The Vacuous Universe

[chikoka]

As it stands ,the Zimbabwean government has removed 18 zeros from the local currency.
It still cost me 6000 zim dollars to make this post.

Moral of the story?
Don't expect timely feedback.:)

I will still try my level best to respond to your posts.






The problem with the current state of physics is not a small one.
Currently we have to make do with a number of different entities and relating them to each other has escaped many great minds.
The 2 most notable exceptions to this are the unification of the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force.
The other one is the unification of mass and energy.

At the moment we are stuck with 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension.
On top of that we have mass-energy , and 4 different forces .
In addition to the 4 forces we have the so called "hierarchy problem" which asks why the different forces have different strengths with gravity at one end of the scale being the weakest and the strong nuclear force at the other end bieng the strongest.

My aim in this post is to get rid of matter totally and the bosons (carriers of force particles).
Without these 2 we are only left with space time alone.
I will then hazard a solution to the space-time problem.

Say you tried to put an oversised rug in a small room.
If you try to make it fit you will see that there will be a wrinkle that you cannot get rid of.
Either the ends of the carpet align with the walls and there is a wrinkle somewhere in the the rest of the floor,or, the ends of the carpet are raised above the floor and there is no wrinkle.
Foor the purposes of this analogy the second option is impossible.

This is how i think the universe functions.

In this post: http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... 8&start=27

I talked about how i think existence functions.
In order to say some thing exists we must somehow relate it to the dimensions of the continuum it occupies.
In space time we would say that an object exists here or there - (SPACE) or now or then -(TIME).
The problem then comes about that how do we deal with two objects identical in size but have different masses.

The fact that mass curves space is already known. I maintain that this curvature of space-time is what makes mass exist.

Now I said that an object exists because of its dimensions.
Now I will assert that the only think that exists is space-time and that the phenomina of matter is an illusion.

Space-time can be viewed as the rug i was talking about earlier on , and its curvature would be the curvation(?) of the "influence' of mass.
Remember that one of newtons laws states that for every force there is an equal and opposite force that accompanies it.
If space-time is curved then that represents a type of force at the point of curvature.
An equal and opposite force gets into play and it is this force that creates the illusion that there is something there.

I could leave it at that but i have to explain where this opposite force comes from.
The easiest answer would be "the Void".

The next question is how does the wave nature of matter come about and how does its particle nature do so as well.

One way out is to say that since the wrinkles in the "rug" can move around as a wave in the rug fabric then that is how its wave nature becomes apparent.
I think however that that would be reading too much into the analogy.

One interesting consequence of all this is that teleportation should be possible because you can pull the wrinkle in the rug to a new position by pulling there and keeping the rest of the rug free from non rigid motion.


Back to the question of the wave nature of matter.
I believe space-time is continuous because of what i wrote in

this post: http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... 8&start=21

Now what would happen if there were two different time dimensions instead of one.
If they were intertwined and related to each other in a harmonic manner we could have one time axis displaying nothing in the universe while the other displaying something.
This on and of nature of the workings of both time dimensions would create the illusion that it was a wave with the "on's" being the crests of the wave and the "off's" being the troughs.
Since space would be continous then that would give the particle nature of matter.

What about the four forces?
Since the forces are just a manifestation of the Bosons which are themselves made of matter that should deal with them too.

Problems with my views are that they don't account for why the particular subatomic elements that we find are the ones we (surprise) find.


I could say more but i would like to test these ideas with you guys.

What do you think?

[marcothay]

TIME is not a dimension!
What the term "DIMENSION" means to you?

When dimensions are understood as mere components of the grid system, rather than physical attributes of space, it is easier to understand the alternate dimensional views as being simply the result of coordinate transformations.

As an historical caveat (or a philosophical objection, as it were), it should be noted that the four-dimensional construct of "Minkowski spacetime" is really just a mathematical convenience, nothing else!

The "fourth dimension" provides a simplification of the math, but it is not a necessity. It should further be noted that in Minkowski's recasting of Einstein's original publications on special relativity, his "fourth dimension" was not time, but rather it was ct, where t is time and c is the speed of light. In other words, the "fourth dimension" is not a time interval, but a spatial interval, as are the other three dimensions. All four of Minkowski's dimensions (x, y, z, and ct) are spatial.

In 1895, in his book The Time Machine, H.G. Wells wrote, "There is no difference between time and any of the three dimensions of space except that our consciousness moves along it."
And that Consciousness is actually what the fourth dimension is.

In my thread "Space & Consciousness" I'm trying to make people see for themselves what
space-time (separated from bosons) is actually is.

I presume that you dear Chikoka are in physics, so if you would like
to go over the " time intervals" equations as to interpret them, I'm ok with that.
Sincerely, Marco

[chikoka]

I am a computer scientist by profession but am very interested in physics.
I do not doubt that you probably know more physics than me.

I understand your objections somewhat, but i think they make no difference to my post.
Could you outline how viewing time as *not* a dimension would make my views wrong.
It appears to be a dimension and yet it isn't .
Would what it *really is* make much of a difference to the OP.

Perhaps you could try modifying the OP to fit weller(?) with your views.

To clarify the OP : I mean that space-time curvature causes mass and not the other way around where mass causes its curvature.

Cheers

[chikoka]

quote
-----------
When dimensions are understood as mere components of the grid system, rather than physical attributes of space, it is easier to understand the alternate dimensional views as being simply the result of coordinate transformations.

As an historical caveat (or a philosophical objection, as it were), it should be noted that the four-dimensional construct of "Minkowski spacetime" is really just a mathematical convenience, nothing else!
----------

Then my space-time is also a convenience


Quote
-------------
The "fourth dimension" provides a simplification of the math, but it is not a necessity. It should further be noted that in Minkowski's recasting of Einstein's original publications on special relativity, his "fourth dimension" was not time, but rather it was ct, where t is time and c is the speed of light. In other words, the "fourth dimension" is not a time interval, but a spatial interval, as are the other three dimensions. All four of Minkowski's dimensions (x, y, z, and ct) are spatial.
---------

Then my space-time can be read as space-ct without taking anything out of the OP.
ct is still a function of time.

Quote
----------
In 1895, in his book The Time Machine, H.G. Wells wrote, "There is no difference between time and any of the three dimensions of space except that our consciousness moves along it."
---------

Doesn't your consciousness move along with you when you move from point "a" to point "b"?

[marcothay]

I was presuming that you were trying to show that "space-time curvature causes mass and not the other way around where mass causes its curvature".[/i]
What is the difference, anyway, being both of them complementary in physic?

Or are you trying to ponder about the existence of a flat ST continuum that being flat could not contain mass or energy in it? It could be that flat continumm the Void you are talking about ( I could leave it at that but i have to explain where this opposite force comes from. The easiest answer would be "the Void".?

You wrote: :"Then my space-time can be read as space-ct without taking anything out of the OP. ct is still a function of time."
Actually ct is not a function of time! C is a velocity (s/t), and if you put the equation
dimensionally. you get: (s/t) .t= s
which show you that ct is a function of Space!

And if you look at it very well, it tells you that Time is just an illusion or appearance originating by "change of position" in space of something (mass or energy).

Again, we seems to be stuck in this diabolic circle that define mass(M) as space-time(ST) and energy(E), and at the same time define E as ST and M and so on...

There are hundred of new physics and cosmological theories out there, originated by this
vicious circle.
Also, if time is a dimension, what could possibly means a curved time?

You wrote: "Doesn't your consciousness move along with you when you move from point "a" to point "b"?
No! absolutely no.
What is moving with my body is just one of my view points, and that is what I'm trying
to make people understand with the thread "Space & Consciousness",
At least I hope so.

Cheers

[Sapius]

Marco: Actually ct is not a function of time! C is a velocity (s/t), and if you put the equation
dimensionally. you get: (s/t) .t= s
which show you that ct is a function of Space!

And if you look at it very well, it tells you that Time is just an illusion or appearance originating by "change of position" in space of something (mass or energy).

Again, we seems to be stuck in this diabolic circle that define mass(M) as space-time(ST) and energy(E), and at the same time define E as ST and M and so on...

Even if ct is a function of Space, what exactly is the function of ‘velocity’, OR what exactly does one mean by it?

[marcothay]

By Sapius:
Even if ct is a function of Space, what exactly is the function of ‘velocity’, OR what exactly does one mean by it?

To make it easier, you can translate the term "function" with the term "dependent of.
Velocity is defined by S/T( like miles/hours) but being Time a function of space
it automatically tells you that velocity is still a function of space.

And actually everything in this physical universe goes down to space.
Now,... space is a function of observation, only because you can't have space if you don't
have a view point and a point to look at.
Einstein 's relativity is all about that if you see it and if you come out with a useful definition
of "reference frame"! Isn't?

[Sapius]

Marco: To make it easier, you can translate the term "function" with the term "dependent of.
Velocity is defined by S/T( like miles/hours) but being Time a function of space
it automatically tells you that velocity is still a function of space.

Well defined, and hence well adjusted to one necessity, but say if there is no velocity, which means there is no movement (say like a frozen frame) but there is of course Space (and say things perhaps), which should be possible because velocity is dependant on space and not the other way around, then how do you propose space initiated or created movement, or things that seemingly move, thereby observed and measured?

And actually everything in this physical universe goes down to space.

Sure, why not, but I could bring it down to movement as well, otherwise no OBSERVATION is possible either. Then Space or not, it could, pardon my French, screw its self. Who and to what do you think even Space would then matter?

Now,... space is a function of observation, only because you can't have space if you don't have a view point and a point to look at.

Are you sure? Are you saying Space is dependant on it being observed? Then what happens to the claim “actually everything in this physical universe goes down to space”? Are you saying here that observation is not that necessary, or that Space may not be that “physical” after all?

Einstein 's relativity is all about that if you see it and if you come out with a useful definition of "reference frame"! Isn't?

I’m not a physicist so I can’t come up with a useful one; what is your useful definition?

[chikoka]

What is moving with my body is just one of my view points

Could you elaborate on this.

[chikoka]

To make it easier, you can translate the term "function" with the term "dependent of.
Velocity is defined by S/T( like miles/hours) but being Time a function of space
it automatically tells you that velocity is still a function of space.

Remember that ct is multiplied by the imaginary unit "i".
This means that it is not fully space but something else altogether :time.
I also have no problem with calling time "imaginary space"

Also, if time is a dimension, what could possibly means a curved time?

.

What about gravitational time dilation?

[chikoka]

Actually ct is not a function of time! C is a velocity (s/t), and if you put the equation
dimensionally. you get: (s/t) .t= s

What do you mean by the word "dimensionally" as you have used it when talking about [(v/t)*(t)]?
Arent you still saying time or (t) is a dimension?

[marcothay]

Dears Chikoka and Sapius,
many of your questions could find an answer on my thesis on the Space & Consciousness thread.(on the first and second pages)

From Chikoka: What about gravitational time dilation?


# Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an OBSERVER s "stationary" clock.
# Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the OBSERVER.
# Relativity of simultaneity: Two events that are simultaneous to an OBSERVER A may not be simultaneous to an OBSERVER B if B is moving with respect to A.
#The laws of physics are the same for all OBSERVERS in uniform motion relative to one another (Galileo's principle of relativity).
In few words: T and S dilatation depend only from a reference frame tied to the state of motion of an observer. Dilatation can't exist by itself ! Right?
A point of view has to exist before experiencing any movement or even gravity ( a view point that is in a free fall doesn't experience weight neither gravity) .

So, that should give an answer to Sapius as well: that I’m not a physicist so I can’t come up with a useful one; what is your useful definition of a reference frame?
A reference frame is just a point where you (or a different OBSERVER) are looking from!

Chikoka wrote:What do you mean by the word "dimensionally" as you have used it when talking about [(v/t)*(t)]? Arent you still saying time or (t) is a dimension?

No, actually I should have said "unidimensional". It is just an idiom or slang used by physicists
when you are getting in trouble to solve an equation.
Let say that you want to resolve a physics problem, let say that you want to know what
is the diameter of a nucleon.
The result should be expressed by length (S) and not by seconds (T)
So it is first easier to construct an equation with "undimensional" units before put numbers
on it; as an example:
the numerical factor of Planck's constant (h) that you need to use to find it out a nuclear lenght, is not as important as to understand that h= m*length*velocity,
thus you can realize that a length (S) has to be resolved only on this kind of "unidimensional"
equation:
Lenght= mass * lenght * velocity/ (mass * velocity)


which is: lenght= h/ mc. isn't?

And that is true with every single physical equation.

continue...

[marcothay]

continue from above.

CHIKOKA wrote:"Remember that ct is multiplied by the imaginary unit "i".
This means that it is not fully space but something else altogether..."

Yes, but you have to consider that imaginary numbers had to be invented, only because negative numbers do not have square roots. A new kind of number, called imaginary was invented so that negative numbers would have a square root.
This was originated to solve physical problems represented by equations like:
Solve for x: (x*x) + 1 = 0

There is no proof that such a thing actually exists in
anything real. It just makes a great deal of mathematics involving negative
numbers easier to work with.

I consider the unit i an arbitrary introduced because many scientists seems not to be able to confront and define what a "zero", appearing in their equations, is actually is!

But again, imaginary units and complex numbers (1= i*i*i*i) are very useful
and extensively used in TOPOLOGY, which by the way is the study of FORMS in hypothetical
multi-dimensional spaces!
One thing certain is that i has nothing to do with Time.

By SAPIUS: but say if there is no velocity, which means there is no movement (say like a frozen frame) but there is of course Space (and say things perhaps), which should be possible because velocity is dependant on space and not the other way around, then how do you propose space initiated or created movement, or things that seemingly move, thereby observed and measured?

This is a great question, because if you can find an answer to it you could see that
is not even Space in itself causing MOVEMENT;
Think deeper and you may realize that only a change of VIEW POINT can create "movement"

Let say that you are observing a thing moving from A to B, right? (exterior view point)
Now, imagine that thing be you, from that point of view, A is moving away from you and B is getting closer to you, right? (same space different time)
Now, what happen if your point of observation is A?
That "thing" could still exist for you?

[chikoka]

I know that this is a bit late...
Alright a LOT late but marco , if you are there :

Gravitational time dilation occurs even without motion.

Clocks near a gravitational source move slower than those that are far from one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitatio ... e_dilation

quote
---------
Clocks which are far from massive bodies (or at higher gravitational potentials) run faster, and clocks close to massive bodies (or at lower gravitational potentials) run slower
--------

I dont know if that will affect your space and conciosness theory.

[Tomas]

.


-chikoka-
Clocks which are far from massive bodies (or at higher gravitational potentials) run faster, and clocks close to massive bodies (or at lower gravitational potentials) run slower.

-tomas-
Does it matter what the composite materials the clock is constructed from? And does it matter what the orb is be it Pluto, a comet, an asteroid, or a sun?

[paco]

Is this a philosophical post?

[Nick]

Seems a lot of people have been complaining lately about posts not being purely philosophical. If this is the case then why not take on the responsibility of making the posts philosophical?

[Carl G]

Like by traveling to where the non-philosophical posters reside and walloping them a philosophical good one upside the head?

[Nick]

No. I mean cutting through the bullshit and getting to the core of the issue where more often than not some philosophical insight can be gleaned.