CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]
TOPIC:
The Nature of Space by M. V. Vasilyeva
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 11:17 GMT
Essay AbstractSpace, whose structure and properties dictate all characteristics of matter and forces in it, has been underappreciated by physics. That empty space has a property of a rigid solid constitutes the central paradox of science. For 150 years it has remained unresolved. The work has been neglected due to physics’ century-old decree that declared space empty, which was an act of frustration with ether models that could not resolve the paradox. Pressing ahead without solving the problem led to the current situation where paradoxes have become physics’ distinctive feature and matter and space are fused into an inseparable totality of fields. Mathematical models attempting to describe this totality abound, and yet there is no model of space. In its place is a tradition that discourages discussion of the structure of space for fear of resurrecting old ether theories. This essay attempts to open such a discussion and offers an example of how the topic can be approached with very few assumptions in mind. It shows that, consistently applied, a simple organizing principle can lead to a straightforward solution to the old problem and reveals a dynamic, 4-dimensional, vibrating structure, in time, that conjures up an image of a 4D ocean, the 3D surface of which is the visible Universe.
Author BioMs. Vasilyeva grew up in the former Soviet Union. She graduated from NYU with a degree in computer science. Having worked in the industry in NY and LA, she now lives with her family in the woods of Pennsylvania, pursuing her interests in history of ideas, physiology and physics. A gifted analyst, she loves a good puzzle.
Download Essay PDF File
Frank Makinson wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 20:48 GMT
Ms. Vasilyeva,
The arguments you present in your essay are a danger to the establishment, which has convinced various funding sources to give them $billions to prove what I consider to be a fallacy.
I note that your references follow the Chicago Style, and I wonder if you were requested to provide that format? Many of the essays do not follow that style.
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 21:19 GMT
Lol, Frank, I disagree with your assessment of my essay. No danger to anyone -- well, it may hurt a bit brains of those who never gave space a thought. I approached physics as a puzzle and I believe I did a good job solving it.
How about you? What do you think of the reality of a 4th spatial dimension? There is nothing radical about the idea.
Frank Makinson replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 22:15 GMT
Ms. Vasilyeva,
I can not even explain the "nature of our existence", thus agreeing to the existence of a 4th spatial dimension is putting the cart way ahead of the horse. As one of my mentors stated, a Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering (since deceased), we are all a specialized form of energy. Once the atom is broken down into its constitute parts, they pretty much represent...
view entire post
Ms. Vasilyeva,
I can not even explain the "nature of our existence", thus agreeing to the existence of a 4th spatial dimension is putting the cart way ahead of the horse. As one of my mentors stated, a Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering (since deceased), we are all a specialized form of energy. Once the atom is broken down into its constitute parts, they pretty much represent some form of "energy".
Please realize that transverse electromagnetic (EM) waves were the only field orientation Einstein was aware of when he formulated his weird curved space-time theory. EM waves with longitudinal components, where a field vector is aligned with the axis of propagation, are being produced by photonic types. Also, Einstein was one of the lost generations in regards to solitons, thus he developed his theories based upon " incomplete information", a Georgina Parry term, topic 1216.
Keep in mind that our current space has permittivity and permeability, and the physics community cannot explain why.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 17:58 GMT
Frank, I don't think Einstein's curved space-time theory is weird, lol. I rather think it's brilliant. What's more, I believe that he got really lucky with Minkowski spacetime (the idea of which he did not like at first): it worked out so well, because our world _is_ 4D.
As for the specifics of the EM field housed in 3-brane, again I respectfully disagree with your assessment. There is plenty of work explaining it workings and many proposed models, starting with the original Maxwell model. That's why I did not think that I should go into these details. Besides, it is the overall concept derived from the top down approached that I wanted to show.
But thank you for your reply!
Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 21:20 GMT
Dear M.V. Vasilyeva,
I really enjoyed your essay. You make a couple points which I think are crucially important:
1. You note at the very beginning that "space," whatever we take it to be, dictates the characteristics of matter and forces in it. I do not think that this fact is adequately appreciated. It's not that no one knows this; anyone who reads Weinberg's quantum field theory books, for instance, learns how important the Poincare symmetry group of Minkowski space is in determining the properties of particle states. However, people often don't realize just how great an assumption they are making when they ascribe certain properties to space. A lot of otherwise very good ideas in physics just won't work if you try to apply them to the wrong spacetime model.
2. You point out the necessity of understanding the actual physical structure of space. Many people, even physicists, are content to imagine spacetime as 4-dimensional real space, possibly curved, but fail to appreciate the difference between this mathematical abstraction and the actual physical space that interacts dynamically.
You and I have perhaps different ideas on the nature of time; I view time as a manifestation of causality, and my approach to building up spacetime is to use causal relations. I describe this in my essay here:
On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics.
In any case, you have written a very intriguing essay, and I wish you the best of luck in the competition. Take care,
Ben Dribus
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 22:14 GMT
Dear Ben, thank you for your kind words. I have not read your work yet, but will do now. Regarding your statement:
"anyone who reads Weinberg's quantum field theory books... learns how important the Poincare symmetry group of Minkowski space is in determining the properties of particle states."
See, from the position of the structure of space, which I advocate, the particles are abstractions of our theories and have very little to do with reality (simply because these abstractions are largely divorced from the underlying geometry of space). Besides, Minkowski spacetime is hardly a suitable model for the quantum scale. There it just does not work. There is another method of modeling time and distance at those scales. Too bad I ran out of space, lol, and could not address it.
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 02:00 GMT
Dear M.V.
I hope you can read Russian
What is common between this flatland and your flatland?
http://modcos.com/articles.php?id=201
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 03:23 GMT
Terminology problem you can solve
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantu
m-gravity-in-flatland
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 04:50 GMT
Yuri, this article in SA has a very different idea from what I describe in my essay and besides, I only use it as an analogy with our 4D world. In SA, they have 2D + time, while in my Flatland analogy I have 3D + time. Even that is too tight, so I don't see how they can do anything meaningful with just 2D. If they curve the plane, as I do, there is a need for a 3rd dimension. If not, what's gravity for them?
In any rate, I use the Flatland analogy to illustrate how we could live in 4 spatial dimensions and not know it. And yes, I took liberties with Abbott's Flatland by modeling it as a surface of a sphere. It illustrates gravity and mass concepts of a 4D world very well. It's the EM field that it cannot handle (well, it allows for either one but not both).
So, to answer your question, there is nothing in common between my analogy and the article in SA where they are seriously trying to figure out quantum gravity in 2D+time. Things are actually easier with more dimensions than less, so I don't understand what they want to achieve. I think I saw that article in SA years ago -? The date of it is not clear in the links you gave.
What did you think of my idea that it is natural for a dynamic vibrating structure that defines space to assume the 4D configuration, because it corresponds to its lowest energy state? I tried to find a theorem to this effect, but was short on time. I hope a good topologist reads my paper and comments.
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 11:22 GMT
I am not topologist, just layman...
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 20:37 GMT
but i have my own view
see my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413#addPost
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Armin Nikkhah shirazi wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 10:39 GMT
Dear M.V.,
You have written a paper containing many imaginative ideas and touching upon many different fields in physics. I especially liked how you introduced your ideas with the fable in the preamble. Certainly, the notion that "All the space there is belongs to this universe and can contain nothing else." rings true to me.
As intriguing as your ideas are, I believe physicists...
view entire post
Dear M.V.,
You have written a paper containing many imaginative ideas and touching upon many different fields in physics. I especially liked how you introduced your ideas with the fable in the preamble. Certainly, the notion that "All the space there is belongs to this universe and can contain nothing else." rings true to me.
As intriguing as your ideas are, I believe physicists would want want to see your visual-conceptual model translated into a mathematical model, and some experimentally testable predictions before they would seriously consider adopting it as a worldview (for better or for worse), but I'm sure you already know this.
I did notice that your ideas have a certain picturesque quality to them, which seems quite appropriate, given the topic (although this may also be enhanced by your vivid writing style).
Let me mention that, concerning your remark about Minkowski Spacetime above, most quantum field theorists would vehemently disagree with it.
To me personally the most striking implication of Minkowski spacetime as concerns the structure of space is that evidently in a Universe without any matter at all but just radiation, there could be no Spacetime. That is because distance intervals in spacetime are proportional to the proper time of an object, and only objects with mass have a non-zero proper time. If there are no objects with non-zero proper time, there can be no frame in which there are non-zero spacetime distances(Incidentally, only some physicists agree with this conclusion. Those who do not posit that one can mathematically still describe a spacetime without matter. To me this is an instance of mistaking the map for the territory) I mentioned this because I thought you might find this digression relevant to your topic.
Good luck on the contest and all the best,
Armin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Armin, thank you for your comments on my essay. Regarding the mathematics, I actually started doing it in the section on time, but then realized that I ran out of space, so I just left it out, expecting the logic of the model to speak for itself. Besides, the model is in line with ADD, the reference to which, with all its mathematics, is included for an interested reader.
Regarding predictions, perhaps you did not check the reference to a dwarf galaxy in a nearby void that shows a deformation in its structure (2011)? Or what about the prediction that the same object can be seen twice from different directions in our sky? Finally, you don't seem to be impressed by my resolution of the old paradox of space, but how would you personally explain that a material object can freely move through what is otherwise impermeable?
Perhaps I should have greater emphasized that what we perceive is actually projections from 4D on either side of the membrane onto its 3D. This explains the quantum uncertainties: some info is lost when you project from a higher space, and then the result varies depending on the angle of the projection. The model explains why a nucleus appears so small from our 3D POV and the half-integer spin of fermions: a full rotation in 4D looks from a 3D POV as 720° or 2 turns necessary to return to the original state.
True, I only listed all this, without going into the details, expecting the reader to have a decent grasp of the basics of the 4D geometry, which perhaps was not right.
The model explains the source of all movement as originating from the structure ejecting the deformations introduced into it locally, thus showing why a naked nucleus gets kicked around much... Why... I thought the premise on which the model stood was sound and that its implications were logically derived.
But I very much appreciate your feedback. Thank you!
Ted Erikson wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 16:19 GMT
M.V.:
Your essay touched on the core of a physics problem.. "space". In space one can observe the motion of mass and keep track of all energies involved, but rarely consider the concomitant "growth" that can occur to affect energy balances..
My model, To Seek Unknown Shores
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409
developed in detail in "End Notes", suggests 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D "spaces" achieve 6/16, 9/16, and 1/16 " respective probabilities for growth as motion proceeds.
Comment?
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 08:08 GMT
George Rajna wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 13:37 GMT
Excellent!
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 16:55 GMT
Why thank you George! Do tell your friends and relatives :)
George Rajna replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 19:16 GMT
This is my community rating on your essay.
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 20:30 GMT
Yes, thank you, George. Ratings are a part of a contest, but I'm mostly interested in the feedback to my ideas. For example, I would like to know how sound is my idea that a 4D configuration corresponds to the lowest energy state for a dynamic, vibrating structure that defines space. That is the crucial part of my essay. Intuitively I feel that this is right. I looked for a suitable theorem to this effect, but was short on time.
What do you think?
Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 16:59 GMT
Ms. Vasilyeva,
Maxwell's ether theory says that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Special relativity says the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer. What do YOU say?
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author...
view entire post
Ms. Vasilyeva,
Maxwell's ether theory says that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Special relativity says the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer. What do YOU say?
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory." MICHIO KAKU: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved." JOHN NORTON AGAIN: "This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."
http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/XML/db/csphysique
/metadata/LOM_CSP_relat.xml
Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/
0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 19:20 GMT
Pentcho, I believe the speed of waves is the property of the medium in which they propagate (ex. the speed of sound in air is about constant, modified by some local conditions such as density, temperature, humidity, etc). I do not see why space should be different. So, speed of light is a constant, modified by some local conditions.
Since speed of light is the property of space itself then your question boils down to: what is the observer and how observation can interfere with the wave-medium properties of space.
The result of Michelson-Morley experiment is well known, even though its interpretation varied in time. At first it meant that there was no stationary ether; then it meant that the laws of nature were the same for all observers. What you are saying in your essay is that observer interferes with the local conditions in space, therefore affecting the speed of light. It's hard to argue with that. However, Lorentz transformation shows hows this type of interference cancels out in the end. Perhaps there are different ways of observing -? Would they each come with its own transformation, still giving the same null result?
Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 20:26 GMT
Let us assume, in accordance with the classical ether theory, that:
Assumption 1. The speed of light, as measured by the observer, is independent of the speed of the light source.
Assumption 2. The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies with the speed of the observer.
The null result of the Michelson-Morley is incompatible with the combination of the two...
view entire post
Let us assume, in accordance with the classical ether theory, that:
Assumption 1. The speed of light, as measured by the observer, is independent of the speed of the light source.
Assumption 2. The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies with the speed of the observer.
The null result of the Michelson-Morley is incompatible with the combination of the two assumptions so we have to change them. The simplest change that restores the compatibility with the null result is as follows:
Assumption 1 is replaced by Assumption 1': The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies the speed of the light source.
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hof
fmann/dp/0486406768
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 21:06 GMT
Pentcho, if you read my essay, I do not support the the classical ether theory. IMHO that was a wrong model, based on wrong assumptions. Why bring it back in?
Your abstract states, "A hypothesis is advanced according to which any shift in frequency implies shift in the speed of light." IMHO, frequency being inversely proportional to wavelength, implies --to me at least-- the shift in wavelength. Which was confirmed by the observation.
Your solution, i.e. that "The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies the speed of the light source" contradicts my view, on which I cannot compromise, and that is: the speed of light is the property of space. As such, it is a constant.
What do you think about the reality of a 4th spatial dimension?
Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 21:32 GMT
Ms. Vasilyeva, you wrote: "Your solution, i.e. that "The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies the speed of the light source" contradicts my view, on which I cannot compromise, and that is: the speed of light is the property of space. As such, it is a constant."
Is the speed of light "the property of space" in the same way in which the speed of sound is the property of air? If yes, the speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies with the speed of the observer, and your community rating may plummet.
Best regards, Pentcho
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 22:57 GMT
LOL let it plummet. Hey, Giordano Bruno went to the stake for his convictions. What's rating in an essay contest for a newbie? I want to hear the feedback to my ideas. Do you have any?
To answer your question of my innermost believes, yes, the speed of light is the property of space in the same way as the speed of sound is the property of air. The speed of waves is always the property of the medium in which they propagate and is dictated by the medium.
What you don't seem to understand is that the observer of the speed of sound in the air is on the same footing as the air, while the observer of the speed of light IS NOT ON THE SAME FOOTING AS LIGHT.
I understand where you confusion lies. Many lay people share it. Physics is partially to blame for it, when it declared space empty and substituted the paradox of space with the wave-particle duality (just the topic of my essay, by the way). Ever since, many lay people (and even some physicists) put particles of light (which are just convenient abstractions of momentum of light waves in space) on par with material objects, of which a grandfather clock is the all time favorite, lol.
But I am certain that if you give this just a bit of thought --I highly recommend reading my essay!-- you can overcome these difficulties. I found that just adding 1 spatial dimension, the 4th, suddenly explains all paradoxes, starting with the central paradox of science, which is the paradox of space. Once you solve it, everything just falls into its right place, confusion vanishes and life becomes worth living again :)
Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 23:13 GMT
Is the formula v'=v+v0 given by Sidney Redner correct? For sound waves? For light waves?
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19
_doppler.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO."
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 23:51 GMT
Pentcho, you do not understand the difference between space and things in space. I am afraid I have exhausted my resources trying to help you and have nothing else to add.
Anonymous wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 02:46 GMT
Hi M.V. Your essay was a fun read, and I think the picture you have of how things work is better than many. I agree that forces and particles should both be described in terms of spacetime geometry (topological solitons of some type), and also that large extra dimensions may be involved. I think you would enjoy reading about the bouncing droplet system -- it is a lot like your flatland. If you have no journal access send me an email, otherwise some references are given in my
essay.
Andrew
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 13:15 GMT
Thank you Andrew for your feedback on my essay. I looked up bouncing droplets last night and saw some videos a while ago. This is indeed fascinating. To me it illustrates the fractal nature of reality, where the same principles operate at various scales. I am not sure how to send you an email. Mine is vasilyeva_mv@yahoo.com Yes, I'd love to read more about the bouncing droplet systems.
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 05:46 GMT
Hi M. V. V.,
You wrote "fear of resurrecting old ether theories". Why fear? Is your suggestion a new ether theory? Was Einstein correct when he resurrected the ether in 1920 except for admitting it as preferred system of reference? I
n the discussion you repeatedly used "lol". I doubt that this is a persuading style. Don't some arguments e.g. by Pentcho Valev and Frank Makinson...
view entire post
Hi M. V. V.,
You wrote "fear of resurrecting old ether theories". Why fear? Is your suggestion a new ether theory? Was Einstein correct when he resurrected the ether in 1920 except for admitting it as preferred system of reference? I
n the discussion you repeatedly used "lol". I doubt that this is a persuading style. Don't some arguments e.g. by Pentcho Valev and Frank Makinson rather deserve a factual reply?
You called space a paradox. Galileo's pupil Torricelli and Guericke demonstrated that a spatio vacuo (without air) actually exists. Two kinds of experiments by the latter led to the industrial revolution and the study of electricity. Guericke tried to understand forces between distant bodies. I see justified curiosity but no paradox in this case.
Cantor's transfinite cardinalities and Einstein's special theory of relativity (SR) led into many paradoxes even if their supporter tend to deny them and your ideas are nonetheless based on SR if spacetime is based on SR.
Einstein in 1905 tacitly referred to Lorentz. Lorentz adopted Potier's correction to Michelson's first experiment.
Meanwhile, some experts questioned that the null-result of MMX disproves the existence of an absolute space alias ether alias preferred frame of reference. I quoted some of them in my essay. My own humble contribution is my Fig. 5. Feel challenged to either provide a different explanation or resurrect absolute space.
Using the expression "in time" you seem to fatalistically believe that there are future worldlines in reality.
At least I appreciate that you understand light propagating within the medium space.
Eckard
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 12:47 GMT
Hi Eckard,
Thank you for your comments on my essay.
No, my model is not an ether theory. I offer a geometrical model of space in 4D at low, everyday energies, where matter and space are separate (they may be one and the same at very high energies, a point I omitted in my essay). The setup is in line with ADD model, the reference to which is listed.
No, IMHO, "ether" cannot be used "as preferred system of reference". This is because space is a dynamic, fluid structure, and as such is not suitable for this purpose, just as captains cannot use the real ocean as a frame of reference for navigation and must rely on stars (and now, GPS).
Neither do I find paradoxical that space (spatio vacuo) actually exists. The paradox is that the spatio vacuo contains the same field that makes matter impenetrable to other matter. And yet we move through it with ease.
I am glad that we are in agreement that waves require a medium. Funny times we live in. 100 years ago this was still a given and people were only starting to scratch their heads, lol, trying to understand the abstractions of Einstein's theory. Today, such an obvious notion puts many in a state of stupor and all they can reply is "but there is no ether". As if there is no other ways of modeling space.
Again, thank you for your comments and your feedback. I very much appreciate it!
Frank Makinson replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 18:53 GMT
Ms. Vasilyeva,
I appreciate Eckard responding about ether, he explains it better than I can. I read an article some time ago where a person stated that the arguments used for the need of a Higgs boson, and its related field, were essentially the same arguments used for the need of "aether".
Your last comment contained: "I offer a geometrical model of space in 4D at low, everyday...
view entire post
Ms. Vasilyeva,
I appreciate Eckard responding about ether, he explains it better than I can. I read an article some time ago where a person stated that the arguments used for the need of a Higgs boson, and its related field, were essentially the same arguments used for the need of "aether".
Your last comment contained: "I offer a geometrical model of space in 4D at low, everyday energies, where matter and space are separate (they may be one and the same at very high energies, a point I omitted in my essay)." Topic 1539 contains the term "energeum", and the essay develop the characteristics of this "stuff" to fill up the quantum vacuum.
I find it inconceivable that contemporary physicists never bother to explain why space, essentially a vacuum, has permittivity and permeability, measurable characteristics. I am beginning to think that it is deliberately ignored. I don't believe the scientific community realizes that EM waves cannot propagate without the presence of a medium that posseses permittivity and permeability, which could be described as a "neutral field" that permeates all space and matter.
And, Einstein, Minkowski and all the other scientists of that era were totally ignorant that electromagnetic (EM) waves, over a wide spectrum, were pervasive in space. These "ancient scientists" were aware that light reached the earth from distance stars, and it was an EM phenomenon, but they were totally unaware that other EM spectrum was reaching earth. This was not "discovered" until the 1930s, by a couple of what were called "radio engineers" at that time. Georgina Parry, topic 1316, used the term "incomplete information" as a polite term for "ignorance".
There is a very simple explanation how EM fields can accomplish what is called gravity, but Einstein acolytes will not even consider anything that doesn't fit General Relativity, even if it is simple.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 09:02 GMT
Thank you M. V. V. for responding. Being ignorant of the ADD model, I read: "Results from the Large Hadron Collider do not appear to support the model."
Perez argues for reloading the preferred system of reference. I just doubt that this is possible when he maintains Einstein's SR. Admittedly, I only found out that the primary reason for Einstein to fabricate SR was based on the most...
view entire post
Thank you M. V. V. for responding. Being ignorant of the ADD model, I read: "Results from the Large Hadron Collider do not appear to support the model."
Perez argues for reloading the preferred system of reference. I just doubt that this is possible when he maintains Einstein's SR. Admittedly, I only found out that the primary reason for Einstein to fabricate SR was based on the most likely wrong assumption that the MMX will yield a non-null result; see my Fig. 5.
Can any electromagnetic wave propagate in a Faraday's cage? I am an EE; I say no. Is your space something with a frequency-dependent transfer function?
While I agree on the assumption that there is perhaps something (call it absolute space or ether or preferred background) that em waves refer to like the sea that carries a ship, I would not infer that it "makes matter impenetrable to other matter. And yet we move through it with ease."
Eckard
.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Israel Perez replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 01:41 GMT
Hi guys
Just to make a correction. Dear Eckard you mentioned: Perez argues for reloading the preferred system of reference. I just doubt that this is possible when he maintains Einstein's SR. Certainly, this is paradoxical. I argue in favor of the PSR and therefore against SR since this theory does not accept PSRs. To me aether, space, quantum vacuum and zero-point field are synonymous. I assume it to be a massive fluid and thus the medium for EM waves. From the assumption that space is a fluid it has been shown that Lorentz symmetry is emergent. Therefore there is no contradiction between the PSR and Lorentz symmetry. This is a theory different from SR.
Cheers
Israel
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 01:53 GMT
Eckard Blumschein,
Regarding the quote from wiki on ADD, it refers to limits on the minimum black hole mass, the whole question of which is in dispute (see http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0702142).
Regarding your denial that there is a paradox of space, you must be unaware that you contradict yourself:
1. you admit that there is medium for the EM radiation
2. as an EE, you are well aware of the transverse nature of waves and of their speed.
3. (2) implies that the medium is a solid whose rigidity surpasses the strongest known materials.
The paradox is in this rigidity in face of the apparent emptiness. Your ether model does not fit the data, because ether cannot support transverse waves.
I explain the paradox in 4D, with EM radiation living in the 3-brane and matter being confined to it in the 4th dimension.
PS
I got lots of work now and will not be able to continue our discussion. Take care.
hide replies
Marek A. Michalski wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 11:00 GMT
Dear M.V. Vasilyeva,
It is my essay:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1516
Comment?
Mare
k
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 00:16 GMT
Dear Marek, you seem to be unaware of Lorentz transformation that also explained the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment. It is great that you came up with a similar idea on your own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
http://en
.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
Israel Perez wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 02:02 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva
I really enjoyed reading your inspiring essay. I agree with most of your essay and I would like to make some comments and state some doubts.
First you argue that you are not in support of the old aether notion and you also argue that it was wrong. I wonder why you think, it was wrong. Could you make some comments.
You state an old paradox with the question: how...
view entire post
Dear Vasilyeva
I really enjoyed reading your inspiring essay. I agree with most of your essay and I would like to make some comments and state some doubts.
First you argue that you are not in support of the old aether notion and you also argue that it was wrong. I wonder why you think, it was wrong. Could you make some comments.
You state an old paradox with the question: how can space be both empty and solid? I think you are aware that this paradox is only valid considering that space is some sort of fluid. Today physics does not assume space as such and therefore there is no paradox for contemporary physics. As I can see your program attempts to revive the problem and by reviving the problem you are trying to solve the present ones. In my essay I try to do the same by reviving the notion of aether and the notion of the
preferred system of reference, I think you will be very much interested in reading it. I will be glad if you could leave me some comments. My question in this respect is: don't you think that by reviving the old problem you are also contradicting current views, in particular, the general and the special relativity?
Something that was not clear for me is whether you think that the universe was created in the Big Bang (BB) or not. As I read, at a given point of your essay you argued that at the moment of the BB the universe had n-dimensions and after some time the universe (by unknown reasons) was left with only four. My question is: do you accept the idea that the universe had a BB, i.e., that the universe had a beginning? If so, What reasons can you provide to explain the lost of dimensions?
According to your comments it seems to me that you are confusing the type of dimensions, because you argue that the 3D universe can be seen as a shell of the 4D and then you call it a membrane or for short brane in the sense of modern theories, such as string theory. I think you are mixing the concepts because you are talking about physical dimensions and not geometrical dimensions. You are supporting the view that the 3D space we experience everyday is some sort of solid embedded in another physical space of 4D, likewise as a sheet of metal could be embedded in a solid sphere. When one talks about branes, membranes or dimensions in the sense of relativity those dimensions are not physical dimensions but geometrical dimensions whose dimensions are devoid of substance. In a certain sense, the geometrical dimensions are an abstraction of the solid ones but they are not the same. In the late 1910s and beginning of the 1920s Kaluza and Klein worked out a geometrical 4+1 D model of the universe but their predictions were irreconcilable with experience. From the 1930s to 1970s physicists worked in geometrical spaces with 5+1 and 6+1 dimensions but the results were not satisfactory either, this is why these attempts are not widely known. The most famous and successful of these multidimensional theories is string theory that requires 10+1 dimensions to be mathematically consistent (to a certain extent) but these are all geometrical theories, which are different to your proposal with solid dimensions. So I would suggest not to mix conceptions.
As far as I can see you have completely digested the idea of the world in 4D and so you speak quite naturally about them. I agree with your view and the consequences derived from this idea, in particular to quantum mechanics. I clearly understand this.
You also argue that the red shift can be caused by the lost of energy of light due to the viscosity of space, I agree. And if this is true one arrives at the conclusion that there is no expansion. But at the same time you support geometrical spaces in the sense of general relativity which explain the redshift as geometrical expansion, which seems clearly paradoxical. This paragraph has some relation with the question I raised in the third paragraph above.
Congratulations for your work and I wish you good luck in the contest
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 06:57 GMT
Dear Israel,
Thank you for your feedback on my essay. It is regrettable that you approached it with some preconceived notions and also lacking certain understanding of the 4D geometry, which is clear from your following comment:
"You are supporting the view that the 3D space we experience everyday is some sort of solid embedded in another physical space of 4D, likewise as a sheet of metal could be embedded in a solid sphere. "
It appears that you do not know that the surface of a 4D object, such as a hypersphere, is 3-dimensional in the same way as a surface of a sphere is a 2D plane. The 2D surface of a sphere is not "some sort of solid embedded in another physical space of" a sphere, but is an integral part of it. Similarly, the 3D surface is an integral part of a hypersphere. It seems all your confusion about my essay stems from this lack of basic geometric awareness. In line with other multidimensional models, I called this 3D surface a membrane, instead of always referring to it as a (hyper)surface.
In addition, I am not sure what you mean by "solid dimensions" which you differentiate from "geometrical dimensions". This seems your original definitions and usage, on which I cannot comment.
Regarding the KK model predictions that you refer to, they were based on the wrong assumption that the extra dimension was equally accessible to both matter and radiation as the observed 3. The same wrong assumption was the reason why Klein invented compactification: to ensure that the extra dimension was well hidden and thus in line with the question of why we do not see it. In my essay I show that this was both wrong and unnecessary.
Regarding your question of why ether was a wrong model, first, the concept itself stems from air, which cannot support transverse waves, and second, the theory never considered the 4D nature of space, assuming that it had only 3 observed dimensions.
You also say: "... that this paradox is only valid considering that space is some sort of fluid. Today physics does not assume space as such and therefore there is no paradox for contemporary physics. My question in this respect is: don't you think that by reviving the old problem you are also contradicting current views, in particular, the general and the special relativity?"
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.
In no way does my model contradicts current views. You seem to have missed the part where I say that the model is the same overall as other models with large extra dimension (which are in line with relativity).
You also say: "Something that was not clear for me is whether you think that the universe was created in the Big Bang (BB) or not. ... What reasons can you provide to explain the lost of dimensions? "
In the essay I say, "in line with big bang theory, we could assume that initially the structure had infinite number of dimensions, but once it cooled off, it settled into 4D." I presume you are aware of the high energies at first instances after the BB. These high energies correspond to higher-dimensionality of space. When space cools off, its structure precipitates from higher-dimensions into lower, i.e. it looses dimensions, as if energies hidden in higher dimensions trickle down all the way to 4D, increasing the bulk and hyperssurface area, which corresponds to expansion.
Similarly, going in the direction of increasing energy, when the structure is put under too much pressure locally, because it is non-compressible, it will bulge out into an additional dimension (and by the way, in this context, the appearance of singularities is what marks the door into a higher dimension). When the local pressures let go, the energies hidden in extra-dimension trickle back into the 4D bulk, causing it to expand, which, in turn, increases its 3D surface area, causing perceived expansion of space.
Regarding the process of "precipitation into a lower D", being only an analyst, I can't adequately speak for topology. My hunch is that the method based on Hamilton-Ricci flow, quite possibly the one perfected by Grigory Perelman in his latest work, may shed some light on the specifics.
Again, thank you for your feedback.
I have read your essay today and found it interesting, even though I cannot conceive of an absolute reference frame, for which you advocate. I see absolute reference frame an abstraction that cannot exist in reality. But it is the plurality of our views is that is valued in this contest. Best regards to you!
Anonymous replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 17:14 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva
Thank you for reply, I appreciate it. Some times the discussions between people is only a matter of semantics. Unfortunately, I did not express my ideas properly and so you replied with something like this: "It appears that you do not know... ...is a 2D plane." My apologies for this.
Clearly I understand geometrical dimensions, and according to your reply you propose...
view entire post
Dear Vasilyeva
Thank you for reply, I appreciate it. Some times the discussions between people is only a matter of semantics. Unfortunately, I did not express my ideas properly and so you replied with something like this: "It appears that you do not know... ...is a 2D plane." My apologies for this.
Clearly I understand geometrical dimensions, and according to your reply you propose that space has a structure. You also say this in your essay:
As to what this structure is made of, we could go with Poincaré idea of a FICTICIOUS FLUID or take the Faraday vision of vibrating lines of force, which happened to nicely resonate with the leading theories of the day. Or we could combine the two in an image of incompressible, PERFECT FLUID, consisting of vibrating strings. Details don't matter. The important thing is that we get a dynamic, vibrating structure that defines space.
So, a space with structure seen as a fluid is not only geometry but topology or theory of fluid mechanics. In this sense your proposal is not merely geometrical but substantial this is why I referred to solid dimensions.
You say "details don't matter". May be for the sake of illustration details are not important but in the construction of the theory they do matter. Today physics knows that the 3D space is filled with fields. According to you what is space filled with? what is 3D space made of? fields? matter? energy? or what?
It seems that you haven't realized that by conceiving space with an internal structure as a fluid or strings you are contradicting the background independence of the general theory of relativity. That space has this kind of internal structure means that space is not geometry as GR states. This is why I ask you to define how you conceive space.
You: "I presume you are aware of the high energies at first instances after the BB. These high energies correspond to higher-dimensionality of space"
From where did you get that? The BB theory is based on GR and it assumes that since the beginning of time the universe is 3+1 dimensions, no matter how hot or cold the universe was.
You say: Regarding your question of why ether was a wrong model, first, the concept itself stems from air, which cannot support transverse waves, and second, the theory never considered the 4D nature of space, assuming that it had only 3 observed dimensions.
There is a model assuming space as a material fluid and it works. Moreover, besides supporting transverse waves it supports longitudinal waves. But again, these are material dimensions that have clear mechanical interpretation. The fact that the model assumes space as a massive fluid (i.e., it has some internal structure) contradicts current views, GR.
Another example of this can be found in my reference 23 in my essay. There the authors argue that the sapce has an internal structure and assume it as a medium for EM fields with a degraded refractive index, but this view, again, goes against the geometrical character of the GR. Since you are not defining what space is made of, your idea of space appears to be quite ambiguous. If you define it as a massive fluid and as the medium for EM fields, implicitly you are contradicting the GR. Otherwise, I do not see the relevance of your idea. If you have a paper in which you mathematically state your ideas I would appreciate it.
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vic Kley wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 04:03 GMT
Ms Vasilyeva,
Can you offer up any specific experiment or present unexplained phenomena that may be illuminated by your vision of 4D Space/Time?
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 07:50 GMT
Hi Vic Kley,
Thank you for your question, even though I'm not sure what else to say in addition to what I already said in the essay. I offered several explanations, from simple ones, such as, why a nucleus appears so small (because it exists in 4D, outside the 3D that we perceive and is only touching it) to why voids are empty, why light gets tired, or why there is no need to invent dark matter and dark energy, because both 'attractive' and 'repulsive' gravity emerges from the same property of the hypersurface of the hypersphere, which is our world, to minimize its hypersurface area. (after e-talking to Israel above I am not sure what terms to use, since a membrane or brane confused him).
How about the solution to the paradox of space? From the exchanges with other contributors here I see now that the problem is worse than it appeared to me initially. After 100 years people have become so used to the incongruous idea of waves propagating through emptiness, without any medium, that they do not see a paradox. But this is fundamentally wrong. Waves do require a medium. The medium in question cannot be "ether", simply because the phenomenal speed of transverse waves imply a super-rigid solid. Or a surface of incompressible fluid.
It's late here. I will think over your question and post tomorrow. In the mean time, would you please tell me why what I already listed in my essay does not seem for you enough. Thank you.
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 18:52 GMT
Mr Kley, I replied to your question in a comment below.
Thank you for your interest to my essay.
James T. Dwyer wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 11:17 GMT
Hi M. V.,
I read through your essay briefly - to be honest I was more intrigued by your discussions. I'm not a physicist myself but I've been vertically tunneling to collect 'core' samples, developing a personal understanding of gravitation in order to address some specific issues (i.e., see my brief essay 1419).
While waves do often propagate in a material medium, as I understand...
view entire post
Hi M. V.,
I read through your essay briefly - to be honest I was more intrigued by your discussions. I'm not a physicist myself but I've been vertically tunneling to collect 'core' samples, developing a personal understanding of gravitation in order to address some specific issues (i.e., see my brief essay 1419).
While waves do often propagate in a material medium, as I understand EM waves propagate not in a medium of spacetime but in their own energy - it is EM energy that is waving as it self propagates! In media waves, some external energy absorbed by the medium is dispersed as energy waves pass through the medium, diminishing as they disperse. As I understand, light is a linearly directed energy quanta that disperses through its own propagation. I hope perhaps this provides at least another perspective...
As for spacetime, I think that there is a concept of vacuum energy that should be fully considered. IMO, gravitation is not completely a property of matter (especially not quantum matter), but an interaction between localized potential mass-energy and the kinetic vacuum energy that fills space. Conceptually, if matter is viewed as localized, crystallized space energy, its presence can be seen to proportionally localize or contract external space-energy, producing an external gradient field of accelerating kinetic space-energy.
That vacuum energy exists is evidenced by the materialization and temporal annihilation of virtual particles and antiparticles. If these loose conceptions are correct, the rate virtual particle annihilations is space should increase with proximity to significant objects of mass, as a function of a kinetic space-energy gradient.
Gravitational effects produced by a 'cooperative' interaction between universal vacuum energy density and aggregated local potential mass-energy explains why gravitation seems to be 'weaker' than other material forces. It also explains why its (diminishing) spatial influence far exceeds those of material forces.
Back to vacuum energy, its thermal density was exceedingly greater in the initial universe. I suggest that quantum bubbles appeared in the initial universe, producing a quantum 'foam' of spacetime into which discrete particles could be emitted, or crystallized. Since the quantum foam was so hot and dense, emitted particles could neither linearly self-propagate nor be reabsorbed. As a result, their linear emission energy was physically reconfigured, producing an enveloping, inwardly directed, self-opposed field of potential mass-energy. As vacuum energy density diminished with expansion, particles could increasingly self-propagate. I think it is this temporally diminishing vacuum energy density that determined which persistent particles were imparted with mass (quarks), performing the particle selection function attributed to the Higgs field...
I'll cut off there - sorry to ramble on, but I hope these loose conceptions might stimulate some productive thoughts. Sorry I can't better communicate in the context of established thinking.
Sincerely, Jim
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 18:47 GMT
Hello James!
Thank you for your interest in my essay. I like the vividness with which you describe how you perceive the world. I will certainly read your essay and will comment in your thread.
Inger Stjernqvist wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear Ms Vasilyeva,
I have by now read your most interesting and thought-provoking essay several times with growing intrerest and, at least I hope, also with some growing understanding.
What fascinates me most of all is that you, more or less in one blow, explain both the large-scale structure of the Cosmos, and the small-scale structure of elementary particle interactions. The fluid in the "headroom" above the 3D membrane being in both cases the medium of interaction, and the membrane the border between matter and space.
Or have I completely mis-understood? If so, since I'm netither a physicist nor a mathematician (as you already know) I don't apologize for my lack of knowledge. It is better to try to understand and miss the point, than not trying at all - and be sure to miss it
Your history of time is perhaps a bit brief in comparison, but I like your concept of time as energy - and your down-to-earth Tick-tack. "Tack", as we say in Sweden when we mean thank you! You have given me more than a lot to think about.
My very best wishes!
Inger
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 16:59 GMT
Thank you Inger! You can't imagine how much I appreciate your comment.
Please see the post bellow (coming up) in response to Mr. Kley's question above in which, within the framework of my model, I attempt to dispel the mystery of the wave-particle duality.
Author M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 18:33 GMT
Mr Kley,
Thank you for your interest in my essay. It was very late for me when I saw your question. In my reply I used wrong terms in the sentence which should have read: both 'attractive' and 'repulsive' gravity emerge from the same property of the hypersurface of the 4D structure of space that seeks to minimize its hyperarea.
You asked, "Can you offer up any specific experiment or present unexplained phenomena that may be illuminated by your vision of 4D Space/Time?"
Having thought your question over, I decided to address the wave-particle duality, with which physics replaced the paradox of space. This duality is best revealed in the double slit experiments. I would like to use this opportunity to demonstrate that, from the 4D perspective, there is no mystery why both matter and light appear to move in waves. In my essay I only briefly mention this in the Flatland analogy.
Before we begin, it is important to appreciate that a hypersphere has 3-dimensional surface, each point of which is equidistant from its center, in the same way as each point of the 2D surface of a sphere is equidistant from the center of the sphere. This topological fact is what makes the 3D space we perceive invariant in all 3 directions and precludes the possibility of selecting a preferred reference frame. The dynamic nature of the 4D structure also makes it unsuitable for the role of the absolute reference frame (just like sea captains can't use ocean as a reference frame and must rely on the external clues such as stars or GPS).
The other aspect of the 4D geometry worth remembering is that form a 4D perspective, each point of the volume of a cube is visible in one sweep just like we grasp each point of the 2D plane in one glance. In a sense, from a 4D perspective, a 3D volume of a cube appears flat, similar to a 2D plane seen from 3D.
With this in mind, let us see how a double slit experiments works out in 4D, on the simplified analogy of the Flatland Plane (the Flatland analogy is indispensable, because 4D is virtually impossible for most people to visualize).
First, I would like you to please take a look at the following image from google images, since I can't post images here:
http://ej.iop.org/images/0295-5075/94/2/20004/Full/epl1
3428fig1.jpg
The top image, (a) is a side-view snapshot of a hexagonal lattice aggregate of bouncing droplets on a vibrated liquid bath that interact via the surface waves they emit and form various types of stable crystalline clusters [1]. Suggested by Andrew Norton, it is indeed an excellent model of the Flatland nanoscale with droplets representing nuclei confined to the outer, empty side of the Plane (in the "headroom"). Please take a good look at the image again and imagine 3 such aggregations, at some distance apart from each other. These 3 aggregations of droplets/atoms represent the solid structure of the plate with 2 slits in between.
Now please appreciate the fact that light waves, an electron, an atom or a molecule, all move along the surface of the Plane (or hyperplane in 4D) that contains the EM field. The difference between a light wave and, say, an atom, is that the light wave is the transverse disturbance in the surface itself (just like a transverse wave in the surface of water) and as such is entirely confined to the EM field it contains, while "matter" (stuff with intrinsic mass) glides just above this surface in the 3rd dimension (3rd dimension in the Flatland analogy and in the 4th dimension in our world). Nuclei are integrated into the surface by their electron clouds interacting with the EM field in it. The electron cloud makes the indentation a nucleus makes in the surface locally even with the rest of the surface and at the same time acts as a sort of a roller or better yet, a surf-board on which the nucleus surfs the light waves themselves. (In this context, the increase in the inertial mass at high speeds is mostly due to the electrons interacting with the EM field contained in the surface.)
Thus there is no difference in the path a particle of light or a material object takes. A light particle is a convenient abstraction that stands for the momentum of a light wave in space (or, a hyperplane). A material object, such as an atom, can also be represented by a point that too follows the same path. It is the structure of space itself that dictates all movement by expelling the deformation introduced into it locally into the direction that gives (even though, of course, there is a difference in the transverse disturbance that we perceive as light and a longitudinal disturbance we perceive as mass).
In this model it is essential to realize that everything we perceive directly or with the help of our technology are the projections onto the 3D surface of the hyperplane. Matter moves along the same surface as light waves themselves. Thus the interference pattern seen in the double slit experiments is the reflection of the fluid nature of the structure of space itself.
I also would like to emphasize that the strict separation between matter and space of the model I propose is applicable only at low energies of our own experience. At very high energies, the number of space dimensions grows in proportion to the energy density. At high energies, in higher number of dimensions, the geometries of space and matter intermix and are best described by the multidimensional models of string theories.
Again, I thank you for your interest in my essay and for giving me opportunity to address this important question, which I could not do within the constrains of the requirements.
References
[1] A. Eddi, A. Boudaoud and Y. Couder, (2011, doi:10.1209/0295-5075/94/20004), Oscillating instability in bouncing droplet crystals. http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/94/2/20004
Ke Xiao replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 07:57 GMT
Dear M. V. Vasilyeva,
It is basically alright. The de Broglie wavefunction is described in the four dimensional spacetime. The slit takes one dimension and the light-beam takes another dimension, therefore, the equations of the double slit interference can be described in 4-2=2 dimensional space-time. Of cause you can still argue about the width of slit and the 3D surface electron cloud, and so on. My essay “Rethink the double slit experiment” have the detailed calculations compared with many experiments. There are real math-physical calculations, not a graphic illustration. The most important part is the connection between the two slit by the cross-linked angle, which is derived from the particle scattering to the wave function. In that way, the particle-wave duality paradox is linked to the space-time. I have my email in the essay, please send an email if you like to talk more.
Yours
KX
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 13:59 GMT
Thank you Ke Xiao for your feedback. Even though it was somewhat difficult for me to read your highly technical essay, I did grasp its main point, namely that the wave-particle duality paradox lies in the structure of spacetime itself. Here we are in agreement; and while you amply speak to the professionals, I offer a geometrical representation of the same on the simplified analogy, making it accessible to the lay public.
Xie xie!
Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 17:29 GMT
Dear M. V. Vasilyeva,
In
Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe, the dimension of time emerges from 1D eigen-rotational string that demonstrates 3D tetrahedral-brane transformation from 2D membrane surfaces by the eigen-rotational phases of that string.
With best wishes,
Jayakar
report post as inappropriate
eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear M. V. Vasilyeva,
" To remove water from a cup, it is necessary to fill it instead of water by the air. Further, in my
interpretation to remove air from a cup, we should fill the cup instead of air by the ether. Thus,
the cup can not be empty, only one medium can be replaced by another. Ether, according to
Aristotle, "is more subtle substance" than the air."
I also think the gap or space is not empty but full of energy; Nothingness does not exist.
I read your essay with carefully. It is interesting approach and I would like to have your view point about a gravity question : what do you think about gravity and space or dark energy, which relationship do they maintain between them.
Do you think that the expansion of the space is a force opposite to the Gravity ?
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1552
Thank you and lall the best.
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 22:41 GMT
Dear Amazigh Mabrouk Hannou,
I tired reading your essay but had a very hard time understanding your "accent in print". This is because, even though I know several languages, I have not studied yours. I think it is important to have our papers checked by a native English speaker before submission. This becomes especially important when introducing new ideas.
Regarding your question of gravity, my approach is purely geometrical and is inline with Einstein's general relativity, which treats gravity as a curvature in 4D spacetime. My take on it is that this curvature is due to surface tension of a 4D ocean of perfect fluid that seeks to minimize its hyperarea (similar to water tension in 3D).
In a topological sense, in 4D, there may be another reason for 3/4 - 1/4 distribution of energies. It may be due to the fact that a convex 4-space can be broken down into 4 contiguous, adjacent 3-spaces. This means that a convex 4D object, such as a hypersphere discussed in my essay, can be broken down into 1/4 for its 3D surface and 3/4 for its bulk. (The same does not work for a sphere, but works, with different numbers, for all n-spaces where n>3.) The same overall distribution of hypersurface to hypervolume, 1/3 to 3/4 respectively, applies to other convex 4D objects, even though actual proportions may vary a bit when they deviate from a hypersphere, which has the minimal surface area.
Take care!
eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 16:05 GMT
Dear Ms Vasilyeva,
I write in French and I translate into English.
To be honest, I must admit that it is advisable for me what you have just made as remark.
The reason is that I discovered this contest only later.
Then, I had only two choices, to quickly write the article in my language and then translate it in a record time, or not participate at all, and wait until next year.
I chose the second option. I said to myself that if someone is interested in my ideas, we are human and I can always catch me up later.
What is important, is the idea and not the way that it is formulated.
And I sincerely believe that the idea which I have formulated will mark the history by its relevance and will make smile also by its shape, these are the vagaries of life.
If you are interested by any side of this model please let me know it, I would answer, with pleasure, your expectations.
I hope my translation is enough good for more understanding.
I wish you all the best.
P.S. your 1/4 and 3/4 interest me.
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:07 GMT
Dear
Very interesting to see your essay.
Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.
So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.
Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close...
view entire post
Dear
Very interesting to see your essay.
Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.
So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.
Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.
Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:
You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.
Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?
The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?
Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?
You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.
Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?
Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.
Regards !
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 23:53 GMT
Ms. Vasilyeva,
You say:
"But in this model there is no gravity per se. What we call gravity emerges entirely from the interaction of mass (which is displacement of volume) with the surface tension of the structure wanting to minimize its surface area."
What are your thoughts on dark energy as opposed to gravity?
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 00:25 GMT
Mr Hoover,
I am not certain what is meant by dark energy currently (it keeps on changing). Trying to see from where you are coming to it, I read your essay and saw this picture, which I also found on google images:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/
2011/05/23/549761main_pia14094-43_946-710.jpg
This is an artist rendition of a 4D model of space, with one dimension removed, the green grid representing gravity (= curvature of the 3D surface on which "matter floats") and purple grid representing dark energy that pushes on matter, pressing it into the surface, displacing a volume and causing it to curve. That's how I understand it. The articles that came with the same image says, "This contradicts an alternate theory, where gravity, not dark energy, is the force pushing space apart. According to this alternate theory... gravity becomes repulsive instead of attractive when acting at great distances." I agree that gravity becomes repulsive at great distances (where voids form in my 4D model of space). This is stems from pure 4D geometry.
I personally do not agree that the universe is expanding, especially at ever-increasing rate. First, why don't we see it right where we are? The whole idea is based on the redshift and in my essay I offer another explanation to it.
But I understand what you're interested in and that is the enigma of UFOs and how they move as if inertia is none of their concern. I happened to see 2 small saucers at a very close range. I saw them about 25-30 meters away and then I ran towards them and got even closer. I was an adolescent then, and my impressions were vivid and observations sharp. Because of this I do not disregard other people's accounts.
I absolutely agree with you that there is a way to manipulate the curvature of the 3D surface (on which we live, according to my 4D model of space) which we call gravity. For this we need to have a better understanding of space, which we don't. In fact, the situation is just deplorable, as this contest demonstrates. The establishment is so entrenched in a particular way of looking at things that they are incapable of even considering anything else. And now with this idea of ever-expanding universe, which is happening everywhere except just where we are... People got Nobel prizes, defended their PhDs and built their academic careers on it, which means that they will defend it tooth and claw, all the way till the end. It will be another generation, after this one goes away, before an alternative view on things could even have a chance.
Israel Perez wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 19:15 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva
Just to remind you that I have replied to you in my previous post above (Sep. 11, 2012 @ 17:14 GMT). I thought you may have overlooked it.
Israel
report post as inappropriate
Vasilyeva M.V. replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 00:12 GMT
Yes, Mr. Perez, my apologies! I did overlook your post. I am reading it now and will certainly reply.
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 04:58 GMT
Dear Vasiliyeva,
I read your essay with a great interest. I agree that role of geometry in physics has not been fully appreciated. However, my view differs from yours in that in place of empty space, what is there is the field (in the sense of Newton’s vacuum and Leibniz’ plenum). The field plays a role in every interaction without exception.
I too have taken a Geometric...
view entire post
Dear Vasiliyeva,
I read your essay with a great interest. I agree that role of geometry in physics has not been fully appreciated. However, my view differs from yours in that in place of empty space, what is there is the field (in the sense of Newton’s vacuum and Leibniz’ plenum). The field plays a role in every interaction without exception.
I too have taken a Geometric approach. However, unlike yours, it concerns very simple Geometric relationships leading to trignometric expressions between related phenomena. It makes relativistic phenomena quite understandable visually. I am sure you would like my essay
The gist of my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549
1. It identifies the PRIMORDIAL Foundational Problems in Newtonian Mechanics (NM) that runs through ALL BRANCHES OF PHYSICS. (Please see the short attachment “Primordial Foundational Problems”).
2. It eliminates the problematic concept of POINT-MASS (common to NM, QM, SRT) to allow internal structure for a particle. This in turn enables to resolve the other interconnected primordial problems.
3. The result: By taking these two steps, ALL THE EQUATIONS OF SRT are DYNAMICALLY derived by identifying the trignometric relations within the energy-momentum equation, and by restoring Galileo’s principle of relativity. (I request you to have a glance at the attachment – “Geometrodynamics of Energy” to verify this claim). - See also comment by L.B Crowell below.
4. This achievement will establish that I have not just treated these problems at the level a speculative discussion as in other essays, but that the problems discussed are real problems, by virtue of their solution leading to the unification of NM and SRT (by finding an equation of motion which is equally valid for slow and very fast motions).
Here is the impartial comment made by Ben Dribus (essayist in no 2 position): “One thing I will say is that it appears as if you made an honest effort to answer the question posed by the essay contest rather than just writing down your favorite ideas about physics. You will notice that I made a similar effort….. I am not sure why it was rated so low, but my impression is that many authors automatically rate other essays low to boost their own standing”.
Here’s the comment made by LB Crowell (essayist at no. 20 position): “The calculations I just looked at and they seem alright. …... Your procedure appears to be some euclideanization of relativity. At the end you arrive at equations which are the same as special relativity”.
In order to enable follow up of your comments easier for me, I request you to reply to this in my thread (under my essay) : http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
attachments:
3_Primordial_Foundational_Problems.doc,
3_GEOMETRODYNAMICS_OF_ENERGY.doc
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 01:42 GMT
Mr. Fernando,
That sounds very interesting. I will read your essay as soon as I get a free moment and will comment in your thread.
Take care!
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 15:08 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva
Sorry, if I am bothers you.
I watched very carefully your essay, but really did not find your final conclusion about the nature of space.
May also be due to my poor English skills, hope you will be directed.
Kind Regards !
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 01:50 GMT
Mr. Hoang Cao Hai,
Thank you for your interest in my essay. Unlike your very advanced and far reaching work, I do not have ready answers about the concept as fundamental as space. How about you? What is space according to you? And what is your opinion about the reality of a 4th spatial dimension?
Author M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 01:03 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez,
very sorry for the delay. First I overlooked your post, and now I got lots of work... I very much value your feedback and want to continue our discussion. I will answer your questions as time permits and will post them in the end of the thread, so they won't get lost.
First, regarding the structure of space and what it is "made of", there is a concept in topology 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.
You say: "It seems that you haven't realized that by conceiving space with an internal structure as a fluid or strings you are contradicting the background independence of the general theory of relativity."
Not at all. In fact, the model I propose is just an extension of the geometry of GR. It suggests that the 3D space GR deals with is the surface of a 4D structure. It seems that our difficulty lies in accepting the reality of the 4th spatial dimension and Minkowski spacetime was a step in the right direction.
You say: "That space has this kind of internal structure means that space is not geometry as GR states."
-?? Geometry implies structure. Geometry is all about a structure. There is no geometry without a structure.
You say: "You: "The high energies at first instances after the BB correspond to higher-dimensionality of space." From where did you get that? The BB theory is based on GR and it assumes that since the beginning of time the universe is 3+1 dimensions, no matter how hot or cold the universe was."
Thank you for bringing this up. I did overlook this point, as we often do when an issue appears self-evident to us. And so I have a question to you in turn: 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? 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? Not to my knowledge. The theory is completely silent on all these questions.
In contrast, my conceptual model gives answers to all these questions. Namely:
The universe fit into a point because it was compressed into an infinite number of dimensions. As it was cooling off, the number of dimensions diminished while the length of the remaining dimensions increased. This is what constitutes the expansion.
To illustrate this, I give you a simple example: you can take 8 cubes (edge length = 1 unit) and stack them in 3D so they make up a larger cube with the edge length of 2 units. You can arrange the same 8 cubes in 4D to make up a tesseract (a 4D cube) with the edge length of 1 unit. So, if the length of the edge stands for the lengh of a dimension, you just squeezed 3D space with dimension length of 2 units into a 4D space with the dimension length of 1 unit. The opposite process is when you take a tesseract and rearrange its volume in 3D. The size of the dimensions in 3D is twice as large. This explanation is as simple as it gets.
In the similar fashion, when the whole volume of the universe is compressed into an infinite number of dimensions, the length or size of those dimensions approaches a point. And as it cools off, the number of dimensions diminishes, i.e. the volume hidden in higher dimensions trickles down into the lower dimensions increasing their length. This constitutes the expansion.
I have to run now, but in the next post I will show why 3D. And I will certainly address all of your other questions. Thank you!
Israel Perez replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 00:57 GMT
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...
view entire post
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=PLB58F0D021A
12F173&index=29&feature=plpp_video).
Israel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Israel Perez replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 01:07 GMT
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...
view entire post
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=PLB58F0D021A
12F173&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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Israel Perez replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 01:14 GMT
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"....
view entire post
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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 15:24 GMT
Israel,
very interesting posts. And you write so well! You give an excellent historical overview, and I fully agree with the 90% of your position. There are some things that I see differently. I address them in the same order as they appeared in your posts.
You write, "As we all know, Euclidean space is structureless, it is nothing but the mental abstraction of physical objects ... 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 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. It can be 4 or 7D, which would make it a different structure, with different properties. It appears to me that you are one of those people who take space for granted and cannot conceive an absence of space. Just like Hawking, in the video you suggested, started off making a universe with matter, then energy and, finally, space, lol. As if matter could exist without space. You super-smart PhDs view the world through the prism of abstract mathematics. Maybe that's why you overlook its most important thing, space.
You wrote re history, "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."
See, to me this only means that Einstein, like everyone else, viewed matter as the primary... entity -? that affects space. I rather see space as primary and matter as the extension of its structure. Thus in my view this structure will sooner become empty than collapse because of matter in it.
You wrote re theory: "What expands is the space itself (the space of relativity)."
Again this view shows that space is taken for granted. The idea is untenable in an established universe (after the BB), since it implies that something --or someone-- is pouring energy at a constant rate into the universe and they do it evenly everywhere, except right where we are (why Sun is not getting any farther?) In a few hundred years the current period will be known as physics dark ages. 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 know, each generation, when we are still young, believe that people were ignorant in the past and that we are the ones to set things right, once and for all, for the benefit of humanity. It takes some living and a study of history to realize that we too will be laughed at hundreds of years from now. About some of our notions they will say, wow, already then they knew it! And about others... Have you ever tried to guess, which of our current believes will get into which category?
You say about the current theories, "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."
IMHO, both theories describe the same thing, at different scales. It's like digital music. At a sampling rate we hear it, it is continuous and the quality is better than when the technology was analogue. At another sampling rate, it is a collection of disjoint sounds. But it's the same music.
GR deals with the curvature of the surface. QM bumps into the micro-fluctuations in this surface. From the scale of GR, those fluctuations are unnoticeable, just like the digital nature of our music is unnoticeable to us, until we change the sampling rate.
You wrote, "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."
I don't understand how you could have metric tensor without matter-energy. -? Ah! I guess then the tensor would always predict flat space, ok. 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 say, "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."
-?? 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. In the model I propose, nothing is ever stationary in relation to the structure, because all movement is actually driven by it. I see the universe as the ultimate perpetuum mobile where space "wants" to be empty and so it expels all deformations introduced in it locally, and that's how everything moves.
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?
(continued)
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 14:36 GMT
Continued (part 2)
Israel,
You wrote, " 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... and this fluid will define the shape of the metric tensor., 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."
Thank you for your clarification. Yes you understand the issue very well.
You wrote, "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. I definitely do not accept the idea of the dark matter, seeing its invention as a symptom of our lack of understanding of space. As for the dark energy, or negative energy, I don't find it contradictory to the model I propose either.
That space may be seen as a sort of a substance is fine with me. That's how it was traditionally modeled, no? Like many here, I believe that the next greatest advances in physics will come from material science, applying the concepts learned there to model space in 4D.
Israel Perez replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:26 GMT
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...
view entire post
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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 14:37 GMT
Dr Perez,
thank you for your thoughtful and interesting comment.
First, I did not bring up Euclidean space. You did in the post to which I was replying. There are many mathematical spaces but only one real thing. 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. Mathematically,...
view entire post
Dr Perez,
thank you for your thoughtful and interesting comment.
First, I did not bring up Euclidean space. You did in the post to which I was replying. There are many mathematical spaces but only one real thing. 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. Mathematically, characteristics of a space are part of its definition. But what energies and forces define characteristics and properties of the real thing in which we live? You seem to have completely overlooked this. Thus who approaches space naively is an open question ;).
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?
Re 'have you taken an inventory of your convictions' you said, " I think this is irrelevant for our discussion. "
That's exactly the topic of discussion here and the purpose is to reveal which of our convictions are right and which are wrong. It is the wrongs ones that our descendants will ridicule.
You said, " 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. "
You speak about physical theories as if they determine the underlying reality and not the other way around.
You say, " Again, you are misunderstanding. They are mathematically equivalent but LET assumes the PSR and SR rejects it. Thus they are two different theories. ...The rejection of the PSR leads to ... paradoxes ... Reintroducing the PSR eliminates the paradoxes and defines the speed of light only relative to the PSR, i.e., the material space. "
I think the misunderstanding is due to your choice of terms. LET is set in stationary ether; that's why PSR makes sense in that theory. But you want to model "ether" as a fluid. Also, the way you talk about it, i.e. "the rejection of PSR leads to paradoxes", as if choosing "a right" theory, which mathematically happened to be the same, will have a direct effect on the underlying reality. 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?
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?
Re BB, yes I understand that 'tired light' takes care of the presumed current expansion. By denying BB you seem to imply an infinite, static, eternal universe, with no beginning. I definitely have a problem with this idea. I can't conceive of an infinite eternal universe. BB offers a model of how it started.
You write, " 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. "
But the underlying math remained and its origin was in material science. That's how I meant it.
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?
view post as summary
Israel Perez replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 08:18 GMT
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...
view entire post
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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Israel Perez replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 08:30 GMT
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...
view entire post
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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 21:50 GMT
Dr. Perez,
congratulations on making the list of finalists!
Thank you for your comments above and sorry for the delay. I felt like taking a break from physics and enjoyed some birthdays going on around. Besides I don't do physics all the time, like you and probably most people here. For me it is a compulsion that comes and goes and usually it does not last that long. I felt...
view entire post
Dr. Perez,
congratulations on making the list of finalists!
Thank you for your comments above and sorry for the delay. I felt like taking a break from physics and enjoyed some birthdays going on around. Besides I don't do physics all the time, like you and probably most people here. For me it is a compulsion that comes and goes and usually it does not last that long. I felt exhausted.
Yes you're right, I did not look into the C.I. Christov theory. I will certainly do so in the future. Initially I thought it was "yet another ether theory" and I did not think it was set in 4D. It sounds very interesting. But it also appears that it is set in an eternal, infinite universe and does not have a provision for repulsive gravity (as in the voids). Or does it? I would appreciate your quick characteristic of the theory on these issues. Thank you.
You wrote about it, " The theory also predicts that space can support, in addition to transverse 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. "
Yes, this is how I see it too, with longitudinal waves travelling faster than c, like in material science (earth crust). This would imply that gravity propagates much faster than c. I did not write about this either.
You wrote, " 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. .... For simplicity, we can assume space static, although, in general, it could be in motion. "
Sorry, I disagree. To me SR tells simply that things are not what they appear. And I still do not understand your fixation on PSR. I read your discussion with Daniel Wagner on both of your threads and sided with him, sorry. I just do not see how PSR can exist in reality. I understand having its advantage, if it did. You yourself admitted above that one cannot use water under the keel for navigation, despite it being very real and tangible. You said that water is what supports solitons, but those are the waves of the same underlying medium. You seemed to have admitted that air cannot be used as a reference frame for sound... All this means only one thing to me: that PSR is not to be had in reality. And your treating 'fluid' as stationary at the first approximation still has a stagnant odor of the good ole stationary ether... Sorry. I really like you, and perhaps I am just too dense to understand it... But I am not going to lie to you, cause I don't.
And I also do not understand your argument that speed of light is measured in practice as "two-way speed which is in fact an average speed of light." If light is the property of the medium, its speed of propagation should be absolutely the same in both directions through the same segment of the medium.
Also, I understood from the first read your argument that BB was born out of trying to fit the redshift data, and that if it were explained differently than via expansions, then we would not have thought about the BB in the first place. But it is a very common occurrence in science that looking for one thing, entirely another one is found. The universe needs to have a beginning, regardless of the causes of the redshift, and BB offers a scenario. In fact my model needs BB, because then it answers why we observe 3D (while living in 4D).
Again, thank your for your comments. And congratulations on making the list of finalist. I am very curious to see how the panel of experts will judge your idea of PSR. Good luck!
view post as summary
Israel Perez replied on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 10:49 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva
Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to reply. I agree with you that the contest is time consuming and it is a good idea to take a break for some time. I just would like to give you a reply in relation to your last post.
You: it also appears that it is set in an eternal, infinite universe
Like I said, it makes no assumptions as to the age of the...
view entire post
Dear Vasilyeva
Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to reply. I agree with you that the contest is time consuming and it is a good idea to take a break for some time. I just would like to give you a reply in relation to your last post.
You: it also appears that it is set in an eternal, infinite universe
Like I said, it makes no assumptions as to the age of the universe, for this theory this is not relevant.
You: and does not have a provision for repulsive gravity (as in the voids).
I do have clear why you think it is necessary to have a repulsive force. The notion of repulsive force (or dark energy, cosmological constant) is a consequence of the current paradigm in which the general relativity is assumed to be the correct theory. This implies modeling space as mesh. But under another paradigm gravity could be interpreted neither as a force (in the sense of Newton) nor as curvature of space-time but as a dynamical flow of the massive fluid (space) in the sense of Descartes. It has been mathematically shown that, for instance, Newton's gravitational law and the Schwarzschild metric can be reinterpreted as a flow of the dynamical fluid tending towards the center of gravity (see also my comments in Vesselin Petkov's entry). So, the need of a repulsive force would depend on the theoretical framework under consideration.
You: To me SR tells simply that things are not what they appear... I just do not see how PSR can exist in reality...
In the discussion with Daniel Wagner I discussed what the problem with SR is. The problem is the paradoxes inherent in the theory. But there is an even worse problem: that relativists do not even recognize the paradoxes. So we have two problems. The latter is crucial for the former. If we recognize the paradoxes then we would understand why it is necessary to reintroduce the PSR. My reference 17 suggests another paradox in relation to the isotropy of the one-way speed of light.
If you understand that light is wave and that space is the medium for light then we are automatically accepting the existence of the PSR. Actually, space could be modeled as a liquid or solid (not a gas as was conceived in the XIX century). The analogy is found with air or water. The speed of water waves is defined by the properties of water and therefore the water becomes the PSR for water waves. The same idea applies for sound waves, air becomes its PSR, and so on for any fluid including space. Again, if you accept the idea that space exists as the medium for light then you are accepting that space is the PSR for light waves.
It seems that you are confusing the practical or the technical implications of considering the fluid as the PSR with the theoretical implications. I mean, it seems that you can not imagine how an experimentalist will solve the technical problem of attaching a system of reference to the air, in order to make measurements of the speed of air. But one has to understand that this is a technical matter, not a theoretical one.
You: If light is the property of the medium, its speed of propagation should be absolutely the same in both directions through the same segment of the medium.
You say: ...its speed "SHOULD BE", when you say "SHOULD BE" you are "ASSUMING". But now, how do you experimentally prove that the speed is the same in both ways? That the one-way speed of light is isotropic is only an assumption but nobody has ever measured it. Our experimental techniques seem to be incapable of succeeding in measuring one-way speeds. This is what I discuss in my reference 17. Actually, nobody has measured the one-way speed of any single physical entity, we only measured averages or two-way speeds.
Why do you say that "The universe needs to have a beginning"? It may need according to a certain theoretical framework, the BB for instance, but not for others.
Well, I thank you again for your words, I really appreciate them. But I would like to add that since the judges are composed of people from the mainstream who categorically reject the PSR, I am aware that there is a high probability that my essay would not be among the first places, otherwise I would be really surprised, thankful and happy.
best regards
Israel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
J.R. wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 15:46 GMT
Dear M.V.
Well written essay
Aside from the seemingly obvious properties of space existing in three (XYZ) dimensions plus time as a possible fourth dimension, (I seek intrinsic mechanical properties) do you perceive space as being a compressible medium? J.R.
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 16:01 GMT
Dear J.R.,
Thank you for your interest in my essay. You say "...plus time as a possible 4th dimension", but my model stands on the reality of the 4th spatial dimension at low energies of own own experience. -?
Regarding your question of compressibility, the answer is yes and no. I conceive of a basic unit of spacetime as a 3D volume, which is incompressible as such. However, you can pack these "bricks" by arranging them in higher dimensions and it is in this topological sense that space is compressed.
If you read my post addressed to Dr. Perez just above yours, I give a simple example of how a 3D volume can be packed into 4D, resulting in the decrease in the length of the dimensions. The same process can be repeated for 5D, 6D, etc, all the way to infinity. As the number of dimensions grows, their size (or length) decreases, approaching 0. The same process going in the opposite direction explains how space expands (i.e. as the number of dimensions decreases, the length of the remaining dimensions grows).
Author M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 22:50 GMT
Dr. Perez,
here I continue our discussion and will show now how the model I propose explains "why 3D?"
As I stated in the reply to J.R. above, the basic unit of spacetime I propose is 3D. From topological point of view, 3D is the minimal volume that is preserved in all n-spaces where n > 2. I have shown in the example above how 3d volumes can be packed into 4D with the result that the volumes themselves are preserved, while the length of the dimensions decreases. That's how, in principle, you can pack the whole of the universe into what can amount to nearly a point, as the number of dimensions grows to infinity.
Please keep in mind that each n-space, in topological sense, has its own characteristics and properties. Mathematicians often overlook this and thus loose the appreciation of the role of topology in physics. Laymen too, usually make a mistake when starting learning 4D visualization, which they do by heavily relying on analogies, applying the relationships in 2D->3D to 3D->4D. Most people do not realize the crucial difference between 2D->3D and 3D->4D, and that is: you can pack 3D volumes into 4D, just as I showed on the example above, where all 8 cubes are aligned face to face and edge to edge, thus filling in the whole of the 4D volume, while their own 3D volume is preserved fully intact. The same is not true about 2D->3D. You can take an infinite number of 2D planes and no matter which way you stack them, they will still amount to exactly 0 3D volume. What 2D planes can do is to enclose a 3D volume and with the size of their area give an indication of its shape.
And so 3D is the basic unit of volume, in which all other n-volumes (n>2) can be expressed. It is in this sense that 3D can be viewed as a given, always present as a subspace of any other n-space.
Now, we have a dynamic, vibrating structure that is initially packed in infinite number of dimensions (corresponding to its high energy density) and so the question becomes, as it cools off and expands, at what number of dimensions it will settle. I claim it is 4D, because of the unique properties of this space.
4D contains the largest number of regular polytopes (a.k.a. platonic solids), which is 6, compare with 5 in 3D and 3 in all other n-spaces (n>2). This is important, because it speaks of the number of symmetries n-space permits. In addition, in space of an even number of dimensions rotation takes place around a point, a plane, or some other axis-space of an even number of dimensions, while in space of an odd number of dimensions the axis of a rotation is always of an odd number of dimensions. Thus 4D, unlike any other space, offers the maximum number of symmetries, which is important for a structure that seeks to harmonize the vibrations of its components.
True, this needs to be backed by a proper theorem. Perhaps it, or something similar, already exists. If not, it should be proven. Namely: a dynamic vibrating structure of N-dimensions will find its lowest energy state in 4D.
Assuming this is so, what we get is a hypersphere, which geometers call a 4-sphere and topologists, a 3-sphere. This differences in definitions may be confusion for a layman, which is why I use 'hypersphere'. Also, calling the object a 3-sphere, topologists are mainly concerned with its 3D surface, while I insist on considering the object as a whole.
Now, the surface of a hypersphere is 3-dimensional, each point of which is equidistant from its center, making this 3-space continuous and invariant in all 3 directions.
At low energies of our own experience, matter (stuff with intrinsic mass) is confined to the surface of this hypersphere, with nuclei sort of gliding just above it in the 4th empty dimension, supported by their electron clouds. The EM field is confined _entirely_ to this 3D surface, making it in effect a 3D display that "shows" what is attached to it (other details can be found in my essay).
To summarize, the word we perceive is 3D, because it is the surface of a 4D object (a hypersphere). It is the shape in which an N-dimensional dynamic vibrating structure found its lowest energy state. If 5D were a space corresponding to the lowest energy state, then we would be crawling on a 4D surface (in the 5th dimension). But we "crawl" on the 3D surface, in the 4th spatial dimension, aware only of this surface and seeing only what is attached to it.
In the next post I will address the questions you asked above and also demonstrate the advantage of this setup in various problems in physics.
J.R. wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 02:36 GMT
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.
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 12:06 GMT
J.R.,
thank you for your encouraging words and your interest. From your initials I can't figure out which is your essay. -?
You ask "Is the dynamic part.. energy contained within space?, the passing of energy via EMR thru space?, or space itself posessed of inertial properties?, or something else?"
It's all a matter of scale. At the very bottom of it I visualize it as a dynamic structure made of vibrating strings (which appear golden to my inner eye -?). This structure *defines* space. I.e. there is no Euclidean and no Minkowski and no Absolute space without it. Without space there is undifferentiated nothing unable to contain anything. Most people cannot conceive an absence of space and cannot conceive its structure without imagining some structure *in* space. But if they meditate on it for some time, this becomes doable.
You say, "My question is "how is it possible for waves to propagate through an incompressible medium?""
The structure vibrates. Just like atoms in a slab of steel vibrate. If you strike a slab of steel, it will resound and transverse waves will propagate through it. If you strike it hard enough, it will also wobble and undulate (which explains why "gravity" is the strongest force: it takes far more energy to make a steel slab wobble than to resound). But steel is not rigid enough in comparison to space. It is a well-known fact that the harder is the material, the faster the waves propagate through it. Space behaves like a super-rigid solid. That's why no 3D model can explain how matter moves through the 3D space fully occupied by this medium. Only 4D can, assuming that the additional spatial dimension is empty and does not contain this medium. For all we know, this empty dimension may be not structured, i.e. it may be the remnant of the Great Void of the singularity in which the universe was born. Since we are "crawling" on the 3D surface, what does it matter how many dimensions that emptiness has? Actually, come think of it, if the emptiness is the remnant of the Great Void, this could be the source of the energy that is pressing the nuclei into the surface (because they stick out) giving rise to mass (it's like some hard objects lying on a bed, covered by a heavy glass pane that presses them in).
And so the fact that the structure vibrates is crucial in this model. The vibrations is what propagates as quanta or "particles". There is no continuous waves... well, from a perspective of a certain scale, the waves may appear continuous, just as the surface of the structure appears continuous from even greater scale. But when you zoom in on it, you will see the "bricks" and the fact that waves propagate in quanta of underlying vibrations.
I am glad you made me think about "what it's made of" again... I imagine it now, from the POV of an intermediate scale, as an oily (-? I know) pliable yet very bouncy and stiff... like an oily liquid metal. Icy mercury? I really don't know. I don't think there is a material that could match it.
To me, space, its structure and its properties is the expression of energy. Just like mass is an expression of energy. And like everything else. Everything is made of the same stuff, starting with the structure of space.
J.R. wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 16:54 GMT
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.
report post as inappropriate
m.v. vasilyeva replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 12:53 GMT
yes, sure, you can email me
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 15:17 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 20:46 GMT
Hello, Mr. Reed! And welcome :)
Yours is a position, according to which I can classify people onto those who can conceive the absence of space and those tho can't. Clearly, you're in the second category. This is a position of someone who has never given space a thought and always has taken it for granted. Thus for you, it does not even exist as such, except maybe as wrappings for some...
view entire post
Hello, Mr. Reed! And welcome :)
Yours is a position, according to which I can classify people onto those who can conceive the absence of space and those tho can't. Clearly, you're in the second category. This is a position of someone who has never given space a thought and always has taken it for granted. Thus for you, it does not even exist as such, except maybe as wrappings for some object or energies.
It is very clear to all, except maybe a fish, that fish cannot exist without water. It is clear to a select few who have given this a thought that without space nothing can exist at all, but space can exist with nothing in it. That would be the perfection itself. That is what empty space is: a perfectly even, symmetrical, regular structure, with absolutely nothing to mare its perfection.
Then you say: "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."
lol, are you trolling me? 'cause this sentence hardly makes sense. Then you say: "The other important points in respect of the concept of space are: ...."
Ah! the paragraph above was an important point in respect of the concept of space? lol and what did you mean by this:
"-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"
-?? I take it you're in a playful mood. I too love to have fun.
Regarding time you said, "-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."
See, for me time is the change in energy state (in space), not "speed of change" as you define it. At the most basic level, I see energy, time and space as 3 aspects of one and the same.
And since you wondered in here, I am curious, what is your take on Minkowski spacetime and would you be interested if I go ahead and prove that it is all 4 spatial dimensions in time, not 3 + time?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 07:33 GMT
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...
view entire post
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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 00:09 GMT
Dr. Perez,
don't know if you saw my posts under your last ones -? They are sort of hidden.
____
Mr. Reed,
I decided not to wait for you and to go ahead and show that Minkowski spacetime is all about 4 spatial dimensions in time, not 3D + time, as it is touted. I claim that Minkowski model of space worked out so well for GR, because the underlying reality *is* 4D, just as I argue in my essay. For some reason people have difficulty with this simple notion.
That Minkowski spacetime is all about 4 spatial dimensions, in time, I will show on an analogy with a graph that plots the trajectory of a cannonball. That simple graph is also a spacetime, just as Minkowski model is, even though, of course, it lacks its sophistication.
In a cannonball graph, we have 2 spatial dimensions, X and Y. We dispense of the 3rd dimension for simplicity and on the grounds that our idealized cannonball follows a parabola on a plane. So, our graph represents the familiar 3D space: we have horizontal X and vertical Y, while the depth of Z is implied but dismissed for simplicity. Agreed?
Now, we add time to our model. For this we simply align the time axis with the X axis, remembering that X, first of all, stands for a spatial dimension. We could set time diagonally, at 45° to both X and Y, or at any other angle, or even align it with the Y axis, which would be less convenient for the application at hand. Instinctively, we align the time dimension with the X axis and also set its origin where the cannon stands. We also set its direction with the direction the cannon fires. Imagine if we set the time direction opposite from which the cannon fires? That would be very odd. Perhaps we still would be able to figure things out, but it is most natural to simply align the time axis with the X axis, in the direction where the cannonball is fired.
And so, in this simple graph what we have is a 2D representation of the underling 3D reality, and we aligned the time dimension with one of the 3 spatial dimensions. That's what makes our graph a spacetime. Just like Minkowski's.
Now we plot the trajectory of the cannonball. In line with Minkowski model, and just as people often picture it, instead of a simple parabola, we draw a fat, ugly line reminiscent of a giant ... in the sky. That's the worldline of our cannonball in spacetime.
I hope you noticed the uncanny similarity between our graph and Minkowski model. Can we call our model 2D + time? Both dimensions are actual, bona fide spatial dimensions (the 3rd is implied but dismissed for simplicity). The time dimension is not something extra. It is *not* an additional dimension. In our simple example, it is aligned with the X dimension. The fact that the time dimensions is aligned with it does not make the X dimension any less spatial.
In the same way, all 4 dimensions of Minkowski spacetime are bona fide spatial dimensions. Just like in our cannonball graph, the direction of time is selected, and it is done in the manner that makes sense and is convenient for the application at hand. Normally we align it with the direction of the movement, just as we did in the cannonball graph.
Certainly, Minkowski model is a sophisticated mathematical tool, unlike our simple graph. It has built in provisions, one of them to account for the finite speed of light, which is irrelevant for our cannonball application. Perhaps it is the complexity and sophistication of the Minkowski model that veiled the plain fact that it *is* set in 4 *spatial* dimensions. But in principle it is the same as our graph, which has 2 spatial dimensions X and Y, while the time dimension is aligned with X. In exactly the same way, Minkowski spacetime has 4 spatial dimensions, with the time dimension chosen and set at convenience.
And now the moral of this exercise: Minkowski spacetime is all about 4 spatial dimensions. That's why it worked out so well in GR. Because the underlying reality *is* 4D. GR describes the curvature of the 3D surface of a 4D object, IN FOUR SPATIAL DIMENSIONS. Minkowski camouflaged this fact by claiming that the 4th dimension is time, perhaps to make the idea of the 4D model of space more palatable for himself and others.
I present this for your consideration as yet another evidence of the reality of the 4th spatial dimension and welcome your comments.
Paul Reed replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 08:02 GMT
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...
view entire post
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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 08:16 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 16:47 GMT
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...
view entire post
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.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:01 GMT
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...
view entire post
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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:08 GMT
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 [equation] and [equation] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [equation] of points. After it anyone give you [equation] of points so you have [equation] of points and [equation] is the common quantity of the people which gave...
view entire post
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
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
J.R. wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:06 GMT
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...
view entire post
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.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:57 GMT
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...
view entire post
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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 15:30 GMT
Dr. Perez,
I replied to your post in the same thread above.
_________________
Mr. Reed,
yes, the anon above is me, MV. Sometimes the sys looses the id. I was logged in, as I am now.
Re our discussion, we appear to have irreconcilable differences. You deny the existence of space, but then what do you measure between the 'stuff'?
To my plain and obvious 'There is no time without change' you reply, " Not so. There is no physical existence without change. Time is just the duration unit.... It does not exist. "
What's duration? See, to me it is the duration that does not exist. It is a series of changes in some system with which you measure "duration" of another. So, all that exists really, are some changes, and at the lowest level, where there is nothing to compare them with, you can't tell how long it is between each change. You can only register the fact that a change took place.
And so on and so forth. There are such vast differences in our appreciation of reality that I do not see a point in continuing our discussion. You will never convince me of your POV, because it is very different from where I stand. We are all entitled to our own views; what's forbidden is to impose them forcefully on others.
Good luck with the competition and take care!
Geoffrey Haselhurst wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 21:10 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 23:01 GMT
Mr. Haselhurst,
thank you for your kind comments. I will read your essay and comment in your thread, but having just checked out the abstract, I can already tell that you're right about the 3D in which the *real* plane waves propagate. This is completely in accord with the 4D model of space I propose, according to which, the matter (stuff with intrinsic mass) "surfs" these waves in the 4th dimension (the waves completely occupy the visible 3D, which is the *surface* of a 4D object).
Regarding time, there is a post above, of Oct. 3, 2012 @ 00:09 GMT, where I show that Minkowski spacetime is set in 4 bona fide spatial dimensions, not 3D + time as it is touted. I present it as yet another evidence that our underlying reality *is* 4D.
I'll go and read your essay now :)
Anonymous wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 16:17 GMT
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?
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 21:46 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 23:12 GMT
Peter, congratulations on making the list of finalists! I replied in your thread, since that's where all the action is now.
Jeff Baugher wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 23:57 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 05:29 GMT
Dear Jeff,
thank you for the equation but... I am embarrassed to admit that I don't have the Powerpoint. I downloaded your file, but need to find a legit site to download the program to open it...
I am very excited that you apparently agree with my vision, that gravity becomes repulsive at large distances, exactly how you described in your post here. And exactly how you worded it even... that's what I saw in my mind years ago, because I visualized the universe as a whole and when you do that, you see right away that it simply "wants" to balance. And if so, it would mean that matter will clump up in some places, but will "clump-out" in others. But the underlying process in both cases is the same. I am dying to look at your equation... Do you have it in other format but Powerpoint?
Thank you so much and congrats on having the ratings over. Now I feel like I can relax and really appreciate essays. I counted and found that I rated only 25 and read maybe 30. There are so many good essays that I missed! I want to catch up now.
J.R. wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 03:48 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 04:33 GMT
Why are you dating Russian girls?
report post as inappropriate
Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 19:26 GMT
Sorry, JR, I have not checked the mail in a while. Had to take a brake from all this physics. And then there was a cluster of birthdays all around.
Anon, lol what, you have something against Russian girls?
Michael Haddid wrote on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 13:19 GMT
Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie’s solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early...
view entire post
Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie’s solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early October 2012 and the second was in Shanghai a week or so ago. On both occasions El Naschie presented a revision of Einstein’s theory leading to an equation very similar to that of Einstein’s namely Energy equals mass x the square of the speed of the light. However unlike Einstein’s equation, the result is divided by 22. His explanation of 22 is as follows: As in the old string theory of strong interaction, space time of relativity should have been considered 26 dimensional. Taking 4 only is what Einstein did and that is how he got his famous result. Nevertheless Einstein ignored 22 dimensions. This is a scaling factor following Nottale’s theory as argued by El Naschie. Even in simpler terms, he reasons that Einstein knew only one elementary messenger particle namely the photon. He knew nothing about the other 11 messenger particles of the standard model which were not known in 1905. Adding 11 super partners it turned out that Einstein did not know about an additional 22 elementary particles. These are the particles needed to explain the missing dark energy. In this way El Naschie was able to show that 95.5% of the energy of the Universe is missing. Alternatively this energy was never there to start with because space time is a fractal and although it looks puffed up it boils down to very little similar to cotton candy. In addition the compactified 22 dimensions are the cause for the negative pressure which increases the acceleration of the Universe’s expansion. He claims to have tested his theory using 25 different methods including Witten’s M-Theory and reached the same result. Even more importantly this result agrees completely with observation. In other words mathematics and physics have been substantiated by measurement which led last year to the award of the Nobel Prize to the 3 team who obtained this incredible measurement and data. Click on this link to get more info re the above (under news) http://www.msel-naschie.com/ and also http://mohamed-elnaschie.blogspot.com/.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Aug. 18, 2013 @ 10:47 GMT
Hello Ms Vasilyeva,
Going through past essays. I am a new participant on the FQXi forum. I came across something similar to my proposal for digital motion in your essay, "...we can propose that the main organizing principle of the structure is its propensity to keep as even and regular as possible. Applied to each contiguous segment of space, this principle becomes the source of all movement: any deformation introduced into the structure locally is immediately expelled; the same happens in the next segment, then the next, and so on, like in a game of hot potato. A deformation is expelled into the direction that gives, which in a perfectly balanced structure is opposite from where it comes". I agree. I propose the principle as conservation of displacement, a vector quantity. Like most action-reaction, a vector quantity is usually conserved.
Best regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.