The Nature of Space by M. V. Vasilyeva

Ms. Vasilyeva,

I can not even explain the "nature of our existence", thus agreeing to the existence of a 4th spatial dimension is putting the cart way ahead of the horse. As one of my mentors stated, a Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering (since deceased), we are all a specialized form of energy. Once the atom is broken down into its constitute parts, they pretty much represent some form of "energy".

Please realize that transverse electromagnetic (EM) waves were the only field orientation Einstein was aware of when he formulated his weird curved space-time theory. EM waves with longitudinal components, where a field vector is aligned with the axis of propagation, are being produced by photonic types. Also, Einstein was one of the lost generations in regards to solitons, thus he developed his theories based upon " incomplete information", a Georgina Parry term, topic 1216.

Keep in mind that our current space has permittivity and permeability, and the physics community cannot explain why.

Dear M.V.

I hope you can read Russian

What is common between this flatland and your flatland?

http://modcos.com/articles.php?id=201

Terminology problem you can solve

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-gravity-in-flatland

Dear M.V.,

You have written a paper containing many imaginative ideas and touching upon many different fields in physics. I especially liked how you introduced your ideas with the fable in the preamble. Certainly, the notion that "All the space there is belongs to this universe and can contain nothing else." rings true to me.

As intriguing as your ideas are, I believe physicists would want want to see your visual-conceptual model translated into a mathematical model, and some experimentally testable predictions before they would seriously consider adopting it as a worldview (for better or for worse), but I'm sure you already know this.

I did notice that your ideas have a certain picturesque quality to them, which seems quite appropriate, given the topic (although this may also be enhanced by your vivid writing style).

Let me mention that, concerning your remark about Minkowski Spacetime above, most quantum field theorists would vehemently disagree with it.

To me personally the most striking implication of Minkowski spacetime as concerns the structure of space is that evidently in a Universe without any matter at all but just radiation, there could be no Spacetime. That is because distance intervals in spacetime are proportional to the proper time of an object, and only objects with mass have a non-zero proper time. If there are no objects with non-zero proper time, there can be no frame in which there are non-zero spacetime distances(Incidentally, only some physicists agree with this conclusion. Those who do not posit that one can mathematically still describe a spacetime without matter. To me this is an instance of mistaking the map for the territory) I mentioned this because I thought you might find this digression relevant to your topic.

Good luck on the contest and all the best,

Armin

I am not topologist, just layman...

M.V.:

Your essay touched on the core of a physics problem.. "space". In space one can observe the motion of mass and keep track of all energies involved, but rarely consider the concomitant "growth" that can occur to affect energy balances..

My model, To Seek Unknown Shores

聽聽 http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

developed in detail in "End Notes", suggests 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D "spaces" achieve 6/16, 9/16, and 1/16 " respective probabilities for growth as motion proceeds.

Comment?

Excellent!

Ms. Vasilyeva,

Maxwell's ether theory says that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Special relativity says the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer. What do YOU say?

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory." MICHIO KAKU: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved." JOHN NORTON AGAIN: "This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/XML/db/csphysique/metadata/LOM_CSP_relat.xml

Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168

Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

This is my community rating on your essay.

Let us assume, in accordance with the classical ether theory, that:

Assumption 1. The speed of light, as measured by the observer, is independent of the speed of the light source.

Assumption 2. The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies with the speed of the observer.

The null result of the Michelson-Morley is incompatible with the combination of the two assumptions so we have to change them. The simplest change that restores the compatibility with the null result is as follows:

Assumption 1 is replaced by Assumption 1': The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies the speed of the light source.

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

but i have my own view

see my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413#addPost