The Nature of Space by M. V. Vasilyeva

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

Anon(? M.V. V.)

"For you, space does not really exist until proven"

For me, or indeed anyone else involved in science, nothing exists until proven. We certainly know of the existence of a variety of 'stuff' (technical word!). But the concept of space, in the sense of 'nothing', as opposed to a fundamentally different form of 'stuff', implies the existence of 'not-stuff'. Logically, this is a possibility, and as expressed, would entail a spatial position (or configuration thereof) where, as at a point in time, there was absolutely no 'stuff' of any form. How this is proven, if it occurs, would obviously be difficult. But, it cannot be asserted that just because 'stuff' exists, then the corollary does.

"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"?

The answer to that follows on from the above. There is 'stuff' (which is constantly reconfiguring). One has to presume, until proven otherwise, that the entirety of reality is 'stuff' (albeit of different types). That is, what appears to be space, ie difference between 'stuff', is just different 'stuff'. Indeed, if any given physically existent state is deconstructed to its existential level, then as the process progressed, what appeared to be space would be revealed as more 'stuff' within the boundaries of other 'stuff', and ultimately it would become impossible to delineate, what appeared to be at a higher level of conceptualisation, separate 'stuff', other than as its elementary constituents.

Put simply! The concept of composite entities, and that they are 'in something', is ontologically incorrect.

"There is no time without change"

Not so. There is no physical existence without change. Time is just the duration unit in a human devised measuring system known as timing. It does not exist. Neither does change. Physically existent states exist. And when compared difference is revealed. So change is concerned with the difference between realities. That difference does not, of itself, exist. The type of change involved, and why it occurred, is irrelevant. It is the rate of a rate. Any sequence of change compared to any other sequence.

"You give interesting quotes and disagree with Einstein"

Really the disagreement is with Poincaré (Measure of Time 1898 for example), Einstein just repeated it, but I had the quotes from 1905 available. Indeed it could have been my alternative paper (ie 'where is the fundamental mistake').

"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"

The reason their concept of simultaneity it is incorrect is because:

-any given physically existent state does not have a time of occurrence of its 'own'. Timing is an extrinsic, human devised, measuring system. Any given physically existent state occurs at a point in time. Establishing the relative relationship between the occurrence of different states in terms of timing, necessitates the reverse engineering of the physical processes which enabled knowledge of those occurrences.

-having made that mistake, it is compounded by the presumption that physically existent states which are in "immediate proximity" can be attributed with the same 'own' time. But every physically existent state is some distance from another, as more than one cannot exist at the same spatial location at the same time. Relative distance has nothing to do with when physically existent states existed. Apart from which, the question would be: At what spatial point does 'immediate proximity" cease being "immediate proximity", and why?

-finally, a simple mistake is made in the assessment of when simultaneity occurs, even though the whole concept is incorrect anyway. This involves assessing distance as a function of sequential timing, ie difference to travel one way, and then, back. A distance is a distance is a distance. And the duration taken to travel that distance by anything (using light is irrelevant) is a duration. Distance has nothing to do with a different point in time at which the return journey was effected in measuring it.

"SR showed that there is no practical means of assessing an absolute frame in practice"

SR did not show this. In 1905 (which is not SR) Einstein invoked a truism of physical reality, as encapsulated in the principle of relativity. Though it had been referred to earlier and the only interest was in respect of motion. Because we are trapped in an existentially closed system, no one reference can be deemed as the absolute in respect of any attribute. So any reference can be chosen and then measurement established by comparison to it. There can only be relativity within a closed system. And for different measurements to be comparable, the same reference must be used, but it does not matter which one. To mangle a well known phrase: everything is in motion, it is just that some motion is more than others. The only 'glitch' in this is the presumption of dimension alteration (commonly just referred to as contraction). This occurred (allegedly) due to force applied which also caused changing momentum. So if something was moving, relatively, then it could be subject to dimension change, which makes its use as a reference, not impossible, but certainly more difficult. Hence all this mis-placed paranoia about 'rest' frames of reference.

Paul

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

Why are you dating Russian girls?