To my opinion, space-time and energy (matter) are just two sides of the same medal. One cannot exist without the other. I´m not able to formulate it mathematically, but maybe Planck-particles are the source of both, i.e. virtual Planck-particles decay either into space-time (negative energy) or matter (positive energy), so that space-time and matter are produced continuously and in the "same amount" (sum of negative and positive energy always =0).

Since space-time and momentum-energy are conjugate quantities, the latter cannot be created without the other! Thus the black hole solution associated with the Schwarzschild metric contains the "grains" for the emergence of the immaterial part of nature. Micheal Alexander, see my RG article on the Zero-Energy Universe Scenario.

Erkki, thanks for the hint to your article!

I think space and time can be related to energy as rightly observed. Steady state and conservation of energy are the guiding factors for understanding and using space and time as it may be suitable. Often space creation, energy transfer and vise versa are continuous.

Select an object. It is not important that what we have chosen, how we look at this physical existence is important. I choose a ball that is on the surface of room. I shoot the ball outside of room. What happens for ball's space? Nothing, ball and its space moves from room's space to salon. In fact space of ball moved with it. We cannot take space from the body or body from the space, object and space are intertwined with each other. Fill a glass with water, empty it and refill it with syrup. In this process; water with its space leaves the glass and syrup with its space enters into glass. We can never separate the physical existence from its space. In fact space is a part of physical existence. Also, time and physical existence are not independent. Ball is a physical existence; it is made up of some molecules with their spaces at t (time relative to other clock). Ball is a clock as the same as other physical existences. There are many atoms in the structure of ball, how can we prevent movement of subatomic particle in the ball? Never. Generally, mass (or energy), space, motion and time are intertwined and inseparable from each other.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273319021_Physics_Being_and_Time?ev=prf_pub

Article Physics: Being and Time

I think, the question is properly formulatet. But it involves a nonorthodox sight of the facts.

Dear Erkki, the immaterial parts of nature are determined by material parts, therefore by matter. Space and time are immaterial, but real.

Dear Christian, in theory space and time are only concepts. This contradiction leads to the boundarys of present state of knowledge.

I remind of the gravity. The theories about gravity say nothing about the cause of gravity.

Christian, you can't be picky. It's better to ask once more.

If you deal with particle physics you reach a point you say: space and time are not fundamentally. They appear or existing only at a higher particle-level so to speak step by step.

Our view is mechanistic determinated and also the theories. Actual it is conversely. Mechanics and all classical physics are special cases of fundamental laws on particle level.

The velocity distribution of gas-particles should be a first reference to the energetic reality within the particle-world. The invention of the "Neutrino" by Pauli is not the solution, but the question and one of the greatest and not perceived problems of physics. The "neutrino"-proof by Reines/Cowan is the evaluation of an experiment with positive expectations - the espection of the "neutrino".

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279963956_Theory_and_reality_on_the_experiment_of_ReinesCowan_1956

Research Theory and reality on the experiment of Reines/Cowan 1956

I think it is important to consider a black hole universe as an open system. The “black hole” as it emerges in the Schwarzschild singularity can also be extended to a quantum formulation. The singularity, which is analogous to creation and annihilation operators in quantum field theory in a general Fock space, does contain the mathematical machinery for the actuality of our universe, see again my RG paper.

In a sense space-time and momentum energy are entangled in a quantum portrait of our evolving universe. The Zero-Energy Universe Scenario does not impart infinities in the sense of infinitely large domains of observables like space and time and also momentum energy, yet there are mathematical singularities in the formulation, which, however, permits logical interpretations and representations.

A warning regarding the use of the word logic here. Since we extend our formulation to the quantum domain, we might expect paradoxes, like the Gödel sentence, which is a conundrum in propositional logic, while not being so in a non-classical context.

There is two insights about universe, one says: universe is created by God it is a belief, so we can not describe the first cause. In addition, it is outside of scientific discussion, and I have nothing to say about it. Other one claims that universe is created by nothing. For example: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," Hawking says

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator

This question arise that which universe is created by nothing? Observable universe? Is universe limit by what we observe (directly or indirectly)?

In my theory, universe is unlimited (in space and time), and sum of observable and non-observable universe is eternal. So, any part of universe (sum of observable and non-observable universe) collapses and expands again by gravity. So, there is not a first cause in the universe.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279446746_Graviton_and_cosmology_equations_before_the_Big_Bang?ev=prf_pub

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270339919_Interactions_Between_Real_and_Virtual_Spacetimes?ev=prf_pub

Article Graviton and cosmology equations, before the Big Bang

Article Interactions Between Real and Virtual Spacetimes

 I believe that What caused space and time is ultimately the same what caused that anything is.

Our ability to reason is unexplained and our image of the world is through sensors and neural networks. Those sensors and networks are still concepts of our mind.

We however have the ability to discriminate between real and apparent even tough this is not always perfect. We should be then satisfied with reasonable physical theories that allow to make good predictions. 

There are problems in defining what space or time is, let alone the cause.

Not quite sure what is the best way to describe space, but time to me is the fact that objects exists and change and they can only be seen as changing because other objects reflect what those objects were which are not right now.

Time is then a fundamental innate concept and the method of ordering changes resulting from those changes and their memories.

The instantiations of this concept are real measurements and theories describing those measurements, us waiting for the train to come and the like.

So the cause of time is our human culture which decided to give a collective name for this concept.

Space-time is permeated by perfectly motionless Spirit (Consciousness) through eternity. When this Spirit begins to move it bocmes energy. Human mind and sense organs are made of this energy. This energy cannot see the Spirit so it appears like empty space. Energy is always in motion (oscillations). Period of this oscillation gives sense of time. The way a rope is mistaken for a snake, in the same way all pervasive motionless spirit is mistaken for the space-time and universe. But there is a well established process of verifying this theory which is described in the following book.

The Message of Vivekachudamani by Swami Ranganathananda

http://www.amazon.com/Message-Vivekachudamani-Exposition-Modern-Thoughts/dp/8175053089

Vivekachudamani of Sri Sankaracharya and Swami Madhavananda

http://advaitaashrama.org/Book/Detail/218

If you study the life of Sri Ramakrishna and Ramana Maharshi, then you would know that they verified this truth in their life. But it is not very easy. It is more difficult than discovering the Higgs boson. Following article relates this theory with modern science.

Article Unified field of consciousness

In physics is definite the primacy of matter, in faith the primacy of spirit. (This is by the way the fundamental question in philosophy. But philosophy is a blind science which is running eternal times after the knowledge of the natural sciences.)

Space and time don't exist without matter, they exist only related with matter. Therefore space and time are not quantities, but qualities of reality.

Dear Hossein, if you take an object from one space to an other space with different properties, the object will change it's properties but also the spaces before and after. Par example a proton in idle state is not identical with a proton in an accelerator.

On earth prevailing on all places nearly the same conditions. But you can already perceive alterations on a sensitive object like "your" ball. (Play ball in the sahara or play with this ball in antarctica.) A stone will be a stone.

What would show many of our experiments, if we would exist in the centre of the galaxy? (In particular all the "neutrino"-experiments.)

Dear Erkki

"This scenario brings together up-to-date theories in chemical physics with modern research in biology, physics, and astronomy." Abstract of your article.

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-14397-2_14

In my theory, for understanding the Zero-Energy Universe, of the first we need describe the zero point energy.

The greatest problem is: what quantum vacuum made up of? How we can describe the mechanis of zero point energy?

In cosmology, the vacuum energy is taken by many to be the origin of the cosmological constant. Experimentally, the zero-point energy of the vacuum leads directly to the Casimir effect1, and is directly observable in nanoscale devices.

One way to explain this is by means of the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, which implies that it is impossible to have a zero energy condition. In this article, an attempt has been made according to the concept of gravitational blue shift, to take the Mössbauer effect, Pound-Rebka experiments and the interaction between gravity and the photon into consideration from a Higgs field point of view.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/208380871_Zero_Point_Energy_and_the_Dirac_Equation?ev=prf_pub

And

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270276224_Interactions_Between_Real_and_Virtual_Spacetimes?ev=prf_pub

Article Zero Point Energy and the Dirac Equation

Article Interactions Between Real and Virtual Spacetimes

Dear Hossein,

the Pound-Rebka experiment is in my opinion an experiment performed with positive expectations. The disturbing effects were multiple over the expected effects. --- No comment.

Dear Hans

However, the Pound-Rebka experiment approved the changing the frequency of photon in the gravitational field.

Spacial and Temporal measures are denoted by events where these events are stimulated by matters. unfortunately we got stuck in a trap between micro and macro scales domains where our knowledge and technology are limited to  reach neither the upper level of our universe nor the micro scale of our life. Till now there are no stationary and fixed universal references for the temporal and spatial data.

Hans,

The magnitude of the disturbing effects is certainly important, but so is also the possibility to account for them by fundamental, critical and insightful physics and in consensus with the physical establishment. This will never guarantee the “truth”, but do we have any other option?

Manuel,

You may continue to advance your hypothesis of a super-deterministic universe. It is not commensurate with quantum mechanics!

Of course you may hope for a new dramatic evolution of our physical understanding, but even if a new paradigm appears it must nevertheless adhere to QM in their common domains.

Dear Hosseien,

the hallway-experiment of Pound and Rebca has too many sources of error. At first it should be performed in vakuum, at last the earth-gravity could influence the air-molecules, which are causing the disturbing effects. The experimental setup should be similar to the experiment of Michelson - to compare results and recognize sources of error. Pound and Rebca are not the end of experimental science, but obvious in current theory. But what if they had not confirmed Einstein?

Dear Manuel,

all processes, phenomena, natural laws, obsevations etc. are caused. Insofar you can say, they are determined. But there is no super-determinism visible. But you are right if you say: There is too much belive in the old and uncertain theories.

Regards

Hans

Dear Hans

The first accurate measurement of this effect was made by R.V. Pound, G.A. Rebka and J.L. Snider in the 1960s using the frequency shift between two atomic "clocks" moving up and down inside Harvard University's Jefferson tower. They made use of a sensitive phenomenon called the Mössbauer effect to measure this shift to an accuracy of about 1%.

A similar accuracy has been reached by experiments comparing clocks on earth to those on spacecraft such as Voyager (in Saturn's gravitational field) or Galileo (in the field of the sun). Other experimenters have looked for the shift of spectral lines in the sun's gravitational field, an attempt that was confounded for many years by solar "limb effects". Oxygen triplet lines finally allowed a 2% detection by James LoPresto et al. in 1991. Another test compares terrestrial timepieces to the highly stable astronomical "clocks" known as pulsars; this yields accuracies of about 10%. The most precise gravitational redshift test to date was carried out by Robert Vessot and Martin Levine in 1976 and is known as Gravity Probe A. It compared a hydrogen maser clock on earth to an identical one lifted into orbit at about 10000 km, and confirmed theoretical expectations to an accuracy of 0.02%.

It is interesting to note that the Global Positioning System (GPS) system, while not intended or used as a test of general relativity, does effectively serve as confirmation of the gravitational redshift effect. To reach their specified (civilian) navigational accuracy of about 15 m, GPS satellites must coordinate their time signals to within about 50 nanoseconds, a precision nearly 1000 times smaller than the size of the gravitational redshift effect (almost 40 microseconds at their operating altitude of 20,000 km). If they did not take Einstein's theory into account, GPS trackers in aircraft cockpits would be off by kilometers within a day!

https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime3.html

Note: I accepted gravitational redshift (blueshift). Do you have accepted the gravitational redshif?

Manuel,

Yes but applying the art of knowing, i.e. the art of knowing how, must be commensurate with how we formulate the laws of interactions and their effects. It all boils down to the paradigm of evolution, the interplay between the material and the immaterial world. Nature thus evolves according to and commensurate with the physical laws that we know. We will need more, and will find more, physical laws, i.e. those related teleonomic processes such as those imparted by the genetic code. It is difficult and inconsistent for me to lift a super deterministic principle above all that – what I just said.

Dear Hossein!

Thanks for your detailed answer. It's helpful to understandand the colleagues and also the experimental foundation of theories. (I have edit this sentence.)

I said in my question: "If you could leave the earth, space and time would modify ..." That means that all conditions are modifying and also the processes. Could it be that we observe in those experiments modified processes respectively their results or outputs?

The great problem is: There are no fixed points or beacons in universe. We have to place the nails itselve and in dubt we must pull them out.

Regards

Hans

Dear Hossein,

You can construct scenarios at varying degrees of complexity. First try to use the quantum mechanical correspondence rule in connection with both STR and GR. Leave the problem of the cosmological constant out, temporarily or definitely.

Furthermore the scenario involves limiting constraints imparted by the conjugate relationships. The zero-energy setup is not related to the quantum mechanical zero-point energy of e.g. harmonic oscillators. Note that any quantization procedures are left to the actual physical situation, where appropriate boundary conditions and relevant topological spaces are defined.

Thus the ZEUS portrait is a general framework for a consistent description, which might contain quantum aspects as well as classical systems. Some consequences are a coherent description of the quantum theoretical black hole, the Einstein laws of relativity (like the gravitational bending of light in a gravitational field, the perihelion movement of Mercury, etc.), extension to a rotational black holes, background independence etc.

If you look at the associated thread: is the modern approach to cosmology fundamentally flawed?, you will see a simple resolution of a paradox (due to Ni Ge), employing the simple rule of correspondence.

I enjoyed your succinct answers regarding Pound-Rebka-Snider and the GPS!

Hans:

There is no dividing line between matter and spirit. All matter is energy. When spirit begins to move, it becomes energy. Philosophy is blind science as long as the third eye is not opened. The observer of general relativity has only two eyes. When the third eye is added to the observer the science will change. Space and time are not the qualities of reality but the illusion created by motion of energy. When the energy wave is created, it has a wavelength and period. These are the smallest units of length and time. When the motion is not there, there is no length and no time. When the rope was mistaken for a snake, the snake was never there. Therefore it is the illusion that caused space and time.

Dear Hans

"That means that all conditions are modifying and also the processes." I agreed.

"We have to place the nails itselve and in dubt we must pull them out." Sure, because

Knowledge has not absolute answers.

I've talked about the gravitational blueshift, in this case the experimental results and the theory is consistent with an acceptable approximation.

So, we can use it as a step to achieve a better understanding of relationship between gravity and electromagnetic energy.

Dear Erkki

Of the first, I appreciate your guidance, thank you so much.

"You can construct scenarios at varying degrees of complexity." Yes, everyone can reject all scientific achievements of humanity without any reason. But I never ignore that human's knowledge is the result of more than two thousand years of continuous scientists works. I know there is a different between zero-energy and quantum zero-point energy, but what i am saying is that modern physics (Relativity and quantum mechanics) work well, and it is the greatest humanity achievements, but it stopped on light speed and uncertainty principle.

However, thank you for your advice again.

Dear Hossein!

I agree fundamental with you. But I have in some points a different view.

The Pound-Rebca-experiment showed initially no positive results. Only the second attempt indicated the intended results. The "neutrino"-proof by Reines and Cowan  proceeded just the same. (But what if they had not confirmed Einstein resp. Pauli?) Sometimes you must only sharpen the pencil.

Two clocks placed in a distance of 1/2m showing/measuring different times. - The questions I ask myself: How precisely or reliable is our time measurement? Has every clock inert conditions or minor differences?

The red-shift of electromagnetic radiation shuld be observed before Einstein. I remind to scientists like Fraunhofer or Fresnel.

According to my informations the differences between the clocks on earth and the clocks in orbit resp. space are too big by comparison with Einsteins theoretical predictions. ...

Best Regards

Hans

Religion: God did

Physics: Consider the equation  E = MC^2 and divide both sides by M, you get: E/M = C^2. C is velocity which is distance/time. Using the word “space” instead of distance you get: E/M = (space/time)^2 so the existence of space-time is equivocal to (dependent upon) the existence of not just Mass, but the existence of the Energy/Mass ratio. This of course is a very simple illustration that space-time existence does not just really on mass and therefore your statement that:       "Space and time don't exist obviously without matter", is not quite accurate.

Dear Hans

I agree that Einstein's theory is not perfect, no theory is perfect.

Without using Pound-Rebka experiment, we can be shown that the gravitational blue shift right.

For time dilation (that has proved by experiment), please see my research;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279531060_Graviton_physical_time_and_thermodynamics?ev=prf_pub

"According to my informations the differences between the clocks on earth and the clocks in orbit resp. space are too big by comparison with Einsteins theoretical predictions. ... " It is a good news that I have enjoyed, because science is in way of development. Were I can see your work?

Article Graviton: physical time and thermodynamics

Dear Issam

This is a mathematical description. Can we imagine a space without matter?

Manuel,

Deductive reasoning and determinism are not related. Deductive reasoning is a sort of communication with the environment to find sustainable teleonomic evolution, bringing insistence conditions for our species in the general struggle for survival.

Processes that are governed by evolved programs, are not deterministic, they are teleonomic.

Manuel, we are not using some second cause logic or what ever. As you know classical propositional logic is not applicable to QM. I am not sure what logic you use?

@Hossein Javadi 

The answer I gave earlier is a very simple illustration of the relation between   space-time and the E/M ratio. It is mathematics and we cannot do physics without mathematics. But also as I illustrate below we need to choose mathematical solutions that are more relevant to describing our universe.

You asked:"Can we imagine a space without matter? Yes, I can! On a classical level I can imagine space without matter-complete vacuum- but can't imagine matter without space. But we know the real world on atomic, subatomic scale and at high velocities cannot be described classically anymore.

Our best theory of space-time is general relativity, and this admits solutions without matter. The Minkowski metric is the simplest: flat space-time with no matter at all. And so according to general relativity space-time can exist without matter.

But our best theory of matter, quantum field theory says there is no such thing as no matter. "Empty" space is a seething mass of fields, with virtual particles popping in and out of existence. So according to quantum field theory space-time cannot exist without matter, simply because there can never be no matter.

So, the two theories give conflicting answers, so what is the real answer then? First we need to unify the two theories to produce a theory of quantum gravity. The real answer then depends on which theory, quantum field theory or general relativity, retain its form  when the two theories are unified in a final quantum gravity theory. At the moment leading theories of quantum gravity tend to lean more on quantum field theory than general relativity and you would then expect the answer to your question is no, there is no space-time without matter.

Your question:" can you imagine space without matter" is more of a philosophical question than a physics question. As I stated above there are certainly solutions to Einsteins equations for which space-time can exist without matter, a flat universe is obtained. But do such solutions exist in reality? In this sense I am more inclined to accept what current quantum gravity theories seem to be telling us about our universe, space-time cannot exist without matter.

It is simple, Time and Space is coined by Humans in Relation to earths Rotation on its axis. Otherwise it would be different or relative.

It is created by humans in relation to earth rotation. Else it would be different. Actually there is no time and space is not measurable. We use our own methods.

 @Christian

You said: "I personally can imagine an empty space only between things. I wonder how you imagine empty space without things."

With all respect but we should think and imagine beyond the box! Therefore, I also disagree with your statement that "scientifically it's not decisive what we can imagine or not-but what we can measure or not", for in the first place it is people with imagination that actually make, develop and advance science. As for what we can measure or not I say what we can't measure now with imagination can be measured later.

Kindest regards,

Issam 

You can measure only those things which has a boundary. Anything that does not have a boundary, you cannot measure.

@Vikram Zaveri

You have written earlier "There is no dividing line between matter and spirit. All matter is energy. When spirit begins to move, it becomes energy. Philosophy is blind science as long as the third eye is not opened. The observer of general relativity has only two eyes. When the third eye is added to the observer the science will change. Space and time are not the qualities of reality but the illusion created by motion of energy. When the energy wave is created, it has a wavelength and period. These are the smallest units of length and time. When the motion is not there, there is no length and no time. When the rope was mistaken for a snake, the snake was never there. Therefore it is the illusion that caused space and time."

What do you suggest as practical method to open third eye into general relativity or quantum mechanics experiment ?

Responding to Baumgarten: " It is unclear to me in what sense we can speak of space and time as an "effect"."  If we re-phrase that slightly, which is what I think the questioner meant, Einstein clearly stated he desired to put space and time on an equal footing with energy, momentum and other physical parameters, i.e. he wanted physics to be able to affect space and time, and thus they became a quantity to be manipulated.

General Relativity is of course a classical theory, and one may describe it as a theory of the shape of space and time.  Yet as far as I know, none of the theories of quantum gravity even adopts as an aim to explain the shape (or cause) of space and time.  In fact, they are stuck at a much more primitive level of whether to be dependent on or independent of the shape of space-time (background independence).  If anyone knows otherwise, please advise.  You can leave the answer here, or at the question thread linked below.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_any_theory_of_quantum_gravity_which_is_fully_constructive

Dear Christian!

In my opinion space and time are not fundamental "things" how you expressed.

Space and time without matter are impossible. It would mean that matter grew or were crated into space and time. This is close to a new belief. Only in mathematics is space a fundamental thing (and also time). Our thougths and physical theories are characterized by mathematical ideas or concepts. It would be able to create a cumbersome and voluminous mathematical picture of the world with the earth in the centre. It would be mathematical right, but real wrong.

I say: First the knowledge and then mathematics. Currently it's reverse.

Best Regards

Hans

Manuel said: I use first cause logic consisting of cause, which can only come to exist but never be existent, preceding effect, which are states of existence either certain or uncertain.

Manuel, This is the problem with your logic  – states of existence are neither certain nor uncertain.

Regarding using the word "existence", see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

Christian, I see what you are saying, but nevertheless, if we asked a question "What causes energy? Momentum? etc." we find ourselves without a framework for an answer.  In fact these are related to space and time.  We might be tempted to answer motion in space and time cause energy and momentum.  But surely, philosophically, we would not be able to distinguish that from energy and momentum causing space and time.

And that is exactly what Einstein's equation declares, a mutual untangleable loop of causation between the stress-energy-momentum tensor and the Einstein curvature tensor (trace reversed Ricci tensor defining space-time).

Not all physical quantities are in this category quite so firmly.  The closest I can think of is entropy, which is entangled with time and some people use it to define time.  BUT, one can give a statistical mechanics "cause" for entropy.  In order to argue against this being fundamental, one has to break entropy down into the statistical motion of particles (molecules) with time.  This means entropy is not a new fundamental entity but another word for space and time and leads right back to Einstein's loop.

In a less obvious way, the same is true of other physical parameters.  What causes friction?  The answer of molecular forces and quantum mechanics does nicely.  You have to dig pretty deep to uncover that this too boils down to energy, momentum, space and time, though of course it does.

What causes the sun to shine?  Hmm... gravity causes sufficient pressure that atoms of hydrogen fuse and give up energy.  Pretty quickly we get back to energy-momentum-space-time.  But we can also stop short and the answer is very satisfactory.

Because of Einstein's loop, I don't think we can answer cause and we must deal with effects, or as a verb, one affects the other.

By the way, can we peel back a layer on Einstein's loop (i.e. equation)?  Quantum theorists are not even trying.  They argue over whether to ignore Einstein (background dependent theories) or whether to work within curved space-time (background independent theories), but are not actually considering how space and time could be "caused" by quantum processes.

@Albert Roseiro. I refer to your post on page 6 of this thread.

Generally physics (general relativity and quantum mechanics) takes objective approach at probing the mysteries of  nature. Relativity was probably the first scientific discipline that explicitly introduced "observer" into the objective discussions. This is the subjective side of Relativity. The principal feature of this observer is that he/she/it has two physical eyes. But what other features this subject has, that Relativity does not get into. When you go deeper into subjective analysis, it starts sounding like metaphysics. One important aspect of the observer is that he undergoes a process of evolution. This process of evolution is so slow that you barely notice any change during one life time. This brings in the theory of rebirth and evolution over many births. But fortunately during any given specific period of time on this earth, there have simultaneously existed different observers in different stages of evolution. From the study of these observers and their writings we come to know that some observers have developed a faculty of clairvoyance which is attributed to the existence of a subtle eye between the eye brows called the third eye. This has been reported for many individuals in different parts of the world at different times in the history of the world. Therefore this is a reliable piece of information. No one has claimed having four or five eyes and there are no

records or discussions about four or five eyes. But it is a fact that the third eye is in short supply. Primary reason could be that evolution of the third eye is associated with prolonged practice of continance and meditation over a period of many births. Therefore the practical method to open third eye into general relativity or quantum

mechanics experiment could be to use the third eye as we use the Hubble Space Telescope or the Kepler Space Telescope, or the large hadron collider. This means collaboration and time sharing between observers with two eyes and three eyes. Every third eye may not have aptitude for physics. Only the one having such aptitude will cooperate. Here I refer to some work already done in this area.

Occult Chemistry [A. Besant, C.W. Leadbeater, C. Jinarajadasa, Theosophical Publishing House, 1908] states that the structure of chemical elements can be assessed through clairvoyant observation with the microscopic vision of the third eye Observations were carried out between 1895 and 1933. "The book consists both of coordinated and illustrated descriptions of presumed etheric counterparts of the atoms of the then known chemical elements, and of other expositions of occult physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult_Chemistry

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16058

And I also refer to one experience of viewing the cosmos with the help of the third eye.

Autobiography of a yogi, P. Yogananda, 12th ed., 165-168, Los Angeles: Self Realization Fellowship Pub.,1993.

http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Self-Realization-Fellowship-Paramahansa-Yogananda/dp/0876120826

In Isaac Newton's Weltanschauung Space and Time were God's creations. Moreover, Space was a kind of God's Body; hence the velocity of gravitational interactions was infinite.In current physics space&time are only local features of moving systems.So, the trend is transition from globality to locality

Thierry, I said no such thing.  Perhaps English is not your native language.

Dear Oliver!

A litle talk aside the actual question. You said: "The neutron is an electron, proton [(e-,p+)] pair compacted"

This thougt is pointing in a right direction. You can also say: The proton is a neutron without one electron.

The structures of all particles and atomic nuclei are presentably only by using of electron and positron as elementary building blocks. It's astonishing to see how the theoreticians have misunderstood the reality.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259183887_The_structures_of_particles_and_atomic_nuclei_%28Die_Strukturen_der_Teilchen_und_Atomkerne%29?ev=prf_pub

(This paper is unfortunately only in German. The translation is in progress.)

Best Regards

Hans

Dear Oliver!

"... from James Chadwick's 1932 paper ..."

In that case I'm extremely alienate (in German: äußerst befremdet) above how the theoreticians went astray by newer theories. It's impossible to declare the world of particles by inventing much more particles. It will be a labor of Hercules to take them to the ground of facts.

Best Regards

Hans

The matter is primary. Space and time are secondary. But space and time are very closely coupled on matter. It's hard to imagine the reality because we are also living or existing "in space and time".

My question, the answers and current theories are not the last word in wisdom.

Nothingness is not a possible answer when facts prove our existence.

Space, time and energy are a precondition to our existence.

Space, time and energy are constituent parts of the Overall-Universe.

They are fundamental building blocks of nature.

Only energy is the constituent part of the Overall-Universe. All energy is in continuous motion. When this motion stops, the time stops and the energy gets transformed into its original state which is the fundamental substance of the universe. This fundamental sbstance is mistaken for space.

Referring to an Orwellian Universe is promoting a scenario where the overall dependence of an immaterial universe power steers the material part. The Darwinian paradigm does of course incorporate both parts from the molecular build up of life to the teleonomic processes governed by a program, i.e. the genetic code. The paradigm supports life form communication as an evolutionary objective.

The other spin-off the Orwellian reference is of course whether science can determine human values. This is a huge question outside the scope of this thread, see e.g. Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape.

OM wrote: "The neutron is a compacted electron-proton (e-, p+) pair"

The neutron has no measurable electric dipole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_electric_dipole_moment

Following up on George Dishman: The neutron and the compacted electron-proton pair follow different statistics!

Oliver,

Your allusion to Chadwick reveals a fundamental error. 

Chadwick said: If the neutron is a proton and electron why does not the hydrogen atom transform into a neutron with a release of energy? There is ample evidence to show that such transformations are exceedingly rare. This consideration seems to me to argue strongly for the elementary nature of the neutron.

We know today that the transformation of the hydrogen atom into a neutron and excess energy is statistically forbidden.

Oliver, I am confused by your terminology as you do not convey the picture of a neutron as an elementary particle

Two fermions compacted (whatever this means) can never be a fermion. This was one of the big problems in the pre-neutron era. The neutron, as an elementary particle of the atomic nucleus, turned out to be commensurate with fermionic statistics and hence the portrait of a neutron as having the constituents of a proton-electron pair violates this result – the latter entity commensurate with bosonic character.

Space is a limitless imaginary container, presupposed by rational beings, whenever they envisage real entities. Real entities have objective reality and positive existence (in space). As far as rational beings are concerned, a place is essential for existence of real entities. They had to create an imaginary container for existence of real entities. Hence, it is the thinking process of rational beings that caused space.

Space extents to infinity means that real entities can be found by rational beings anywhere they go and beyond. Space may acquire reality only when it is filled entirely with a real entity. Objective reality is provided by substance of an entity. In material world, existence of matter is nearest to absolute truth. Therefore, matter alone provides substance to all real entities. There is nothing else in real world, but matter in different spatial dimensional states. Hence, the real entity that fills the space has to be made of matter. This entity, universal medium structured by quanta of matter, fills entire space outside basic 3D matter-particles without voids. See: http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0042 In this case, universal medium and space becomes synonymous. Space is no more an imaginary entity but it becomes a real entity with all physical properties appropriate to its structure.

Cause and effect relation is ingrained into thinking process of rational beings, throughout their lives. Cause precedes an effect and effect follows a cause. This relation is the basis of phenomenon of time. Interval between cause and effect is conceptualized by introducing an imaginary entity ‘time’. Therefore, time is also caused by thinking process of rational beings. For practical considerations, time is always related to movements of appropriate reference 3D objects. Without motion, there is no time. Time was born when the first 3D matter-particle started to move. It has neither objective reality nor positive existence. It is a functional entity that fulfills all functions assigned to it by rational beings.

Nainan

In objective reality don't exists neither space nor time independent or autonomous and the matter is gushing into it. Space and time are also not "concepts", because they are objective.

The purely mathematical depiction of space (and time) lead to the assumption of an objective existence of space, time or the so called "space-time".

Space don't exist without matter and also time. Both of them are results of the existence of matter. Time is especially the result of the material processes like transformations or interactions on different levels. Time as a physical quantity arises as the result of much different processes on mechanical and chemical level, on particel level and so on.

Different material conditions (not only pressure and temperature) leading to different properties of space and time. A spacecraft in earth orbit is subjugated to different conditions ant space and time has to be more or less different from its quantities on earth.

In my opinion Einsteins theories are only a first step in this direction or to a real knowledge. The "big bang" is a doubtful declaration of inexplicable observations in the depth of the space spanned by matter.

@Erkki: The neutron is obviously a proton with radical properties. It exists a while with bonding properties an decays after a certain period into its grund state proton and an electron. If you are willing to doubt the old theories please look at this paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301614262_The_Reason_of_a_realistic_View_to_Particles_and_Atomic_Nuclei

Thesis The Justification of a realistic Picture of Particles and At...

 The neutron decays into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. Not being a nuclear physicist "at birth" I did however learn to obey and appreciate quantum statistics.

Furthermore energy and time, as well as momentum and position are conjugate variables! One presumes the other!

Existence and objectivity are words with treacherous meanings and with philosophical connotations. One possible "way out" of the dilemma raised here, might follow from the interpretation of the mathematical singularity (generalized from the Schwarzschild metric) known as a black hole, where space-time, and energy-momentum, are generated  from excitations of its rotational motion.