The Nature of Space by M. V. Vasilyeva

Dear Ms. Vasilyeva,

I enjoyed your essay and thought the first half was quite brilliant. However, I am convinced there is a more simple explanation than your view of 4D space.

Your comment below is correct.

"The important thing is that we get a dynamic, vibrating structure that defines space."

The simple solution is that 3D space exists, it has complex plane waves flowing through it in all directions, thus time is really this wave motion of space.

From this foundation, and the use of complex quaternion wave equations to represent these plane waves, you find you can deduce the central equations of modern physics.

I hope you will read my essay on this and discuss this with me - you have a fine mind for this kind of work.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1548

Also, Declan Traill's essay shows that Einstein's relativity can be deduced in this Euclidean 3D space given the velocity of light changes with the energy density of space. See;

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1363

Best wishes,

Geoff

IS IT NOT QUITE AN IRONY THAT THE ESSAY THAT IS UNBEATABLY ESTABLISHED AS NO.1 (WITH 361 RATINGS AND AVERAGE SCORE 8.7)IN PUBLIC RATINGS IS ALSO THE VERY LAST IN THE COMMUNITY RATINGS?

MV

Wonderful first part to your essay. See Richard Kingsley-Nixeys essay for where matter stops and space begins, (Shock section from the 'Cluster' probes Fig.2.) as Maxwells near far field term 'TZ'. These form the frame boundary 'membranes' as real physical dynamic boundary condition, implementing 'fluid dynamic coupling' of frames by scattering at local c each side.

I think your essay lost touch with underlying reality with branes and extra dimensions. However that may be a useful language to adapt to help recruit string theorists to the bus trip back down to a hard reality. There are other analogies to strings. I did not read the last parts in detail (speed reading and time have limits). A pretty good score due anyway. Your response so far?

(I always try to read the essays of hose who comment) I hope you read my essay again, and other papers.

Why no name? I'm intrigued.

Peter

Ms. Vasileyva,

I received your kind words about my essay, and decided to try putting up a Powerpoint to help explain it. I included in towards the end the equation I derived for when gravity becomes repulsive but haven't yet posted what I think about the perfect fluid tensor.

You stated "Is there a way to ruffly estimate this radius? I have a visual approach to physics and understand GR as if it describes the curvature of a 3D hypersurface of a hypersphere, similar to a 2D surface of water in the ocean, with the troughs of the waves corresponding to attractive gravity and the crests, repulsive. To paraphrase the saying, my geometrical approach (in 4D) states that "what curves in must eventually curve out", which implies that the repulsive aspect of gravity manifests itself in intergalactic voids, thus explaining why they are empty. In this regard, I would very much appreciate your feedback on my essay ( fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1547 )"

If I were to follow your analogy (since I think visually also) I would say that matter itself are also troughs in your ocean traveling as waves. These depressions always seek symmetry but when they are within a specific radius of another wave, their depressions interfere (superposition) causing a distortion of the height between them than what is on the other sides. Seeking symmetry, they move towards each other. If however, they are outside this specific radius then they would apparently seek the farthest distance possible from each other. Least that is the way it looks to me now :). So I would view your intergalactic voids as random regions outside this radius that does repulse matter since matter should randomly clump up.

Let me know what you think of the Powerpoint. Hoping I haven't goofed an equation.

Thanks

Jeff

Dear Vasilyeva (Part 1)

You: What I was saying in my post about Euclidean space was that each space has it own properties and characteristics, which is something you seem to overlook.

It is clear that there are geometrical differences between Euclidean, Minkoswkian and non-Euclidean spaces, there are also topological spaces, etc. But all of these do not have the mechanical or electromagnetic properties I mentioned before.

You say: But what energies and forces define characteristics and properties of the real thing in which we live? ... You speak about physical theories as if they determine the underlying reality and not the other way around.

That is why, we are scientists because we do not know what the "real thing" or the underlying reality is. We are trying to figure out what the universe is, what it is made up and how it works, and this is why we make assumptions such as space is 3D or 4D or ND. How can you be sure that space is 4D or 5D. That is an assumption based on certain logic, but as time passes we discover new phenomena and the assumptions have to change, therefore, the "underlying reality" is no longer as we thought it was.

You: But say, when did you decide that underlying reality is 4D? You do not mention it in your essay. Was it my naive essay by any chance that gave you this idea? ...But you seem to agree with the main point of my essay, namely that the underlying reality is 4D. Was it my naive essay that gave you this idea?

No, I did not mention it. I did not mention solitons either. It is evident that one cannot treat all topics in a brief essay, this is why I did not mention all ideas, I only focused my work in the core: the PSR (i.e. that there is a medium for light, space itself), from this postulate many problems are easily solved. The idea that space is 4D is not new to me. In my previous post to you I have mentioned that the view that is space is 4D and a fluid is already well developed in a mathematical theory. It seems that you have overlooked it. Here I cite the articles again in case you would like to take a look at them: C.I. Christov, Nonlinear Analysis 71 (2009) e2028-e2044 and C. I. Christov, Math. Comput. Simul. 80 91101 (2009). Most of your findings such as particles and EM fields traveling over the surface of the 3D shell and the resolution of the mysteries of quantum mechanics are there and well developed. It is shown that in 4D the wave function of QM has a non-probabilistic interpretation. The theory unifies QM, Newtonian gravity and electromagnetism. The theory also predicts that space can support, in addition to transversal waves (light) longitudinal waves that travel much faster than the speed of light, etc. etc. etc. But again, this contradicts current views and it has been rejected by the mainstream of physicists.

You: ...as if choosing "a right" theory, which mathematically happened to be the same, will have a direct effect on the underlying reality.

Again: Which is the underlying reality?? Who knows the underlying reality? Nobody! If nobody knows it we have to build it with theories. And a theory is made of assumptions. But the theory and the assumptions have to make sense not only mathematically but also intuitively. SR makes sense only mathematically but intuitively is incoherent. This is because it denies the PSR. LET includes the PSR and therefore is consistent in both aspects. Once we have accepted that light (seen as wave) needs a medium we just have to assume that space is the medium and plays the role of the old aether. For simplicity, we can assume space static, although, in general, it could be in motion.

Israel

Part 2.

You: "How does your stance on PSR differ from what you replied to Pentcho Valev, i.e. why is measuring absolute speed of light from a hypothethical PSR is a practical impossiblity for Pentcho, yet makes perfect sense for you? What exactly will make it a possibility?"

I argue in my essay and in my reference 17 that the one-way speed of light cannot be measured but only the two-way speed which is in fact an average speed of light. Despite this, any theory that accepts the validity of Maxwell's equations has to assume that in at least one system of reference (which I hold is the PSR attached to space itself) the one-way speed of light is isotropic.

You: Besides, light being the property of the medium, its speed is dictated by the medium. Can you really use air as the PSR for sound?

Yes in any fluid, though the situation is different with space and this is one of the big objections against the PSR, that apparently, it is impossible to determine the absolute state of motion of a material object. This was the main reason why it was rejected by Einstein et al. This has been the main weakness of this approach (I have discussed this matter with Daniel Wagner in our entries take a look at it).

You: BB...'tired light' takes care of the presumed current expansion.

In 1929 space was assumed to be empty, astronomers and physicists never considered again that space was the medium for EM waves, so they thought that there was no reason for light to lose energy and that the only mechanism that logically accounted for the red shift was the space expansion. In 1929 Fritz Zwicky proposed that by some means light should lose energy, so far there are more than a dozen of mechanisms that have been proposed, yet none of them has been consistent with observations at the cosmic scale. The reconsideration of space as fluid fit as the perfect mechanism to compete against an expanding universe. This only tells us that space could be static at the large scale but locally, around the sun or the earth, could be dynamic just as Descartes theorized long time ago (again, the theory is already developed). But the theory makes no assumptions about the age of the universe and its spatial extension since these aspects, at the present stage of science, are outside the scope of any direct experimental verification. We can only have access by indirect means, but this implies the assumption that the laws of physics are immutable and are the same anywhere and at anytime. This is what the BB theory assumes. But again, this is just an assumption, no one can guarantee that the laws of physics were the same in the past or they will be the same in the future.

Israel

Dear M.V.

I tried contacting you via your private e-mail about a week ago and didn't receive any acknowledgement. I feel it might prove interesting and mutually beneficial if you can respond. Will try again. Thanks

J.R.

e-mail name... rojaro45

Dear Vasilyeva

Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to reply. I agree with you that the contest is time consuming and it is a good idea to take a break for some time. I just would like to give you a reply in relation to your last post.

You: it also appears that it is set in an eternal, infinite universe

Like I said, it makes no assumptions as to the age of the universe, for this theory this is not relevant.

You: and does not have a provision for repulsive gravity (as in the voids).

I do have clear why you think it is necessary to have a repulsive force. The notion of repulsive force (or dark energy, cosmological constant) is a consequence of the current paradigm in which the general relativity is assumed to be the correct theory. This implies modeling space as mesh. But under another paradigm gravity could be interpreted neither as a force (in the sense of Newton) nor as curvature of space-time but as a dynamical flow of the massive fluid (space) in the sense of Descartes. It has been mathematically shown that, for instance, Newton's gravitational law and the Schwarzschild metric can be reinterpreted as a flow of the dynamical fluid tending towards the center of gravity (see also my comments in Vesselin Petkov's entry). So, the need of a repulsive force would depend on the theoretical framework under consideration.

You: To me SR tells simply that things are not what they appear... I just do not see how PSR can exist in reality...

In the discussion with Daniel Wagner I discussed what the problem with SR is. The problem is the paradoxes inherent in the theory. But there is an even worse problem: that relativists do not even recognize the paradoxes. So we have two problems. The latter is crucial for the former. If we recognize the paradoxes then we would understand why it is necessary to reintroduce the PSR. My reference 17 suggests another paradox in relation to the isotropy of the one-way speed of light.

If you understand that light is wave and that space is the medium for light then we are automatically accepting the existence of the PSR. Actually, space could be modeled as a liquid or solid (not a gas as was conceived in the XIX century). The analogy is found with air or water. The speed of water waves is defined by the properties of water and therefore the water becomes the PSR for water waves. The same idea applies for sound waves, air becomes its PSR, and so on for any fluid including space. Again, if you accept the idea that space exists as the medium for light then you are accepting that space is the PSR for light waves.

It seems that you are confusing the practical or the technical implications of considering the fluid as the PSR with the theoretical implications. I mean, it seems that you can not imagine how an experimentalist will solve the technical problem of attaching a system of reference to the air, in order to make measurements of the speed of air. But one has to understand that this is a technical matter, not a theoretical one.

You: If light is the property of the medium, its speed of propagation should be absolutely the same in both directions through the same segment of the medium.

You say: ...its speed "SHOULD BE", when you say "SHOULD BE" you are "ASSUMING". But now, how do you experimentally prove that the speed is the same in both ways? That the one-way speed of light is isotropic is only an assumption but nobody has ever measured it. Our experimental techniques seem to be incapable of succeeding in measuring one-way speeds. This is what I discuss in my reference 17. Actually, nobody has measured the one-way speed of any single physical entity, we only measured averages or two-way speeds.

Why do you say that "The universe needs to have a beginning"? It may need according to a certain theoretical framework, the BB for instance, but not for others.

Well, I thank you again for your words, I really appreciate them. But I would like to add that since the judges are composed of people from the mainstream who categorically reject the PSR, I am aware that there is a high probability that my essay would not be among the first places, otherwise I would be really surprised, thankful and happy.

best regards

Israel

Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie's solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early October 2012 and the second was in Shanghai a week or so ago. On both occasions El Naschie presented a revision of Einstein's theory leading to an equation very similar to that of Einstein's namely Energy equals mass x the square of the speed of the light. However unlike Einstein's equation, the result is divided by 22. His explanation of 22 is as follows: As in the old string theory of strong interaction, space time of relativity should have been considered 26 dimensional. Taking 4 only is what Einstein did and that is how he got his famous result. Nevertheless Einstein ignored 22 dimensions. This is a scaling factor following Nottale's theory as argued by El Naschie. Even in simpler terms, he reasons that Einstein knew only one elementary messenger particle namely the photon. He knew nothing about the other 11 messenger particles of the standard model which were not known in 1905. Adding 11 super partners it turned out that Einstein did not know about an additional 22 elementary particles. These are the particles needed to explain the missing dark energy. In this way El Naschie was able to show that 95.5% of the energy of the Universe is missing. Alternatively this energy was never there to start with because space time is a fractal and although it looks puffed up it boils down to very little similar to cotton candy. In addition the compactified 22 dimensions are the cause for the negative pressure which increases the acceleration of the Universe's expansion. He claims to have tested his theory using 25 different methods including Witten's M-Theory and reached the same result. Even more importantly this result agrees completely with observation. In other words mathematics and physics have been substantiated by measurement which led last year to the award of the Nobel Prize to the 3 team who obtained this incredible measurement and data. Click on this link to get more info re the above (under news) http://www.msel-naschie.com/ and also http://mohamed-elnaschie.blogspot.com/.

Hello Ms Vasilyeva,

Going through past essays. I am a new participant on the FQXi forum. I came across something similar to my proposal for digital motion in your essay, "...we can propose that the main organizing principle of the structure is its propensity to keep as even and regular as possible. Applied to each contiguous segment of space, this principle becomes the source of all movement: any deformation introduced into the structure locally is immediately expelled; the same happens in the next segment, then the next, and so on, like in a game of hot potato. A deformation is expelled into the direction that gives, which in a perfectly balanced structure is opposite from where it comes". I agree. I propose the principle as conservation of displacement, a vector quantity. Like most action-reaction, a vector quantity is usually conserved.

Best regards,

Akinbo