The whole theory of relativity is based on the premise that there is an upper limit ‘c’ to the speed of light. At this limit the relativity of space and time becomes quite evident. The Newtonian model of absolute space and absolute time no longer works as this speed is approached.
The question that has been there in my mind for some time is ‘What makes the upper limit of the speed of light such an absolute quantity?’ The answer seems to be ‘the physicality of this universe.’
What is ‘physicality’? How does one define it? Physicality would be defined by perception through our physical senses. All physical perceptions are consistent with each other. They are consistent with the measurements made through the use of physical instruments, such as, those used to measure the speed of light.
What is not physicality? The abstraction that we perceive through the mind would be a departure from physicality. This mental perception is different from the physical perception through eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. Mind is first and foremost a sense organ. It perceives mental objects and the interactions among them. The mental objects are the abstractions that underlie physical objects. For example, three cups, three plates and three spoons are physical objects. But the underlying pattern of three is a mental object.
Such abstraction may go deeper in the form of patterns underlying patterns. We see that in mathematics. The whole subject of mathematics is abstract. There are numbers, but underlying those numbers is the number theory. Thus, we may say that there is a basic dimension of abstraction. The deeper one goes in this dimension, the more abstract things are.
The upper limit of the dimension of abstraction is the perception through the physical sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. This is the physicality defined by space-time of Einstein. Space-time has four components: three of space and one of time. The concrete forms are conjectured to be derived from space-time as follows
(1) Energy is a ripple that travels through the fabric of space.
(2) Matter is the condensation of energy.
This physicality is simply the upper limit of abstraction. Underlying this physicality are layers of subtle to subtler forms generating the dimension of abstraction. This dimension of abstraction has been there all this time. We know that the physical perception soon converts into experience, and then to information, hypothesis, theory, principles, axioms, etc. These subtler layers are then perceived by the mind.
The progress of mankind is measured in this dimension of abstraction. It has long been recognized as such in the eastern philosophy of the Vedas. Now it is time to look at this fundamental dimension scientifically.
Science recognizes the physicality consisting of three components of SPACE, and the one component of TIME. SPACE can be felt as concrete as well as abstract. TIME can be felt as concrete as well as abstract. This makes the dimension of abstraction as the most basic dimension that underlies even space-time.
Science has not delved into the abstraction of space-time even when these subtler forms exist.
Science should recognize and investigate ABSTRACTION as a fundamental dimension underlying even space and time.
Physicality of space-time is just a surface phenomenon. There is a whole ocean of abstraction that underlies it. It seems that there are general laws yet to be discovered that connect physicality to underlying abstraction.
.
Comments
All notions of dimensions are abstractions.
It seems that all processes are proceeding — staying grounded in tautology.
Possibly our abstraction can simply improve. There seems to be infinite room for that to occur.
LikeLike
I have updated the OP for The Fifth Dimension to improve its clarity.
.
LikeLike
In response to
https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10232
.
Time seems to vary along the dimension of abstraction, so I would consider Time to be a dimension separate from the dimension of Abstraction.
Maybe a number of components are grouped together in the dimension of Abstraction, which should be identified as separate dimensions. These may be discovered as we proceed along the path of current investigation.
Consciousness is the general sense of awareness that underlies perception. When something manifests we become conscious of it. Thus, consciousness accompanies manifestation. It is a natural outcome of existence. A special case of consciousness may be described as self. The concept of self needs to be investigated.
To think of SELF as something mysterious from which everything proceeds, is an assumption.
.
LikeLike
In response to
https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10232
.
Time seems to be a sense of change in space. To the degree space is physical, time would be physical too, even if you can’t perceive it directly. The characteristics of time would vary in the dimension of abstraction.
.
LikeLike
In response to
https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10232
.
I think that time can be sensed through the physical body at the upper limit of abstraction. Underlying the sense of motion and acceleration, there is the sense of time.
LikeLike
In response to
https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10232
.
I have moved away from the idea that I “see” something because I agree with it. I believe that I perceive something because (1) either it is there, or (2) it is a result of some assumption. As I recognize my assumptions and account for them, I can more clearly perceive what is there.
Maybe what is there is due to layer upon layers of assumptions, and ultimately, there is nothing. Yes, that theory exists in Hinduism. We shall find that out for sure as we continue with the mindfulness route. Then we’ll also learn about the structure of assumptions, or the ubiquitous “illusion.”
.
LikeLike
In response to
https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10232
.
When all the physical sense organs are not there, then the perception of physical universe is not there. That can be very frightening for some because the physical universe is the stable datum for us. We may have a tenuous connection though as long as we have consciousness of the body. That would become the consciousness of self when the sense of “touch” is also not there.
So, without the five physical senses,
Sense of body = the sense of self.
Since, All Senses – physical senses = mental sense
We have, mental sense = the sense of self = the sense of abstraction
But, the sense of abstraction = patterns underlying physical reality + assumptions
If one were never exposed to the physical reality, then one would not be aware of the patterns underlying physical reality. In that case,
All sense = mental sense = the sense of abstraction = assumptions
This then leads to the conclusion,
the sense of self = assumptions
Now that is an interesting look. 🙂
.
LikeLike
In response to
https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10232
.
With sensory deprivation, one is simply left with one’s assumptions and speculations. The stable datum is reality. Reality includes the physical reality and the abstraction proceeding from it. Therefore, one’s speculations and conjectures must seek consistency with reality. Any inconsistencies must be discarded.
We can sense physical reality through our physical sense organ. We can sense abstraction through our mind. We can also sense consistency and inconsistency. Thus, we can separate abstraction proceeding from reality from “abstraction” proceeding from assumptions.
The fifth dimension of abstraction is the abstraction proceeding from physical reality. But physical reality and abstract reality are one and the same. Physical and Abstract are two different aspects of reality that we sense through different sense organs.
Unreality comes from assumptions that are not consistent with reality. Actually, assumptions would be defined that way.
You are recommending mathematical approach originated by David Hilbert to separate abstraction from assumptions. That is fine. I need to study up on this approach.
But, 2ndxmr, if you follow Hilbert’s approach do you find “thetan” to be an abstraction from reality or an assumption? I find it to be an assumption.
.
LikeLike
Vin: Unreality comes from assumptions that are not consistent with reality. Actually, assumptions would be defined that way.
Chris: Assumptions lack proof. Whether they are consistent or not is another matter. Deciding to cling to an idea, to fix an idea and to create the assumption, that process is what may be inconsistent and dropped except as metered out in small doses as we feel our way.
LikeLike
Proof = demonstration of consistency with reality.
.
LikeLike
In response to
https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10232
.
Space-time seems to be the concrete dimension with 4 recognized components to it. We can perceive it through our physical senses.
The dimension of abstraction is relative to the concrete dimension, and it is quite real also because we can perceive it through the mind. It may have many different components too.
SPACE can be felt as concrete as well as abstract.
TIME can be felt as concrete as well as abstract.
The concrete space-time may therefore form the upper end of the dimension of abstraction, which may extend from the concrete to the most subtle.
This makes the dimension of abstraction as the most basic dimension that underlies even space-time.
.
LikeLike
Both of you are making good points. I see the coordinates of this fractal diverging and tending “away” from one another. Each model has integrity within its own model. This is very interesting.
LikeLike
I have modified the title of Opening Post. Some of the contents of the opening post are also modified.
I hope these modifications bring greater clarity to the subject.
.
LikeLike
You are doing great.
If “(2) Matter is the condensation of energy. . . ” Then what if “energy is the condensate of space” and “space is the condensate of time.” The more I’ve thought about this, the clearer this has seemed to me. Or possibly this is an exercise demonstrating how a model can be created and made consistent regardless of it being outrageously over the top.
You are leveling inconsistencies and I am stirring the pot! What I’ve written is an attempt to challenge the status quo and break loose our thinking in new ways while remaining sequitur to the discussion.
LikeLike
Here is something I just wrote on Facebook in response to a post by Gary Hart:
“The biggest assumption that I see here is “light travels through space.” In my opinion, light does not travel through space the same way as matter travels through space.
A boat travels through water, but a ripple of water does not travel through water. Ripple is a disturbance in water. It is the disturbance that appears to be traveling. There is no mass traveling through water.
Similarly, I see light as a disturbance in space. It is the disturbance that appears to be traveling, There is no mass traveling. through space.
The speed of a ripple in water is determined by the properties of the medium that is being disturbed. Similarly, the speed of light in space is determined by the properties of the medium that is being disturbed. The Maxwell’s equations, in a way, describe the properties of space that is being disturbed.
The speed of a boat traveling through water is not constrained the way speed of a ripple in water is constrained. Similarly, I believe that speed of a mass traveling through space would not be constrained the same way as the speed of light is constrained. There seem to be a big assumption here that needs to be looked at more closely.
In my opinion, electromagnetic field represents disturbance in space. When there is no electromagnetic field present, we have undisturbed space. From this point of view, the space in the sun or stars must be very disturbed.
Per Wikipedia, frame dragging is media dragged forward by a moving mass. For example, if a mass is moving through water, the viscosity of water makes some of the water move forward with mass. It is supposed that space shall be dragged forward by a huge mass rotating in space. There are no conclusive results obtained of this effect in space by experiements so far, because the frame-dragging affect is very, very small – about one part in a few trillion.
Just like a ripple is a phenomenon of its medium, I believe that light is a phenomenon of space. Therefore, whether it is light that is bending, or if the space-time itself is bending, is just about the same thing.
In my system, the speed of light is determined by the properties of space. Space is not nothing. Space is something, and an abstraction of space is possible. There is an interesting rabbit hole here.”
.
LikeLike
Really good looking rabbit hole.
LikeLike
And considering the above comment, I would ask,“What would time be the condensate of?”
LikeLike
Time (durability) is a measure of the condensation.
.
LikeLike
Yes, BIG assumptions. For instance, I believe that assuming a big bang to have occurred that the singularity of MEST Etc. which ensued thus condensed before accreting. Accretion has begat more phenomena such as celestial dust, stars, planets, etc., — a clumping if you will of matter, energy, space and time. But possibly space-time was the first such dichotomy to divide after the big bang. Brainstorming here . . . Rafael? Maria?
LikeLike
There are large expanses of space in the universe which seems to be empty of celestial bodies, meaning galaxies. Why could this be and how might it happen?
LikeLike
The theory of relativity starts with the constancy of speed of light as its stable datum.
(1) This makes spacetime the constant or “stable datum.”
(2) Space and time, taken individually, become relative quantities. They are no longer constant, or “stable data” as treated in the past in the Newtonian system.
(3) Spacetime translates as the vacuum of space, which now becomes the stable datum, or the current absolute state for science.
(4) Light may now be looked upon as a disturbance in the vacuum of space itself. No ether need be there.
(5) This disturbance may be treated as a harmonic of disturbance in air created by sound. Similar mathematical formulation may apply.
(6) The speed of light is not relative to anything in the physical universe. It is relative to the physical universe as a whole.
.
LikeLike
Maxwell’s equations convince me that light is a phenomenon of space. Light ripples through space the same way that sound ripples through air. Magnetic and electric fields represent the vibration of space “particles”.
Conjecture about Energy and Space
.
LikeLike
Here is something I wrote to Gary Hart on Facebook (for my record):
(1) Mindfulness is seeing things as they are without assumptions. There is nothing sacrosanct about it. It is common sense.
(2) What I see may have assumptions hidden in them but at the moment I am not aware of them. If someone can help me see them, I shall be very happy to update my view.
(3) Nobody is bound by my views. If someone wants to tell me that I am assuming something I will not resist it, but I would like to understand how what I am seeing is an assumption.
(4) In the exchange above, it is not an assumption that the starting point of the theory of relativity is the constant speed of light. Actually, the assumption is thinking that constant speed of light is an outcome of the theory of relativity.
(5) It is definitely a conjecture on my part that electromagnetic waves represent a “ripple moving through the fabric of space”. It is a hypothesis that needs to be verified. However, this hypothesis is consistent with Maxwell’s equations and it does not contradict anything experimentally confirmed by science.
(6) The only rules I go by is to separate reality from assumptions and recognize hypothesis for what it is. I do that as much as I can with what I write. I try not to represent reality falsely.
(7) Ripple moving on water’s surface was compared with light moving in space with regards to how disturbance travelling in a medium has a speed that depends on the properties of the medium. There was no implication that space has a surface. So, the allegation that I am not applying mindfulness does not make sense.
(8) I shall be confirming the idea that mass of an object becomes infinite at the speed of light, is coming from the assumption that objects travel in space the same way as light travels. There is no assumption on my part. I simply suspect an assumption in the theory of relativity.
(9) My conjecture is that space itself acts as a medium for light. The magnetic and electric fields in space represent light “waving” through space, similar to the way sound “waves” through air.
(10) Per Wikipedia “frame dragging” occurs at the interface between space and a heavy, rotating mass. This is similar to the way air may drag at its interface with a rotating top. Thus, it implies that space has a property similar to the property of viscosity in fluids. I know that electrons in atoms have a spin. This led me to wonder if the macro phenomenon of frame dragging could occur at quantum level too. There is a good possibility of it.
.
LikeLike
(1) The theory of relativity seems to say that ‘space’ and ‘time’ are relative to ‘spacetime’, and ‘spacetime’ is absolute.
(2) ‘Spacetime’ represents universe as a whole. It is not a part of the universe.
(3) The absoluteness of ‘spacetime’ is represented by the constancy of the speed of light.
(4) The phenomenon of inertia that resists acceleration also seem to represent the absoluteness of’ ‘spacetime’, or the universe.
(5) Mass is inertia. Increase in mass would mean that the resistance to acceleration is increasing.
(6) Infinite increase in mass would mean infinite resistance to acceleration. This may occur when the relative speed wants to go from ‘0’ to ‘c’ in no time.
(7) The idea that mass of an object increases to infinity as its speed approaches ‘c’ seems to be inconsistent if the object is experiencing no acceleration, but simply moving at ‘c’.
(8) Mass would increase not with its speed but with its acceleration.
(9) The universe as a whole cannot be said to have any speed, only its parts can have relative speeds.
(10) The universe as a whole cannot be accelerated, only parts within it may be accelerated relative to each other.
(11) Any acceleration within the universe would lead to the creation of mass (resistance to accelertion).
(12) Thus, in this universe, mass would balance force.
(13) It is my conjecture that force converts into mass, and mass converts back to force in this universe.
.
LikeLike
Vin:(1) The theory of relativity seems to say that ‘space’ and ‘time’ are relative to ‘spacetime’, and ‘spacetime’ is absolute.
Chris: Here in his own words are clues as to where to look for inconsistencies. Newton said, “. . . Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time …”
LikeLike
Vin: (2) ‘Spacetime’ represents universe as a whole. It is not a part of the universe.
Chris: That seems a slippery slope. To me it seems to be at least one whole part.
LikeLike
Vin: (3) The absoluteness of ‘spacetime’ is represented by the constancy of the speed of light.
Chris: This would be our abstraction of the processes going on.
LikeLike
Vin: (4) The phenomenon of inertia that resists acceleration also seem to represent the absoluteness of’ ‘spacetime’, or the universe.
Chris: I don’t know what you mean by this.
LikeLike
Vin: (5) Mass is inertia. Increase in mass would mean that the resistance to acceleration is increasing.
Chris: Space used to have homogenous elastic mass. Now there is less mass in the seeming void of space as it has already gathered itself together into the deposits of mass we know as galaxies, clusters and superclusters of galaxies.
I agree with your question about why mass increases as it “moves” faster. There is an answer to this.
LikeLike
Is mass the same thing as matter? Can there be massless matter?
.
LikeLike
That is quite a good question. I will ponder… What are the qualities of matter vs what are the qualities of mass? How could there be such a thing as massless matter?
LikeLike
Mass is an abstract concept. Matter is concrete.
.
LikeLike
Would you say that gravity is an abstract or concrete?
LikeLike
Vin: (6) Infinite increase in mass would mean infinite resistance to acceleration. This may occur when the relative speed wants to go from ’0′ to ‘c’ in no time.
Chris: That’s not how it’s laid out is it? Both acceleration and deceleration is resisted, however, mass increases as velocity increases and we have to ask “relative to what?” So what could the answer be? I say it is relative to the space around the object.
LikeLike
Vin: (7) The idea that mass of an object increases to infinity as its speed approaches ‘c’ seems to be inconsistent if the object is experiencing no acceleration, but simply moving at ‘c’.
Chris: Yes! Bravo Vin. Now let’s use that inconsistency to pick at. What that we currently have no technology of could produce such a phenomena?
LikeLike
Vin: (8) Mass would increase not with its speed but with its acceleration.
Chris: I may not understand correctly but I don’t think that’s the extant way it is laid out.
LikeLike
Vin: (9) The universe as a whole cannot be said to have any speed, only its parts can have relative speeds.
Chris: Not so fast! As I wrote before, the universe of particles can have a relative speed to the space-time in which they exists. Is the space in motion? Or is it fixed? Or is it nothing? Or is some of it relatively fixed and some of it in motion? Is gravity “space in motion?”
LikeLike
How would you assess the speed of the universe as a whole? Is the universe moving relative to something else? What is that something else?
.
LikeLike
Vin: How would you assess the speed of the universe as a whole? Is the universe moving relative to something else?
Chris: I’m not sure — that answer can go a couple ways. Something that does seem sure is that this universe is in motion, at least all the parts of it seem to be in a different place than they were each and every moment. The universe seems to be roiling and everything we have a sense of is in motion or so it seems. We do not seem to have yet a good grasp of space nor of time – yet. Understanding more about these two will move us closer to accurately abstracting.
LikeLike
Vin: (10) The universe as a whole cannot be accelerated, only parts within it may be accelerated relative to each other.
Chris: Why would we state this? How does this idea help, which inconsistency does it level?
LikeLike
My definition of universe is “all that exists”. Therefore, there is nothing else that exists beside the universe. You do not have anything else to compare the universe to. So, the idea of universe for us acts as a near absolute.
Thus, we take speed of light as constant, or absolute for the purpose of the theory of relativity. It may not be absolute, but the theory of relitivity treats it as absolute.
.
LikeLike
Vin: (11) Any acceleration within the universe would lead to the creation of mass (resistance to acceleration).
Chris: So we have this phenomena. If what you’ve written were true, then what property of QM could account for this phenomena?
LikeLike
I don’t fully know what resistance exists at QM level.
.
LikeLike
And yet doesn’t it seem that ALL resistance is truly at QM level?
LikeLike
Vin: (12) Thus, in this universe, mass would balance force.
Chris: In this universe there seems a call to equilibrium. To state that mass balances force reminds me of complete entropy, and that is yet a long way off . . .
LikeLike
Vin: (13) It is my postulate that force converts into mass, and mass converts back to force in this universe.
Chris: How is this different from the Theory of Relativity? Or did you mean it to be different or a corollary or what?
LikeLike
Mass is different from matter. Force is different from energy.
.
LikeLike
Yes, you wrote that.
LikeLike
Good post . . . many juicy items there.
LikeLike
It seems that acceleration and mass are the same thing, but they look different from different frames of reference. Gravity is the phenomenon arising from this equivalence.
One needs to separate the idea of matter from mass. A large amount of matter can have no mass at all.
.
LikeLike