Both Lorentz and Einstein arrived at the same equation but from different angles. Lorentz was a classical scientist who still believed in ether. Einstein on the other hand simply discarded the idea of ether in favor of a new theory of relativity. But both looked at the datum of “motion” being senior to the supposed fundamental absoluteness of “space” and “time.”
I also believe that motion is senior to space and time. Space and time do not have to be absolute in their characteristics. We have long looked at motion as a function of space and time. It is revolutionary, but more accurate, to look at space and time as components of motion. The question now arises if motion is something absolute.
Both Lorentz and Einstein seem to treat motion as absolute in terms of “speed of light.” But I have doubts about that. It seems to me that speed of light is not absolute, and motion is not the seniormost datum.
Underlying motion there seems to be a primordial inertia-less field, which, when disturbed by a primordial activity-less agent, gives rise to motion.
But then, I doubt the absoluteness of this statement as well. But it may prove very useful for the moment.
.
COMMENT 2/19/2023
The following comments went into discussing the Higgs Field. Here is my current understanding of the Higgs Mechanism:
.
Comments
IMO time is an artifact of the motion of space.
If space has field-like properties – and the notion of the Higgs field seems to confirm that it would – then the extremely high frequency of the Higgs field implies an extremely high rate of change of space in terms of volume or area.
LikeLike
In the Disturbance Hypothesis, extremely high frequency seems to collapse the field (space) on itself to generate a mass particle like neutron. Currently,this is the area I am focusing on. I need a better understanding of the fundamental particles.
LikeLike
Yes, but the OP is about time and space. What I am getting at is that time is an apparency – an artifact – of a periodic alteration of space.
A single space “period” may be like a 2D picture with successive pictures making the ongoing movie. Some physicists have proposed that the universe is really 2D and it is these continuous 2D frames that give the apparency of 3D. These physicists propose time as a 3rd dimension.
In the simple 2D case, this periodicity would be space expanding from a point to a circular plane and then collapsing back to the point. The expanded space would provide the tangible, solid phase of existence that we call reality. For the purpose of clarity in the discussion of this model I’ll refer to the solid picture phase as a page.
In order for the point to re-expand into a page that was very close to the last page an image of the last-created page must be taken prior to the collapse. Otherwise each successive page would be completely new and random. The “image” picture forms the basis for the creation of the next page.
In terms of mathematics, if the “page” dimension is the “Real” plane, then any coordinate in the Real plane can be mapped as R[x,y]. The copying would likely be done in the mathematical imaginary, i plane that would mathematically appear as a plane intersecting the Real plane at a right angle.
As the collapse of the Real page progressed, the Real content (like a pixel) at each collapsing coordinate would map to the corresponding “imaginary” coordinate, essentially a virtual picture being taken of the Real picture (page).
The basic mathematical transform would be R[x,y]->I[x,y] meaning the value at the Real coordinate would map (copy) to the “I” (“imaginary”) coordinate during the collapsing portion of the cycle.
This expansion-collapse mechanism would act like a simple harmonic oscillator (like a spring oscillating) and is kept energized by the virtual, or imaginary plane. This is a well understood principle in physics and electronics.
The periodic cycle would then consist of the alternating expansion-collapse of the Real and “i”maginary planes.
Motion of particles as they exist in the Real frame could occur during the duration of the Real frame.
Any other change (like a random change) in the Real frame would be due to an alteration of the virtual picture during the “I”maginary phase so that when the “I”maginary picture collapses into the Real page an apparent random change has occurred in the Real frame.
The alteration of the virtual picture would come through the effect of random probability or consciousness.
The changes seen in the periodic cycling of Real frames would give the apparency of time. The actual base unit of time would be the rate of frame change. In the PU this seems to be the Planck time unit of 5×10^-44 seconds.
This rate of change of space also intrinsically defines the speed of light as light cannot go faster than space can expand, space being the carrier of light.
The limitation of this 2D model becomes apparent when you try to explain why light is affected by regions in space where extremely large gravitational effects are to be found. This is handled by expanding the model to include a dimension for gravity. There is no reason, with this type of model, to limit Real space to 2 dimensions. All added dimensions could and likely would follow the same rule of expansion and collapse. Added dimensions can also explain the qualities we know as mass and charge.
LikeLike
Yes, time is sensed from periodic alteration of space, and space is how what is sensed is arranged. Consciousness is definitely part of the process, and not separate from the process.
I belive that motion or disturbance in the inertia-less field is as far back as we can go at the moment. Space, time, frequency, inertia, and consciousness are the outcome of motion.
.
LikeLike
2X: A single space “period” may be like a 2D picture with successive pictures making the ongoing movie.
Chris: This is a good analogy for my own abstraction of reality as 2D with fractal providing depth and periodic frames providing time. I’m not sure what provides the mental dimension unless all abstraction is mental and so forth.
LikeLike
Precise and concise. Good one.
This high frequency seems at odds with Vin’s disturbance level scale. In his hypothesis, the Higg’s Field would be at DL zero, or did I get that wrong Vinnie?
Disturbance level hypothesis proposes a quiet background field which becomes disturbed and when it does, it seems to reproduce that reiterative disturbance through radiation. If the radiation is quite excited then at various increasing scales, the radiation first materializes then becomes more pronounced until a point when sub-atomic particles are born. Possibly it has been billions of years since any sub-atomic particles were materialized. Then accordingly, through the star-cycle, hydrogen (the basic atom) is pressed into larger and more dense atoms at higher disturbance levels.
I like it. However, I cannot conceptualize whether the scale is high when energy and frequency is high or the other way around. I’m stalled as it seems that the most energetic, lowest entropy, and uncondensed state would have been present at the beginning of time and with entropy increasing ever since. I cannot tell which end of this to embrace.
How do you see disturbance levels comparing with Higgs Field?
“time an artifact of motion” Like it.
LikeLike
CT:” Possibly it has been billions of years since any sub-atomic particles were materialized.”
Sub atomic particles are seen to spontaneously condense from the vacuum, generally in pairs that then self annihilate, keeping entropy unchanged by the spontaneous appearance. If they did not self-annihilate we should see entropy lowering but it is uniformly increasing. These particles are often called virtual particles even though they have a Real duration.
CT:”How do you see disturbance levels comparing with Higgs Field? ”
I can’t make that comparison because the DL hypothesis seems to be aimed at the condensed portion of the PU (matter and energy) and I would say that the Higgs field is uncondensed.
An interesting implication of an uncondensed Higgs field is that it may be a uniform size – larger than the expanding PU which occupies only a portion of the full Higgs field. It may also have regions of greater density as it has been noted by scientists that the density of appearance of virtual particles is greater in some regions of space than other regions.
I view the Higgs field as a sort of standing wave made of multiple dimensions of – for lack of better terminology – “basic space”.
With that multidimensional initial construct, a portion of the Higgs field could have been induced to condense, begetting the Big Bang and the matter and energy of the PU.
LikeLike
2X: Sub atomic particles are seen to spontaneously condense from the vacuum,
CT: I meant electrons, protons, neutrons, – pieces of atoms. Not pieces of pieces. Is this what you meant?
LikeLike
2X: I can’t make that comparison because the DL hypothesis seems to be aimed at the condensed portion of the PU (matter and energy) and I would say that the Higgs field is uncondensed.
CT: Very interesting! This is an interesting point for me to understand about DL-zero. Vinnie, in your model, do you propose there is anything condensed at DL0? I say no and this is why I made the comparison to the Higgs Field. I have the understanding that DLzero is the nearest layer of disturbance to unknowable. It is known since we are talking about it but uncondensed and undisturbed. The very next and quietest disturbance is the very longest of EM radiation. Is this what you mean Vinnie?
LikeLike
Yes. You got it right.
LikeLike
2X: An interesting implication of an uncondensed Higgs field is that it may be a uniform size – larger than the expanding PU which occupies only a portion of the full Higgs field.
CT: Yes, this is appealing to me as it reduces the headache I get when trying to visualize a surface envelope to space-time. This is one more reason that I compared DL-0 to the Higgs Field. I’m not sure where to put the most basic condensed disturbance particle on the DL scale, but it would be located at a point greater than zero.
LikeLike
2X: “It may also have regions of greater density as it has been noted by scientists that the density of appearance of virtual particles is greater in some regions of space than other regions.”
CT: Mindblowing! And I say fractal because the better our perception resolves, something greater and smaller continually comes into view. The most basic and sense of perceptions seems to be mental abstraction.
LikeLike
2X: I view the Higgs field as a sort of standing wave made of multiple dimensions of – for lack of better terminology – “basic space”.
CT: Yes, I can see that. This type of comment about basic space stimulates and nags at me. My basic questions about basic space revolve around in this way: If Higgs Field were basic space space, then is the condensed part of the universe containing space-time or just time and motion superimposed on basic space? Meaning, “Is the space already there?” It is intuitive to see a basic space already present in the universe and for me seemingly impossible to imagine an absence of space. But we are taught in the Big Bang that all space-time was contained in that single point of singularity at the inception of this material universe. For me this is inconsistent and I have not resolved it.
LikeLike
2X: With that multidimensional initial construct, a portion of the Higgs field could have been induced to condense, begetting the Big Bang and the matter and energy of the PU.
CT: This seems more consistent and less paradoxical to me and I love to hate a paradox.
LikeLike
CT:My basic questions about basic space revolve around in this way: If Higgs Field were basic space space, [b] then is the condensed part of the universe containing space-time or just time and motion superimposed on basic space?[/b]
2X: A really good question.
In a simple standing wave there may be no motion at all in the peaks and valleys of the wave. There would be no apparent time in such a wave.
Another form of a standing wave will have the characteristic of a plucked guitar string where there are unmoving nodes and oscillating waves. The period of the oscillation then relates to time. In the case of the Higgs field the standing wave oscillation rate would define our universal time.
CT: “Is the space already there?” It is intuitive to see a basic space already present in the universe and for me seemingly impossible to imagine an absence of space.”
2X: Now we’re edging up on the crux of it. IMO the starting point would be a void. The void is a construct that is initially empty of any magnitude of any dimension but is capable of supporting multiple dimensions. It is sort of like a balloon that starts off empty and can then be filled. Instead of just one balloon it is probably more like staring with an empty garbage bag that can support a multiple of balloons within it. Quite a number of balloons could be blown up, each with its own distinct shape and volume.
In terms of universes, there could be any number of distinct universes within the void. Lot’s of possibilities of interaction or non-interaction of universes might be predicted with this model.
The idea is simply that the void is empty but its emptiness is not the same as what we view empty space as. Our empty space would be Higgs field; the void’s empty should be thought of as empty void.
– the initial void had no magnitude but was capable of supporting dimension
– a Higgs-type field is composed of a multiple of dimensions that occupy a bounded volume in the void. The bounded volume would be like an inflated balloon.
– the Higgs field would have components (dimensions) that included what we call space, charge, gravity and others. These components are only apparent once they have condensed from the Higgs field.
– the basic vibratory rate intrinsic to the Higgs standing wave pattern sets the basic time unit in condensed space-time.
LikeLike
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics
In current understanding, particles are excitations of quantum fields and interact following their dynamics.
.
LikeLike
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
A field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time.
However, in Disturbance Hypothesis, I am looking at a field, which, when disturbed, produces motion, and thus space and time. I see space and time as components of motion. Inertia accompanies motion, and it increases as disturbance increases.
.
LikeLike
Or simply manifests everything? Not all at once but in degrees.
LikeLike
Currently, a field is assumed to exist in space. But space and time are components of motion as shown by the Theory of Relativity. Therefore, a field is currently assumed to exist in motion.
No motion = no field
A motion-less field of DL Theory is something very different.
LikeLike
If particles are a manifestation of an excited field, what is it that is doing the exciting? The field is exciting the field? How does disturbance come about – by what agency?
LikeLike
From OP:
“Underlying motion there seems to be a primordial inertia-less field, which, when disturbed by a primordial activity-less agent, gives rise to motion.”
.
LikeLike
“primordial activity-less agent”
If it’s making a disturbance in the field then it isn’t activity-less is it? 🙂
LikeLike
You cannot apply this universe’s logic to it. 🙂
.
LikeLike
Activity starts with motion.
LikeLike
Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical formulation. The whole purpose of Quantum Mechanics seems to be an understanding of the real phenomenon as observed.
LikeLike
To get familiar with the current understanding about fundamental particles, I need to understand some math in Quantum Mechanics. So, I am back to reviewing my understanding of Differential equations. Here is an excellent site for it.
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/
.
LikeLike