The hydrogen atom in the Bohmian model predicts the electron, or the beable particle for the electron, in the S orbital to exist at a fixed distant ~ Bohr radius, away from the proton just sitting still, It is a bit odd, but that is what is predicted in the Bohmian model.

LC

I was looking at Misner Thorne and Wheeler "Gravitation" last night, in particular CH 21. There is a quote by Einstein where he says inertia in the universe is best understood in a closed world or universe. I thought for a second on how the universe might in fact be infinite. The spatial surface we are on right now may extend infinitely far out. The observation of near flatness at least suggests this is possible. This throws a big wrench in the MAch principle works. Of course Mach's principle still might be possible, but not in a straight forward way.

I have not discounted Mach's principle as such. It has always struck me as some type of nonlocality principle in way. This returns to my suggestion that quantum mechanics and gravitation/cosmology are partially functorial. Now inertia is related to mass. It is the resistance of a body to a force, which gives a finite acceleration a = F/m. So inertia is related to or conjugate to force or acceleration, or in action hbar = 1 units m ---> c/a, which curiously is the distance to a particle horizon for an accelerated mass. If there is no inertia the Rindler horizon distance is zero. This might then in some ways be compared to the action conjugation between energy and time. If there is no time between events then the energy diverges.

I have not presented much here serious, but maybe some grist for the intellectual mill to grind for a while.

Cheers LC

A body can not exist in empty space.It will always have inertia. Which can be explained as resistance to change in trajectory through the unknown medium filling quaternion space. Or as the energetic input required to alter existing changes.I.e. change in orientation of energy flow in quaternion space or change in trajectory of matter through medium. Same thing described differently. An object is never stationary as it is always moving afore along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.

Gravity is not due to curvature of empty space or geometry alone, in my opinion. Empty space can not be curved but there can be distortion and dynamics within a medium leading to observations of effects on masses, ie forces.

The gravitational field can also be described, if using an energetic description only, as a scalar potential energy field. Giving a steeper energetic gradient along the 4th energetic dimension, caused by the presence of the mass energy. The increase in gradient of the potential difference causing observed change in spatial position of matter referred to as gravitational attraction.

Speculation on matter and antimatter.

It can be proposed that all matter has continuous loss of potential energy (promotional energy.) So will sub atomic particles keeping pace with the afore-ward motion of the matter of the universe and so remaining detectable. Although according to this model they do oscillate along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension into and out of observable space. (This particular oscillation may be responsible for giving wave like characteristics and half integer spin "spin" of fermions.)

A particle of antimatter could then be speculated to be a particle with opposite direction of change in position along the 4th dimension. Gaining rather than loosing potential energy. Very short lived in observable space, as rather than keeping pace with the observable matter, it passes through the observable space into aft space. That is space that has already been passed through by the material universe further back along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension. Thus vanishing but not destroyed. This will explain the why more matter than antimatter is detected. The and - in the Hamiltonian notation denoting "direction" of change in position along the 4th dimension of a mass.

Perhaps on reflection inwards and outwards would be more comprehensible than afore and aft but those who have been reading my posts for a while know what the terminology means. It is not motion through 3D vector space but at 90 degrees to it. Afore-ward is down into a mass towards centre of hypersphere, aft-ward is up and outward towards the most outer region of the hypersphere.

A couple of points. Empty space can be curved, it is an Einstein space where the Ricci curvature is proportional to the metric. The gravity field is a tensor field, where tensors transform in certain homogeneous ways.

The Mach principle is an idea that the inertia of a mass here is due to the inertial of masses out there. It is an intersting idea, and it motivated Einstein in working up relativity. General relativity also fails to confirm Mach's ansatz. Also if the universe is spatially infinite it means certain ideas about Mach's principle are wrong. Potentially the whole thing might be erroneous.

Cheers LC

Empty space can be curved in a mathematical model but you can not actually curve nothing. This is what Tesla argued. I have no problem with the model showing curved space and demonstrating all of the observable effects of relativity. It is not realistic but it is at the same time an excellent model. The space contains the energetic fields, which can also be interpreted as matter within unknown medium. It is the fields or matter and medium within space that cause all of the observable effects. They could not occur in curved nothingness.

Science is about observation. Show me a curved nothingness and I will tell you it can only exist because of the something with curvature. A hole may have curved walls but it is the walls around the hole that are curved. If the walls are removed that same hole does not exist. I think one of Mach's own ideas was, If you take away all matter, there is no more space.

He also considered that, Inertial mass is affected by the global distribution of matter. This would make sense because matter is affected by the gravitational field of other matter. This will have a bearing on the energy requirement for a change in trajectory through quaternion space for an individual mass which must overcome the forces acting upon it in order to move.

Why should the universe be considered spatially infinite? Such a proposal seems to cause more problems than solutions to my mind.

I tend to agree with Georgina that to say the Universe is spatially infinite, seems meaningless, other than as part of a convenient way to model it's future potential as a geometric hypersurface . Even if the Universe is exactly flat (omega=0) or has small constant negative curvature, then as well as an optical "horizon" should there not also be the equivalent of a spatial "region" with a boundary if the primordial "scalar field" of inflationary cosmology is right? This region beyond the "light" boundary should also contain matter distributions. The only problem for a Machian view might be if this region contained only a scalar potential & no matter. If our Universe or domain had a beginning, as in any of the "Big Bang" scenarios, how can it then be *physically* infinite in extent? Wouldn't this be the ultimate symmetry violation?

Georgina, regarding your "potential energy field" description of gravity, how would you recover *gravitational* mass? Whatever the origins of gravity, it does manifest as acceleration (vector) and your idea only seems to explain *inertial* mass. I don't think this "energy field" could be scalar as it induces a centre of mass directed effect in it's coupling to the matter? But I may be completely missing your real intent.

Cheers

Roy J

Roy, I will attempt to answer your questions. Miss out the "how I got there" after answer number 1. to get to answer number 2.

you said, "Georgina, regarding your "potential energy field" description of gravity, how would you recover *gravitational* mass? Whatever the origins of gravity, it does manifest as acceleration (vector) and your idea only seems to explain *inertial* mass."

The mass energy will cause alteration of the gradient of the potential energy field and is therefore also equivalent to the gravitational mass. A change in position along the 4th dimension can be observed as a change in position in 3D vector space for example when an object falls. The attracted object is itself progressing along the 4th dimension, and can be visualised with its own "gravity well". However it can loose even more potential energy by moving into the "gravity well" of an attracting body. It does this by moving not only along the 4th dimension but vertically (relative to an observer on the attracting body) through observable 3D vector space towards the attracting body.(All matter looses potential energy at every opportunity.) One could say that the potential energy difference between the two objects is reduced as a result of the attraction or change in spatial position in observable 3D vector space.

I will try to explain how I got there .

Subatomic particles that constitute matter are elusive and dynamic entities that can not be given precise location in both time and space. They have continuous change in position and energy. A description of matter and sub atomic particles can then either be given in terms of changes in position in space of matter or particle, or in terms of the corresponding energy changes.

According to this model all matter is continuously changing position along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension towards afore space. This change in position is loss of potential energy. It is this change in position will cause the disturbance recognised as gravitational field. It can be envisioned as the wake of the mass as it passes through quaternion space. The more displacement of the the unknown medium of space that is caused by the change in position of the object along the 4th dimension the greater the gravitational mass. An object with large gravitational mass not only has a "large presence" in observable 3D space either as large volume or large atomic mass but penetrates more deeply into afore space than a smaller mass. Causing a deeper "gravity well" experienced within 3D vector space as a stronger gravitational field.

According to this model it is also this potential energy that gives the mass energy of an object observed to be stationary in 3D vector space. An object observed to be in motion in 3D vector space would have mass energy comprised of promotional energy (loss of potential energy giving change of spatial position towards centre of hypersphere), and kinetic energy ( changes of position in 3D vector space). When the matter is destroyed it is no longer able to change position afore and the promotional energy is released. This accounts for the very high value of mass energy, in my opinion.

Roy you said "I don't think this "energy field" could be scalar as it induces a centre of mass directed effect in it's coupling to the matter?"

If I understand your question correctly, I think the reason you ask this is because you are not thinking about how the scalar dimension intersects with 3 vector dimensions of space in the same way as myself.

In my opinion a model can be constructed in which the 4th dimension runs from the exterior of the Mega universal hypersphere through aft space (space outside of the 3D vector space occupied by the object, beyond its exterior along the 4th dimension) to the exterior of the object at every point on its surface. From there it runs through the object to the centre of gravity, where it then passes on to afore space (space outside of observable 3D vector space occupied by the object, that is ahead of the object along the 4th dimension .) and on to the centre of the hypersphere. The 4th dimension intersects the 3 vector dimensions of space where the material object exists in 3D vector space.

Beyond the exterior of the object along the 4th dimension is aft space that has been passed through and beyond the interior of the object is afore space that has not been passed through. When the object continuously changes position along the 4th dimension it is not moving through 3D vector space and thus may appear to be stationary in 3D vector space. The visualisation of a moving gravity well rather than a static one can make this more comprehensible". (When this "motion" not within 3D space is visualised, which can take a little getting used to, gravity be understood.)

Georgina you say:

A body can not exist in empty space.It will always have inertia. Which can be explained as resistance to change in trajectory through the unknown medium filling quaternion space. Or as the energetic input required to alter existing changes.I.e. change in orientation of energy flow in quaternion space or change in trajectory of matter through medium. Same thing described differently. An object is never stationary as it is always moving afore along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.

Amrit

There is no unknon medium filling quantum space ie. gravity field

quantum space itself is energy building physical cosmic space into which stellat objects move

Idea that some uknown medium called ether is filling cosmic space is wrong

cosmic space is ether,there is no medium behibd cosmic space

I would suggest that we drop terms space and time and use terms

gravity field - fundamental arena of the universe

tich of clock t - measures frequency, velovity nd numerical order of events in gravity field

yours amrit

Dear Gergina,

Even if the space moves due to a specifi dynamic of building,the stationary particle is on the movement and thus all is in this dynamic thus in conclusion it's stationary .It's logic in fact in my opinion .

Sincerely

Steve

A spatially infinite universe appears to be what we exist within. The most distant observations appears to show the universe has no spatial curvature. The curvature of spacetime appears to be with how flat spatial surfaces (3 dimensional spaces in 4 dimensional spacetime) are continually expanded. Points on spatial surfaces are continually accelerated apart from each other.

A vacuum model of spacetime with curvature is the de Sitter spacetime and other similar solutions of the Einstein field equations which have the Ricci curvature tensor proportional to the metric. It might sound odd that what is commonly thought of as "nothing" can have curvature, but what we man by nothing turns out to be strange.

I would advise reading a text on differential geometry and a basic text on general relativity.

Cheers LC

Lawrence

math is one thing

universe is another.

In universe there is no space-time tht is merely a math model

In universe there is only physical casmic space i.e gravity field into which stellar objects move.

Their motion we measure with cloks.

Clocks run and objects move in a timeless medium of physical cosmic space i.e. gravity field.

yours, Amrit

I am not going to quibble much on the ontology of space and time. Yet spacetime is the field of gravitation. Spacetime are every bit as much the field as the electric and magnetic fields are the fields for electromagnetism.

LC

Lawrence

space-time is mathe model only

there is no space-time in physical reality

fundamental arena of the universe is gravity field that is timeless, time is not a part of gravity field

physical time exist only as a tick of clock, physical time is man invention

yours amrit

Amrit,

Amrit you said "There is no unknon medium filling quantum space ie. gravity field"

It is not possible to say what exists in objective reality.

No evidence is not proof of non existence. If we have no information that can be used to create a subjective reality of a thing it has no apparent existence. Standing still in an empty room in the absence of any light it may seem that the room is completely empty. It is only when the light is turned on that reflections from objects can be observed. A subjective reality that gives positions, orientations, colours etc. of the furniture is then formed from the data received, by the function of the brain. Objective reality--- data that can be intercepted and interpreted = subjective reality. Objective reality--- data that can not be intercepted or interpreted = no subjective reality.

I think there are enough unanswered questions to propose a model that will answer those questions. I have said all along it is a model only not objective reality itself, which is inaccessible. A model is all we are capable of producing.

The question to my mind is which model answers the most questions. However complex or simplistic the model it can only ever be a model.It makes no difference whether the model describes matter and change of position in space, which is our everyday experience of reality, or energy fields in an energetic continuum formed from energetic dimensions or a combination of the two, in my opinion.

Remove the logical human mind from the task of comprehension and there is nothing left that can be comprehended in a way that will explain our observations. Our observations are the product of our minds analysis of the input. A model can allow us to comprehend our experienced reality formed by the right and left hemispheres of the brain.

If the right hemisphere perception alone is used, inseparable energy of no absolute quantitative estimation and no absolute orientation is the reality. There is no reason to assume that this is not just as valid (if not more so) as the result of left hemisphere analysis. However this right hemisphere analysis is of very limited use indeed in describing general experience of reality, which most people will call reality. And will not answer the foundational questions. Though even more complex models could be formed to try to give meaning to the "nothingness" that is everything, with no size and no orientation in time or space.

Although quietening left brain analysis of reality can be deeply relaxing and beneficial to mental and physical well being, it is also necessary to function in the subjective reality of everyday experience and all that that has to offer. That is a logical left brain analysis of the data input.Size, orientation and classification are imposed on the selected data.

So there is un-knowable un-describable objective reality, right hemisphere subjective interpretation of received data and the usual state of awareness, the subjective reality formed from left brain activity. That experienced reality can be explained via models, with which science and technology can work.

Amrit,

That should have read standing still in a -presumed- empty room....

A dog is able to tell by smell alone what other animals have been at a location, how recently, species, gender, state of reproductive receptiveness, even possibly health all by smell alone, that is by analysis of the chemical composition of the odour. All very useful for survival and reproduction of a canine in the wild.I can not smell any of that information. It is not part of my reality but that does no mean that the information does not exist.

The 4 dimensions making a quaternion space model can all be considered as spatio-energetic, rather than 3 of space and 1 of time. Then every change of position in quaternion space is an energy change and every energy change can be described as a change of position in space. So a field can be related to spatial distribution or dynamics of a medium.

When any work is done the motion of a body will cause motion of the medium surrounding it. Which may transmit a force or there may be no observable effect. Lack of an observable effect does not mean that no energy was transferred but only that it was not at a threshold that was detectable.

Georgina,

Are you sure these two statements are compatible? You said:-

"Science is about observation. Show me a curved nothingness and I will tell you it can only exist because of the something with curvature. A hole may have curved walls but it is the walls around the hole that are curved. If the walls are removed that same hole does not exist. I think one of Mach's own ideas was, If you take away all matter, there is no more space."

&

"It is not possible to say what exists in objective reality. No evidence is not proof of non existence. If we have no information that can be used to create a subjective reality of a thing it has no apparent existence.Standing still in an empty room in the absence of any light it may seem that the room is completely empty. It is only when the light is turned on that reflections from objects can be observed. A subjective reality that gives positions, orientations, colours etc. of the furniture is then formed from the data received, by the function of the brain."

Substitute space for the "room" & curvature for the "furniture" ?

Roy J