is a posited object or event as it is in itself, independent of the senses.[1] It classically refers to an object of human inquiry, understanding or cognition. As a concept it has much in common with objectivity. The philosophical position that rejects all but the observable phenomena of objects is called Positivism.

 

The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, "phenomenon" (plural: phenomena), which refers to appearances, or objects of the senses. A phenomenon can be an exceptional, unusual, or abnormal thing or event -- but it must be perceptible through the senses; A noumenon cannot be the actual object that emits the phenomenon in question. Noumena are objects or events known only to the imagination - independent of the senses.

I do object to the wiki writer's myopic view of nounema above as follows:

""A noumenon cannot be the actual object that emits the phenomenon in question. Noumena are objects or events known only to the imagination - independent of the senses."

Gnosis defies the above statement. And if I remember my "kant" correctly, he presented noumena as that which actually exists behind or beyond the mere phenomenal appearances in perception.

 

I'll leave it here for now. I am tired of talking to people who deny that emptiness is even possible as the lack of manifestation of anything... both in between and beyond... as in infinite space... there being no possible "boundary" or "end"... with what beyond... *nothing?*... or unknown cosmi?...

 

Oh, one more thing... I have read what you wrote (links yo previously offered) and understand your position. I disagree, as our debate illustrate, but this is not to be taken as "michael's ignorance" of what you said, as you seem to imply.

And I have in fact "scanned" the" DD" material you again reference above. I find it verbose and buried in detail without a clear framework for overview. Your insinuation that I am not applying my high IQ as you think I should I find offensive. I've lived with such presumptious judgments all my life.

 

Note to maddog: "18 IQ points on him"... Einstein. It was an obvious reference to the quote immediately above it, but you don't seem to see things "in context" very well anyway in the more general sense of your hot headed misunderstandings of my presentation here.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

An afterthought on the space within and between those little swarms of semi- discrete energy we call "atoms":

 

If all such space(as above) is squeezed out of Planet Earth, as for instance down to the Swarzchild radius for earth becoming a small black hole , then earth would become about the size of a pea or small marble.

 

The difference in size between "earth as a black hole" and earth as the big beautiful planet we know and love is the *empty space" within it on all scales described above.

 

This is an attempt to "get real" in this discussion of what "empty space" means.

 

Comments?

Michael

[AnssiH]

Then you have the atomic density question of how these little swarms of energy are distributed in space. If you say that there is no space between atoms...

 

No I did not say that ->

 

I have just defined "things" as I understand energy/matter(and plasma) manifestations, and I *know* that there is "empty space" within "atomic" nuclei, between energy shells and electron "manifestations" within shells, between the "atoms" of say H and O in water, and on out to the molecular and macro-body levels on cosmic scale.

 

Sure if you choose to define things that way.

 

So if you deny such "empty space" and I know there is such space between these "manifestions" on all scales, then there can be no meaningfull conversation between us.

 

-> What I said in my post was that you can validly define atoms in their extended sense and therefore say there is no space between them. That is something that can be used to specify attributes to space, as is done in GR. I noted that Einstein's comment has to do with the valid possibility of defining things that way. It does not mean, that we suddenly know reality is ontologically like that. It just means, we can choose to view the situation that way.

 

What I did find curious is that your position is that your chosen definitions are ontologically real. But, you should recognize that your position as an ontological assertion is just as undefendable as anyone elses.

 

No, you can't really say that you 'know that there is "empty space" within "atomic" nuclei, between energy shells and electron "manifestations"'.

 

What you can say is that as per your chosen definitions of what all those entities are exactly and how they are measured (giving some meaning to their sizes) there is "empty space" between them.

 

Erasmus keeps telling you to follow the logical consequences of your chosen definitions. If you rather just want to repeat that simply in your opinion your definitions are ontologically real - nevermind what useful end your definitions have - you will never get anywhere with any conversation with anyone.

 

A good place to start would be to follow the logical consequences of the isotropy of the speed of light, as your assumptions "it is always universal now" and "speed of light is isotropic" are mutually exclusive as ontological ideas.

 

Actually I feel that I've essentially explained this issue already in the first post to this thread.

 

Good night,

-Anssi

[Michael Mooney]

I am not a moderator, but I think this thread is bogged down with too much, humm.. "compost' hitting the fan at once. Like AnssiH's long post trying to hit all fronts of his/her disagreement at once. Then a comprehensive reply would require something like a dissertation on a very complex subject.

 

So I suggest that contributors make a single point in each post focused on your most passionate and cogent argument, and then each reply can be focused in a way to do justice to the dialogue.

 

In that spirit, I challenge you, AnssiH to explain your apparent contradiction in the following comments from consecutive posts:

 

There is no position where an atom ontologically ends and space begins. Atoms can be said to "communicate" with each others through electromagnetic vibrations, but just as well you can define an atom as an entity that is the whole size of its influence, and by that definition all the atoms are overlapping each others and by that definition there is no empty space anywhere. I.e. atoms know about each others because they are inside each others.

(Me):

Then you have the atomic density question of how these little swarms of energy are distributed in space. If you say that there is no space between atoms...

A:

No I did not say that

 

Yes, you did. (Micro-focus):

"...and by that definition all the atoms are overlapping each others and by that definition there is no empty space anywhere."

 

I suggest that you contemplate what version of "reality" you are advocating, then say it clearly and be ready to support it in further discussion when confronted. You can not have it both (or all) ways and just say that ontology is all about definitions and we can argue forever with no resloution.

 

So, how 'bout that "empty space" in Earth which, if squeezed out would make it pea sized. This will require some "thinking it through" as you like to say.

 

Oopse! was that two points in the same post? ...No, still just about is there such a "non-thing" as empty space. Obviously there is, not just my opinion!

Michael

[Boof-head]

"Space", and density are fairly obviously related; then can we ask what happens if we remove all the matter and energy (from a region of spacetime), is there still a density if there isn't anything to "have" it?

 

But density is an equation of state, neutron stars have "the density of neutrons" etc.

 

We're the ones who need space - to see 'large scale' stuff we have to have enough space for it to evolve in.

[AnssiH]

There is no position where an atom ontologically ends and space begins. Atoms can be said to "communicate" with each others through electromagnetic vibrations, but just as well you can define an atom as an entity that is the whole size of its influence, and by that definition all the atoms are overlapping each others and by that definition there is no empty space anywhere. I.e. atoms know about each others because they are inside each others.

 

Then you have the atomic density question of how these little swarms of energy are distributed in space. If you say that there is no space between atoms...

 

No I did not say that

 

Yes, you did. (Micro-focus):

"...and by that definition all the atoms are overlapping each others and by that definition there is no empty space anywhere."

 

Look what I said, in the context where I said it. Let me emphasize:

 

Atoms can be said to "communicate" with each others through electromagnetic vibrations, but just as well you can define an atom as an entity that is the whole size of its influence, and by that definition all the atoms are overlapping each others and by that definition there is no empty space anywhere.

 

i.e. The way you see and communicate something is completely up to your chosen ontology.

 

What I am trying to place your focus on is not "which one is true". I'm focusing on the fact that we can ALWAYS see the same thing in many different ways, and the pickering over whose chosen ontology is "valid" is moot because 1. you can never tell for sure, 2. every ontology contains entirely epistemological facets, including a semantical idea of an identity of each defined object.

 

So ->

 

I suggest that you contemplate what version of "reality" you are advocating, then say it clearly and be ready to support it in further discussion when confronted. You can not have it both (or all) ways and just say that ontology is all about definitions and we can argue forever with no resloution.

 

-> the only way to reach any resolution is to understand the epistemological reasons for our ability to always build alternative ontologies. What you need to understand is exactly why chosen ontology is all about the definitions in our head. If you look that DD's post that I bumped up, that is exactly what he is talking about in regards of spacetime ontology.

 

You want to choose one and keep telling people that, wherever they differ, they have to responsibility to prove their view correct. Well first of all, many people are making assertions that are not meant to refer to how reality ontologically is, but to how something can be understood validly as a mental concept. You want them to prove why they think that way. What's there to prove Michael, they never meant to say reality is ontologically like that.

 

Second, if you meant your assertions as ontological assertions, I think quite clearly the burden of proof lays on your doorstep as well.

 

Third, I cannot choose an ontology and start arguing about that because there simply does not exist information for me to objectively choose between all that I'm aware of (plus I'm aware that many more can be validly built than what we have so far built)

 

So, how 'bout that "empty space" in Earth which, if squeezed out would make it pea sized. This will require some "thinking it through" as you like to say.

 

No it is quite simple. How much there is "empty space" and how much there is "matter" is up to how you define the measurement for those little "pieces of matter". Once you have established a way to discuss the "size" of those things, you can use that definition to say this and this much of it is "empty space". But that is just your terminology of the situation.

 

With different way of looking at the same thing, you could say there is no empty space there, it's all matter. That doesn't mean naive realistic "solid stuff". It is just a different meaning tacked on the word "matter".

 

...No, still just about is there such a "non-thing" as empty space. Obviously there is, not just my opinion!

 

If after this post you still won't understand why and in what sense it is exactly your opinion, there's no need to reply to this post anymore, I won't continue contributing to this thread.

 

-Anssi