The Nature of Space by M. V. Vasilyeva

Dear Vasilyeva (this is part 1)

Thanks for your reply. I will try to express myself so we understand each other as well as possible.

Before 1905 people believe that space was synonymous of utter emptiness, nothingness. This was known as the Newtonian space which was mathematically represented by a 3D Euclidean space. As we all know, Euclidean space is structureless, it is nothing but the mental abstraction of physical objects (shapes, lengths, points, planes, etc.). It is thought of as a background composed of no physical entities and no internal structure; simply because nothingness cannot have structure, no energy or no substance. In the XIX (also in the XVII century) this emptiness was assumed to be filled with the aether. Some sort of material fluid having well defined mechanical properties. Then EM fields were thought of to be states of the aether (but physicists never conceived that the aether could play the role of space itself). At that time, there were several models for the aether, some people proposed that the aether was a gas like air, but they soon realized that in order to support light waves (shear or traversal waves) the aether should be a liquid or solid. In 1887-1890 Heinrich Hertz modified Maxwell equations to account for this feature. In this way he succeeded in creating a consistent model of the aether. Unfortunately, his formulation was ignored by the mainstream of the time.

After 1905, most physicists started to abandon the idea of the aether. By doing this they not also rejected the material character of the medium but also erased from their minds the idea that the material aether could be space itself. Instead, physicists accepted Newtonian space and filled it with EM and gravitational fields. In 1908 Minkoswki proposed his space-time. This space-time was also made up of nothingness, it was only a geometrical representation (a manifold) similar to Euclidean space so that astronomical objects interacted at a distance (instantaneously) without the need of any mediator. And again this space was unaffected by matter and filled with EM fields. Einstein soon realized this deficiency (following Mach philosophy) and then developed the GR. In his theory, space is no longer a static infinite vessel but a dynamical one that changes form depending on the matter-energy content [Here the matter-energy content means any other field different than gravitational]. These fields are introduced in the gravitational equations (Einstein' equations) through the energy-momentum tensor. Solving the equations give us the form of the metric tensor (in general non-Euclidean geometry) that defines the shape and properties of space-time. This tensor plays the role of space and paves the way for the displacement of matter and fields. Under this theoretical framework, space-time is conceived as a different physical entity if compared to fields or matter. So Einstein was categorical: If we have no matter and EM fields, we are left only with the gravitational potentials (metric tensor); and if we have no potentials we are left again with nothingness, total emptiness which for him was inconceivable as well. Then, according to the GR, the metric tensor has only a relational character but not substantial. In 1917 he introduced the cosmological constant in his equations to counter balance the force of gravity. He wanted to have a static universe for, without the constant, his universe will collapse. Thus, this constant represents a perfect fluid or the energy filling the relativistic space (that is, a space without EM fields or matter) and it is found that the energy density caused by the cosmological constant is about 10^-29 J/cm^3. In his lecture delivered at Leyden in 1920 he reintroduced the notion of aether, meaning not a material fluid in the old sense but a gravitational aether in the sense of the metric tensor. The metric tensor is then playing the role of a dynamical empty vessel for the motion of matter and fields.

Things look different from the point of view of QM. From here, one realizes that there is a state of lowest energy called the ground state and one can show that the vacuum state has a minimum energy different from zero, actually, its density is approximately 10^91 J/cm^3, a difference of 120 orders of magnitude with respect to the density predicted under the cosmological constant. In other words, from the perspective of QM the vacuum is full of a huge amount of positive energy. The time-energy uncertainty principle allows particles (virtual particles) to be created out of the vacuum for a very short period of time. In a certain sense, physicists say that these particles are created out of nothing. As I said in my previous post there is a game of words (a linguistic problem). When physicists talk about creating matter out of nothing they really mean that virtual particles are created out of the quantum vacuum which is some sort of energy reservoir called the zero-point field (take a look at the essay of Luis de la Pena and Cetto to understand this concept). So, we have a big problem here. Relativity says that the energy of its empty space should be 10^-29 whereas QM says that the energy of the vacuum should be 10^93. To hide the problem, physicists arbitrarily argue that the energy of the universe, by an unknown mechanism, cancels out to zero. They say that at the BB the same amount of positive energy (matter and fields) and negative energy (relativity space) were created, both adding to zero. To me this is non-sense since I support the idea that the energy of the universe is not zero and that there is no negative energy (take a look at this video for illustrative ideas according to the mainstream: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg&list=PLB58F0D021A12F173&index=29&feature=plpp_video).

Israel

Part 2.

Now, let's talk about cosmology and the Big Bang (BB). At the beginning of the XX century most astronomers thought that space was euclidean (or Minkowskian) and that the universe was infinite in extension. This conception however lead us the so-called Olbers' paradox. How to get out of this puzzle? Well, as time went by astronomers started to estimate the velocity (through the red shift of the corresponding spectrum of light emission) of distant galaxies. They found that the more distant the galaxies were the more red shifted they appeared. Astronomers also reported that most of the observed galaxies were showing a red shift. This trend was interpreted (based on the available theoretical framework) as if the galaxies were moving away from each other. In short, they had two big problems in need of an explanation: the red shift observed in galaxies and Olber' paradox.

In 1915-16 Einstein developed his theory and later some solutions to Einstein's equations were discovered. Some of these solutions suggested that in an expanding universe light should lose energy that should be observed as a red shift. One of these solutions matched with the observations and they arrived at the consensus that space was expanding. Then Lemaitre proposed that if we play a cosmological clock backwards the universe should compress in a single point of infinite density, that is, the BB singularity. A singularity is a point where we have an infinity (and when we have an infinity we do not know what happens there). Some other people added that if the universe started with the BB then there should be a relic cosmic background radiation (CBR).

Let's stop here since there are two versions about the universe. There are many people who claim that there is no BB at all and that the universe is very old. They contend that the red shift, Olber's paradox and the CBR can be explained without invoking space expansion and therefore there is no need of BB. In this version the universe is static and possibly infinite. Who shall we believe? Unfortunately, these people have been ignored by the mainstream (later we will discuss their proposal). For the time being we shall consider that the BB took place. If so, what is the real situation about the BB? It is common to hear in popular media that the universe started out of nothing. And when a physicist is asked: how something can be created out of nothing? They usually replied with the virtual particle scenario, in which something is creating out of "empty" space (i.e., quantum vacuum). Above I have explained what they mean by that. However, in the case of the BB, it is supposed that space-time was also created along with the universe, so this situation is different from the previous one, because in this case we have no reservoir from where the energy can be extracted and therefore their argument becomes ambiguous. But since they assume that the total energy of the universe is zero, the BB is not violating the energy conservation (this point is debatable) and the creation of the universe can come from zero energy or nothing.

Beyond this intuitive picture the real situation is that, at the singularity, nobody knows what happened or what the laws of physics are. At this point simply, GR breaks down completely (also at the black hole singularity). This means that nobody knows if the universe really bang. The theory has nothing to say and therefore there are no answers to the questions: What was before the BB? What does BB have to say about how exactly the whole of the universe fit into a point and then a very small volume which then expanded? Or, where did that given 3D space come from in the first place, i.e. how does it appear out of nothing? (see this video of the mainstream: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y3rNm3QSVU&list=PLB58F0D021A12F173&index=28&feature=plpp_video)

You also ask: And what constitutes the expansion of space, i.e. what is expanding and exactly how? And, not to forget, why 3D? Why not 4 or 5? Does BB have anything to say about all this?

What expands is the space itself (the space of relativity). This is one of the solutions of Einstein's equations, the so-called Friedmann-Robertson-Lemaitre-Walker metric in 3+1 dimensions. But again this "space" is represented by the metric tensor which differs from the quantum vacuum. We are talking about two different notions of "empty" space. In the former case, when we have no fields and matter we only have the energy of gravitational potentials (metric tensor), but in the case of QM we have the energy of the zero-point field. QM presupposes that there is some background whereas relativity denies it.

As an alternative you are proposing that space has an internal structure made up of a fluid or strings. You also say that "there is a concept in topology (I would like to know what this concept is) where a structure not only fully occupies a space but also defines it. That's how I mean it. And yes, like everything else, the structure of space is a particular expression of energy, just like charge is an expression of energy and so is mass, etc." Your notion is still quite ambiguous. One can have the energy-momentum tensor equal to zero (vacuum equations, see Milne and de Sitter universes). This means that even if there were no matter-energy and fields in the universe we could still have the metric tensor (gravitational field). In this sense I say that the space of relativity is mere geometry, it is not a substantial entity as in the case of the quantum vacuum.

Israel

Part 3

Thus, if I understand your view well, you are saying that space exists in itself as some kind of positive energy or massive fluid, i.e., as some sort of quantum vacuum or luminiferous aether (Lae). You say in your previous posts in reply to me: "That physics decreed 100 years ago that space was empty is in fact the topic of my essay, in which I argue that it was the wrong turn". Besides this you also assume that this space is the medium for the propagation of light waves, i.e., your notion of space plays more the role of the medium for the propagation of light. You also argued in your previous reply to me that "I see absolute reference frame an abstraction that cannot exist in reality". So, if you support the idea that space is the medium for light, you are implicitly saying that space is the absolute frame of reference because the speed of light is defined relative to the substantial space. This is precisely what I discuss in my essay. I support the view that space is a material continuous fluid and the medium for the propagation of EM waves. And the speed of these waves is defined by the material properties (permitivity, permeability, viscosity, etc.) of this space. This view is more in alignment with the "empty space" (quantum vacuum) of QM and it considerably differs from the notion of space of relativity. In relativity, one can introduce, on the right hand side of the equations through the energy-momentum tensor, any kind of fluid field you could think of (energetic, material, gauge, fermion, etc.) and this fluid will define the shape of the metric tensor (the properties of the geometry of space), but this notion differs from the notion that physical space is a fluid. You should understand this significant difference. And I insist, the space of relativity is nothing but an empty geometrical vessel that could be filled with fields. In contrast to this view, you are proposing a space made up of some physical substance sustaining the fields, i.e., the EM fields do not filled space they are features and manifestations of it.

If we think of space with internal structure, that is, with viscosity, dissipation, etc. we have a mechanism to explain the red shift. It has been shown, considering the dissipative and dispersion properties of a material space (as any other medium), that the redshift can be explained without assuming the expansion of the universe, just as you argue in your essay. The notion of space as a fluid also explains Olber paradox. Because as any other medium, space is dissipative and therefore light will lose energy as it travels though space. And finally, since space is a fluid it is subject to thermodynamical laws. The CBR is only the manifestation of space in thermal equilibrium with all the stars in the universe.

In summary, I support the view that space is a continuous material medium of 4 dimensions because this could explain very easily most physical phenomena, in agreement with your essay. However, if we support this view, we are against the prevailing paradigm. If space has an internal structure means that there is no BB, no expansion, no dark energy, no dark matter, that there is an absolute frame of reference, that the speed of light is constant relative to the homogeneous space, etc. All of these ideas have already been developed in a mathematical theory [C.I. Christov, Nonlinear Analysis 71 (2009) e2028-e2044 and C. I. Christov, Math. Comput. Simul. 80 91101 (2009)] but despite the fact that the theory is consistent, it has been ignored by the mainstream because the theory contradicts relativity. In relativity space has no internal structure, as you believe, but in QM and the Christov's theory it has. These two views are contradictory. Do you get this difference?

Israel

Dear M.V.

I re-read your essay and all of the posts above in an attempt to better understand your views. It is very refreshing and inspiring to see all the creative effort you have invested in this essay. It's appreciated!

In one post to Eckard you describe space as a dynamic fluid structure which coincides with my own opinion, except that I would use the term medium rather than structure, as structure seems to denote rigidity or immobility. Is the dynamic part.. energy contained within apace?, the passing of energy via EMR thru space?, or space itself posessed of inertial properties?, or something else?

In another post you say that you agree that waves do require a medium for propagation. In response to my post you say that you perceive 3-D space as incompressible. My question is "how is it possible for waves to propagate through an incompressible medium?" (not on the surface of)

About your idea of 4-D space representing the lowest stable energy state for space to exist in... very unique approach and seems to be a cosmological possibility, once the properties of space are better determined.

J.R.

Hello M.V.

Your response is appreciated and I find it enlightening.

I do not have an essay posted here, having only discovered this site in the last week, but am very excited to have discovered it and especially your essay. We have similar interests relating to space apparently, and perhaps more similarity in an approach to comprehending and articulating it.

I do not wish to monopolize or contaminate your forum with my ideas but would very much like to communicate more with you on this subject. May I contact you via the e-mail address you posted for someone else above?

J.R.

yes, sure, you can email me

Ms. Vasilyeva

Within the confine of how reality is manifest (ie science, not belief), there is only physical presence. Space is non existent. It is a conceptualisation of 'not-physical presence', and has two aspects: 1) the size and shape of any given physical presence, 2) the differentiation between any given two. In other words, physical reality is conceived of as being overlayed by a grid which enables the identification of relative spatial position. The points on the grid being a distance apart which equates to the smallest physical presence in reality. Then, as at any point in time, any given physical presence can be conceived as occupying a certain configuration of spatial points, and that can be compared to any other. Whether there are spatial positions which, at any given point in time, are not occupied by a physical presence, is an open question.

I have deliberately used the phrase physical presence, as there is an incorrect ontological tendency to view physical reality as comprising 'something', and then in addition postulate other forms of 'something' which are deemed to have physical effects, but no physical presence. But, by definition, anything which has any form of physical influence must have some form of physical presence.

The other important points in respect of the concept of space are:

-for spatial dimension, physical reality has half the number of possible directions that the smallest physical presence could travel from any given spatial point, not 3. The latter being the minimum number possible when reality is conceived at the highest level

-time is not a dimension, as the concept is concerned with the speed of change. And change is associated with how realities differ. It is not a feature of a reality, which can only exist in one physical form at a time.

Paul

Ms Vasilyeva

"Thus for you, it does not even exist as such, except maybe as wrappings for some object or energies"

It is not a case of 'for me', neither is it 'wrappings', but what is experienceable (or proven to be potentially so). And physical reality comprises physically existent phenomena (probably of several different types), which have shape/size (ie a relative spatial footprint). Indeed, these can be within, &/or separate from, each other. Whether there are 'areas' of physical reality which have no physical presence whatsoever in them, ie space is existent, needs proving. Note: that is different from the circumstance where there is a physical phenomenon, but it is not directly experienceable. So the point is that it is physical phenomena which exist, the concept of space being a logical corollary, an assertion which has no existential substantiation (at least, as yet).

"lol, are you trolling me? 'cause this sentence hardly makes sense"

No. I just used a phrase which was intended to cover all types of physically existent phenomena. Rather than the usual form of expression which implies there are physical entities (something) which are 'in something', &/or being affected by 'something', but neither of these, mysteriously, and against the rules of physical existence, have themselves any form of physical presence (ie are something). Again, the underlying point being that there are physically existent phenomena, and whether 'not-physically existent phenomena' exist needs proving.

"and what did you mean by this"

What it said. The concept of dimension revolves around the possible directions, either way, that any given physically existent phenomenon can have physical presence (ie its spatial footprint). 3 spatial dimensions (or 6 directions) is just the minimum that can be represented. In reality, the number of dimensions which exist is a function of how many directions the smallest phenomenon could travel from the same point, halved. Put another way around, we tend, understandably, not to differentiate any given reality down to its existential level, which does not necessarily matter, unless we then reify some feature which is only a function of that conceptual level.

"for me time is...not "speed of change"

Time is a duration unit, timing is the methodology. Timing can be effected without a timing device, ie by the direct comparison of the number of changes in one sequence to another. Using a duration unit as a common denominator reference just makes measurement easier, but what is still being compared is the number of changes, irrespective of type. That is, the speed/rate at which change occurs. For example: if one is using a quartz watch, then what is really being compared is number of changes against number of crystal oscillations (ie changes). And then disparate types of change can be compared, in terms of speed at which they occur. This is all associated with change, which is about characteristics of the difference between realities. Whatever is existent, can only be so in one physical form at a time. There is no change (and hence time) in whatever constitutes a physically existent reality. Put another way around, again, if reality was differentiated to its existential level, then that which was existent (ie without any form of change involved) could be identified. In the same way that if we slow a film down enough, we can identify the stills which ultimately comprise it.

Paul

Ms Vasilyeva

I have commented on spatial dimension above.

The incorrect modelling of time as a dimension (or variable) of physical reality (Minkowski), stems from Poincaré and his flawed concept of simultaneity (as repeated in the first section of Einstein 1905). [This variable then became a surrogate for the originally postulated variable, which was dimension alteration. Whether that occurs or not is another issue].

Physical reality occurs. So, whether two or more existent states occurred as at the same point in time, can only be established by analysis of the actual physical circumstances (either specifically or generally), and not by the false concepts of time from Poincaré.

Using extracts from: Einstein: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905), Section 1 Part 1 Definition of Simultaneity:

Para 3: "If, for instance, I say,"That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.""

Comment: Incorrect. The two events did not occur simultaneously on this basis. The train was at its specified spatial position before the hand on the watch reached its specified spatial position. Because, for a physically existent state to be observed, the photons which reacted with it (and thereby, in the context of the sensory system known as sight, conveyed a representation of it) must reach the observer. And the consequent delays involved are different, since the relative spatial positions of train and watch, vis a vis observer, are different. Indeed, the relationship of those spatial positions, ie original vis a vis on receipt of light, could alter at different rates during the delays, if the entities involved are moving at different speeds (dimension alteration could be an additional factor in this situation). Furthermore, there can be no presumption that light travelled at the same speed in both circumstances, since that can be afffected by environmental circumstances. Finally, at the practical level, the two observations would be effected consecutively, ie upon receipt of information about the train, the observer would then look at the watch.

Para 4: "but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or-what comes to the same thing-to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch." And Para 6 third part: "But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."

Comment: Incorrect. Physically existent states do not each have their 'own' time. They exist as at a point in time. Timing being an extrinsic measuring system which, with the use a common denominator, enables the establishment of the relative relationship between occurrences (and enables comparison of rates of change).

Para 6 fourth part: "We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."And Para 7: "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if: t(b) - t(a) = t'(a) - t(b)

Comment: Incorrect. No more than one physically existent state can be in the same spatial position at a time. The concept of 'immediate proximity' is false. As at any given point in time, everything is in a relative spatial position. It is just that some entities are nearer each other than others, but there is always a distance between any two. As at any given point in time, AB is a specific distance. So whether it is measured as A to B, or B to A, is irrelvant, as too is the method used to calibrate and express that. That is, it is not necessary to use light to determine the time taken to travel that distance. And it is incorrect to assess this in terms of a relationship between the duration incurred one way, and then the duration to subsequently travel back. This introduces a factor which is non-existent, ie reifies time as a dimension, and because of the coincidental use of light speed (as opposed to any other possibility) implies a property thereof which is incorrect.

Paul

Ms Vasilyeva

I thought it might be useful to just clarify why, irrespective of number, there is no dimension of time in reality.

There are two knowns: 1) existence is independent of sensory detection, 2) difference occurs. So physical existence is a sequence, ie something occurs, then re-occurs, differently, and so on. And within any given sequence, only one physically existent state (ie a reality) can occur at a time, because for the successor to exist its predecessor must cease. That is, no form of change can be involved in whatever constitutes a physically existent state.

Only physically existent states exist. Comparison of these states, either within or between, any given sequence, reveals difference. So change is associated with how realities differ, it is not existent and is not a feature of a reality. Change involves: 1) substance (ie what changed), 2) order (ie the sequence of differences), 3) frequency (ie the rate at which change occurred). The latter being established by comparing the number of changes, irrespective of type, that occurred over the same duration, which could involve any sequence (including the same sequence), and have either occurred concurrently, or otherwise. This is timing.

Paul

Mr. Reed,

You wrote, " Whether there are 'areas' of physical reality which have no physical presence whatsoever in them, ie space is existent, needs proving. "

and " Only physically existent states exist. "

That's an interesting position. For you, space does not really exist until proven. To me, this represents an opinion vastly different from mine. I see space as the primary entity that exists and thus allows everything else to manifest (as deformations in its otherwise perfect structure). I see such differences in our POVs as irreconcilable, since to me that space exists is a given, while for you, it appears, it is not. But then please tell where and how physical reality exists? What *is" physical reality in absence of space and where do "physically existent states exist"?

My position is very simple. To me, everything that exists is the expression of the structure of space itself. Thus, if physics is to find that common denominator through which all known forces can be expressed, such a theory of everything will be a topological theory describing the structure of space, in its various dimensions, as it evolves and changes in time.

We have a far more similar --almost identical, in fact-- stance on time. Time is change. There is no time without change. For any change to occur some energy must be spent, changed, or transformed. Thus time is the expression of changes in energy state. This much everyone understands and agrees on. Then the question becomes, does the same time exist for vastly separated localities in space? You seem to imply that yes it does, but I happen to disagree. To me time is what emerges locally, as changes in energy states evolve in a given locality. And how they evolve depends entirely on the state of the structure of space locally (and in fact, these changes in energy states locally is what is evolving).

That's how I understand GR. Gravity == curvature == gradation of density of energy in space. The same process that takes place in a denser segment of space will take longer (from some hypothetical POV of absolute space and time) than the same process in a less dense (or 'more empty') segment of space. The fact that 2 vastly separated events can and do coincide from the POV of a reference frame that includes the first 2, is irrelevant, because time evolves locally in each of the first 2 reference frames according to their local conditions.

See, for me, time is not separate from the process of change, which takes place *in space* and thus is dictated by the local conditions of that segment of space. Space, energy and time are 3 aspects of one and the same: a process of change taking place... where? where else but in space, lol (and you say, it does not exist as such :) why, for me this is what dictates *how* things change). Since all 3 depend on each other, we can express any one in terms of the first two. And that's what relativity theory does.

You give interesting quotes and disagree with Einstein. But the reason you disagree --as I understand it-- is because you view the reality from the position of Absolute space (the existence of which you deny) and Absolute time, which, according to you, exists independent of the local conditions in space (the existence of which you deny in the first place). While I understand that psychologically we are wired in such a way that we always examine whatever model of space and time from the POV of absolute space and absolute time in our heads, what Einstein did was to show how things *are* in practice. SR showed that there is no practical means of assessing an absolute frame in practice. Now, maybe we will find a way of observing --not in theory but in practice-- such that an absolute reference frame will be revealed. Then yes, all your objections would be justified. Until this happens, i.e. we will find a way to an absolute reference frame, all we have is relativity, according to which space, energy and time are intimately linked and inseparable from each other, each one being the expression of the other two.

That's my take on it, anyway. I understand there are other POVs.

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

To All

Time is a term created by mankind to gauge relative motion. As a stand alone entity it is non existent, and being non existent, cannot exist in any dimension other than an imaginary one. Spacetime is a term created to account for the fact that any motion requires space to transpire. On a cosmic scale the clock can be said to be the relative motion of everything in the universe. On a more local scale, the relative motion of everything in our solar systm, and on down, etc., to a personal level.

J.R.

J.R

Time, or more precisely, timing, guages relative speed of change, by comparing the number thereof in different sequences irrespective of type, ie motion is just one form of change. Unless one could ultimately express every change in terms of motion, but that just brings it back to the same logical point anyway.

But you are correct to say it is non-existent and is not a dimension of reality. It is concerned with the difference between realities, not of a reality.

Paul

Dear Vasilyeva

Thank you for your reply which I have read and analyze in detail. Please do not get me wrong, but from your comments I could see, as I could also notice in your essay, that you are mixing distinct conceptions of space; one from the mathematical and possibly one from the mechanical. You also make some naive critics on science and scientists which only reflects your lack of knowledge on how science is actually done. In this respect, I would suggest that you try to develop your ideas further and get at least one article published. This will be a lesson for you to realize and understand how scientists work and why it is so difficult for science to accept your ideas even if they are very reasonable.

You say: In my view, Euclidean space is the epitome of a perfect structure. Perfectly even, perfectly flat, perfectly regular. If it is 3D, that too is an aspect of its structure.

Here you are talking about mathematical structure, whereas I am talking about physical structure. Euclidean, Minkowskian or Non-euclidean space does not posses mechanical or electromagnetic properties such as elasticity, compressibility, permitivity, viscosity, permeavility, etc. Geometrically, I agree with you that Euclidean space has a perfect mathematical structure, but it does not have viscosity because this is a property of material fluid. Unless you show me that I am wrong and that there is a theory that models Euclidean space with these physical properties.

You say: I rather see space as primary and matter as the extension of its structure.

I conceive space as matter and particles and fields as states of space. Formally, particles can be modeled as solitons. As consequence they are phase patterns moving OVER the 3D space (as you argue in your essay) and fields are states of this 4D space, but again, it is a fluid space of 4D, not a 4D geometrical vessel as you insist. Euclidean space is the abstraction of the properties of solids, not the solids themselves (see the essay of Einstein: matter and geometry).

You: Have you ever taken an inventory of your convictions trying to guess, which ones will be ridiculed by our descendants, just as we ridicule some of the most cherished notions of the past?...

I think this is irrelevant for our discussion. Most people do not care what future generations will think of us. We have particular problems now and we have to solve them based on what we know now.

You: But the way you speak about geometry is as if nothing maintains its structure. It is the same structure as in QM, only at a different scale.

You are mistaken. GR is a background independent theory whereas quantum mechanic is not. Therefore the way space is modeled and treated is different in each theory. The space of GR is not the space of QM, this has nothing to do with scales.

My understanding of SR is that mathematically it is equivalent to LET. In either case, Lorentz transformation assures that c remains a constant for an observer. I thought that absolute reference frame made sense only in a stationary ether model, for then you could drive a thick nail into that station, lol, and label it O...

Again, you are misunderstanding. They are mathematically equivalent but LET assumes the PSR and SR rejects it. Thus they are two different theories. This is what I discuss in my essay. The rejection of the PSR leads to a series of paradoxes (see my discussion with Daniel Wagner in my entry and his and check my reference 17). Reintroducing the PSR eliminates the paradoxes and defines the speed of light only relative to the PSR, i.e., the material space.

You: Absolute reference frame with a dynamic structure? I completely don't get it. It's like the water in the ocean; it is totally real and tangible and you can even measure the rate with which it passes under the keel, but what use is it for navigation?

Obviously, you cannot use it to orient the ship during navigation but the water is necessary for the ship to float. The same with space, it is necessary not for orientation but for solitons and waves to move. At a first approximation and for the sake of simplification in the calculations we can assume that space is static (this would resemble the old notion of aether) but in general it could be in motion, dynamic.

You: If space has an internal structure means that there is no BB, no expansion, no dark energy, no dark matter, that there is an absolute frame of reference, that the speed of light is constant relative to the homogeneous space, etc. I don't see how this follows. I am comfortable with BB and can even review my stand on post BB expansion.

If space is a material fluid it behaves as any other medium. Space could be thought of as actually a solid or a liquid depending on the elasticity (Lame coefficients). All media are dissipative and dispersive, this implies that as light moves through space it loses energy. From this it follows the that light coming from distant galaxies will appear as red shifted, in other words, the universe could be static and still manifesting Hubble's law. This has already been mathematically proven. Since Hubble law can be explain without resorting to expansion, it follows that there is no BB and no need to introduce dark energy. Dark matter is part of this material space.

You: That space may be seen as a sort of a substance is fine with me. That's how it was traditionally modeled, no?

No, I have explained to you how space is modeled in relativity and QM. Since 1905 when Einstein rejected the aether space has never been considered a material substance and therefore it does not have mechanical properties.

Israel