The Fabric of Space

[Cerveny]

Why are you proposing this in a philosophy forum rather than a physics forum? In fact, if your ideas stand up to scrutiny why aren't you publishing this in an appropriate scientific journal?

Good question :)
Common physicists’ society is not strong enough to bear only an opinion “The TR is nonsense” (:yet:) The problem of present physics is not in math or in the speed of some neutrinos or in finding of some Higg’s particle. The problem is in deep logic. The vacuum (physical space) is not empty – it is/has discrete structure, thus any singularities are nonsense. Next, some “expansion of space” is nonsense too (what is expanding in comparison of what?) The continuum of “space-time” is nonsense - the time after the “now” is not created yet. Minkowski metric is nonsense – it does not meet the triangle inequality...............

Try to start with these theses on any physicist forum… Only friendly Philosophynow.org allows me to put similar sentences on the desk (: even in bad English :)

Perhaps one remark: The Universe is limited in the size and in the time, of course. Only the Future is unlimited, yet, it has even no dimension, it is perhaps (only) (full of) the (pure) idea...

[John]

Why are you proposing this in a philosophy forum rather than a physics forum? In fact, if your ideas stand up to scrutiny why aren't you publishing this in an appropriate scientific journal?

Good question
Common physicists’ society is not strong enough to bear only an opinion “The TR is nonsense” (:yet:)

That would be the wrong way to announce any thesis in opposition to the commonly accepted one so it is not unique to physics.

The problem is in deep logic. The vacuum (physical space) is not empty – it is/has discrete structure, thus any singularities are nonsense. Next, some “expansion of space” is nonsense too (what is expanding in comparison of what?) The continuum of “space-time” is nonsense - the time after the “now” is not created yet. Minkowski metric is nonsense – it does not meet the triangle inequality.

Your claims are beyond my now cloudy recollection of the physics I studied some twenty odd years ago so I shall argue neither for nor against. However, if you claim your theories offer better explanations of phenomena than orthodox physics does you should be able to demonstrate that. If not, then there seems no reason to take your ideas seriously. If you believe your theories offer better theoretical explanations for the more esoteric aspects of modern physics then they should stand up to peer review. Even if your ideas are correct but are rejected by physicists I'm not sure what you hope to achieve here because I doubt many people here (I could be wrong) have the expertise to provide authoritative comment.

[Notvacka]

The continuum of “space-time” is nonsense - the time after the “now” is not created yet.

It's the notion of "now" that is nonsense. The only difference between past and future is your perspective.

"Not created yet" is nonsense. Our future differs from our past in that we are not there yet, as opposed to not there any longer.

After 100 odd years Einstein's theory of relativity is still going strong, and it will never be proven wrong. It might be superseded by some other theory, but that theory would have to include Einstein's theory as a special case, just like Einstein never proved Newton's theories wrong either; they are included as a special case and still perfectly useful.

[Godfree]

Why are you proposing this in a philosophy forum rather than a physics forum? In fact, if your ideas stand up to scrutiny why aren't you publishing this in an appropriate scientific journal?

Good question
Common physicists’ society is not strong enough to bear only an opinion “The TR is nonsense” (:yet:) The problem of present physics is not in math or in the speed of some neutrinos or in finding of some Higg’s particle. The problem is in deep logic. The vacuum (physical space) is not empty – it is/has discrete structure, thus any singularities are nonsense. Next, some “expansion of space” is nonsense too (what is expanding in comparison of what?) The continuum of “space-time” is nonsense - the time after the “now” is not created yet. Minkowski metric is nonsense – it does not meet the triangle inequality...............

Try to start with these theses on any physicist forum… Only friendly Philosophynow.org allows me to put similar sentences on the desk (: even in bad English

Perhaps one remark: The Universe is limited in the size and in the time, of course. Only the Future is unlimited, yet, it has even no dimension, it is perhaps (only) (full of) the (pure) idea...

Cerveny ,,It's nice to see another with the courage to stand up and be counted , so many just go with the flock , jump when theres nothing there ,
So this thread is basically about the nonsense of science ,
while I rely on science for my own definitions ,
with so many theories out there ,
it is no wonder the people get confused ,
All of the matter in the known universe is supposed to have come from our wee bang ,
and then we find we have galaxies who's image is 13 billion years old ,
and these are large old galaxies , with super massive black holes ,
clearly these did not form to the stage they are at in the .7 billion years after the bb , there is simply not enough time for these to get super massive ,
in the short time they had ,
so science contradicts it's self , depending on who's theory you prefer ,
So listing my theories I have doubts about ,
The BBT ,don't agree it was the beginning of time or space ,
the Red Shift ,, think this is wrong , just distance is enough ,
the rate of expansion is accelerating ,can't find any logic there ,
Just to name a few ,!!!

[Cerveny]

The continuum of “space-time” is nonsense - the time after the “now” is not created yet.

It's the notion of "now" that is nonsense. The only difference between past and future is your perspective.

"Not created yet" is nonsense. Our future differs from our past in that we are not there yet, as opposed to not there any longer.

After 100 odd years Einstein's theory of relativity is still going strong, and it will never be proven wrong. It might be superseded by some other theory, but that theory would have to include Einstein's theory as a special case, just like Einstein never proved Newton's theories wrong either; they are included as a special case and still perfectly useful.

Let us suppose the "space-time continuum" really exists. Then its "time-cut", the projection in the certain time (say 1/1/2013) must (now) exist too. What is in it (prepared)? Elementary particle? You? The concept of space-time supposes determined Universe. It is not acceptable for me. Such Universe does not have sense. And it is one of the reasons why we are to bring the philosophy in the physics. After 100 years we are not able to quantize TR for many serious reasons. In the time when Einstein was creating TR even antimatter was not known. We prove TR by unbelievable precise measurement but we ignore "dark matter/energy" phenomena that are about many orders more expressive. And what is worse, we ignore logic and health sense.

[Notvacka]

Let us suppose the "space-time continuum" really exists. Then its "time-cut", the projection in the certain time (say 1/1/2013) must (now) exist too. What is in it (prepared)? Elementary particle? You? The concept of space-time supposes determined Universe. It is not acceptable for me.

It's common to think that the deterministic nature of relativity theory and the randomness of quantum mechanics somehow contradict each other. But, interestingly, time has no arrow in quantum mechanics. The cause might as well depend upon the effect as the other way around.

In quantum mechanics, as in every day life, probability only exists in the absence of certainty. When you look into the box, then you find out if the cat is alive or dead. And after the fact the "probability" is always 100 percent either way. But since "after" can be substituted with "before" on a quantum level, the "probability" is always 100 percent. Which makes quantum mechanics agree perfectly with Eintstein's theory of relativity.

The whole probability thing stems from our inability to exactly predetermine quantum events. But since time has no arrow as far as quantum mechanics are concerned, there is no difference between predetermination and postdetermination.

[Cerveny]

It's common to think that the deterministic nature of relativity theory and the randomness of quantum mechanics somehow contradict each other. But, interestingly, time has no arrow in quantum mechanics. The cause might as well depend upon the effect as the other way around.

In quantum mechanics, as in every day life, probability only exists in the absence of certainty. When you look into the box, then you find out if the cat is alive or dead. And after the fact the "probability" is always 100 percent either way. But since "after" can be substituted with "before" on a quantum level, the "probability" is always 100 percent. Which makes quantum mechanics agree perfectly with Eintstein's theory of relativity.

The whole probability thing stems from our inability to exactly predetermine quantum events. But since time has no arrow as far as quantum mechanics are concerned, there is no difference between predetermination and postdetermination.

Quantum theory only estimates the probability of the particular events. It is impossible to calculate (for example) decay time of particular neutron. Free neutrons usually decay during several minutes - it is all we know. Another example you can see in tunneling electrons – we can not resolve the particular time when some electron successes. Such accidental phenomena are the essence, base of arrow of the time phenomena. From the same initial configuration we can get different results. The causality pays on this (quantum) level only in the sum… Only after the particular phenomenon occurs the new time layer of Universe is added, is glued to the history. The history grows, condensates, crystallizes from the "future", better: from the outside odd-causal phase. BB was only the calm beginning of condensation in this context :)
PS: You certainly do not believe your every action is in detail prepared, waiting somewhere in the remote space-time :)

[Notvacka]

PS: You certainly do not believe your every action is in detail prepared, waiting somewhere in the remote space-time

The words "prepared" and "waiting" are not entirely accurate, since they imply one further dimension of temporality, but yes, that's exactly what I believe. The notion that the future doesn't exist, just because we haven't experienced it yet, seems much harder to believe. That the future would exist in some vague, unformed way seems even more ridiculous. Every point in time must be as valid as any other. What is "past" and what is "future" is entirely a matter of perspective. No particular moment of "now" is more "real" than the next.

[Godfree]

PS: You certainly do not believe your every action is in detail prepared, waiting somewhere in the remote space-time

The words "prepared" and "waiting" are not entirely accurate, since they imply one further dimension of temporality, but yes, that's exactly what I believe. The notion that the future doesn't exist, just because we haven't experienced it yet, seems much harder to believe. That the future would exist in some vague, unformed way seems even more ridiculous. Every point in time must be as valid as any other. What is "past" and what is "future" is entirely a matter of perspective. No particular moment of "now" is more "real" than the next.

We can use fancy terms and name drop a few giants in the field ,
but really aren't we talking about telling the future ,
the idea that any mechanism can tell the future , is impossible to my mind ,
"time has no arrow" in quantum mechanics ,,???
we are talking theory are we not ,,time has no arrow , in theory ,
in reality , time goes only one way , forward ,
and I don't believe any science or psychic can tell the future ,,!!!

[Notvacka]

We can use fancy terms and name drop a few giants in the field, but really aren't we talking about telling the future...

In no way am I talking about telling the future. If that's what you think, you have not understood my posts here.

[Notvacka]

"time has no arrow" in quantum mechanics ,,???
we are talking theory are we not ,,time has no arrow , in theory ,
in reality , time goes only one way...

That is only true on a larger scale. If you would run a film of an apple falling from a tree backwards, you could tell that it was backwards, because the apple would be falling up into the tree instead of down. But if you had a film of a sub-atomic event and ran that film backwards, there would be no similar way to tell it was backwards. That's what time having no arrow in quantum mechanics means.

Events on a human scale only make sense "forwards" in time (where cause precedes effect) while on a sub-atomic scale events make equal sense in either direction (you can't tell a cause from an effect).

I hope that explains it.

[Godfree]

"time has no arrow" in quantum mechanics ,,???
we are talking theory are we not ,,time has no arrow , in theory ,
in reality , time goes only one way...

That is only true on a larger scale. If you would run a film of an apple falling from a tree backwards, you could tell that it was backwards, because the apple would be falling up into the tree instead of down. But if you had a film of a sub-atomic event and ran that film backwards, there would be no similar way to tell it was backwards. That's what time having no arrow in quantum mechanics means.

Events on a human scale only make sense "forwards" in time (where cause precedes effect) while on a sub-atomic scale events make equal sense in either direction (you can't tell a cause from an effect).

I hope that explains it.

Yes and thank you for putting it in terms that those who havn't studied the subject can grasp , this isn't an old boys club for university geeks to talk in tongues , or geek speak , so to speak ,
I have a lot of difficulty with science terms ,
the terms themselves seem to be confused,
like space didn't exist before the bang , what did ,,???
science doesn't seem to have an answer to that one,
the bang supposedly is creating space as it goes ,,???
and time began ,,,???
just can't relate to the idea of a finite universe ,
so I automatically reject the bbt and all of this curved space time ,
until I can find an explanation that makes sense to me ,
I will continue to assume the bbt is a load of rubbish ,
so I seek knowledge of an infinite universe , both in time and size ,
Heres one that really gets me going ,
the red shift , by looking at images that in some cases are 13 billion years old ,
and mixing them with closer images , they can decide it's all expanding ,,???
time has moved on since those images were created ,
surely the only way we could determine such a thing ,
is if we could calculate where all the galaxies are NOW
a lot of those galaxies don't even exist anymore ,
and billions of new ones may be there with there images still on the way ,
In your opinion , how much is guess work and how much is solid ,
I get the feeling there is more presumption than fact ,
more about what they want to see , rather than what the facts support ,
first , man thought the universe revolved around him/us , the earth ,
I can't see we have moved on ,
isn't the bbt just another attempt to be the most important thing in the universe , that our little event was the creation of the universe ,
like we are the most important thing , we are the center of our universe ,
ego , we are small and insignificant compared to infinity ,
but that doesn't suit our ego , we are it ,,!!!
it all revolves around us ,,!!!
I say bullshit , time and space are infinite ,,
and there could be a multitude of other species out there living just as important lives as we do ,
if we ever discover life elsewhere ,
I wonder how that will effect our ego ,???

[Bernard]

I like your free thinking. Of course we are discovered life elsewhere but just haven't realised it. In my view there are only living things and their component parts: the galaxies, the orbs shiny and dull, atoms, us, whatever. Any living thing has to focus and limit boundaries of perception in order to survive, that's a given of existence. If we stand on a mountain top we see great detail and find more of interest in that than what is on the horizon, which is likely to be just so much haze. We do this as a whole as a species in everything we do right from the word go; from our personal lives to our education and cultural leanings. It cannot be any other way. But those boundaries do have fragility and we often sense more than we like to think we know. You seem to sense that there is no end to being, and the idea that the universe (whatever it is) arises from nothing and returns to nothing is basically flawed. There is some truth to this however; for like ourselves, who come and go very briefly upon this earth to be replaced by others, so well may the universe, and from a physical standpoint its impossible to argue otherwise. Let it be. Physical things have their day. Their is far more to life then can be had in physical philosophy.

"time has no arrow" in quantum mechanics ,,???
we are talking theory are we not ,,time has no arrow , in theory ,
in reality , time goes only one way...

That is only true on a larger scale. If you would run a film of an apple falling from a tree backwards, you could tell that it was backwards, because the apple would be falling up into the tree instead of down. But if you had a film of a sub-atomic event and ran that film backwards, there would be no similar way to tell it was backwards. That's what time having no arrow in quantum mechanics means.

Events on a human scale only make sense "forwards" in time (where cause precedes effect) while on a sub-atomic scale events make equal sense in either direction (you can't tell a cause from an effect).

I hope that explains it.

Yes and thank you for putting it in terms that those who havn't studied the subject can grasp , this isn't an old boys club for university geeks to talk in tongues , or geek speak , so to speak ,
I have a lot of difficulty with science terms ,
the terms themselves seem to be confused,
like space didn't exist before the bang , what did ,,???
science doesn't seem to have an answer to that one,
the bang supposedly is creating space as it goes ,,???
and time began ,,,???
just can't relate to the idea of a finite universe ,
so I automatically reject the bbt and all of this curved space time ,
until I can find an explanation that makes sense to me ,
I will continue to assume the bbt is a load of rubbish ,
so I seek knowledge of an infinite universe , both in time and size ,
Heres one that really gets me going ,
the red shift , by looking at images that in some cases are 13 billion years old ,
and mixing them with closer images , they can decide it's all expanding ,,???
time has moved on since those images were created ,
surely the only way we could determine such a thing ,
is if we could calculate where all the galaxies are NOW
a lot of those galaxies don't even exist anymore ,
and billions of new ones may be there with there images still on the way ,
In your opinion , how much is guess work and how much is solid ,
I get the feeling there is more presumption than fact ,
more about what they want to see , rather than what the facts support ,
first , man thought the universe revolved around him/us , the earth ,
I can't see we have moved on ,
isn't the bbt just another attempt to be the most important thing in the universe , that our little event was the creation of the universe ,
like we are the most important thing , we are the center of our universe ,
ego , we are small and insignificant compared to infinity ,
but that doesn't suit our ego , we are it ,,!!!
it all revolves around us ,,!!!
I say bullshit , time and space are infinite ,,
and there could be a multitude of other species out there living just as important lives as we do ,
if we ever discover life elsewhere ,
I wonder how that will effect our ego ,???

[Notvacka]

I have a lot of difficulty with science terms ,
the terms themselves seem to be confused,

On the contrary, terms are precisely defined, which is necessary in science. I can understand how it might seem confusing, though.

like space didn't exist before the bang , what did ,,???
science doesn't seem to have an answer to that one,

You are right. Science can't answer that one. "Before the bang" is equal to "outside the universe" and there is no way to peek outside. Metaphysical speculation range from nothing to an unlimited ammount of other universes to some version of God.

so I automatically reject the bbt and all of this curved space time ,
until I can find an explanation that makes sense to me ,

Those theories are constructed in order to explain and make sense of the physical world. A lot of things we observe on the largest and smallest scales would not make sense without them.

I'm sure curved space-time would make sense to yuo if you read up on it. I would recommend Einstein's own book on relativity:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Relativity-Spec ... 782&sr=8-4

It was written over 100 years ago and the theory still stands. And it's not a difficult book.

I will continue to assume the bbt is a load of rubbish ,

Interestingly, Einstein rejected the idea at first too. He didn't like it. But being a scientist, he had to admit that it made sense in view of the evidence.

In your opinion , how much is guess work and how much is solid ,
I get the feeling there is more presumption than fact ,
more about what they want to see , rather than what the facts support ,

In my opinion, Einstein's theory of relativity is rock solid. It's simple, beautiful, easy to understand and fits with all the evidence. Quantum mechanics is a much more complicated beast, rather ugly and hard to grasp. But it too fits with all the evidence. Both might be replaced by some better, more complete theory, but that theory would have to include relativity and quantum mechanics as special cases and fit with all the same evidence, just like relativity includes Newton's equations as a special case and fits with all the old evidence as well as the new.

so I seek knowledge of an infinite universe , both in time and size ,

Then you are making a presumption of what you will find, aren't you? Not very scientific.

isn't the bbt just another attempt to be the most important thing in the universe , that our little event was the creation of the universe ,
like we are the most important thing , we are the center of our universe ,

How can the big bang be viewed as our little event? Besides, nobody in science thinks that we are the center of the universe. According to the theory, the universe has no center.

and there could be a multitude of other species out there living just as important lives as we do ,

Yes, there could. And probably are. It's a vast place, after all, even if it's not infinite.

[Bernard]

How can the big bang be viewed as our little event? Besides, nobody in science thinks that we are the center of the universe. According to the theory, the universe has no center.

Ideologically so, that's how. The scientific presumption is that the BBT happened without consciousness. It was all mechanistic. We are different in that we started out in our own big bangs as very rudimentary consciousness at the moment of conception and grew. In doing so we became more and more conscious. The universe is not as good as us in this respect, nor anything of what is out there as far as we know. We are still the measure of consciousness. That's the science presumption