What Exactly Is Spacetime? Find Out Inside

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Have you ever heard the term “spacetime” thrown around in various science articles around the web? Just what exactly is “spacetime” and how does it relate to standard theories about space? I think Wiki manages a rather good description of this odd substance, so let’s start there. Wiki defines spacetime as:


spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. The spacetime of our universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the ‘fourth dimension’. By combining space and time into a single manifold called Minkowski space, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels…In cosmology, the concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract universe.


From this summary we get the clear picture that spacetime is a purely mathematical construct used to build mathematical models. In physical reality, there is no such thing as a substance called spacetime. This important fact is often overlooked when scientific theories are presented to the public.

The spacetime concept merely defines a spatial coordinate and event system. The obtuse hieroglyphics often found in mathematical models which invoke this abstract mathematical universe are all related to defining where things are in relation to one another, as well as defining how objects move, their velocity, and the timing of events.

What often gets lost in the process of all this modeling is the fact that space itself has no physical properties that act upon matter. Often theories of bending space are presented as scientific fact, when in reality there is no such thing as bending space. What scientists are really presenting are models of bending spacetime, which is a mathematical abstraction.

Some scientists confuse the properties of the model with the properties of real space. The objectification of a model as being something real is called reification. Again, I’ll go with Wiki’s description of this phenomena. Wiki states, “Reification generally refers to making something real, bringing something into being, or making something concrete.” More specifically, the scientists are engaged in what’s called a reification fallacy, which Wiki defines as:


Reification (also known as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a concrete thing, something which is not concrete, but merely an idea.

Another common manifestation is the confusion of a model with reality. Mathematical or simulation models may help understand a system or situation but real life will differ from the model (e.g. ‘the map is not the territory’).


One of the most common reified models the general public may be familiar with looks something like this:


In reality, there is no such thing as bending space. Space, which is nothing, has no physical properties that can act upon matter.

If you were to ask a mathematician if spacetime has real physical properties that can act upon matter, they would probably stare at you with a blank face. This is because the question forces them to directly face a form of cognitive dissonance they’ve been carrying around with them since grad school.

They instinctively know the answer is to that question is no. They are well aware that spacetime is nothing more than a mathematical concept. However, many of their theories depend on this mathematical abstraction actually being a real entity that is capable of acting upon matter.

The foremost example of reification in action comes from gravitational waves. Again, Wiki is just spot on with the definitions today. Wiki defines gravitational waves as:


In physics, gravitational waves are ripples in the curvature of spacetime that propagate as a wave, travelling outward from the source. Predicted in 1916 by Albert Einstein to exist on the basis of his theory of general relativity, gravitational waves theoretically transport energy as gravitational radiation.


Given that spacetime is defined as a mathematical abstraction, the bending of a mathematical abstraction cannot impart real force on a real object. It is instructive to note that the search for gravitational waves has turned up nothing.

The LIGO gravitational wave observatory has never detected a gravitational wave. LIGO (on the fourth science run [S4]) and GEO600 together did not detect any gravitational waves. To date, LIGO’s fifth science run [S5], which had all three interferometers running continuously in triple-coincidence for an entire year, has not yielded any gravitational wave candidates. This should come as no surprise, given that real space has no physical properties that can act upon matter.

Only real tangible matter can act upon real tangible matter. This fact of science is respected in all other fields of science apart from cosmology. Cosmology is the only field of science where abstract mathematical concepts are taken to be actual physical entities capable of imparting force to matter.

Defining gravity as bending spacetime creates other intractable problems. For example, Special Relativity, which deals with objects on the atomic scale, has absolutely no working theory of gravity. In other words, scientists have no idea what actually causes gravity.

Supposedly a mysterious “massless” particle called a graviton is theorized to be the gravitational force carrier at the atomic level. The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory defines the graviton as being, “entirely theoretical constructs that delicately walk the knife-edge precipice between the domains of scientific respectability and the shady world of hand waving.”

A great deal of time and effort has gone into coming up with a theory of gravity that can define it at the atomic level, as well as at the macro level. Creating such a theory would “unify” Special and General Relativity. It should be obvious this is impossible because General Relativity treats gravity as if it is a function of bending spacetime (a mathematical abstraction), while atomic level forces must be related to real physical particles or force carriers. This leaves scientists trying to tie two completely different mathematical models together, both of which fundamentally have no basis in the real material world. The attempt to unify the two has been going on for well over 100 years.

These mathematical abstractions were initially created to describe the observed movement of real objects, without defining what actually imparts force upon them. This situation is similar to Newton’s laws of gravitation, which describe the action of gravity, without offering a hypothesis as to what causes gravity. Over time, scientists have taken to assuming that bending spacetime is the actual cause of gravity, while forgetting that spacetime is merely a descriptor, not an actual causal agent that can do real work.

edit on 7/22/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
IMO, Wiki is not the last word, or the go to place for definitions and terminology. Space is not 'nothing'. It's pure energy! It in itself causes gravity. Photons, coming in and out of reality from the virtual state {quantum threshold}, interact with matter and produce the effects of gravity. Henry T. Moray invented a device for producing energy, that when pointed at a mouse across the room, killed it instantly. When they went to pick it up it turned to dust. Maybe he used two beams to produce interferometry. Just my thought on that. Weather modification is another well known use of interferometry. Seems to me you should do a lot more reading.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
On threads like this I have to throw out my craziest theory again, that time and gravity are the same thing. Do the math (I sure can't).



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Interesting but a little too much technical for me but..... I do know a lot of an other special time. Did you ever hear of Millertime?




posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I really don't understand how they can say "spacetime is nothing". What stops the objects in one place "over there" from suddenly moving over to the objects "over here" . That spacetime must be something to maintain distance and not just wrinkle up and disappear into nothing.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Now you're talkin' my language!a reply to: zatara




posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

Space is a void in which physical matter resides.

Spacetime is an abstract mathematical concept used to model the movement of objects through this void.

By "nothing", I mean space is no "thing." Space is the apparent separation of things. Only real things can impart force to other real things.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Out of curiosity, how does EU/PC explain time dilation with electric gravity?



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Out of curiosity, how does EU/PC explain time dilation with electric gravity?


Since gravity has to be tied to real atomic properties, it stands to reason that gravity arises out of the real properties of matter, and not out of bending spacetime.

EU theory suggests gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.

It should be noted that this is just a theory, just as SR and GR are theories, but I think the EU model offers a better alternative.

Thornhill goes into more detail about this subject here:

www.holoscience.com...


As for gravity driven time dilation, check out this article:

phys.org...

edit on 7/22/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

While spacetime is a model, that doesn't mean it doesn't predict or describe the properties of 'Space'.

'Space' has been shown to be 'something' via the Casimir effect etc.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
I think your on to something. I believe gravity is much more powerful than they say it is. I believe the gravity of a black hole is indeed effecting stars and matter way, way out from its center mass and all these dark matter and energies are really just that. I could be wrong of course and so could you but I do think your closer to the truth than current theory is.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Einstein didn't believe in the luminiferous aether as proved not to exist by the Michelson-Morley experiment, however he thought his spacetime WAS the aether. It is a substance that can warp and dilate.
Both special and general theories of relativity have been experimentally confirmed as being correct.
It is not simply "a mathematical concept".

Although I believe that its not the full picture more modern theories of the aether consider space as being filled with a quantum superfluid, and perhaps the bending of space is due to its density varying.

Space cannot be empty, after all what is an electromagnetic wave travelling through?



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory defines . . .

From your link:


It is interesting that the article references a child's TV program as an illustration.


originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
. . . General Relativity treats gravity as if it is a function of bending spacetime (a mathematical abstraction), while atomic level forces must be related to real physical particles or force carriers. This leaves scientists trying to tie two completely different mathematical models together, both of which fundamentally have no basis in the real material world.


If “atomic level forces must be related to real physical particles or force carriers,” why do you say “both of which fundamentally have no basis in the real material world”?

Haven't you just described at least the atomic level forces as related to the real material world?



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Light shone from A appears to travel at 186,000 mps from A. If we launch a spacecraft from A at half the speed of light, then shine light from that spacecraft, that light still appears to be travelling at 186,000 mps because of time dilution. Both light sources seem to be travelling at 186,000 mps from A or the spacecraft.

That makes spacetime a fabric that interferes with time itself. The faster we travel in the fabric the slower time becomes.

edit on 23 7 2014 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: glend
Light shone from A appears to travel at 186,000 mps from A. If we launch a spacecraft from A at half the speed of light, then shine light from that spacecraft, that light still appears to be travelling at 186,000 mps because of time dilution. Both light sources seem to be travelling at 186,000 mps from A or the spacecraft.

That makes spacetime a fabric that interferes with time itself. The faster we travel in the fabric the slower time becomes.



Exactly. As I travel through space, my time (time from my reference point) becomes dilated.

OP --
If the space I travel through is nothingness, then why does traveling through that space cause my time to dilate?



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

If the space I travel through is nothingness, then why does traveling through that space cause my time to dilate?



Time dilation is a theory, not a fact. And there are problems with that theory:

phys.org...

Lorentz's version of relativity can account for things like the GPS clocks just as well:

www.metaresearch.org...



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Interesting thread, lets see how it pans out as I have my own ideas about space , time and gravity.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
If “atomic level forces must be related to real physical particles or force carriers,” why do you say “both of which fundamentally have no basis in the real material world”?

Haven't you just described at least the atomic level forces as related to the real material world?


That's a good question. SR also makes use of the spacetime concept to come up with workable solutions to problems. From the evidence I've looked at, this is not necessary. Lortenz's version of relativity can account for what we observe without resorting to the use of the spacetime abstraction. Even the clowns on Wiki admit that, "it is not possible to distinguish between LET [Lorentz Relativity] and SR by experiment."

I think the use of classical physics is the only thing that's going to allow us to come up with a good working model of the atom and a good working model of gravity. Classical physics depends on real things doing real work.

The spacetime abstraction, in both SR and GR, is at the root of the rot in physics.

edit on 7/23/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

When I asked you the question I was thinking about trying to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity - the search for the unified theory. (Am I saying that right?)

Re-reading your OP, I see you were talking about unifying SR and GR instead:


A great deal of time and effort has gone into coming up with a theory of gravity that can define it at the atomic level, as well as at the macro level. Creating such a theory would “unify” Special and General Relativity. It should be obvious this is impossible because General Relativity treats gravity as if it is a function of bending spacetime (a mathematical abstraction), while atomic level forces must be related to real physical particles or force carriers. This leaves scientists trying to tie two completely different mathematical models together, both of which fundamentally have no basis in the real material world. The attempt to unify the two has been going on for well over 100 years.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

Yeah I was referring to unifying SR and GR. It's an impossible task.

If we go with a ground up theory of gravity, such as that suggested by Thornhill, then both SR and GR could be scrapped entirely. Plasma physics with an atomic theory of gravity makes GR irrelevant, which then allows for the abandonment of SR in favor of LR.





new topics
top topics
 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join