John wrote,
"I've already pointed out that things like gravity influencing light; gravity influencing space-probes, can take place in nothingness. You don't need a curvature of space-time to get light and space probes to curve under the influence of gravity."
There is a difference between not requiring something in your model of reality and there being no evidence for it.
Georgina, it is difficult not to agree with almost all what you have stated here, including inventing your own mathematical/ physical tools.
I zero in on, "This is evidence that the space is not empty because empty space can not cause varying refraction".
This appears to imply that we can have 'empty space' that does not cause varying refraction and 'space that is not empty'.
The next task is what could that space that is not empty contain that is causing the refraction? I suggest 'dark matter' but I wont dwell on it so as not to distract from the conversation.
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo,
Georgina quoted in "Faster than light" from Wiki: "Von Guericke sidestepped the vexed question of the meaning of "nothing" by asserting that all objective reality fell into one of two categories - the created and the uncreated. Space and Time were objectively real but were uncreated, whereas matter was created. In this way he created a new fundamental category alongside Aristotle's category of substance, that of the uncreated. His understanding of Space is theological and similar to that expressed [a bit later] by Newton in the Scholium to the Principia".
Georgina misspelled him Guerricke, perhaps because of similarity with the French word guerra. He was born Gericke and honored by nobility in French: de Guericke. The reason for me to mention him again is that his experiments on empty space led to steam engine as well as to electricity.
It is demonstrably possible to evacuate space from air and also shield it from electric and other fields.
Eckard
Akinbo,
Gravity can influence light (photons) just like gravity can influence electrons, neutrons and protons. I think the correct term is that photons have no "rest mass". But a photon can still convey a force. An ultra-violet (UV) photon can do your skin a mischief; an X-ray photon can damage your cellular DNA; an infra-red (IR) photon can heat up a rock and cause it to expand, and we've all probably seen those scientific 'toys' of rotating panes of metal that go round and round inside a glass ball when light (photons) hit them. A similar analogy applies to gravitons which also have no "rest mass" but which can do you a mischief if you try to parachute out of a plane but forget to put your parachute on first. So, gravity and EM can interact. They are both things. The what is not in doubt. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, the how and the precise why what happens when what happens is still mysterious. I don't feel guilty for lack of an exact explanation since you won't get one anywhere or from anyone else either.
Can you explain exactly why the south pole and the north pole of a magnet attract? Or why and how the north pole of a magnet repels another north pole? You know what happens, but the how and why is beyond you to explain. You know an electron and a positron will annihilate upon contact. You know what happens but not the how and exact nature of why what happens. You know that the electric charge on a proton is equal and opposite to that on an electron. Can you tell me why? Neither can anyone else. Can you actually tell me what electric charge actually is? You know what it does but how does it do it and why does it do it?
Maybe it's all just programmed software - bits and bytes!
John Prytz
SPACE IS NOT A THING: SUMMATION
Premise: Space is NOT a thing. Space has no structure or substance. Space is a mental concept of the human mind that we use to picture the imaginary container real stuff resides in. I find no credibility in the alternative, that space-is-a-thing with structure and substance. Why?
Every experiment has failed to show evidence for space-as-a-thing.
But the big no-no is that space-as-a-thing violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. If the standard model of cosmology is correct, then the Big Bang event created space-as-a-thing from scratch; from absolutely nothing. Though postulated as a given, no one has yet to come up with a adequate or even credible how that happened or even could happen. Worse, that process is ongoing. Recall that the late Sir Fred Hoyle was bucketed for advocating the Steady State Universe which required the creation of matter from nothing - something like one atom of hydrogen per cubic mile per year or some such order of magnitude figure akin to that. Hoyle could give no mechanism. Of course his retort was that the alternate Big Bang event created everything from nothing all at once, again without any mechanism given, but that was apparently okay while his creation from nothing wasn't. Well creation from nothing is NOT okay in any cosmology.
I really have to admire the audicity of some cosmologists in their popular writings. In one chapter they will state the First Law of Thermodynamics about how energy (hence matter) cannot be created or destroyed but only changed from one form into another. In other words, there is no such thing as a cosmic free lunch; you can't create something from nothing. Yet in another chapter they will note how the energy density of the cosmos is unchanging or how it is a constant, even though the Universe is expanding. That immediately contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics. Since space-as-a-thing translates into the creation of dark energy and dark energy translates back into the creation of space-as-a-thing (each creating more of the other out of absolutely nothing) that's a free cosmic lunch. They - cosmologists - contradict themselves. If they don't realise they've done it, they don't deserve to be in academica. If they realise this contradiction without commenting on same, they deserve to be kicked out of academica.
So if you are advocating space-as-a-thing then you are advocating the creation of something from nothing therefore advocating that the First Law of Thermodynamics is being negated even as I write and as you read. Good luck with that premise.
Motion, and variations thereof (acceleration, decelleration, momentum, rotation, etc.) is entirely independent of space-as-a-thing or even of space-as-a-not-thing. Recall that famous early 20th Century "New York Times" editorial that rocket travel was pure bunk on the grounds that in space there was nothing for the rocket's exhaust to push against. That editorial was retracted on the day of the Moon landing! So space travel via rocketship is possible even if space is NOT a thing since all relevant forces operate independently of the existence or non-existence of space. If one persists in trying to link motion and space-as-a-thing, find an equation that involves motion that also has space-as-a-thing as one of the required parametres.
Twenty Questions (give or take): If space-is-a-thing...
Why the phrase "the vacuum of space"? What 'thing' do you have to remove from space in order to achieve a perfect vacuum? What is the 'thing' composed of? What is its chemistry? Since it is right in front of your nose, what does it smell like? Could you stick out your tounge and tase the 'thing' that makes space a thing? What other properties does it have that you (or instrumentation) can detect? What are the associated particles, forces and fields that make space-as-a-thing strut its stuff? What is the density of space? If space has a density then could we in theory fly like a bird to the Moon if we could construct a pair of wings large enough? How does space-as-a-thing alter the standard model of particle physics? Would the Universe be any different today if the thing-ness of space had never existed? If so, how would it be different and if that were the case might you not even be here to worry about it? In other words, is the thing-ness of space required or vital for your own existence? Could we with our advanced technologies change the nature of that 'thing' property of space by some physical process or other? Is the thing-ness of space a resource that we could make use of akin to how we could mine the asteroid belt for resources? The speed-of-light is slower in glass than in water, and slower in water than in air and slower in air than in space, so if space is a thing would the speed-of-light be even faster than it is now if you could remove the thing-ness from space?
Anyone who advocates that space-is-a-thing has to wear the burden of proof on their shoulders and provide at least some solid slab-in-the-lab evidence. Either that or they should cease prattling on about it as if the concept of space-as-a-thing was set in stone and the matter of the nature of space was now settled for all eternity. It's not settled.
John Prytz
Too many questions to address in one go John. One or two questions at a time would be sufficient in a single post.
"Anyone who advocates that space-is-a-thing has to wear the burden of proof on their shoulders and provide at least some solid slab-in-the-lab evidence. Either that or they should cease prattling on about it.............." John Prytz.
Unfortunately you are not prepared to accept the evidence provided. Varying refraction of light due to change in consistency of the external medium of space provides just as good explanation of the observed effect of gravity, as curved space time fabric. The effect of the motion at all scales of a gravitational body deforming the external medium in space(not space-time) is as good an explanation of the cause of gravity as curvature of space-time. Actually better because space-time is the emergent reality and can not itself be deformed by forces in external foundational reality. It only gives the output Image showing that it apparently has. Something else, in uni-temporal space has been deformed.
Q."Why the phrase "the vacuum of space"? What 'thing' do you have to remove from space in order to achieve a perfect vacuum?" John Ptytz.
A.Neither Einstein's space time continuum not the Image reality of the RICP explanatory framework require that space-time is a thing. As the output of EM sensory data processing it is an emergent reality, not the foundational reality where things exist.
Q." What is the 'thing' composed of? What is its chemistry?" John Prytz.
A. In both space-time and Image reality it is a true nothing as it has no representation. It is difficult to say what it is in foundational Object reality without evidence. However it is possible to speculate that it may be some kind of non viscous super-fluid, that does not adhere to the surface of bodies,so not resisting constant motion. Though it still has bulk that must be shifted for an object to change trajectory; accounting for Inertia; (without providing a force that would slow a body in constant motion.)
Q." Since it is right in front of your nose, what does it smell like? Could you stick out your tounge and tase the 'thing' that makes space a thing? What other properties does it have that you (or instrumentation) can detect?" John Prytz.
A. As the medium of space provides no sensory data by which to detect it, transmitting rather than reflecting or emitting light it is not a part of the output Image reality. All of the sensations you are asking for are outputs of sensory data processing. It provides no sensory data being neither the source of data nor data itself.
Q."What are the associated particles, forces and fields that make space-as-a-thing strut its stuff? What is the density of space? If space has a density then could we in theory fly like a bird to the Moon if we could construct a pair of wings large enough? How does space-as-a-thing alter the standard model of particle physics?"
A.Particles, I don't know if it is particulate matter or not, without evidence it is only possible to speculate.It may be some kind of superfluid offering no resistance to constant motion but still with bulk that needs to be shifted for change of trajectory , accounting for inertia. Associated forces and fields Inertia and gravity. Re.density I don't know how it can be measured since it is ubiquitous and our scales are set assuming there is nothing there so zero and it offers no resistance to constant motion, otherwise the heavenly bodies would be slowed.
Q."Would the Universe be any different today if the thing-ness of space had never existed? If so, how would it be different and if that were the case might you not even be here to worry about it? In other words, is the thing-ness of space required or vital for your own existence?" John Prytz.
A. Yes without it we wouldn't have gravity and Inertia. We wouldn't have the behavior of the galaxies and star systems that exist and we could not have evolved.
Q. "Could we with our advanced technologies change the nature of that 'thing' property of space by some physical process or other? Is the thing-ness of space a resource that we could make use of akin to how we could mine the asteroid belt for resources?"John Prytz.
A. I have no idea whether we can change it and how, no idea why that would be desirable. There is no need to mine it as it is ubiquitous. We do make use of it in transmitting signals wirelessly.
Q. "The speed-of-light is slower in glass than in water, and slower in water than in air and slower in air than in space, so if space is a thing would the speed-of-light be even faster than it is now if you could remove the thing-ness from space?" John Prytz
A. It does account for the speed of light in a vacuum but taking it away would not make the speed of light faster as waves can not be transmitted without the medium that carries them.
"If one persists in trying to link motion and space-as-a-thing, find an equation that involves motion that also has space-as-a-thing as one of the required parameters." John Prytz.
Not requiring something in an explanation is not the same as there being no evidence for its existence. Remember that both the Space-time continuum and the RICP Image reality do not contain a medium of space and do not require it. It is necessary to fist decide which facet of reality is being considered, the foundational Object reality where things are and interact or the output Image reality produced from sensory data processing. Classical physics and relativity is based upon what is observed, which I hope I have explained is not the same as what is in foundational reality. Diagrams showing relationships of various aspects of physics to the facets of reality can be found recently uploaded on the alternative models of reality page.
Q. "Can you explain exactly why the south pole and the north pole of a magnet attract? Or why and how the north pole of a magnet repels another north pole? You know what happens, but the how and why is beyond you to explain. You know an electron and a positron will annihilate upon contact. You know what happens but not the how and exact nature of why what happens. You know that the electric charge on a proton is equal and opposite to that on an electron. Can you tell me why? Neither can anyone else. Can you actually tell me what electric charge actually is? You know what it does but how does it do it and why does it do it? " John Prytz
Magnetism is explicable if in foundational reality, rather than output Image reality, there is a medium that is disturbed by the synchronized vibration of many electrons. With all /most of the electrons aligned, the electron spin at each end of the magnet is opposite, producing a different disturbances. The recognizable magnetic field being the detectable output of that disturbance of the medium. Not the same disturbance caused by electromagnetic radiation so not detectable as light but detectable when same or opposite poles are brought close together or iron filing s are scattered around or a compass is brought close.
As for charge I have speculated that the vibration of charged particles might set up tidal forces. Same tidal force will act against each other. Imaging push against push and pull against pull. Whereas opposite tidal forces will enhance each other leading to attraction.Pull with push and push with pull.I can also speculate that these kinds of interactions might also act within atoms giving the strong nuclear force. I find it hard to satisfactorily comprehend magnetism and charge without these kinds of consideration.
John, I have a question for you. Is there any region of the visible universe devoid of absolutely everything including background cosmic radiation? The inside of black holes are not providing any sensory data whereby to produce a representation of what is there.A hole in the data produces a hole in the processed image reality. So I won't accept that as proof of nothingness in underlying reality. Where else is there there the apparent utter nothingness of space that you demand?
PROOF THAT SPACE IS NOT A THING
If space were a thing, then nothing could move. A state of nothingness has to exist, along with a state of some things (the standard model of particle physics and resulting emergent stuff like atoms, molecules and human beings), in order for those some things to get from Point A to Point B unhindered. If space were a thing then the some things part and parcel of the standard model would be akin to 100 people jammed into a standard elevator (or lift), or say 200 people crammed onto a what would have to be defined as a crowded bus. You couldn't move from the back of the elevator to the front; from the back of the bus to the front door of the bus. There's no state of nothingness for the people at the back to move through. You can only move because there is some nothingness for you to move into or shove other stuff into to make room for you. If space is a thing then there is no nothingness at all in the Universe; the Universe is entirely full of stuff (the standard model plus space-as-a-thing) and no motion is possible.
Georgina,
Absolutely. There is a massive amount of the visible Universe that is devoid of absolutely everything. The space between photons that comprise the cosmic microwave background radiation. The space between photons in general. The space between gravitons. The space between any and all of the things that comprise the standard model of particle physics. The space between electrons in 'orbit' around a nucleus. There has to be those regions that are devoid of everything in order for actual things, like photons, to move around. Nothing could be clearer.
John Prytz
John Prytz,
Georgina has surely given these matters a lot of thought using her 'trademark' image/object reality and sensory data processing, etc technology.
My favorite in her last post was: "As the medium of space provides no sensory data by which to detect it, transmitting rather than reflecting or emitting light it is not a part of the output Image reality. All of the sensations you are asking for are outputs of sensory data processing..."
In addition, you should realize smell, colour, taste, etc come from composite substances. The fundamental of which they are composed cannot have those properties. You can check here the first 7 paragraphs of Leibniz Monadology to see a relationship between composite and fundamental substances.
Although Georgina doesn't want to stick out her neck on whether space has density, I am prepared to stick out mine. Space has no density and has no mass. Mass (kilograms) is a derived not an absolute quantity or measure as E = mc^2 has shown.
Two areas, I may add to are on "So if you are advocating space-as-a-thing then you are advocating the creation of something from nothing therefore advocating that the First Law of Thermodynamics is being negated" and "Can you explain exactly why the south pole and the north pole of a magnet attract? Or why and how the north pole of a magnet repels another north pole?"
On the first, which has to do with cosmology, the first law is not rigid that energy forms remain as they are. What it says is that energy cannot be created or destroyed but can be changed from one form to another. It also says, for a closed system, the total energy sum is a constant value, zero being one such possible value. So a system whose total energy is zero must always have zero energy balance. Suppose the universe borrowed 10J of energy from you with the right hand and lent you 10J of energy with the left, has it contravened the first law of thermodynamics? No, since its total energy sum is still zero.
Without going into too much detail, when expansion and increase in radius occurs of a system without work being done, this is a contravention of the first law. To avoid this, change in the energy of the system in the form of matter and radiation must prevent this contravention. If increase in radius belongs to the debit side of the accounts ledger and increase in matter and radiation to the credit side, using Joules as our currency, an increase in the universe's radius by ~ 10-35m is balanced by an increase in its mass by ~10-8kg (Planck length and Planck mass respectively. Total ledger balance always zero, in the beginning, now and forever more! That is the trick the universe seems to have been playing on us. When you check the thermal history of the early era in the Big bang you will find it obedient to this form of the first law.
On attraction and repulsion between magnetic poles: Suppose when a North pole comes into contact with a South pole, the space between them is destroyed, what you see = attraction.
When a North pole comes into contact with a North pole, the space is created between them and destroyed without them, what you see = repulsion.
I had earlier linked this diagram, which depicts how attraction/ repulsion is mediated by changes in the nature of space-as-a-thing.
I don't share the belief in space-time, nor do I fully understand the need for dark energy.
I think these are the two areas Georgina did not cover or where I may have differences with her.
One area that may aid resolution of the argument, is to decide whether light is particle or wave. Since the particle picture fits your view that space-is-nothing, while light as wave supports space-as-a-thing in which waving can take place, what do you say about what would happen to a SINGLE photon at a half-silvered mirror or in the two-slit diffraction experiment? Surely, if you find illogicalities with the particle picture here, you find indirect proof again that space-is-a-thing.
Regards,
Akinbo
How do things move on your digital screen since there are pixels jamming up the whole screen? Surely, if a Simulator made of flesh and blood can simulate motion, how much more old, imaginative and wise Mother Nature.
Akinbo,
What is actually impacting on your digital monitor or TV screen? Electrons! The electrons cannot be cheek-by-jowl (i.e. - no space between them) since electrons have a negative charge and negative charges repel. Thus, there must be some degree of space between the electrons that are impacting on your digital screen! Thus the stream of electrons can move around without getting in each others way and thus you get a moving picture or image.
If you magnify the pixels or dots that make up the images on your newspaper, you'll see spaces between them. In any event those dots are molecules of ink composed of atoms composed in turn of electrons, neutrons and protons and there is empty space between them.
John Prytz
John P,
though I wrote 'too many questions to address in one go, I spent a considerable amount of time answering them. See Georgina Parry replied on Dec. 12, 2014 @ 01:43 GMT. Some kind of response to those answers would be nice.
You may also like to take a look at Georgina Parry replied on Dec. 12, 2014 @ 02:15 GMT in which I address your questions regarding magnetic fields and charge. A medium in space allows easy explanation of how magnetism and charge function to give the observed forces but empty space requires belief that magnetic fields and charges just act in nothingness.
At least Einstein tried to give a cause of the gravitational field. Deformation of space-time has been accepted by the mainstream physics community and general public. Even though it is an inadequate explanation, being emergent appearance rather than source. For consistency one might argue that magnetic and electric fields deform space-time but it isn't space-time that exists in foundational reality but just space. For the deformation to occur the space can not be a void as a void can not be deformed.
I hope this reply also answers your reply to me, in which you talk about the space between fundamental particles.
John Prytz, the question is not whether there is space or not but is the space utterly empty.Can a space be utterly empty? A superfluid would also allow things to be separated and move through it without resistance. If it provides no sensory data whereby to detect it may appear to be a nothingness. However its presence allows explanation of such forces as gravity, magnetism and charge.Importantly not taking the observed effect (apparent deformation of space-time) to be the cause and repudiating the idea of those disembodied fields.
Georgina,
Of course there can be regions of space absolutely empty. Say you have two photons two Planck lengths apart. What could exist between them?
You state that a superfluid (a thing) could separate and thus would allow other things to move through it. When you separate the superfluid, what are you shoving it into to allow that something to pass through?
By the way you will have noticed that I've stated that time is also a not-thing either. If time is a not-thing then space-time is a not-thing too since it takes takes two (things) to tango.
John Prytz
Georgina,
I posed those questions as part and parcel of my summation of why space is not a thing. I never stated anywhere that I wanted, desired or even expected a reply. That you chose to do so was a decision made entirely by you and I am under no obligation to make a further reply. I stated my bit; you stated your bit. Others will benefit from both our posts but I see no reason to keep on dragging this out day-after-day.
Okay, so I've given my side of the story; you've given your side of the same story, now IMHO it's time for all those bystanders out there in cosmology and/or quantum land to judge the issues for themselves, ideally by thinking through the issues for themselves and not relying on the absolute word of anyone posting here.
However, many thanks for your personal explanation of the whys and wherefores about magnetism, but I'm afraid that you missed the point about the "why" of things - the "why" question. There is a much deeper "why' question that you're missing here. Why should EM (whatever that actually is) opposites attract and EM sameness repel? Why isn't it the opposite or why for that matter either case? It's the question that Einstein asked which was whether or not God had any choice in the matter when creating the laws, principles and relationships of physics, or, as hawking put it, "what breathes fire into the equations".
Explanations are all well and good but fail to come to terms with why does it have to be this way and not some other way. That's the "why" that can't be explained or answered.
Consider for example some made-up bizarre properties regarding the north pole (NP) and south pole (SP) of a magnet. Why not have NP to NP result in nuclear fission and SP to SP result in nuclear fusion and SP to NP result in superconductivity. Or place some chemicals between NP and NP and get an exothermic reaction; between the SP and SP you get an endothermic reaction but between SP and NP no chemical reaction takes place at all.
Put another way, can you imagine that if you reset the clock back to the Big Bang and start over again or imagine another universe entirely, where NP and NP attracted and ditto SP and SP but SP and NP repelled each other. If not, why not. Or, to put it another way as per Einstein's question, can there be more than one set of physics?
John Prytz
According to John and Peter from their recent discussion on the Alternative Models of Reality thread, there are 195 countries. These make up our 7 continents.
If there was Not-thing between them we will have One continent, a Pangaea. Thankfully, we have Something between them, water in the form of oceans so we have Many continents, not One.
In a simulated or real universe, we have Many things. If there was Not-thing between them, we will have only One thing in the universe. Again, thankfully, we have Something between them, even if we are ungrateful to that Something and call it a Not-thing.
If Not-thing is between things then we have only One existing thing and not Many. Only what exists can separate things. A void cannot separate things.
On a computer simulation or screen, Space is given its respect and depicted as doing separation of things. If no pixels are allocated to it in a picture, the screen will show only One thing.
Let me round up with one quote from an internet source:
"The problem of finding the one thing that lies behind all things in the universe is called the problem of the one and the many. Basically stated, the problem of the one and the many begins from the assumption that the universe is one thing. Because it is one thing, there must be one, unifying aspect behind everything. This aspect could be material, such as water, or air, or atoms"
There is a lot to ponder on the subject. Just Google One and Many in philosophy.
Space is not a Not-thing, but one of the two Great separators, the other being Duration or 'Time'.
He or she who hath ears to hear let him hear.
More later, if need be.
Regards,
Akinbo
Forgive me, John. Of course you are under no obligation to reply to me. I just said that it would be nice.I said that because I had spent a considerable amount of time writing my answers to the questions you asked.
You wrote "I never stated anywhere that I wanted, desired or even expected a reply. That you chose to do so was a decision made entirely by you." Yes I agree, I actually dedicate a lot if time to reading and considering what others have to say on this web site and have perhaps mistakenly extended you the same courtesy. To make the situation clear you could have written here are 20 rhetorical questions I don't expect you to answer.
I thought you were here as a new member of the community to have people consider what you have to say and join in conversation, not just upload copious amounts of personal opinion. You have asked further questions and without clarification, and to avoid annoyance I will assume they are also rhetorical. As you explicitly point out, you have not stated that you want, desire or expect reply so I will not trouble you further.
Georgina,
If I had directed that summation to a specific person and they had taken the time to respond in depth, then of course there would be a sense of obligation to deal with that. But in this case it was a sort of 'to whom it may concern' post.
As far as posting copious amounts of personal opinion, well I sort of thought that's what these forums were for, a place to put your two cents worth in.
I'll explain my philosophy this way that it is better to toss out 100 ideas (or personal opinions) and have 99 out of 100 of them wrong, dead wrong, absolutely wrong, than never to have tossed out anything at all. So, as long as I continue to live long and prosper, or until I run out of ideas, I'll keep on piling on copious more amounts of personal opinion. Everyone is free to read or ignore completely what I post as they wish. At least the price is right - that you can't raise a fuss about!
John Prytz
