What Is The Material Structure of Spacetime?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: NorEaster

Look into System Theory and System Coherence. We can prove the tenets of both -

"Tenets of theories" are untenable.

Take off those blinders or just re-ask the question like Astyanax proposed.

Ha!

What blinders? The ones that you seem to have concerning the requirement that a mathematical vector location strategy not be declared to be the true physical/material "soup" that the entire physical universe is made of. Did you know that Einstein was a believer in the Aether Theory, and only changed the name of it to "spacetime" to drive home his revolutionary idea that the "geometry" of space was not static (as was the belief of his day)?

Of course you don't know that. Why would you know that?

Spacetime - three dimensions of space and one dimension of time - is only the location strategy for finding something that exists within a universal geometry that's not static and that exists relative to everything else that's also in dynamic flux relative ton it and to the rest of the universe. It's hilarious that Einstein allowed the 20th century to turn it into another version of the Aether. Especially since he was and always remained a believer in that Aether theory.

a reply to: NorEaster

It is beautiful. What would happen if the certainty of the West were shattered and the shamanism of the past were allowed to wave at you and say "Hello" again? This Halloween, I'll be carving turnips in memory of my ancestors. ;p

NorEaster:

Any ideas concerning what this spacetime aether is made of?

NorEaster :

Gravity is the result of spacetime, and light is apparently affected by that gravity, so no, they aren't part of spacetime's material composition.

Regarding the former question, spacetime is pretty much a mathematical construct, an abstraction, and I have yet to see an interaction between a substance and an abstraction. As you know, abstractions do not exist in their own right, and are not independent of their creator. Equally, time has no independent existence beyond that of the perceiver, and space itself is predicated on the content that exists within it. Take out the content, and the concept of 'space' dissolves entirely.

As you also know, light is an electromagnetic radiation comprised of photons, which are supposedly massless, with no internal component parts. It's only interaction is with the electromagnetic forces of other quanta. As for the aether, Einstein did away with that as an unnecessary medium of energy propagation whilst writing his Special Relativity theory. When you think about it, it is easy to attach time to space, because spatial vectors between objects have a distance relationship, and you can time the duration of travel between any two or more vector coordinates. It doesn't mean 'spacetime' actually exists.

Gravity, along with the electric force, is one of the four identified forces in nature. Spacetime isn't a force, so it can't interact with anything, and neither can it be interacted upon, interactions of force take place within and across spatial vectors. Gravity is the one force whose origin we cannot uncover, but it is said to permeate throughout the whole universe. If gravity can affect light, and if light is massless, the question has to be, what exactly is gravity interacting with when it affects light?

As far as I am aware, the only thing gravity could possibly be interacting with when affecting light is the electric force?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: NorEaster

System theory is philosophy, not physics.

Since when? An atom is a system. Quantum entanglement is all about dealing with system theory. Do you even know what a system is?

Mass in string theory, which is what stormcell was talking about.

Again, String Theory is crap. There is no actual theory associated with "string theory". Not one that is viable. There are 10^500 potential string theory "theories" but none that have even graduated off the black board with time or gravity intact. Also, String Theory (so far) is not "background independent" so, in truth, there are no potential theories that even address the geometry of the universe. String Theory ignores the question about what "spacetime" consists of, and treats that environment as simply present.

a reply to: NorEaster

A "leaf' encounters wind resistance as it falls, slowing its descent. Have you ever seen the video of the astronaut dropping a hammer and feather at the a same time on the moon?

The moon is "held" by earths gravity and its forward momentum. Everything in space is moving in one orbit or another relative too each other.

These things I know, others can provide direct links. I'm a hack and currently engaged elsewhere on ATS. Hope that helps…

regards,

intrptr

a reply to: elysiumfire

Good post. I believe most physicists now regard the weak force and electromagnetism as one and the same force manifesting itself differently under different conditions, so we can speak of three fundamental forces rather than four.

As far as I am aware, the only thing gravity could possibly be interacting with when affecting light is the electric force

Gravity is a property of massive objects that affects the geometry of spacetime. Spacetime does exist in a real sense; the bending of light by gravity is evidence of this, because it shows that spacetime is being distorted. Imagine photons in vacuo rolling along the metric like marbles along a carpet, following its undulations.

Forces don't interact with each other; they act on matter (photons, despite being massless, are matter).

Fundamental interaction

a reply to: NorEaster

What blinders? The ones that you seem to have concerning the requirement that a mathematical vector location strategy not be declared to be the true physical/material "soup" that the entire physical universe is made of

The soup is defined easily. There is and there is not. The gaps between are space.

But you are right this can't be written down mathematically. Its all just theory from our current perspective. We have to die to get the reality.

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: NorEaster

It is beautiful. What would happen if the certainty of the West were shattered and the shamanism of the past were allowed to wave at you and say "Hello" again? This Halloween, I'll be carving turnips in memory of my ancestors. ;p

Belief systems are one thing, and each to his own. I have no issue with anyone embracing a belief system. I feel differently about science, since it declares a much different statement than any belief system. It also demands that it be taken literally and with gravitas. Due to that, it should be held to a higher standard.

Enjoy your Halloween and honor your ancestors with cheer.

a reply to: NorEaster

Since when?

Since Hegel

Again, String Theory is crap.

Heard you first time. The point is, you don't know enough string theory to recognize it when you see it.

Just establishing your credentials here. For telling us what is and isn't physics, that string theory is crap, and so forth. Wouldn't want to overstate your expertise now, would you?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: NorEaster

A "leaf' encounters wind resistance as it falls, slowing its descent. Have you ever seen the video of the astronaut dropping a hammer and feather at the a same time on the moon?

The moon is "held" by earths gravity and its forward momentum. Everything in space is moving in one orbit or another relative too each other.

These things I know, others can provide direct links. I'm a hack and currently engaged elsewhere on ATS. Hope that helps…

regards,

intrptr

That's a hell of a wind if it can overcome the same force that holds the entire Moon in orbit from 25,000 miles away.

a reply to: Astyanax

Imagine photons in vacuo rolling along the metric like marbles along a carpet, following its undulations.

The plane of the ecliptic is where those marbles "run" the most. The Universe is not a carpet, thats the imagery so we can conceive of it. In reality everything is 3d and at least four if you get my hyper speech.

So light is continuos in every direction and fills the void.

Just the spectrums we detect are visible to us too, imo.

a reply to: NorEaster

Science is a belief system, one that puts quite a bit of faith in this material universe.

a reply to: NorEaster

That's a hell of a wind if it can overcome the same force that holds the entire Moon in orbit from 25,000 miles away.

Yah, the earth is massive enough to do that to the moon. Its not wind, its the momentum of the moon that pulls away and the earths gravity that holds it (like a ball and string swinging around your head)…

250,000, not 25,000 in case that wasn't a missing 0.

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: NorEaster

Science is a belief system, one that puts quite a bit of faith in this material universe.

well said…

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: NorEaster

What blinders? The ones that you seem to have concerning the requirement that a mathematical vector location strategy not be declared to be the true physical/material "soup" that the entire physical universe is made of

The soup is defined easily. There is and there is not. The gaps between are space.

But you are right this can't be written down mathematically. Its all just theory from our current perspective. We have to die to get the reality.

Is this the meaning of the third degree in masonary?

originally posted by: elysiumfire
NorEaster:

Any ideas concerning what this spacetime aether is made of?

NorEaster :

Gravity is the result of spacetime, and light is apparently affected by that gravity, so no, they aren't part of spacetime's material composition.

Regarding the former question, spacetime is pretty much a mathematical construct, an abstraction, and I have yet to see an interaction between a substance and an abstraction. As you know, abstractions do not exist in their own right, and are not independent of their creator. Equally, time has no independent existence beyond that of the perceiver, and space itself is predicated on the content that exists within it. Take out the content, and the concept of 'space' dissolves entirely.

As you also know, light is an electromagnetic radiation comprised of photons, which are supposedly massless, with no internal component parts. It's only interaction is with the electromagnetic forces of other quanta. As for the aether, Einstein did away with that as an unnecessary medium of energy propagation whilst writing his Special Relativity theory. When you think about it, it is easy to attach time to space, because spatial vectors between objects have a distance relationship, and you can time the duration of travel between any two or more vector coordinates. It doesn't mean 'spacetime' actually exists.

Gravity, along with the electric force, is one of the four identified forces in nature. Spacetime isn't a force, so it can't interact with anything, and neither can it be interacted upon, interactions of force take place within and across spatial vectors. Gravity is the one force whose origin we cannot uncover, but it is said to permeate throughout the whole universe. If gravity can affect light, and if light is massless, the question has to be, what exactly is gravity interacting with when it affects light?

As far as I am aware, the only thing gravity could possibly be interacting with when affecting light is the electric force?

If Spacetime isn't what "presses down" on all that's bound to the surface of Planet earth, and if it's not responsible for the orbital track of the Moon as it locks itself to an endless loop around this Earth, then so much for General Relativity. So much for any scientific assumption based on spacetime as a "fabric" that massive objects distort as they move about relative to everything else that's also moving about.

So, then, spacetime is only a vector positional strategy and nothing more than that.

I think that this is as good an answer as I'm going to ever get, and I'm satisfied with it.

Thank you.

Astyanax:

Gravity is a property of massive objects that affects the geometry of spacetime.

Thanks for reply. Unfortunately, I have to disagree, gravity cannot affect 'spacetime' because spacetime is nothing more than a mathematical construct. Suppose though, that gravity is the sum force throughout the universe of the presence of the electric force? Where there are objects of mass, gravity will display a greater force, because the object is composed of quanta that carry electric charge. So a planet or a star will bend light because light is an electric force, and a star or planet have an electromagnetic field surrounding it. I believe gravity to be closely allied to the electric force more than weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces.

a reply to: Wifibrains

That was interesting. In other words love exhibits stronger bonds than gravity.

The things that are unseen are more important than those that are.

check…

But we can't put love, trust or friendship in a test tube. Yes we can. Direct observation of it (instead of directly observing test tubes).

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: NorEaster

Since when?

Since Hegel

From your link

System theory (as we know it) was used by L. von Bertalanffy, a biologist, as the basis for the field of study known as ‘general system theory’, a multidisciplinary field (1968).

One of those disciplines is physics.

Again, String Theory is crap.

Heard you first time. The point is, you don't know enough string theory to recognize it when you see it.

Just establishing your credentials here. For telling us what is and isn't physics, that string theory is crap, and so forth. Wouldn't want to overstate your expertise now, would you?

I was leaning on Professor Lee Smolin's credentials. He's one of the inventors of Loop Quantum Gravity after spending years in String Theory. He was the first scientist to blow the whistle on String Theory as being crap. I linked his book where he went public with that charge.

originally posted by: NorEaster

Any ideas concerning what this spacetime aether is made of?

Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall reading what YOU think space time is... Can you share your hypotesis? Or point to the post with your thinking, was it the cloud of neutrinos in your first post?

Not trying to be confrontational, just want to know YOUR toughts...

Thanks!

Alex