## Conjecture about Energy and Space

##### [Added May 27, 2012]

Finally I finished reading the following book, and I finally understood Maxwell’s triumph, as well as the Maxwell’s equations.

### Amazon.com: A Student’s Guide to Maxwell’s Equations …

These equations started the era from which Quantum Mechanics emerged. This is one of the greatest triumph of mathematics, which revealed the electromagnetic nature of light. This is what inspired Einstein. It has carried forward the bastion of theoretical physics.

A change in electric field produces the magnetic field. A change in magnetic field produces the electric field. If a wave is created out of electric field, the wave of magnetic field is produced naturally along with it. The “up and down” of a wave seems to be replaced by electric and magnetic fields.

Here we seem to be looking at the disturbance in space itself. Disturbance in one direction appears as an Electric Field. Disturbance in opposite direction appears as a magnetic field. When space is disturbed in one direction, conditions set in immediately to restore it back to equilibrium, but then it overshoots the point of equilibrium and then the disturbance occurs in the opposite direction. And so it continues. This disturbance propagates in space as the electromagnetic wave.

But what causes the disturbance to start with, because the energy of the initial disturbance seems to be conserved as this wave. It is interesting to note that charge and current are to be made zero to arrive at the electromagnetic wave equation from Maxwell’s equations. I would now say that energy is not a condensation of space, instead it appears that

Energy is an excitation that is conserved in space.

.

##### [Added March 4, 2012]

Per Maxwell’s Equation #3, a changing magnetic field induces a circulating electric field. It is as if “charges” are fixed in space somehow by the magnetic field. When the magnetic field changes relative to a circuit then the “charges” coinciding with that circuit seem to move along that circuit in such a way so as not to appear affected by relative changes between the circuit and the magnetic field. This motion of “charges” may appear as the electric field. When we imagine paths in space in terms of vectors, then we find that a change in magnetic field forces the “points in space” to move relative to those paths, and the motion of these “points in space” appears as the electric field. Furthermore, the motion of these “points in space” is such as to minimize the net effect of change. The magnetic and electric fields appear to be two different frames of references from which to look at the points in space. From the magnetic frame of reference a point may appear static, but the same point may appear to be kinetic (in motion) from the electric frame of reference. These two frames may switch back and forth, while the points maintain their position as if subjected to some kind of inertia. This is just a conjecture toward imagining a structure to space itself. The electromagnetic phenomenon may itself provide a structure to space. The questions that arise are: (1) Do the space and electromagnetic phenomenon go hand in hand? (2) Will there still be space in a region if the electromagnetic phenomenon does not exist there?

.

##### [Added March 3, 2012]

It is fascinating to observe from Maxwell’s equation #3 that there are two types of electric fields. Both types of electric fields accelerate electric charges, both have the same units, and both can be presented by field lines. But charge-based electric fields have field lines that originate on positive charge and terminate on negative charge (and thus have non-zero divergence at these those points), while induced electric fields produced by changing magnetic fields have field lines that loop back on themselves, with no points of origination or termination (and thus have zero divergence). The induced electric field is directed so as to drive an electric current that produces magnetic flux that opposes the change in flux due to the changing magnetic field. This seems to point toward a very fundamental form of inertia, or to a tendency toward some sort of equilibrium. A point charge seems to represent some sort of a stopped flow that builds up at negative charge and empties out at the positive charge. Thus, the presence of a positive-negative pair of charge seems to represent a flow buildup that is frozen in place by some kind of “electrical” pressure. This “pressure” has to be maintained somehow. A changing magnetic field usually provides such “pressure.” The questions that arise are: (1) What separates a negative charge from the corresponding positive charge? (2) How is this separation maintained in free space?

##### [Added February 26, 2012]

Maxwell’s equation #1 acknowledges that sources and sinks are present in Electric fields. It means that there are positive and negative electrical charges. Thus, the electric field diverging out from a source (positive charge) may indicate de-condensing of the charge. The electric field diverging into a sink (negative charge) may indicate condensing of the charge. Maxwell’s equation #2 tells us that there are no sources and sinks connected with magnetic fields. Thus, magnetic fields do not condense or de-condense into “particles” as electrical fields do. Magnetic field comes about only when an electrical charge is moving. Thus, one may say that the magnetic field is a kinetic aspect of an electrical field. An electric field not only condenses and de-condenses, but it also shifts those points of condensation and de-condensation. This seems to be somehow connected with the structure of space.

.

##### [Added February 13, 2012]

On Permittivity (Ɛ): (1) The smaller is the permittivity, the more is the electric flux that is generated in a medium from a unit charge. (2) Permittivity of free space seems to be the lowest. (3) Therefore, maximum electric flux is generated in free space from a unit charge. (4) Storage capacity for charge at a location in free space is the lowest. (5) If the charge is not stored in free space then it spreads out as electromagnetic wave (conjecture). So, the smaller is the permittivity of space the faster would seem to be the speed of light.

.

##### [The original post]

It has been my conjecture for some time that

#### ENERGY IS CONDENSATION OF SPACE.

This is simply a starting point. I believe that even if “condensation” is not the right word, there is definitely a fundamental relationship between space and energy. Looking at Maxwell Equation #1 (Gauss’s law for electric field), the electric field lines seem to emerge from a positive charge and terminate at a negative charge. This electric flux is directly proportional to the charge it originates from and terminates into. The proportionality factor is constant for free space. It is called the permittivity of free space. It is a factor that also contributes to the constant speed of light. This permittivity seems to point to some fundamental property related to space. Could this permittivity of free space be regarded as a factor by which the electric flux in free space condenses into a point charge? I don’t know; but it is fun to look at it that way. Maybe space itself could be defined as some sort of flux. There is no aether that fills the space. Maybe space itself is that elusive aether. There may not be any aether, but space is definitely there. Anyway, this area interests me greatly and I shall be working on it. I just thought that I shall put this conjecture in the open. . NOTE: I am currently studying the following book:

### Amazon.com: A Student’s Guide to Maxwell’s Equations …

Also see: Wikipedia: Maxwell’s Equations .

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

### Comments

• Chris Thompson  On February 11, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Thanks Vinaire. This is another good jumping off spot. I have been thinking the same thing as you stated, “Maybe space itself is that elusive aether.” The answers are never far away, simply obfuscated by the enormity of fractal consideration and iteration.

• Chris Thompson  On February 11, 2012 at 9:14 PM

I will elaborate as I have been trying to wrap my wits around the enormous scale of space-time. So I have been limiting my thought experiments to one standard earth (macro) second. Divide that down to its smallest “indivisible” (I do loathe absolute terminology, as it is always making me wrong) part and you have Max Planck’s second.

A. I considered a jet airplane flying at 1000 km/hr or 278 m/s. I wondered how, if in a discrete universe, when clocked at Planck Time of 5.39106*10^44 fps (frames per second), the jet would look moving through quantum space. Because the Planck second is indivisible (I will not elaborate), it is a given that there may not be a “partial” Planck unit of movement. Thus, for movement to occur at less than the speed of light, “stationary frames” must pass without movement until the jet airplane quantum-jumps to the next frame proportionate to its “velocity.” To do this, I considered the ratio of the jet airplane’s speed to that of light-speed, or 278m/s divided by 299,792,458m/s equals a ratio of (9.27×10^-7) to 1, another huge number and the fractional speed of the jet relative to the speed of light. There are then 9.27×10^-7 X 278 m = 0.000257706 meters per quantum-jump, and the quantum jump occurs (9.27 x 10^-7)*(5.39106*10^44fps) = 4.99653*10^38, or 499,653,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times every second.

B. This very large number of frames per second, which simulates motion the way a running movie strip simulates motion, is dwarfed by the very-very large number of 5.39106*10^44 total Planck units in every macro-second. When we take the entire standard second represented by 5.39106*10^44 Planck units and subtract from it all the quantum frames containing ¼ of a millimeter of quantum jump or 4.99653*10^38 frames, we are left with the empty intervals or those frames displaying no movement or more accurately: no quantum jump. There are 5.38899*10^44 of these stationary frames. Simply put, almost all of the time is “stationary.”

C. This posits an entire new battery of questions about the quantum scale including, “In a discrete universe, what is happening between movement frames when ‘nothing is happening?’” It also demonstrates that the macro- universe seems to be patiently waiting for something in the micro-universe to build up to something happening.

D. When comparing macro-time to quantum-time, we are confronted with orders of magnitude which might be like a human life-span compared to watching the Rocky Mountains wear down to plains, then submerge under the ocean, then to be raised back up and down many times. Staggeringly enormously large quantities of time exist within the macro-second and the possibilities are commensurate.

• vinaire  On February 11, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Thanks for your support, Chris.

My current goal is to fully understand the Maxwell’s equations before I jump into Quantum Mechanics. I know I am quite a bit behind.

🙂

• Chris Thompson  On February 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM

haha behind? I don’t think so! You have a beautiful mind Vinaire.

• vinaire  On February 11, 2012 at 10:20 PM

I have a suspicion that i will end up reading the original experiments and thoughts of Michael Faraday to make any progress in this area. Now he was a fella with a beautiful mind.

Any theory must be supported by experiments. Michael Faraday was a pure experimenter and a genius. I am sure there is a wealth of knowledge in his writings. I must go there for inspiration.

.

• Kevin Osborne  On February 11, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Wavelength without time would be perception. So add in time and we get perception of motion, which is wavelength.
A way to look at this place is as wavelength, in condensed form the more eyes (individual viewpoints) are upon it, and in great whopping universe sized waves the fewer eyes are on it. This is true regardless of the size of the viewpoint watching. Without very large viewpoints, things would condense. Without smaller sized relative viewpoints, there would be no little planets and stars in all this space.
At least that is a way to look at it. And is a good reason to expect things to condense at some point, unless The Entire Viewpoint wants to continue the universe as it is. We’ll see.

• vinaire  On February 12, 2012 at 9:13 AM

It seems to me that, without time, there won’t be any wavelength either.

.

• Chris Thompson  On February 12, 2012 at 12:43 PM

+1

• Kevin Osborne  On February 12, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Yes, without time wavelength is simple perception. One sees one point that has no relative motion. When something moves, there is wavelength, because, obviously, it went from one place to another in a series of observable spots in space. One never sees wavelength, one notes that something is moving in a series of “nows”.

• vinaire  On February 12, 2012 at 4:04 PM

(1) There are only two kinds of viewpoints: physical and mental.

(2) The physical viewpoint works with perception through the body.

(3) The mental viewpoint works with visualization through the mind.

(4) These two kinds of viewpoints should not be confused with each other.

(5) There is no mental perception; there is only mental vissualization from what is perceived physically.

(6) All motion seems to occur in the form of waves at the fundamental level.

(7) Motion occurs as movement in space, or as staying at one location, because motion is relative.

(8) Any kind of motion involves both time and space.

That is how it seems to me.

• Kevin Osborne  On February 14, 2012 at 11:43 AM

I would say a viewpoint is a viewpoint, it makes no difference where one sees from or to, except for relative understanding.
Other than that it all works for me.

• vinaire  On February 14, 2012 at 1:09 PM

A physical viewpoint obtains data from physical perception.

A mental viewpoint obtains data from imagination and speculation.

Without physical perception one would simply be living in circular logic of mental formation.

.

• Chris Thompson  On February 14, 2012 at 1:11 PM

This is a cogent and pivotal point… how can we understand more about this?

• vinaire  On February 14, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Physical viewpoint is a simple recognition of whatever is out there. Opinion and computations belong to the mental viewpoint.

Science deals with the data obtained through physical viewpoint, and with the abstractions derived from that data. At every point effort is made to remove inconsistencies.

The mental viewpoint that deals with the abstractions derived from that physical data must be very precise. This is where KHTK comes into play.

KHTK helps differentiate physical facts and abstractions from mental opinions. It does that by following up and resoving every inconsistency that it comes across.

.

• Kevin Osborne  On February 15, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Since everything is creation, everything is both “opinion” and truth. In other words, your reality is your reality and is absolute from your viewpoint, but not from someone else’s viewpoint. The idea of understanding is not to find great truths, but to see and occupy other viewpoints. When one sees enough, the system opens to view. One’s personal “enough” is one’s path and not predictable by another, my opinion. However we each are on that path and all we have to do is see what is in front of us. My opinon.

• vinaire  On February 15, 2012 at 10:18 AM

It all boils down to consistency and inconsistency in my opinion, viewpoint or whatever…

KHTK 6: INCONSISTENCY

.

• Kevin Osborne  On February 15, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Okay. So let’s say there exist a series of steps one takes to occupy another viewpoint. One can hear what a person thinks, but when one actually moves into the space of that person/viewpoint, one fully understands.
This has the effect of freedom. One can move into and out of that space.

It seems that there is no “right” space. There is no greater understanding or lesser, except relative to one selected viewpoint. We all see about the same amount of stuff. It is just our stuff, as opposed to someone else’s.

So inconsistency or any other seemingly pejorative word should be viewed with the understanding that it describes a condition of existence, not the viewpoint, which is perfect and absolute from the point of view, regardless what it is.

• vinaire  On February 15, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Are you talking in terms of viewpoints being fixed, so that one can occupy this viewpoint or that?

If that is the case then the inconsistency exists in terms of FIXED VIEWPOINTS. Please look at the essay I referenced earlier.

KHTK 6: INCONSISTENCY

Fixed viewpoints shall create inconsistency at the deep level of axioms. Here I am looking at the problem very differently than Hubbard would look.

Two viewpoints can be different yet consistent, and there won’t be any friction between them. There would be understanding.

.

• Kevin Osborne  On February 15, 2012 at 6:39 PM

It doesn’t matter, to me, whether one calls a viewpoint fixed or not. It contains the created realtiy contained in that space from viewpoints both outside and in. (which are constantly in flux.) There are an infinite number of observation points of a viewpoint, obviously, and only one point of full understanding. But what one is understanding is an individual view, not a physical absolute. Here there are no absolutes except what one chooses to accept as real.
None of this has anything to do with Hubbard that I can see, fyi. Barf.
I see what you mean by “consistent” now, thank you.

• vinaire  On February 15, 2012 at 10:04 PM

I believe that the concept of viewpoint is very close to the concept of self. Duplication of viewpoint or duplication of self is not necessary for understanding, A simple duplication of data with consistency among viewpoints would do just fine.

Reality exists in the mind and not out there. Reality is something quite complex. It cannot be duplicated just like that by “occupying another’s viewpoint.” It takes a lot of discussion just to comprehend one little aspect of another’s reality.

I don’t know what you mean by “only one point of full understanding.” If understanding is relative and in constant flux like the reality it is trying to comprehend then what is the meaning of “full understanding”? Is there some kind of absolute understanding?

I am glad that you see what I mean by consistency. Two people can be at two different physical locations in a room, and yet have complete consistency of the physical perceptions they are witnessing..

.

• Kevin Osborne  On February 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM

What I mean by viewpoint is, viewing point. If we consider that we are looking into a large box that is created space, then select somewhere inside the box to view from, that is a viewing point. It can be viewed from and seen from the outside. This is akin to making a Tron like world of microbytes that can be entered as well as seen.

This viewpoint is also a creation point. Space is create by God entire (or whatever you want to call It) and by you and I.
Full understanding by my definition is occupying the space of the point of view that one did not fully understand, and agreeing with it, creating it, however you want to put it. One can understand a concept another has noted to some extent, but full understanding is seeing from that viewpoint. It is “walking in another’s shoes”, to quote To Kill a Mockingbird.

Reality is simply the points of view one is willing to see. It is a sphere of consciousness. One’s immediate conscious sees what one is focused on, but contains some understanding of other spaces, which means, one is willing to be in those spaces to some extent. That is one’s personal reality.
Since each of us has a relationship with entire created space, one can be conscious of, understand, anything. But one’s reality is what one is willing to understand now, and that is different for everybody.

• vinaire  On February 16, 2012 at 10:20 PM

When you say “viewing point” you are actually talking about a physical viewpoint that operates in the three dimensions of physical space. It could also be mental imagination of a physical viewpoint. But it is not a mental viewpoint that operates in very large number of dimensions.

I don’t quite understand your reference to “created space.” Are you using the definition of space as given by Hubbard? I take objection to the phrase, “Space is created by God entire,” because there is an assumption of beingness there.

Unknowable is unknowable. One can’t even say that there is a beingness that does something. Maybe you are imagining a God (beingness) that creates space, to explain this existence to yourself. It would be just a belief then.

I don’t think that full understanding can be defined. The closest I have come to define it is by looking at the possibility of complete absence of inconsistencies. But what is there when all inconsistencies are gone? I really don’t know.

So my focus is simply on spotting and resolving inconsistencies. This is a lot of fun to me. I don’t worry about what full understanding is.

“Walking in another shoes” is simply an attempt to experience what another might have experienced. You may call it occupying another’s viewpoint, but I don’t much care for that vocabulary invented by Hubbard.

What do you really mean when you use the word space? Is it the physical space?

.

• Kevin Osborne  On February 17, 2012 at 1:22 AM

Okay. By space I mean that which one occupies. I think I get where you are coming from at this point, thank you very much! I look forward to reading your thoughts on the functionality of things, as well as whatever else you want to share.

• vinaire  On February 17, 2012 at 6:41 AM

You honor me greatly, Nexus. Whether I deserve it or not is another matter. KHTK is an effort to look at spirituality as precisely as science has been looking at the the physical universe.

I may be wrong at times but, at least, I am being totally honest in what I write; and I am always willing to correct myself.

To me the bottom line is unknowable and that helps me ferret out any assumptions in my thinking. I do not know where this journey might lead me to, but this journey itself is a lot of fun. It would be wonderful to have you come along on this journey.

Thank you, Kevin.

.

• vinaire  On February 12, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Two particles of matter cannot occupy the same space. More basic than that is the fact that two similar charges cannot occupy the same space either. They repel each other.

Two similar charges do not share the same electric field lines. In them we have either “two sources” or “two sinks.” They do not have the relationship that a “source-sink” combination has. A source and a sink are complementary to each other.

“Two sources” will have their complements elsewhere. It would be as if they are in different spaces. A source-sink combination seems to create a space of its own.

Do we have a particle of space in a “source-sink” pair? Is the space made up of the field between them?

.

• vinaire  On February 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM

The electric and magnetic fields are associated with “experience of force.”

Is space a field? Is the field of space associated with some kind of force too, which happens to be of a nature that is hard to detect? Is there a “source” and a “sink” to space? Are there particles of space, each made up of a source and a sink, which are somehow stretched apart?

If space is somehow stretched apart then it must contain force. What is beyond space would be unknowable at this point.

.

• vinaire  On February 12, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Check this out.

EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCHES IN ELECTRICITY by Michael Faraday

.

• Chris Thompson  On February 14, 2012 at 7:37 AM

Excellent! Now you have ruined more evenings and mornings for me!

• vinaire  On February 14, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Let me know of the parts you find to be juicy.

.

• Chris Thompson  On February 14, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Yet more? I shall never surface.

• vinaire  On February 13, 2012 at 2:03 PM

On Permitiivity (Ɛ):

(1) The smaller is the permittivity, the more is the electric flux that is generated in a medium from a unit charge.

(2) Permittivity of free space seems to be the lowest.

(3) Therefore, maximum electric flux is generated in free space from a unit charge.

(4) Storage capacity for charge at a location in free space is the lowest.

(5) If the charge is not stored in free space then it spreads out as electromagnetic wave (conjecture).

So, the smaller is the permittivity of space the faster would seem to be the speed of light.

.

• Alanzo  On February 13, 2012 at 11:24 PM

I knew it!

It DOES have something to do with the Flux Capacitor!

Are you building one in your basement, Vinaire?

• vinaire  On February 13, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Alanzo, bro’

I shall invite you for a ride when it is ready!

.

• Chris Thompson  On February 14, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Rumor has it that he already has the Delorean.

• Alanzo  On February 13, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Uhhh. Nexus is first.

I could not jump in line before him.

• vinaire  On February 14, 2012 at 6:28 AM

Don’t worry… it won’t blow up.

.

• Kevin Osborne  On February 15, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Women and children first, then age before beauty, then pearls before swine.

Pick one, then please go ahead.

• vinaire  On February 15, 2012 at 8:21 AM

If space itself is considered a higher order “medium” then it is almost impossible to contemplate what contains space.

.

• Kevin Osborne  On February 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Never put “almost” in a declarative.
It gives you gas.

• Chris Thompson  On February 15, 2012 at 3:49 PM

This is an excellent point. However lets stay calm as this might not be inconsistent as it seems at first glance.

• vinaire  On February 15, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Yes, space may not be contained in anything. It may be created spontaneously.

.

• Chris Thompson  On February 16, 2012 at 12:52 AM

Yes, and as I am learning, orthodox thought that is referenced by extant language may not be adequate to the task. The maths are helping with this.

For instance, I am studying Newton and rather than thinking that his laws of motion are outdated or whatever, I am endeavoring to grant that they are correct for their frame of reference and that I am learning new consistencies for newer frames of reference and then I am having insights and endeavoring to knit this all together.

In other words, the inconsistencies point to understandings which are needed to level all truths together into a Theory of Everything. It is very exciting and I am hopeful when I think about it. Regardless of the result, I am having fun.

• vinaire  On February 16, 2012 at 6:04 AM

It seems to me that “space – energy – matter” is a gradient of greater and greater endurance.

Matter has the greatest endurance. Space has the least, or no, endurance. Energy has endurance in between. This endurance is seen as time.

Thus, space seems to precipitate instantaneously as and when needed to place energy and matter in proper perspective. Here we seem to have some connection with awareness. I am not very clear about it yet. It is all a conjecture at the moment.

.

• Chris Thompson  On February 16, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Yes, I am with you. Also endurance might be the product of duplicative iterations in the Planck second.

It seems that duplicative iteration might be impossible and this impossibility might exist at the root of dynamics. In other words, dynamics might be related to the impossibility of duplication in this universe. And by duplication, I am meaning it in the most severe sense of identical.

• vinaire  On February 16, 2012 at 6:08 AM

Space, then, is some sort of a flux that precipitates instantaneously. Electromagnetic phenomenon is simply a harmonic of it. What is the source and sink of space is not known at the moment.

Here is probably a connection between the unknowable and science.

.

• Chris Thompson  On February 16, 2012 at 1:57 PM

. . . or maybe the unknowable is quite a bit deeper?

The universe is looking very large to me at the moment and I am looking very small in comparison at the moment. It is just a queasy sensation and it will pass.

• Kevin Osborne  On February 15, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Space is the stuff dreams are made of. That, and the Maltese Falcon. And maybe lingerie models. And certain Irish Whiskeys.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt0Y39eMvpI

• vinaire  On February 15, 2012 at 10:10 PM

That was funny.

.

• vinaire  On February 26, 2012 at 7:56 AM

The differential operator in Maxwell’s equations (called “del” or “nabla”) is quite interesting. It is represented as upside down delta. It is a vector operator.

The differential operator “del,” when applied to a force field, represents the divergence of that field. By definition, divergence is the tendency of a field to “flow” away from a point more strongly than toward that point, indicating the presence of a source. Negative divergence would indicate the presence of a sink.

Maxwell’s equation #1 acknowledges that sources and sinks are present in Electric fields. It means that there are positive and negative electrical charges. Thus, the electric field diverging out from a source (positive charge) may indicate de-condensing of the charge. The electric field diverging into a sink (negative charge) may indicate condensing of the charge.

Maxwell’s equation #2 tells us that there are no sources and sinks connected with magnetic fields. Thus, magnetic fields do not condense or de-condense into “particles” as electrical fields do.

Magnetic field comes about only when an electrical charge is moving. Thus, one may say that the magnetic field is a kinetic aspect of an electrical field.

An electric field not only condenses and de-condenses, but it also shifts those points of condensation and de-condensation. This seems to be somehow connected with the structure of space.

.

• Chris Thompson  On February 26, 2012 at 4:15 PM

1. I was staying with you for a bit, then got left behind for real on your last paragraph. Could you give an example of shifting points of condensation and decondensation. Maybe if I can see that, then the final point you make about how this is related to space will show up for me.

2. I have only brushed (no pun) up against this idea you brought up about magnetic v. electric field: “Magnetic field comes about only when an electrical charge is moving. Thus, one may say that the magnetic field is a kinetic aspect of an electrical field.” I find your comment very intriguing. Is a magnetic field “battery-like” in holding and running down its charge?

• vinaire  On February 26, 2012 at 4:48 PM

1. A point charge is a point of condensation in the electric field. If the charge is moving then it may be perceived as if the point of condensation of the field to be shifting. It is something like weather shifting, or wave moving. The substance doesn’t move, only its characteristics shift. Maybe this can be explained better. I am still working on it.

2. Actually, this is leading me toward a fractal concept of charge. Shifts in magnetic field creates electric field. If the charge is a condensed electric field then could a changing but hidden magnetic field be generating it. When you observe shifting electric field generating magnetic field, and a shifting magnetic field generating electric field, it is the recipe for a fractal arrangement.

• Chris Thompson  On February 26, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Thank you. I will work on it a little more before commenting. Meanwhile, the good news is that there is PLENTY of time for any and all of this to occur.

• Chris Thompson  On March 7, 2012 at 9:46 PM

I cannot stop thinking about your well made points on this thread. I want to ask you about a counter-intuitive idea that I got while reading your post . . .

Do you suppose that space could be made to flow like a river? And if it could, would it look anything like the lines of force that we can demonstrate with gravity or other EM phenomena?

I researched a bit and got this, “The theory dealing with gravity (general theory of relativity or general relativity) is based on the postulate that the local effects of a gravitational field and of acceleration of an inertial system are identical.”

I began to think that if inertial and gravitational effects were identical, then if accelerating “away from a space” could push you back in your chair, then would the space accelerating away from you feel the same?

• vinaire  On March 8, 2012 at 5:55 AM

To me, the field lines themselves represent a flow when nothing material is flowing. For example, changing magnetic field produces circulating electric field. There is nothing there that is flowing, but if you place a charge in that field, it will flow.

.

• vinaire  On March 8, 2012 at 6:35 AM

There seem to be two different kind of speeds.

(1) Speed of objects moving through space relative to each other..

(2) Space vibrating itself and the perceived propagation of this vibration.

The speed of light falls in the second category. This speed is not relative to anything but to space itself. The missing knowledge seems to be, “What is space?”

.

• vinaire  On March 8, 2012 at 6:41 AM

Moving faster than the speed of light would mean breaking through the “barrier of space.” But then objects themselves are defined by space.

So, it is essential to determine what space is. That cannot be determined from a viewpoint derived from this universe.

.

• Chris Thompson  On March 8, 2012 at 12:43 PM

We were together until your last sentence. Wouldn’t it be better to say that “we do not know what space is and therefore do not know where the viewpoint adequate to understand it must come from?”

The inconsistency that I see in your conjectures is that you are too quick to attribute to the unknowable. Unknown knowledge, when it is just out of reach is tempting to declare “unknowable.” Have a little patience with us, we are trying.

Maybe I believe in the unknowable more than you, as you are always trying to know it! (joke)

• vinaire  On March 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Unknowable is there to be conquered. Who gave you the idea that unknowable cannot be conquered? Is “knowing” the only way to conquer something?

Look at all the speculation around, which makes people think that they know, when, actually, they don’t.

All they have is circular logic.

.

• Chris Thompson  On March 8, 2012 at 12:56 PM

But we define it ahead of time using the True Scotsman fallacy.

• vinaire  On March 8, 2012 at 1:21 PM

All that we know is the result of our postulates.

We are simply trying to sort out our postulates.

.

• vinaire  On March 8, 2012 at 2:44 PM

There is no way of determining absolute rest or absolute motion in this universe. We may determine relative motion only. I do not think that absolute rest or absolute motion can exist. So a statement, such as, “If motion would stop, then mass would reduce to zero,” are interesting speculations.

Existence is what is manifested. It is what we become aware of. If there is no existence then probably there is no awareness either. Please see Essay #5: THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE

If electromagnetism is the fabric of space, and an electromagnetic wave is a ripple in that fabric then this gives rise to several interesting considerations.

(1) Space condenses into energy, just as energy condenses into mass.

(2) Awareness could be tied to this fabric of space (electromagnetism).

(3) If there is no electromagnetism in a “region.” then there is no space either.

(4) Without electromagnetism there can be no awareness of space or of anything else.

(5) What is beyond awareness is not known at present. If it can be known then there has to be awareness and it won’t be beyond awareness.

(6) The conundrum in (5) gives rise to the conjecture of unknowable. The conjecture is knowable as a conjecture, The unknowable remains unknowable.

.

• Chris Thompson  On March 8, 2012 at 4:17 PM

ahhhh. Our minds meet.

Are you studying from the idea that the universe is discrete or continuous or both or neither?

In your (2) above I see a kind of benchmark. Your statement also seems to coincide with the current model of expanding universe with the entire space shot full of microwave radiation (warmth). Outside the current universe seems to be nothing, not even space.

Also in this universe it is safe to state that everything is in motion.

Why do you suppose that mass should be proportional to motion?

Trying to cipher what thing might or should or could supervene another has my eyes hurting.

• vinaire  On March 9, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Some observations on electric and magnetic field lines:

(1) Both electric and magnetic field lines loop without beginning and end, as in an electromagnetic wave.

(2) But electric field lines may also begin from a point, and end at a point. These points represent electric charges.

(3) And magnetic field lines may begin from ifinity and end at infinity. Thus, there are no magnetic charges. Instead, there are magnetic poles.

Mathematically, a point (zero) and infinity are inverse of each other. Thus, in some ways the electric and magnetic field lines are opposite in nature, but they engage each other.

.

• vinaire  On March 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM

A field is a physical quantity associated with each point of space-time. It can be scalar, vector, spinor, or tensor. It can be classical or quantum.

The vacuum is free of matter, but not free of field. A field may be thought of as extending throughout the whole of space.

The field creates a “condition in space” so that when we put a particle in it, it feels a force. The field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have.

.

• Chris Thompson  On March 9, 2012 at 1:20 PM

That is well stated.

I am niggling myself with the thought that the field may be in motion, and why not? Everything else that we know is in motion.

The “condition in space” as you put it seems to be in equilibrium until a particle is put in it. Just as a river (pick a large one like the Mississippi) though in motion is adjusting itself to seek equilibrium. When the river waters reach the ocean, the waters have reached more equilibrium but not entirely and continue to be manipulated and moved about by the forces around them. Nothing in the universe seems to have reached equilibrium, has it? All matter tugs at the chains of force to seek greater equilibrium.

• Chris Thompson  On March 9, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Do you suppose there may be an argument for the circular magnetic field to be in fact “space flowing?”

If so, then what of the magnetic charge with its beginning and ending point? Is this apparent perception described correctly when we say beginning and ending?

• vinaire  On March 17, 2012 at 5:12 PM

A changing magnetic field creates currents. A current may be represented by a charge moving along a certain path. If the change in the magnetic field reverses, then the current reverses too. It is like the charge retracing back on its previous path.

Thus, the “position” of charge seems to be tied with the magnetic field in some way. As magnetic field changes, the position of the charge also changes according to some fixed rule.

In a confusion the person’s viewpoint seems to shift. Can we look at the interaction between confusion and viewpoint as being analogous to the electromagnetic interaction? If confusion is a change in the “awareness field” then viewpoint may shift, like the charge, in response to that change.

Is there some rule that ties shift in viewpoint to sudden change in awareness?

.

• vinaire  On May 31, 2012 at 9:17 PM

The duality of this universe seems to represent wave nature. Any excitation from an equilibrium state in one direction seems to generate an excitation in the opposite direction as well, much like the ‘up’ and ‘down’ of a wave when plotted on a time line.

Generation of a consideration is like an excitation from some null state. It would always generate the opposite of that consideration too. Here again we see the wave nature in thinking and visualizing. This needs to be explored further.

.

• Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Duality is an apparency especially if the universe is continuous as you posit. An example is creating a 2D sine wave graph out of a phenomena which is most surely more of a helical coil than an S curve.

We may not be able to see beyond 4 dimensions, but we can be mindful that they are waiting to be viewed or created and that mindfulness can keep us from being too satisfied with answers from this current space geometry.

Here is an example: Picture a black hole in space – just imagine how it would look. Then go around it and view it from more angles. In my imagination, it looks the same from every angle… This is counterintuitive to the way we normally think about space-time. I believe that because of this, that even concepts of propagations which take on familiar shapes such as springs or helical coils are prone to hanging a fixed idea upon something which will look different once it has truly been viewed.

• Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2012 at 11:53 PM

I meant 2D as in 2 dimensional – not the second dynamic, etc.,.

• vinaire  On June 1, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Is there a second dynamic sine wave?

.

• vinaire  On June 1, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Any more dimensions beyond the basic 4 are mental and not physical. They are postulated through mathematics only. They are not part of any reality beyond mathematical. They are abstractions.

A ball hanging from a spring, and bouncing up and down will create a sine wave when its motion is plotted on a time line. As an analogy, we may look at the generation of a consideration and its opposite, and then variation between the two as a sine wave when plotted on a time line.

A consideration can have many different types of opposites:
(1) Consideration – no consideration (this is the most basic dichotomy)
(2) Consideration – opposite consideration (e.g. day and night, is a harmonic of the dichotomy)
(3) Simple consideration – complex consideration (another harmonic)
and so on. There can be many harmonics.

Is a black hole ‘absence of space’. I don’t know. But if we look at SPACE as a consideration, we can think of many harmonics
(1) Space – no space (I don’t know how to visualize no space)
(2) Empty space – filled space
(3) Linear space – convoluted space
and so on. There can be many harmonics.

.