What is Space-Time, Really?

space-time

Motion and awareness seem to be aspects of each other. Please see What is Awareness, Scientifically?

In Physics, the most fundamental form of motion is the electromagnetic radiation. This motion is understood to be varying fields with wavelike characteristics. It has wavelength, period and frequency. The frequency provides a measure of the energy present per the relation, E = hν.

The wavelength of this motion can be said to provide a sense of extent, which we know as space. Space is basically an awareness of extent.

The period of this motion can be said to provide a sense of duration, which we know as time. Time is basically an awareness of duration.

But neither space nor time are absolute. They are even transformable into each other. There is no absolute unit of time. Therefore, frequency cannot be defined simply as an inverse of period. Frequency is related to space-time.

Thus, frequency, which provides a sense of energy, must lie in the dimension of space-time. In other words, space-time is not empty. Space-time is filled with the sense of energy.

Space-time is basically an awareness of energy.

If there is no energy there shall be no space-time.

.

There is an overall awareness of motion. Motion may be described in terms of wavelength (extent), period (duration), and frequency (energy) as its characteristics.

Thus overall awareness of motion may be described in terms of space (awareness of extent), time (awareness of duration), and space-time (awareness of energy) respectively.

.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Comments

  • vinaire  On December 24, 2014 at 9:11 AM

    The speed of light as a universal constant is a reasonable assumption from a matter-centric basis. The speed of visible light is so much faster than the speed of earth that any variations in it are simply impossible to detect.

    A comparision may be made between the frequency of visible light (2^49 Hz) to the de Broglie frequency of earth (2^182 Hz). The ratio is 2^133. This makes for a lot of decimal points. If the speed is related to the frequency (a possibility) it would be impossible to detect variations in speed of light using instruments based on earth.

    I see in future a calculation of the speed of light based on a more equitable ether-centric basis. This will bring about a major improvement in theoretical physics, especially if an equivalency could be established between electromagnetic wave frequency and the matter-wave frequency of de Broglie.

    • 2ndxmr  On December 24, 2014 at 2:06 PM

      V:”de Broglie frequency of earth (2^182 Hz)”

      I’ve never come across “de Broglie frequency of earth” before. Can you point to a reference?

      • vinaire  On December 24, 2014 at 2:52 PM

        I calculated it from the values provided in Wikipedia.

        Per Einstein, E = hf, therefore, frequency = (E/h)

        But that frequency is for wave moving at the speed of light, c. For matter, the speed is a small fraction of the speed of light = (v/c). Therefore, for matter

        frequency = (v/c)(E/h) = (v/c)(mc^2/h) = (mvc/h) = p (c/h)
        ……………..= p (0.453 x 10^26) in SI units

        For earth, m = 5.972E24 kg, v = 29.78 km/s, p = mv = 17.8 x 10^28 kg m/s

        f = (17.8 x 10^28) (0.453 x 10^26) = 8 x 10^54 = 2^182 (DL = 182)

        • 2ndxmr  On December 24, 2014 at 5:48 PM

          By that calculation route you could get a hugely higher DL for the sun (also in motion) or for a galaxy (also in motion).

          I would be more inclined to limit the uppermost frequency in our observable universe to be set by the Planck length (Lp) where that would correspond to the shortest possible wavelength(or 1/2 of a wavelength), and the shortest possible time period for that wavelength would be the Planck time unit(which itself is defined by light speed c and Lp.)

          The highest frequency should be 1/t where t = Planck time unit.

          Thus the highest frequency should be on the order of 1.85 x 10^43 Hz.

          Whether other dimensions could carry this further is a possible question, but for all the quantum dimensions governed by Planck’s constant, I would say this frequency limit would hold.

        • vinaire  On December 24, 2014 at 6:31 PM

          It seems that the greater is the mass, the higher is the frequency.

          The higher is the frequency, the slower is the speed of the object. The speed of sun shall be relatively slower than the speed of earth.

          The ultimate static will lie in the direction of extremely massive objects. Black holes may act as such anchor points in the universe. They already seem to act as such for galaxies.

        • 2ndxmr  On December 24, 2014 at 7:59 PM

          “It seems that the greater is the mass, the higher is the frequency.”

          There may be a correlation there as our highest measured frequencies are something like 10^18 Hz (or possibly 10^30 Hz per some ref I can’t remember offhand) and that is a far cry from what I would expect as a highest frequency (10^43 Hz).

          An interesting example of mass is the “top” quark which has a huge mass (173 GeV/c^2), about the mass of an atom of Tungsten. So the question I have is if the Higgs boson is the root particle of the elementary particles (all particles should ultimately derive from the Higgs boson), how does it (“top” q) appear to have 8 times the mass of the Higgs boson, the first condensation from the Higgs field?

        • 2ndxmr  On December 24, 2014 at 8:09 PM

          “So the question I have is if the Higgs boson is the root particle of the elementary particles…”

          {to self:} {check google, check google, check google….@%##!}

          wiki:”The Standard Model describes fermion masses through the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs boson has a Yukawa coupling to the left- and right-handed top quarks. After electroweak symmetry breaking (when the Higgs acquires a vacuum expectation value), the left- and right-handed components mix, becoming a mass term.”

  • vinaire  On December 24, 2014 at 3:34 PM

    Particles are localized bundles of energy and momentum, A wave, in contrast, is a disturbance spread over space.

    Mathematically, the particle is treated as a point, and the wave is treated as a point tracing a path. These two types of points are not really equivalent, but treated as equivalent through mathematics.

    There is something missing here.

  • vinaire  On December 24, 2014 at 4:51 PM

    This is an interesting statement from Shankar’s Book on page 108.

    At some given time t, the wave is periodic in space with a period λ, called its wavelength, and likewise at a given point x, it is periodic in time, repeating itself every T seconds, T being called the time period.

    .

    So, both space and time are periodic.

    .

    • 2ndxmr  On December 24, 2014 at 5:05 PM

      For time to be periodic it would have to be oscillating.

      Time is linear (relativistic effects aside, but the effects do not cause a time oscillation).

      For time and space to be commutative, changing time would have to create space, but we define time passage by the change in “stuff”, so there does not appear to be commutativity.

      • Chris Thompson  On December 24, 2014 at 11:31 PM

        “For time to be periodic it would have to be oscillating.”

        I would like to explore if or why this is a problem?

        Roughly expressed, I see spacetime expanding by adding from a base and pushing outward in at least 3 ways like this: 1. Beginning from a base”l” and growing (by adding dashes) l- – – – – > and thus pushing a leading edge. Or, 2. Beginning from a leading edge and emanating from that leading edge adding arrows from a starting point thus: l > > > > > , Or, 3. Fractally, beginning from a finite bubble and continuously dividing, so that rather than expanding, shrinking away from, receding from an envelope so that from the view of the shrinking particle, the envelope’s edge appears to recede as though expanding.

        • 2ndxmr  On December 27, 2014 at 5:09 PM

          2x:“For time to be periodic it would have to be oscillating.”

          CT:”I would like to explore if or why this is a problem?”

          If time had a period it would imply that time followed a function such as sine. If so, then during the “period” there would be changes of rate of time or even plus and minus time. (If your sine function always stayed positive * you’d see change of rate of time but if your sine function went positive and negative then time would go forward [positive portion of the sine function] and then backwards [negative portion of sine].)

          For normal matter and energy, time seems to move in a linear, constant and positive flow. That action does not imply periodicity.

          * the function “sine” is defined by a plus and minus change. To have a “sine” function that is always positive you need to have something like sin^2 (sine squared).

        • Chris Thompson  On December 27, 2014 at 11:33 PM

          Ah. I do see what you mean. Our apparency is that it’s changes are direct rather than alternating.

          1. Unless the sine was of a particularly long wavelength and frequency (tens of billions of light years)? Or, 2. The underpinning of time were digital in nature? Such as the type of sine we generate with power electronics using IGBTs? Possibly with quantum jumps in energy state as an indicator or evidence of this process?

      • Chris Thompson  On December 24, 2014 at 11:33 PM

        “For time to be periodic it would have to be oscillating.”

        More than commutative, I may not see a clear distinction, these spacetime blur together for me. Without the one there seems not to be the other.

        • vinaire  On December 25, 2014 at 9:51 AM

          In my view spacetime is simply getting organized.

          Disturbance (spacetime) –> frequency –> energy –> mass

          We have to get away from the human-cemtric perspective as much as possible.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On December 25, 2014 at 2:29 PM

          “In my view spacetime is simply getting organized.”

          And If I say something kind of opposite, that in my view, spacetime is the initial progressive step of increasing entropy after a singularity, what would you say? This is based on an assumption that the singularity is the most organized with the least entropy.

        • vinaire  On December 25, 2014 at 3:22 PM

          It may depend on how one interprets “getting organized”. Besides, I can’t imagine the universe as a singularity when that is all that there is. I guess it will remain a singularity forever.

          Does the idea of entropy apply to the whole universe?

        • 2ndxmr  On December 27, 2014 at 5:20 PM

          CT:”More than commutative, I may not see a clear distinction, these spacetime blur together for me. ”

          The first thing you have to have is an agreed definition of time. Which definition would you like to use?

        • Chris Thompson  On December 27, 2014 at 11:56 PM

          “The first thing you have to have is an agreed definition of time. Which definition would you like to use?”

          Right. I don’t know. It seems that more than one definition creates more than one model, more than one frame of reference, more than one possibility of consistency.

          Time is a fundamental characteristic of my own existence but I do not know how this plays out at a fundamental quantum mechanics order of magnitude. So too is space. Big Bang concepts give us both in congruence beginning with the idea of a unity. I try to understand these concepts without weighting them too heavily so that my thinking loses its flexibility.

          I spent a few moments today running a kind of audit of a crossroads I experienced as a boy. I went back to a decision point and decided differently, then in reverse order attempted to run that forward predicting and mocking up the possible futures that decision incepted into a time that didn’t happen for me. It was invigorating and left me thinking of many possibilities for that imaginary past. Coming back to the present, I felt flexible as though I still have many possible futures even though my current age, like the universe around me, acceleratingly flies away into these futures.

          What is spacetime really? For me, it is a wondrous abstraction.

        • 2ndxmr  On December 28, 2014 at 3:11 AM

          wiki: “Time is a measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them.”

          I don’t think that is anything but a dodgey, misleading definition.

          What “events” are the time measure? Orbit time around the sun? The vibration period of crystal? The resonance frequency of a rubidium atom?

          All have a certain validity in a certain frame of reference. Nothing new to anyone here.

          However, to talk about time at its quantum unit we start by looking at the typical units we use to describe time (distance divided by velocity) and then take our best measurements of some basic phenomena that we can actually measure fairly closely (gravitational effects, light-speed, light frequency and light energy) and juggle equations until we get our desired time term showing up as a measure of distance divided by velocity.

          Planck’s constant h was derived from the observed relationship between light energy and frequency.

          It’s a fundamental unit. It doesn’t budge. There is no apparency that it is not a basic number at the fundamental, first fractal, quantum level.

          Other phenomena measured as constants (the speed of light, c, and the gravitational constant, G) allow the accurate calculation of two related constants: the Planck length and the Planck time unit.

          You can take these “Planck constants” to the bank. They have definite values and those values don’t get compromised. And because of this they form a basis from which we can accurately posit expectations of behavior in matter and energy.

          So ultimately we can fairly accurately say a few things about time, including that the mathematics indicates there could be a “minus time” or reversal of time (not that we could experience it). But nowhere is there an indication that time could be periodic along some function such as either a sinusoidal wave or a square wave (on-off).

          The speculation that time could repeat because of an eventual collapse of the universe still does not present us with a truly periodic time within this universe.

          Lastly, my own speculation that time is an artifact of a rate-of-change-of-space still does not imply a periodicity of time even though it comes from a periodicity of space. This is because the rate of change would be constant. So, just like a motor could be set to maintain a constant shaft speed, so too could a resonating space maintain the apparency of a constant time unit per period of space.

        • vinaire  On December 28, 2014 at 5:47 AM

          Space, time and space-time have to do with awareness. This awareness angle has yet to be explored by science.

          By the way, here are some excellent videos that describe the calculation of Planck’s length anf Planck’s time through the use of dimensional analysis.

          Constants of this Universe

          .

      • vinaire  On December 27, 2014 at 5:59 PM

        A period occurs in the dimension of time. What is oscillating is not time but the disturbance.

        • 2ndxmr  On December 27, 2014 at 7:13 PM

          “What is oscillating is not time but the disturbance.”

          Right. And from that I see neither time being periodic nor commutative with space.

          However, time being non-periodic under normal circumstances does not absolutely mean that the “time-apparency” cannot be reversed.

          There are, in fact, quantum scenarios in which time seems to have a backward component. It is this property which is commonly agreed upon to exist for anti-particles: that their behavior can be described as a normal particle reversing its time vector.

  • 2ndxmr  On December 24, 2014 at 4:53 PM

    “Mathematically, the particle is treated as a point, and the wave is treated as a point tracing a path. These two types of points are not really equivalent, but treated as equivalent through mathematics.”

    That’s what the string theorists are trying to handle with strings and branes.

    This is pretty much the same thing I’ve been looking at from the viewpoint of geometries *(point, line, plane, sphere, helix, vortex).

    You’re probably seeing, via the linear algebra, how dimension can be defined and how even a common medium can have any number of different dimensions as long as the component vectors are independent – which is what the * geometries are.

    • vinaire  On December 24, 2014 at 6:42 PM

      There seems to be a dimension in which space itself compresses. It can best be compared to the dimension of increasing frequecy.

      If frequency cannot increase then it probably starts to compress space at that point. This is just a conjecture.

  • vinaire  On December 25, 2014 at 9:02 AM

    Awareness is part of the motion that is being observed. Awareness is not separate from that motion. If there is no motion there is no awareness.

    Per E = mc^2, the mass appears to decompress into energy.

    Per E = hf, the frequency appears to be organized into energy.

    Frequency is simply the feature of disturbance made up of spacetime.

    So, it seems that the awareness of disturbance, when organized appears as energy, and the awareness of energy when compressed appears as mass.

    Thus, we seem to have the following progression.

    Disturbance –> spacetime –> frequency –> energy –> mass

    It is basically the organization and compression of motion and awareness.

    .

    • vinaire  On December 25, 2014 at 9:07 AM

      The quantum feature seems to enter the picture when frequency is being organized into energy.

      This is evident through resonances that occur in disturbance (spacetime).

      The Planck’s Constant could be a basic unit of organized awareness.

    • vinaire  On December 25, 2014 at 9:11 AM

      Prior to Planck’s “units” there is simply disorganized disturbance (spacetime).

      Planck’s “units” seem to relate to some kind of fundamental resonance.

      • 2ndxmr  On December 27, 2014 at 7:44 PM

        “Planck’s “units” seem to relate to some kind of fundamental resonance.”

        Right. And the resonance must be uniform in order for the Constant to be constant.

  • vinaire  On December 25, 2014 at 9:44 AM

    Here is an interesting link from Quora.

    http://www.quora.com/Did-Einstein-understand-Quantum-Mechanics

    .

    • vinaire  On December 25, 2014 at 9:53 AM

      I have yet to study the materials at the above link in detail. They look very interesting.

  • vinaire  On December 26, 2014 at 6:50 AM

    I have posed the following question on Quora.

    Does Einstein’s Theory of Relativity suffer from a matter-centric bias?

    https://www.quora.com/Does-Einsteins-Theory-of-Relativity-suffer-from-a-matter-centric-bias

  • vinaire  On December 26, 2014 at 8:25 PM

    A disturbance is not made up of particles, yet there is some substance to it. Quantum theory, therefore, describes the disturbance in terms of probability densities.

    May be that is the best way to go about it. But the disturbance is not made of some material substance.

  • vinaire  On December 27, 2014 at 4:38 PM

    Only when mass of a particle is concentrated at a point that its position and momentum can be determined precisely. This is not the case with the phenomenon found at quantum level.

    The wave characteristic of the phenomenon introduces uncertainty in the position. When the phenomenon is given a position, not all the momentum get accounted for at that location.

  • vinaire  On December 27, 2014 at 7:30 PM

    Space and time are dimesions. They provide measure to parameters of disturbance that are periodic.

    The statement from Shankar’s Book was.

    At some given time t, the wave is periodic in space with a period λ, called its wavelength, and likewise at a given point x, it is periodic in time, repeating itself every T seconds, T being called the time period.

    .

    • vinaire  On December 27, 2014 at 7:31 PM

      So the disturbance repeats itself both in space and time.

      • 2ndxmr  On December 27, 2014 at 7:39 PM

        Yes. It is the repetition of the “disturbance” that sets the time period. Here time is an adjective of period. This is different than Time being periodic.

        • Chris Thompson  On December 28, 2014 at 12:03 AM

          “This is different than Time being periodic.”

          Example?

        • 2ndxmr  On December 28, 2014 at 1:03 AM

          CT:”Example?”

          Examples of some things with a time period:

          1) an engine running at 2000 RPM

          2) take some gears, springs and metal bars, arrange them into a clock mechanism and create a device that will have a time period of 12 units. It may or may not be a clock but it may have a repeatable time period.

          Example of time being periodic:

          An example of where time starts, stops and starts and stops on a periodic basis… in this universe… apart from a conjectured expansion and collapse of the universe…

          … . . . Hmmmmmm… Nope. Can’t think of one. Can you?

    • Chris Thompson  On December 28, 2014 at 12:02 AM

      Looking away from quanta toward the macro, I see no reason that there cannot be very long wavelengths and frequencies of time.

      • vinaire  On December 28, 2014 at 5:29 AM

        The basis of the Disturbance Scale (frequency 2^0) is postulated to be that.

  • vinaire  On December 28, 2014 at 8:08 AM

    It seems that mathematics can brainwash people. Such people doubt their perception of reality. So, they start to rely heaviiy on math and mathematical conjectures, more than on their perception of reality.

    • vinaire  On December 28, 2014 at 8:10 AM

      The solution here is to fully understand how the mathematical reasoning is derived from reality in the first place.

  • vinaire  On December 28, 2014 at 8:26 AM

    At the heart of Quantum Mechanics is the WAVE FUNCTION, Ψ. It is supposed to describe the quantum entity (the wave-particle duality) completely. It is a function of space and time.

    The particle form is related to space-time (ST1) that is outside of the entity. The wave form is related to the space-time (ST2) that is inside the entity.

    We are assuming ST1 and ST2 to be one and the same. Is this assumption correct?

    http://www.quora.com/Is-the-space-time-in-which-a-quantum-entity-moves-is-the-same-space-time-that-it-is-composed-of

    • 2ndxmr  On December 28, 2014 at 1:05 PM

      “We are assuming ST1 and ST2 to be one and the same. Is this assumption correct?”

      Largely.

      It comes down to viewpoint.

      A sheet of paper can be viewed as a square, a parallelogram or a line depending on the angle from which it is viewed.

      Its motion properties will also change depending on how it is oriented wrt the axis of motion.

      I expect that waves will have some orientational components that make them behave similarly under motion.

      These orientational components may align the wave with 3-space or some other external dimension, but the effect of the orientation will be seen in the degree of interaction of some wave-particle A with some wave-particle B.

  • vinaire  On December 28, 2014 at 9:01 AM

    The modulus squared of the wavefunction, |ψ|^2, is a real number interpreted as the probability density of finding a particle in a given place at a given time.

    But such a description of probability assumes that the particle is like a point, whereas there is no such point-particle because of observed wave-particle duality.

    This seems to be a very fundamental inconsistency in Quantum Theory.

  • vinaire  On December 28, 2014 at 9:43 AM

    Particles are localized bundles of energy and momentum. A wave, in contrast, is a disturbance spread over space.

    Classical mechanics deals with objects whose center of mass can be assumed to be located at a point. However, it deals with wave as a disturbance that has no center of mass.

    Quantum mechanics deals with an entity that displays wave-particle duality. This means that we do not have a particle whose center of mass can be assumed to be located at a point. We may only predict the location of it with certain probability.

    Outside the quantum entity would be the region where the probability of finding the c.m. is zero. Inside the quantum entity would be the region where the probability of finding the c.m. is non-zero.

    This can best be described as having a “diffused-particle” rather than a “point-particle”.

    My question is if the space-time nature of these two regions is being assumed to be the same, and if so then what is the justification for it?

    • 2ndxmr  On December 28, 2014 at 12:44 PM

      The justification was that it was the way to get rid of the “imaginary” operator, ‘i’.

      The failing was in not inspecting this “imaginary” component.

  • Chris Thompson  On December 28, 2014 at 10:52 PM

    Defining time: A disturbance in 3D space is motion = time. Time is motion in 3D space.
    Vin says motion is awareness and vice versa. Or is a disturbance not motion?
    There is no non moving 3D space is there?
    There is no spacetime without either time or space. Nor any space without time nor any time without space. That all this is in motion is a given, isn’t it?

    Must it be a given?

  • Chris Thompson  On December 28, 2014 at 10:54 PM

    For there to be spacetime, there must be motion.

    • vinaire  On December 28, 2014 at 11:09 PM

      Space and time and spacetime are aspects of motion per the OP.

    • 2ndxmr  On December 28, 2014 at 11:22 PM

      There is no reason you couldn’t have a static volume of space.

      It is more probable to find space without awareness than space with awareness.

  • vinaire  On December 29, 2014 at 8:05 AM

    When I am looking at inconsistency it is not in mathematics, but it is in the ideas on which mathematics is based. There is a definite particle-fixation in quantum mechanics, otherwise why would one be thinking in terms of a “point-particle” while looking at probability? Experimentations at quantum level has shown that there is no such thing as a “point-particle.”

    The basic inconsistency that I see is that space is being perceived as independent of the disturbance (wave) and the mass (particle). That is a fixed idea. It is being believed that there is a “point-location” even when there is no “point-particle.” Is that true? Or is it an assumption… one of those things that are being taken for granted? Can’t space itself be “diffused” like the quantum particle.

    I do not think that space and time are very precise in themselves. That is just a mathematical assumption. Space and time are as diffused as are the obervations at quantum level.

    • 2ndxmr  On December 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM

      V:”There is a definite particle-fixation in quantum mechanics, otherwise why would one be thinking in terms of a “point-particle” while looking at probability?”

      Back when you and I were young and going to school all that was being taught was the particle idea and so it stuck with us. It wasn’t until about 2 years ago that I finally realized that it was necessary to stop thinking about “atomic and quantum stuff” as hard, physical objects, albeit tiny.

      It is a very hard idea to shake, and, of course, the next question is “Well, if it isn’t hard stuff then what is it?”

      And, of course, at that level there is still much debate. And that debate started in the 1920’s. Or earlier.

      So is it any wonder that the area is confusing?

      OK, so now we’re up to looking at the “stuff” that is at the root of the quantum phenomena but we’re faced with the problem that there is currently no way to measure what the stuff is. Our best measurement devices will have to be improved to being a billion, billion times better than they now are before we can begin to get close to the frequencies that may constitute the “fabric of the universe”.

      V:”The basic inconsistency that I see is that space is being perceived as independent of the disturbance (wave) and the mass (particle). That is a fixed idea.”

      Exactly. And that amazes me considering the Higgs phenomena basically describes a condensation of energy and mass from a field.

      It may be that physicists also suffer from fixed ideas on what a field is and thus cannot properly think with field condensation.

      But I think there is still one step to go in your thinking and that is to look at the inconsistency introduced by the idea of the probability wave. This idea of probability is simply a solution to the problem of dealing with the ‘i’, “imaginary” operator in the Schrodinger equation.

      Accepting that the probability function is a good solution to defining quantum phenomena is very much on the same level as accepting that particles were “hard stuff”. It is another fixed idea that must be shaken and then dispensed with. It is workable to a degree – as was the idea of hard particles – but the workability breaks down as one looks at finer and finer aspects of quantum phenomena. As you say, it is a math idea that obfuscates the actual phenomena.

      I believe that getting past that point will require physicists to accept and understand what is likely to be metaphysical phenomena, specifically the means of memory.

  • Bradford Jones  On January 4, 2015 at 4:31 AM

    I believe thru fractal math we will be able to merge mass with wave frequency and learn the infantsy of folding space! I’m sure i’m not the first who has said this!

%d bloggers like this: