## Location in Space

In Quantum Physics, we are looking at an area where observation without bias means more than any education. We should be willing to question earlier assumptions, when they become obvious.

Our concept of space comes from dimensions of matter. Does the same concept of dimension apply to field? Suppose there is no matter but only field. How will we conceive of dimensions then?

Does an electromagnetic disturbance travel in space? Or is it a varying condition of space itself. Is “c” really the “speed” of light in “space”, or is it a constant relationship between space and time as represented by constant ratio of wavelength to period of electromagnetic disturbance?

If the frequency associated with electromagnetic disturbance is that of space itself vibrating, then we cannot look at the amplitude as some “distance”. With this kind of questioning I have upset people with traditional thinking who have accused me of keeping company of crackpots. But I do not believe traditional thinking is so sacred that it cannot be questioned.

I believe that truth lies in logical consistency. The Heisenberg Principle to me presents a logical inconsistency as it did to Einstein. It assumes that a location in a field could be approximated by a Euclidean point. I believe that to be logically inconsistent. A location in a field has dimension of the “wavelength” of the disturbance that makes up that field.

.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

or leave a trackback:

Trackback URL.

## Comments

Reblogged this on Chris Thompson.

V:”Suppose there is no matter but only field. How will we conceive of dimensions then?”

When you get the idea that a field need be nothing more than a geometric configuration (like a helix, or a spiral, or a line) of even something more basic, then it will make more sense.

The idea that there is one field per elementary particle should set off the alarm bells that such a physical universe could only be an engineered universe. Once those bells go off, then the elephant in the room becomes “What, or who, was/were the engineer(s)?”

At that point you have a causal chain and reverse engineering It should become simpler.

2nd: “When you get the idea that a field need be nothing more than a geometric configuration (like a helix, or a spiral, or a line) of even something more basic, then it will make more sense.”So, you think that field can be approximated by Euclidean geometry!

.

Some fields are approximated by a scalar!!

???

If you’re not yet familiar with it, the Higgs field is a scalar field: uniform at all points with no vector of directional intensity.

But, if you object to fields being associated with Euclidean geometry, then you’d better find a new way of expressing the sine wave.

I see Higg’s field as “undisturbed space”. Space splits into electrical and magnetic field when it is disturbed.

Location in a field cannot be approximated by a Euclidean point. That approximation is valid only for mass. That is where sine wave may be used.

.

In my view, mass is the common property of all kind of matter. Similarly, frequency is the common property of all kind of fields.

V:” Similarly, frequency is the common property of all kind of fields.”

Are you now saying that matter can’t have frequency or just that you think fields would

onlybe frequency based?At other times you’ve said you thought matter was simply very high frequencies that collapsed the wave function into a particle.

Quantum Field Theory (QFT) has been shown to work very well at explaining and predicting particles and their properties. It does not, however, make any predictions about the

structureof fields. In that sense it is proffered in a similar manner to the way Newton proffered the idea of gravity: Newton said (basically) “This is what happens, but I’ll leave it to other theorists to figure out why it happens.”In a similar manner to the way Newton’s idea of gravity begins to fail as we approach relativistic speeds, QFT begins to fail when it tries to predict gravity and the cosmological constant.

So, basically, fields are structures that are more complex than can be described with simple notions of frequency. If they were that simple they most likely would already have been figured out by the “really guys”.

I still think that what appears as mass is very high frequency disturbance condensed in some manner. The current statement is not logically inconsistent with it. It is actually setting up the ground for it.

The direct relationship between frequency and mass is just a conjecture at this stage. It is yet to be fully fleshed out and confirmed through experimentation.

My thoughts on Quantum Field Theory are expressed here.

https://vinaire.me/2015/11/28/what-is-quantum-field-theory/

.

Our idea of space comes from the dimensions of matter. Our idea of time comes from changes in matter. Our idea of space-time is therefore matter-centric. Thus, our idea of space-time is limited to the consideration of matter. Einstein had realized this near the end of his life. The following essay that he wrote in 1952 is most enlightening.

http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_space.html

For a long time we had considered matter as the basic substance, but field appears to be a substance more basic than matter. How does that affect our concept of space-time?

I believe that if Einstein had lived a bit longer he would have made another breakthrough by answering this question. We need to understand “space-time” first before we worry about “outside of space-time.” In most arguments one is using a limited matter-centric view of space-time.

Classical Mechanics is characterized by matter (Disturbance Level of about 80 and above)

Quantum Mechanics is characterized by field (Disturbance Level of less than 80)

Newton is looking at the disturbance levels greater than 100 acting in the background of disturbance level 0. This is a wide enough difference for Newtonian mechanics to work.

Newtonian mechanics depends on Euclidean Geometry that uses the notions of absolute space and absolute time.

Is electric field a result of electric charges, or is it the other way around?

I believe that an electron somehow gets generated within an electromagnetic field. The electron has electromagnetic nature.

V:”Is electric field a result of electric charges, or is it the other way around?”

The idea of fields is that they are all around us in some uniform fashion that enables their effects to be balanced – and therefore invisible to measurement – until there is some perturbation that condenses the field into a particle.

🙂 Sooner is better than latter. I am more confident that your theory is virtually identical to the one I discovered a few years ago. Be patient and consider this:

Field is space. Pitch space not field(electric). E=f or if you like E/f=1 and we get rid of the ambiguous mathematics and Einstein was at the doorway. Field is space but space is where nothing is …so get rid of the Euclidian idea. Pitch space leave it to nothingness it will not be missed. In fact it is going to disappear eventually from Physics text books.

Time is energy as indicated above. A time clock is simply objects which are bound together and rotate. Mother nature must work the same for every event. Then there is no magnetic field until you move to measure it. The forces that are measureable are electric and energy (synonymous with time) but they are not from the present they are from the pasted by counting the rotational completions. They appears because of the rotational field in both gravitational and electrical measurements using charge as the measuring tool. The equation Einstein was looking for is the same one Newton was looking for. Which is then given precisely by the equation Newton should have written in the new mathematics as : Newtons equation with energy instead of mass without any dimensional constants required. My editor isn’t working in this application. I will have to supplement this when I get it working. Maxwell’s equations are identical to Newton’s in fact it is the only equation nature has to execute.

The Gauss concept has to be applied and the extra coriolis and Euler forces show up in rotating frames for both electric and gravitation. Maxwell’s equations are in error. They do not include the ingredient Gauss said had to be understood to make any progress on electrodynamics. That is, allowance for the fact the force has to be from the past. Contrary to what one might imagine the equation reduces to one simpler than Newton’s. It has only dimensions of charge and rotation. The experiment necessary to confirm this has been in progress for many years and according to my calculations the theory predicts far beyond the precision instruments that were used to measure the pioneers anomalies.

I also highly suspect that the statistical nature of QM stems from E/f=1 equation and can be expanded to provide causal implications which translate to statistical necessity on measurement.

Here is how I see it:

(1) The concept of space lies at the foundation of physics.

(2) Time enters as disturbance of space.

(3) Disturbed space appears as energy.

(4) Condensed energy appears as matter.

(5) Space, time, energy and matter cannot be defined independently of each other.

(6) Energy appears as the electromagnetic field containing the whole spectrum of frequencies.

(7) Theoretically, space is “electromagnetic field” of zero frequency.

(8) Space provides the description of the foundation of the electromagnetic field.

(9) Space defines the fundamental reality as continuous. Discreteness appears as frequency when space is disturbed.

(10) Space has no motion. Motion comes about when space is disturbed.

(11) Space at zero frequency acts as reference point for all motion.

(12) All motion occurs within space.

(13) The motion (disturbance) at first appears as electrical and magnetic fields.

(14) Space is like undisturbed surface of a lake. When space is disturbed there are ripples that propagate in all directions. These ripples are made of electric and magnetic fields Instead of peaks and valleys.

(15) Thus, the electromagnetic field is formed like the disturbed surface of a lake.

.

I feel Gauss got it right. “Space can not be proven to or for a human.” So this leaves the count of oscillations as the distance between the observer and the observed. The fact that number of oscillations can not be measured to within on revolution leaves the uncertainty as one revolution.

A human is much later on the chain of evolution. Space was there very early in the beginning of evolution.

Concepts are created by humans to explain their perception of what is there. Humans are viewing reality from the top of the evolution.

From this viewpoint the observer appears to be discrete and separate from what it is observing.

In the beginning of the evolution observer was the same as what was being observed.

“Humans are viewing reality from the top of the evolution.”Can you see how this might be misleading assumption? We do not know what has already come and gone. We do not know what an octopus, whale or a goose experiences. What would it feel like to “see” the lines of force of the magnetic field of the earth? What does a salmon “see” when it swims thousands of miles to spawn in its home water?A fellow haughtily told me one day if whales are so smart, have them work out the Pythagorean Theorem.I replied if you are so smart, what does it feel like to dive to 500m deep in the ocean?

From your logic hydrogen gas is smarter (more evolved) than humans because it can rise in the air and humans cannot. Humans are much more evolved than whales because they have invented vehicles in which they can dive 500 m deep in the sea. But whales have invented nothing that can help them walk on land.

From your logic, more energetic frequencies in fields result in solid objects. Yet the most energetic frequencies would seem to have been during the beginning of the Big Bang. Who knows? Possibly fields are also a condensate of that energetic moment.

We exist within a small slice of what we know to be the universe. We have no way of knowing how much of the universe is invisible to our perception except that invisible part acts upon the visible universe. This isn’t in question. My own question has to do with how deep is the whole universe?

“The fact that number of oscillations can not be measured to within on revolution leaves the uncertainty as one revolution.”. . . or possibly there is not a partial revolution. Perhaps there is a refresh rate to the processes in motion. Just sayin’.

@Bacreator: when you say pitch space not field, do you mean “sell” or do you mean “throw away?”

use field to replace space (throw away). Field is the measurable. We don’t how to measure space, because we have no means to accomplish the measurement of space.

It is most convenient to think in spherical coordinates for time can be parametrically linked to a rotation, if you are inclined or attached to not having a definition of time. I suspect this is how nature calculates.

For me “time” translates as “order” or “sequence”.

That works for me. Time is then the count of the revolutions of the oscillations. This (for me) defines time as rotations of the E field and also defines the order (in time verse ).

Yes, that is the view of time as a frequency.

. . . and the subject and practice of Feynman’s QED.

If you would be patient with me for a moment, I will attempt to demonstrate Gauss’ objection to space. Although Gauss did not solve the problem of space before his death, he spent most of his life with a notion that space was problematic. I would maintain physical space is an irrational concept. Gauss’ path led him to discovering all the non euclidean geometries. He held off publication, I think, because those geometries did not seem consistent with what he considered the real geometry. In some of his last communications with close friends he conceded failure and left the problem to be solved by a future generation. I think the problem of geometry can be solved by stepping back from the geometrical hand downs from Euclid. This irrationality trap was set 2,000 years ago.

Euclid’s geometry is an intuitive notion of physical lines created with a stick and observed in the sand and then later created with a pen and observed on paper. Neither method can produce a visible point which could be observed by a discerning physicist. At the source of this observation issue is the assumption of a point has no measure:?( No measure means not observable. Empty space can not be observed by Euclid’s first assumption.

No one has ever observed a point. You can see a picture of a point. It is a picture that can be seen in the sand or on the paper, but not in space. Einstein ran into this problem repeatedly. He states the problem of empty space in his last publication without offering a solution. Because space is defined in geometries of physics as where nothing is. It is not consistent to observe nothing. This is an inconsistency for a physicist, one which is ignored by a mathematician! Physicists have been tricked by the mathematicians. Much of the math used in physics does not meet the requirement that it is observable and repeatable. To name the mathematical constructs which have this embed problem would encompass most of mathematical theories. Gauss was very cautious about this issue and it appears to be his motivation for withholding from publications many of his mathematical discoveries. He often refers to nature’s real geometry and not finding it.

Gauss was aware of the inconsistencies in physics. The main inconsistency was in his divergence theorem. It does not allow for the time of transmission from the observed to the observer. Therefore, a static integral equation could not be a solution to the real electrical charge source. His friend and student Weber developed the retarded potential to solve the problem. Maxwell did not understand Weber’s retarded potential at the time he published his equations. The equations are inconsistent, yet no one seems to be aware of this today.

Real observable geometry is possible but it must contain only the observable elements and nothing else. The irrational constructions of mathematicians must not be present in a rational construction of physics.

I believe the starting point in finding the observables in physics is the Planck’s equation which can be formulated without constants and without space by

E=hv -> E=v -> E=1/T

or ET=1 Where T is the period of one revolution and any clock would be adequate as a standard. Since the second has survived the ages this single equation is at the core of an observable physics with energy being “defined” as proportional to an object’s rotation. The linearities of energy measurement are not observable in space but can be observed by the change in the rotations of clocks which are viewed by means of electric field oscillation or their changing frequencies if you prefer. By using this geometry your theory obfuscates the need for space and any of the spatial derivatives.

“I would maintain physical space is an irrational concept.”And I maintain that all matter energy space and time are irrational, beginning with the value of Pi as an example.

Here is something I wrote back in 2011. Hope you like it.

https://vinaire.me/2011/12/03/the-fundamental-inconsistency/

.

There is a fundamental axiom which may be expressed in the following two forms:

There is a POINT.

There is a UNIT.

A LINE may be expressed in terms of points. A SURFACE may be expressed in terms of lines. A SOLID may be expressed in terms of surfaces. All forms may be expressed in terms of solids. This sort of buildup may keep on going toward more variety and complexity of forms.

COUNTING may be expressed in terms of units. ADDITION may be expressed in terms of counting. MULTIPLICATION may be expressed in terms of addition. EXPONENTIATION may be expressed in terms of multiplication. Besides, the opposite of addition may be expressed as SUBTRACTION. The opposite of multiplication may be expressed as DIVISION. The opposite of exponentiation may be expressed as LOGARITHMS. This sort of buildup may also keep on going toward more variety and complexity of thinking.

The above two “axioms” underlie all mathematics. Mathematics underlies all our thinking. The ideas of location, God, soul, etc., cannot exist without the ideas of POINT and UNIT.

It seems to me that mathematical principles underlie all spiritual and physical principles, and the ideas of point and unit underlie all mathematical principles.

These two assumptions of POINT and UNIT, happen to be just assumptions. They are arbitrary.

And to believe in these assumptions as fundamental facts would be the fundamental inconsistency indeed.

.

.

The proper physics definition of space is “extension of substance”. This comes from the perspective of “continuum of substance”. According to this perspective substance is more basic than space because space is a property of substance.

Science does not follow this perspective. It follows the perspective of “particles in void (space)”. This perspective presents “particles” and “space” as a duality. According to this perspective space is independent of substance.

I have written more on these two perspectives here.

https://vinaire.me/2018/09/19/an-outlook-on-science/

.

Regular math is developed for material substance since ancient times.

New math had to be invented for Quantum mechanics because it does not deal with material substance.

The geometry of electromagnetic substance (e-gemetry) is very different from the geometry of material substance (m-geometry).

E-geometry is very sensitive to the frequency of electromagnetic substance (quantization). The m-geometry is not that sensitive to inertia (the counterpart of quantization for material substance).

It is e-geometry that applies to space and not m-geometry.

.

These abstractions of mathematics of point, line, unit, solid, etc., are abstract representations (metaphors and similes) of the universe as we can possibly understand it. My own simile is that we are struggling to move our scientific knowledge 1/2 the distance to the goal every unit of time. Similar to achieving the “speed of light” the difficulty of piercing that last bit becomes exponentially more difficult the closer we get. Likewise, seeing into the processes of physics for which we have no eyes or ears becomes exponentially more difficult as we exhaust our present perceptions.I salute your effort and proliferation of words.

We’ll begin to see one day that human sensory and intellect isn’t yet up to wrapping itself around unknowns, maybe unknowables, like spacetime. Or if we do, we’ll begin to understand gravity and inertia.

“He often refers to natureâs real geometry and not finding it.”Our knowledge relies upon our perception. Our own perception of the universe, being a narrow spectrum of what is, is enhanced by tools we predict and then build. This marches on and improves the longer we work to do it. One of my important discoveries about myself is that I cannot see into the future at all. We build and use perception enhancing tools. We build and use artificially enhanced computing machines to stretch the computational limits of our brains. Perhaps through our cleverness, we will design and build a quickly evolving artificial intelligence to enhance our understanding of the universe?

bacreator said, “Since the second has survived the ages this single equation is at the core of an observable physics…”

A second is an arbitrary unit. Just because it has been used for a long time does not make it any less arbitrary.

The field is there. Space is not.

All space is a field. Beyond this field of space is emptiness. Emptiness is a metaphysical concept.

From a scientific viewpoint, emptiness is the ultimate reference point from which all phenomena is perceived objectively. No other reference point is required to understand emptiness. This is like the zero of a scale from which all values on that scale are measured.

Emptiness has that property of being inherenly understood because it denotes the absence of all phenomena. From this reference point it is possible to give an objective meaning to any phenomena. Emptiness itself is not a phenomenon, just like zero is not a value.

In summary, EMPTINESS is the ultimate reference point from which all phenomena, including space, can be understood objectively without any pre-conceived notion.I agree the clock rotation is arbitrary. The second is just defacto chosen as a standard.

There can be frequencies much smaller then the frequency of 1. We can see that if we chose a unit of time that is a fraction of 1 second.

Vinay: “There can be frequencies much smaller then the frequency of 1. We can see that if we chose a unit of time that is a fraction of 1 second.”At this level of small, I thought bacreator was referring to something like a Planck Second. Are you asserting that there can be frequencies of less than 1 at this level? By definition and in theory, is there a fraction of a Planck second?

Yup! There is no limit.