Dear Mathieu,

The spacetime is just geometry, it is determined by one metric and that is all. If you are thinking in one aether that is another thing but I think that such old idea is wrong and no necessary at all.

To speak of the physical structure of spacetime one must first define what is meant by "structure". A general definition might state that a "structure" is an "ordered arrangement of constituent parts". In this concept water as ice has ordered moments (crystalline) structure while liquid water as a fluid is largely structurless. Time, as we experience it, has no structure because it has no constituent parts - there is only the present moment with inaccesible past moments and unknown future moments. We try to extrapolate from the past through the present to gain a glimmer of what the future may hold. Fr example if are fishing on a lake we might predict that the immediate future would see us continuing to fish on the lake - but an unpredictable bolt of lightning in the next moment may simply extinguish us and our future moments in a single stroke.

Space, as we experience it, likewise has no inherent structure but contains an observible geometric structure determined by the locations in space of the entities that make up the Universe. These entities - stars, galaxies, chipmunks and the like - are separated from each other by distances that can be ordered to produce a coherent framework or structure in but not of space. (Plese see my RG preprint "Pondering the Imponderables.") The addition of entities in space endows space an internal geometric structure that, perhaps, can be interpreted as an expression of Mach's Principle, which Principle, however, has never been fully explicated althogh many interpretations have been formulated.

With the Minkowski metric expressed as (ds)2 = -((dx)2 + (dy)2 + (dz)2)+ (dw)2 we get the topology of a periodically closed space, which is endless in time. Mathematicall we can describe that space with Quaternions q. We get the spacetime coordinates as exp(q). The imaginary part represents the position and the real part expresses the time.

An impressive property of that space is that if we start at any point in space and move in subsequent steps of as an example length one light year in a fixed but arbitrary direction, we finally will pass the starting point.

(An according metric, which appropriately maps the extension of the universe and the speed of light, on a light year scale must be used.)

Reality provides information about observed events in Euclidean format as a combination of a scalar proper time-stamp and a three-dimensional spatial location. Our living space transfers this information from the observed event to the observer. Consequently, the observer perceives the information in spacetime format. The hyperbolic Lorentz transform defines the corresponding coordinate transformation. That transformation introduces time dilation and length contraction. Apart from this Lorentz transformation the transferred in formation is also affected by the deformation of the information path, which is due to the deformation of the living space of the observers.

All local macro-times are statistical emergences, flowing in the same direction as the entropy.

None of the macro-times has causal power in microphysics. Any photon is a short-circuit disrupting the macro-times.

The space-time in General Relativity is a Riemannian space with signature (+ - - -). Because it is curved, space and time are mixed. If 3-space is holonomic, it is orthogonal to the lines of the time . Non-holonomity means that the 3-space rotates relative to the time with the velocity v_i = -c g_0i/(g_00)^1/2. If vi = c, 3-space coincides with the time. The 3-space can deform, gravitate and rotate. It can be as flat or curved. The condition g_00 = 0 means that 3-dinensinal gravitational potential equals zero. The flow of the observed time depends on g_00 and v_i. Experiments of Hafele-Keating prove that the flow of time depends on the distance from the surface, velocity of flying and direction of flying. These velocities are summarize with the velocity of the rotation. The time is not only coordinate: it is the physical reality, acting on our live.

Find a proper modeling platform in which time and space emerges from a trusted foundation!

TheStructureOfPhysicalReality.pdf ; http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10664.26885

“…To speak of the physical structure of spacetime one must first define what is meant by "structure"….”

Yeah, that is so; and if somebody understands what are the absolutely fundamental notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time”, this somebody understands that any spacetime fundamentally cannot have some structure.

“….Time, as we experience it, has no structure because it has no constituent parts - there is only the present moment with inaccesible past moments and unknown future moments…”

Time hasn’t some structure fundamentally, however Space as well, see above.

Such suggestions as the quoted [and not only in this thread] above appear because of in the mainstream philosophy and so in “usual sciences” these notions/phenomena aren’t rationally defined, that can be and is done only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904 ].

Rather detailed discussion about Time and Space see the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_time_an_illusion?view=5ae9beda10569fc4a335e8f5 , last two pages,

where the discussants seems turned out to be able to understand what are these phenomena.

Cheers

"Experiments of Hafele-Keating prove that the flow of time depends on the distance from the surface, velocity of flying and direction of flying."

Which surface and which velocity relative to what?

Spacetime is a simple coordinate system that mixes proper time with pure spatial location. Via a Lorentz transform spacetime relates to these two basic geometric data that together form an Euclidean coordinate system. Gravitation deforms the pure spatial part of the field that uses the Euclidean coordinates as its parameter space. Reality provides its data in Euclidean format. The field transfers this information to the observers. The observers can only perceive in spacetime format.

Forget about reference frames. These objects only complicate the picture. Each observation concerns an observed event, where the information is presented in Euclidean format. It also concerns the observer, which can only perceive in spacetime format. The field can deform and this deformation affects the information path.

Well, one can develop models where space-time itself (not just the geometry characterized by the Riemann curvature tensor) has a physical structure, with coordinates x^mu as gauge degrees of freedom of space-time structure. Hard part will be to think of experiments to probe the physicality of space-time structures that are not connected to space-time geometry. To give an analogy: If we have a 3-dimensional object made of some substance with a smooth surface then the surface of this object will be characterized by a two-dimensional curved geometry. The geometry is of course not same as the substance that makes up the object, although it depends on the physical properties of the substance. However, in this case, we can determine material properties of the substance without affecting the surface geometry by passing X-rays or other probes through it.

In my opinion, there is no actual evidence it is a physical thing with structure. There is no evidence it is anything more than a geometric coordinate system in which Einstein's relativity is well-behaved, and the concept is useful for manipulating the equations.

What is this discussion about, the micro-scale-, the local- or the global structure/properties of space time?

Physical reality has a clear and mathematically defined structure.

Hans,

"Physical reality has a clear and mathematically defined structure" is an intrinsic contradiction.

The "Physical reality" is how natural phenomenon happen and mathematics is our language we use to describe what we understand about nature or what we think that we understand. Even by using mathematics a clear and well defined structure is not at all ensured.

Physical reality is the universe and everything that exists and moves therein. It has structure and this structure appears to possess a foundation that is rather simple and can be described by a mathematical structure that mathematicians call an orthomodular lattice and that some physicists call quantum logic. Why does this produce an intrinsic contradiction?

You and I can neither prove nor disprove that physical reality as it is defined above possesses structure, but that does not generate a contradiction.

If it does, then it is madness to apply mathematics to interpret physical observations. I am sure that you cannot do much physics without applying math.

I advice you the following. Build first a suitable model of what you think that physical reality could be. Be sure that the notion of observer appears in this model. Then find out which part of your model the observer can perceive. I guess that observers can only perceive a very tiny part of what your model describes. So, does the other part of the model exist or not? Does that part possess structure? Does that structure own a foundation? Does the complete model emerge from that foundation? Why? Why not?

Mathieu,

As you probably known there is no consensus view among mainstream theorist as to the detailed character of space, time, or space-time. There are many different mainstream views as to the nature of these entities. For this reason I expect that your answers to your question will be quite varied.

IMO the simplest explanation (theory) of time is that it is a human construct involving a single dimensional vector with varying rates of change depending upon its surroundings. When accelerating relative to a gravitational field the rate that time passes slows down to some extent. When closer to the center of a gravitational field time also slows down to some extent. The reason for this IMO is the resistance of a background field to motion. Atomic motion in the direction of this resistance against the field will be slower than the motions moving with the field. From this perspective time can be defined simply as an interval of change in motion (internal or relative). This change is measured by a clock of some kind to give a numerical value to it.

IMO the simplest explanation (theory) of space is that it is also a human construct usually described by Cartesian dimensions (three dimensional) which is no more than the volume which encompasses matter. Our universe would then be the volume which encompasses all matter within it. Nothing more than the distance between matter. From this perspective if the extent of matter and field were finite then the extent of space would also be finite having the same dimensions. Maybe the simplest related theory. From this perspective the expansion of space would be a meaningless concept that is not possible, only the possible expansion of the matter and field within space.

How about space-time? As Einstein pointed out, we cannot give an exact dimensional position of anything since everything is moving relative to everything else and there is no known absolute framework or preferred frames of references. We can only talk about the relative position of something. With relative motion we must include the dimension of time in our math to be able to calculate the relative position of something relative to its surroundings to be able to quantify its location, since the position of all things change in time. This fourth dimension of time both conceptually and mathematically is needed to understand the relative position of matter at any point in time.

As to you objective described above: "On the acceleration of the expansion of a cosmological medium , I explore the hypothesis stating that space-time was a material with some elastic properties. My conclusion is that the stiffness of space-time is so high at the present epoch (in the cosmological scale) that we cannot really interact with it, except through the classical general relativistic geometrical-like interaction. However, following this hypothesis, one could find best-fit parameters that predict cosmological…"

Based upon the theory and perspectives I described above, space-time is a simple concept which has no physical characteristics in and of itself. It is totally defined by the matter and field which it contains, and has no physical properties of its own. Many would say that the accelerated expansion of the universe is still controversial and remains an hypothesis. I wrote a supernovae paper explaining why accelerated expansion is not a reality, using three times more data than what was used to proclaim dark energy. The research conclusion was that the Hubble distance formula is somewhat wrong (we reformulated it) which led to what we believe to be the erroneous conclusion of dark energy. As to the validity of the expansion of space and the Big Bang model to explain redshifts of galaxies etc., we also believe there are simpler and better explanations for the observed redshifts. A number of alternative explanations for redshifts have been proposed but few of these alternatives are known to mainstream theorists or astronomers.

Einstein had a funny saying regarding the complication of theory when he said: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" link below

https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-did-Einstein-mean-by-Everything-should-be-made-as-simple-as-possible-but-not-simpler

“….there is no consensus view among mainstream theorist as to the detailed character of space, time, or space-time. There are many different mainstream views as to the nature of these entities. For this reason I expect that your answers to your question will be quite varied…”

that is indeed so and that is quite natural because of in the mainstream philosophy and further in other mainstream sciences the main necessary at answering on the question “what are the fundamental notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time”?” fundamental notions/phenomena “Matter” and “Consciousness” are transcendent and so non-cognizable. Thus indeed in the mainstream there exist a number of different and often opposite Space/Time definitions, i.e., by another words, no one of be correct.

Again, correct definitions of these [all above] definitions can be [and are] obtained only in the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception; and this problem was considered and cleared on the RG already, again, see, for example the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_time_an_illusion?view=5ae9beda10569fc4a335e8f5 , last two pages, where the discussants seems turned out to be able to understand what these notions/phenomena are.

Including that

“…IMO the simplest explanation (theory) of time is that it is a human construct involving a single dimensional vector with varying rates of change depending upon its surroundings… …IMO the simplest explanation (theory) of space is that it is also a human construct …”

isn’t correct, the Rules/Possibilities [more see the link above] “space/time/spacetime” act in the informational system “Matter” absolutely fundamentally obligatorily and objectively, independently on what “construct” what human invented. At that Matter’s spacetime [as the result of Space/Time acting as the possibilities] is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian “empty container”, where material objects and Matter as a whole exist and constantly change. The emptiness cannot by transformed by any material object, i.e. [space] “contracted”, [time] “dilated”, [spacetime] “bended”, etc., including

“… When accelerating relative to a gravitational field the rate that time passes slows down to some extent.….”

that cannot be, though the internal processes in material objects when they are in an gravitational field indeed become be slowed since some steps of the objects’ [first of all particles’ and atoms’] algorithms are “spend” on the gravitational interactions and so systems of material objects have masses that are lesser on the gravitational mass defect. Though that is true at any interaction with any other fundamental Nature force when the result of interaction is the negative system’s mass defect. However, again, nothing happens with the both, rules and possibilities, “time” [when in Matter two “times” act, the “true time” and the “coordinate time”]. So

“…the expansion of space would be a meaningless concept that is not possible, only the possible expansion of the matter and field within space...”

that is essentially correct .The space as the possibility hasn’t some structure and is infinite “at once” by definition; all what can “expand” can be only something that fills the space. However

“…How about space-time? As Einstein pointed out, we cannot give an exact dimensional position of anything since everything is moving relative to everything else and there is no known absolute framework or preferred frames of references...”

that fundamentally isn’t so; correspondingly from the Einstein’s the SR’s postulates that there is no the absolute Matter’s spacetime and that all inertial reference frames are totally and completely equivalent any number of evidently meaningless logical and physical consequences follow. When the absolute motion in the 3D space is evidently defined, if it is understood, that all/every material objects always constantly move in the Matter’s 4D sub-spacetime [and in 5-th , i.e. the true time dimension] with the 4D [and 1D] velocities that have identical absolute values be equal to the speed of light.

In Matter two main types of particles/bodies exist: “T-particles” [and corresponding bodies] that are created by the coordinate time components of creating 4D momentums, and “S-particles” that are created by spatial components of the momentums, for example the S-particles “photons”.

Thus the T-particles/bodies are at the absolute 3D spatial rest [and so a set of T-clocks and T-rules at the absolute spatial rest form an “absolute/ “preferred” reference frame” ] if they are moving with the speed of light in the coordinate time; photons are always at the absolute rest in the coordinate time, because of always move in the 3D space only.

And the observation of the absolute spatial motion of the T-bodies, including the bodies “Earth” and “human’s body” is, of course, possible, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible DOI 10.5281/zenodo.48709 . It would be useful to read in this case also

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317620440_About_some_conventions_in_mechanics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.1142628 and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322798185_The_informational_model_twin_paradox DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.34064.51201/1 .

Cheers

Hans,

your statement that physical reality has a mathematically defined structure implies that a mathematical description already exists. But what you want to say is that you think it must be possible to describe physical reality mathematically. But even if we are able to describe the nature mathematically, it is not ensured that we are also able to solve all equations, which then completely describe the nature. (Example: Will we ever be able to calculate mathematically what genes lead to specific biological properties?)

Wolfgang,

The structure of physical reality gets simpler when you dive deeper in it. When you reach its foundation, then it is a quite comprehensible structure. Also, when you extend this structure from its foundation to higher more complicated levels, then mathematics restricts this path such that only a particular kind of structure is tolerated. Approaching reality via this path already reveals many aspects that cannot be revealed by interpreting observations of reality.

TheStructureOfPhysicalReality.pdf ; http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10664.26885

Hans, now I begin to understand what you mean. You are talking about your paper. But though I find many things in your paper, which I know from other sources I miss somthing like a guideline. Your paper looks like a grand unification, but after a closer look the offered links do not really meet each other.

The question in this thread is the physical structure of spacetime.

What is the contribution to this question in your paper?

Can we actually describe our spacetime with quaternions?

Wolfgang,

The foundation of physical reality as it was discovered by John von Neumann and Garrett Birkhoff in 1936 emerges in a separable Hilbert space that maximally can be defined over the quaternions. Quaternionic Hilbert spaces can archive discrete dynamic geometric data in Euclidean format in quaternionic eigenvalues. Observers can only retrieve data with historic time stamps that are transferred to them via fields. This transfer converts the Euclidean format into spacetime format. A hyperbolic Lorentz transform describes this transformation and introduces time dilation and length contraction. This is about the shortest possible answer at your question.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project gives a full account of the Hilbert Book Model. http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen offers many compact papers on the subject.

Dear Mathieu,

Thanks for attaching the link to Einstein’s discussion- it was interesting.

With regard to the physical structure of spacetime, my own interpretation is the same as the other Ian Miller, who answered previously: “spacetime” is just a human construct, a useful mathematical tool, but not a physical entity.

Specifically, “time” is not a physical entity. Time is a process, experienced by objects that are located in space and moving at less than the speed of light- Einstein’s ‘clocks’. Each object’s rate of passage through time is specific to that object, but is in fact a function of the object’s spatial location, mediated by the gravitational field. Localized groups of objects that have similar velocities experience an essentially identical rate of passage through time- and if those objects are people they generally choose that passage rate as the basis for a common temporal coordinate.

“Space”, however, is a physical entity: it has local attributes, it is three-dimensional. Space’s local attributes are not inherent- instead, they reflect attributes of a spatial point’s surrounding objects. Each object’s non-local attributes are broadcast into the surrounding space, where they propagate at the speed of light. Those attributes define what we refer to as ‘fields’- the gravitational field, electromagnetic fields, quantum fields, and so on. That is where the answer to your question lies, I think: the physical structure of space at a given point is defined by the flux of stuff passing through it: gravitons, photons, and all of the other particles/waves that mediate fields. This concept is consistent with Mach's principle, though the totality of matter affecting a spatial point is not infinite: it is restricted to the point's past light cone.

“…With regard to the physical structure of spacetime, my own interpretation is the same as the other Ian Miller, who answered previously: “spacetime” is just a human construct, a useful mathematical tool, but not a physical entity.….”

a next time: that isn’t correct, the Rules/Possibilities [more see the links in the SS posts above] “space/time/spacetime” act in the informational system “Matter” absolutely fundamentally obligatorily and objectively, independently on what “construct” what human invented

Including that

“….Specifically, “time” is not a physical entity. Time is a process, experienced by objects that are located in space and moving at less than the speed of light…”

again, “time” isn’t, of course, some “human construct’s process” “experienced by objects”, Time, including specific times of a peculiar informational system “Matter” is the “Space for sequences of changing states” of changing objects, which are only informational patterns/systems, and this “Space” is necessary because of the absolutely fundamental fact that any information cannot be non-existent, and so a next state cannot be “written” on the previous state’s place and thus to annihilate the existent information. [more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904 , besides it is useful to read SS posts in last two pages in , https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_we_mathematically_model_consciousness?view=5b1e59d9337f9f436f21e5aa]

Thus every changing objects moves in the possibility/dimension “time” from a time moment t1 to, say, time moment t2 just as sometimes some objects move from a space point x1 to a space point x2; and that was and is everywhere and always, including in the informational system “Matter”, and independently on any “human construct”.

Note, however, that that is always fundamentally true for the rule/possibility/dimension “true time”, in Matter two “times” act and some particles, for example photons, move with the speed of light in space only and so don’t move in the “coordinate time” rule/possibility/dimension.

Again, more see the SS posts here and papers that are linked in the posts.

Cheers

Just to be clear about my answer above, physics is not mathematics. Mathematics describes what we see as a consequence of physical causes, but it is not in itself a physical cause. To insist that spacetime is a physical entity, you have to show some effect that lies outside the initial mathematical construct, otherwise your logic descends into a circular argument. Further, just because it is considered a mathematical construct does not mean the effects are not real. Light bends in a gravitational field; we describe that as a distortion of spacetime, but if you view spacetime as a mathematical construct, that does NOT argue against the existence of a physical entity we describe as a field. If you describe it as a distortion of spacetime, you still have to explain physically WHY that element bends in that way, unless you say you don't know, in which case you use the mathematical description, just as Newton did with his law.

Dear Ian,

“…Just to be clear about my answer above, physics is not mathematics.….”

that is, of course, so; but that

“…To insist that spacetime is a physical entity, you have to show some effect that lies outside the initial mathematical construct….”

evidently not, including, for example, because of in mathematics there is no mathematical objects “time” and “spacetime”, that are fundamental notions/phenomena that exist objectively non-independently on there exists some abstract product of human’s consciousness “mathematics”, or it not exists. And they exist absolutely fundamentally, because of they are necessary for anything could exist, when everything is/are some informational patterns/systems of the patterns, which are elements of the absolutely fundamental “Information” Set. That is so without any doubts since is rigorously proven.

And any information can exist only in some space, where it can be “written. If an information changes, then, because of any information if exist further cannot be nonexistent and so a next state cannot erase the previous, can change only in some “space for changing states chain”, which is “time”. More see the SS post here and links in the posts.

Thus if in

“…Further, just because it is considered a mathematical construct does not mean the effects are not real. Light bends in a gravitational field; we describe that as a distortion of spacetime, but if you view spacetime as a mathematical construct, that does NOT argue against the existence of a physical entity we describe as a field. If you describe it as a distortion of spacetime, you still have to explain physically WHY that element bends in that way, unless you say you don't know,….”

the word “you” means me, then the quote above isn’t correct. However it becomes quite correct, if instead “you” will be “Minkowski and Einstein”.

Indeed, since they didn’t understand what are “Space” and “Time”, so without any grounds in the relativity theories rather strange “fundamental relativistic effects” were/are postulated, where material objects by some mystic ways transform, i.e. “contracts”, “dilates”, etc., Matter’s spacetime, including “bend” it; and further this transformed spacetime, by some mystic way transforms, i.e. “contracts”, “dilates”, etc. the objects and forces, say, Earth, to move around Sun. In the reality that isn’t of course so, Matter’s spacetime is an absolute [5]4D Euclidian empty container where material objects exist and change and cannot be transformed by anything inside.

That seems as quite evident, however a huge number of people frankly and stubbornly believe in these effects, and that you understand this point seems as rather good fact ; so rather possibly for you would be useful, and even possibly interesting, to read the SS posts above and the links in the posts.

Cheers

Ian, read

TheStructureOfPhysicalReality.pdf ; http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10664.26885

Dear Sergey,

Coordinates are, of course, necessary to describe physical processes, but time seems to me to be fundamentally different from space. As an example physical equations are usually reversible, and that works in space. If I go north, I can always turn around and go south, and if the temperature is colder to the north, going south reverses that effect. Won't work with time. As I am only too well aware, you age, and get certain effects that cannot be reversed. You can do what you like with your equations and definitions, but you will still age.

Dear Ian,

“…Coordinates are, of course, necessary to describe physical processes….”

That is indeed so, mathematical model of the space/time/spacetime is an abstract product of non-material consciousness, however the consciousness is able to decode some logical links in outer Matter rather adequately, and that is, if in framework of the “The information as Absolute” conception and the informational physical model [see SS posts above], only a next case of such description. That is another case that in the mainstream physics real Matter’s spacetime is postulated as some imaginary Minkowski and pseudo Riemannian spaces, that is simply non-adequate description, though this case isn’t unique in humans’ activity, including in science.

“….but time seems to me to be fundamentally different from space….”

that is indeed so, the Rules/Possibilities “Space” and “Time” are absolutely fundamentally different. However they are in many traits similar, and so, for example, they compose “common” spacetimes for dynamical informational patterns/systems, including for systems “Matter” and “Consciousness”, where changing patterns/[material and non-material objects/systems] move in space and in time. However in the system “Matter” that

“… As an example physical equations are usually reversible, and that works in space.… Won't work with time…”

isn’t correct, at that again fundamentally. As that proved Fredkin and Toffoli, if some information changes in some reversible logical structures, this process isn’t accompanied by losses of energy outside the structures. And in Matter the energy conservation law acts just because of the material objects in fundamental depth are some reversible algorithms, including particles are close-loop reversible algorithms. This outstanding [Fredkin and Toffoli’s] discovery had a hint in QED , where the Stueckelberg- Feynman 1940-th years interpretation is used, and antiparticles “move in back time direction”. That was a next outstanding guess in the mainstream physics, that very well works in the QED, in spite of that contradicts with the SR, where both, “simply time” and “proper time” have the same direction, and all material objects move in the positive time dimension only.

That above obtains the explanation in the informational model, see above. Including indeed, all processes, including motion, proceed in the absolutely fundamental and absolutely universal Rule/Possibility “true time” only unidirectorily, and so reverse processes are “illogical” in the true time, and just to “legalize” the reverse sequences, including particles algorithms, in the informational system’s “Matter” spacetime the other rule/possibility “time” act, i.e. the “coordinate time”. This [last] time compose with 3D space Matter’s 4D-subspacetime, where every material object, particles, bodies, galaxies, etc. and Matter as a whole move with 4D velocities that have identical absolute values be equal to the standard speed of light; and, simultaneously all they move with the speed of light in the 5-th, i.e. “true time” dimension. Having rest mass particles and antiparticles move in opposite coordinate time directions, photons don’t move [in certain sense] in coordinate time at all.

Again, more see the SS posts above and papers linked in the posts.

Cheers

Dear Sergey,

My point is that what works mathematically is still knot necessarily working physically. To state that antiparticles move backwards in time asserts that should be observed in colliders, and as far as I am aware, observations are consistent with the proposition that antiparticles are created and move forward in time in the same way as particles.

Best wishes, Ian

Jan,

“…My point is that what works mathematically is still knot necessarily working physically….”

yes, of course; but that

“…. To state that antiparticles move backwards in time asserts that should be observed in colliders, and as far as I am aware, observations are consistent with the proposition that antiparticles are created and move forward in time in the same way as particles. …”

isn’t so. Motion in time, first of all in the true time, isn’t observable simply because of all/everything in the dynamical systems “Matter” and “human’s consciousness(es)” move in the true time simultaneously and so all/everything is/are in one true time point. As, say, a human doesn’t see that a train moves, if doesn’t see in a wagon’s window; though here is a difference, in the case with time humans don’t know where is corresponding window. When the motion in 3D space is well observable.

At that, again, in Matter two rules/possibilities “time” act; when the motion of everything in true time, [c]t is fundamentally unidirectional, what seems as some obstacle for logically reverse processes, the possibility for such processes is the coordinate time, [c]τ.

As that was in the SS posts above, having rest mass [T-particles] fundamental particles, and so all other particles that are composed from these particles, are created by 4D momentums’ coordinate time components, and so always move along the coordinate time axis [lines parallel to the axis]. The S-particles that are created by spatial components of the 4D momentums, move in the 3D space only, most known example are photons.

All/every particles/bodies… move always in the 4D sub-spacetime with 4D speeds of light [in the metrics “ct/c τ” ] only, having 4D momentums P=mc, [bold means 4D vector] and energy E=Pc=mc2. So photons move in the space with the speed of light only; and the rest mass particles that were created by minimal momentums, which had only non-zero the coordinate time component and are so at rest in the space, move along the coordinate time axis with the speed of light also.

Besides, when in the true time every change of everything is accompanied by some true time interval and so every change is also some step in the true time, the coordinate time acts only for changes of internal states of materialT-objects, and changes of their spatial positions aren’t accompanied by some coordinate time intervals.

Thus, photons have momentums with zero coordinate time component (0, p), when a rest mass particle [not always, though, but all adorns, leptons, etc.] at spatial rest has momentum (m0c, 0,0,0), m0 is rest mass.

Particles move in the positive coordinate time direction, when antiparticles move in the negative direction. For example if there are an electron with momentum (m0c, pe) and a positron with a momentum (-m0c, pp), then the coordinate time momentum of this system is equal to zero. When the particles interact, they annihilate producing photons, and the system of photons has zero momentums’ coordinate time component, as that must be because of the momentum conservation law; and that had been well observable.

Cheers

Sergey, nobody disagrees that when an electron and positron collide there is zero net momentum prior to the collision, but that does not mean that anything moves backwards in time. Motion in opposite directions, as expected from the Coulomb force, is sufficient to give opposite momenta.

Cheers

Ian Miller,

Try to construct a mechanism that controls the emission of photons from an atom when an electron changes its oscillation mode. Where in the atom will the photon be produced? How long last this production? Does the place where the photon is emitted stay in the same location during the emission process? How long takes the emission? If you solved this set of questions, then explain the absorption of a photon. How does the photon find the precise location of where the absorption takes place? Does this location stay in its place during the absorption? How long does the absorption last?

If you succeed to describe the emission mechanism, then you will still encounter the incredible aiming precision that absorption requires. How does the impinging photon arrange this high aiming precision that must last throughout the full duration of the absorption process?

See:

64 Shades of Space ; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28012.46724

Hans, I don't think the absorption/emission is instantaneous, but the electron can have size without it having to "absorb" the photon. It does have an electric field that will interact with the electric/magnetic oscillations of the photon. My personal view is that the electron motion is accompanied by a physical wave (similar to the pilot wave) except the wave has an energy determined by the particle, and vice versa, so what has to change is the energy of the accompanying wave. That the wave has an energy follows from the assumption that the phase velocity equals the particle velocity.

Jan,

“…nobody disagrees that when an electron and positron collide there is zero net momentum prior to the collision, but that does not mean that anything moves backwards in time. ….”

In this case just the coordinate time [“zero component” in metrics ( cτ , X,Y,Z)] component of the 4D momentum of the system “electron+positron” is equal to zero, when, if the particles are at 3D spatial rest, every particle has non-zero coordinate time components of their momentums be equal pe=m0c and pp=m0(-c) .

“…Motion in opposite directions, as expected from the Coulomb force, is sufficient to give opposite momenta.….”

Coulomb force is [for transmission momentums to other charge], a flow of rather probably “circular photons” [see the paper “Informational conception and basic physics”], or“virtual photons” [QED], which both have purely 3D spatial components only, and thus, for example, in accordance with the momentum conservation law, photons create only pairs “electron+positron”. Moreover, since humans can create momentums only by using EM force, all real momentums in humans’ practice, including in particles accelerators, have zero component be equal to zero, and so if at particles collisions some new particles are created, in this cases always number of the particles is always equal to number of the corresponding antiparticles.

Cheers

Dear Mathieu Beau,

" space-time is elastic, and can be deformed as any other material " is an important point in your question.

Let us consider a space region with a single giant hydrogen cloud which slowly contracts to a sun. The contraction process indeed deforms space-time. But the remarkable point in this situation is the energy consideration.

In the state "sun" the hydrogen has gained kinetic energy and the intensity of the gravitational field also has grown.

Energy conservation then definitively requires that a higher intensity of the gravitational field corresponds to a negative energy content. This means, that the empty space without any disturbance by matter contains the maximum energy density. The conclusion is that falling matter always increases the intensity of the gravitational field and therefore decreases the energy content of the gravitational field. But according to Einstein, gravitation is intrinsically connected to space-time.

The physical structure of spacetime therefore is defined by the property to provide kinetic energy to the contraction process of matter.

The interesting question is now: What is the amount (or level) of the energy density of the empty space and what is the lowest possible energy density occurring at the surface of a black hole or even during a collapse of a black hole (if this can happen).

The postulation of a fix value for the energy density for a space with a zero gravitation directly leads to the requirement of an absolute limit for the strength of the gravitational field.

Dear Wolfgang Konle

If we have space completely free of any matter, it would seem natural to set the energy density as zero because there is zero gravitational field and zero kinetic energy. I know that is a little arbitrary, but this leads to the possibility often mentioned that the overall energy of the Universe is zero. However, as I understand it, energy is not conserved under General Relativity, so the argument about what goes on around black holes would seem (in my opinion) to become more difficult to resolve

Dear Ian Miller

How would you interpret the energy balance of a contracting hydrogen cloud? What could be the source of kinetic energy and the energy required for a higher gravitational field after the collapse?

Simply assuming that according to General Relativity energy conservation would be suspended is not a possible answer, because this assumption is definitively wrong! Such an assumption would questionize the basics of physics.

My comment that energy is not necessarily conserved in general relativity was applicable more to the close vicinity to black holes. The energy balance of a contracting hydrogen cloud should be conserved, and the source of the kinetic energy is the potential energy from the gravitational field, or at least that is the usual picture as I am aware. The more interesting question is what causes the initial collapse. Somewhere along the line, energy must be lost from the system as radiated heat otherwise the collapse should not really occur, unless there is an external force, e.g. a nearby supernova

Dear Ronald Ian Miller

The term "potential energy from the gravitational field" is not defined because there is no transition (from one state to another) involved. Only the energy content of the gravitational field and the kinetic energy is defined. (The state transition is from weak gravitational field to strong gravitational field.)

The energy loss by thermal radiation accounts to the kinetic energy.

Good morning. This is a very interesting topic and

it is in part related to this RG-Question ....... https://www.researchgate.net/post/Black_Holes_out_of_a_galaxy_do_they_exist

I am very interested in your point of view. Thank you for the attention

--s.v.--

Space time are imaginary concepts not directly associated with anything physical. Wavelength (space) and period (time) are fundamental and directly related to physical particle wave. Most physicist are looking for fundamental building block of the universe which they anticipate to be a micro entity. But the reality is based on the Brahman of Advaita Vedanta which is of the nature of motionless Infinite Indivisble Spirit without boundary and therefore one without a second. Physically Spirit is nothing like empty space. Motionless indicates there are no vibrations or waves in it. Therefore no scientific instrument can detect it. When fraction of this Brahman also called the Unmanifest begins to move (big Bang) it causes waves which have wavelengths (space) and periods (time). This is how space time came into existence. Brahman is beyond space time and relativity fail there because it is one without a second. Waves created by Brahman are discrete quanta of spirit which physicists call energy. The Brahman is perfectly elastic and resilient. The indivisibility of Brahman shows up in physics as the wave particle duality, entanglement, quantum fields, gravitational field etc. Both Spirit (Brahman) and Energy are indestructible. In between the Brahman and the known energies of physics there must be many unknown forms of energies like Dark energy and energy of which human mind and thoughts are made. All this can make the structure of space time. More details in following article.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325779993_Advaitic_big_bang

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31527.65449

What is fundamental about wavelength, period and frequency? What is the underlying model? How do your fundamentals emerge?

A field does not oscillate without a periodic actuator. Without actuators it stays flat. Without volume it stays empty. What injects volume into your field?

First define the notion of field. What is this thing?

Read "Tracing the structure of physical reality by starting from its fundamentals" ; http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16452.07047

Dear Vikram Zaveri,

your contribution seems to be rather religious than scientific. But as far as I know, discussion of religious items is not subject of research gate.

There is religion and there is spirituality. Vikram‘s contribution may be religious in the sense that he himself is religious but the ancient Indian ideas on the unltimate nature of the universe are relevant to science today because science Is still struggling to come to ultimate answers. if a phycist can begin with the ancient Indian ideas and derive general relativity and quantum mechanics from his theory hasn’t he achieved that which all physicists want. Vikram claims to have done this (personal communication). It is up to you physicists to evaluate whether or not he has. To do so they need to read Vikram‘s work. I am interested in the nature of consciousness and believe that it is intimately tied up with the nature of reality itself. There are many theories of consciousness which require the input of physicists now and in the future. For example, Susan Pocketts claim that consciousness is the spatially patterned electromagnetic field of the brain. She believes that artificial consciousness is possible. Buddhist meditators reach states of consciousness that they claim is ultimate reality. We - physicists, neuroscientists,psychologists need to get together and collaborate to understand what’s going on and how it all relates to theories of reality.

Thank you Wolfgang and Anne. I am surprised that someone noticed my post. My contribution is scientific but because of the quale nature of this science, it cannot be experimentally demonstrated. It can only be experienced like the taste of the sugar. And unfortunately to get a faint idea of such experience, a person may even have to be born several times before he can succeed.

Recently I answered a following question on Quora which might be of interest to you.

Q What are some facts from the Vedas that have been proved by science?

Upanishads are commentaries on Vedas and Bhagavad Gita is juice of all Upanishads. Bhagavad Gita is the most ancient field theory like the quantum field theory. The most fundamental field in Bhagavad Gita is the Brahman (Gita 13:13). Chapter 13 of the Bhagavad Gita talks about Kshetra (field) and the Kshetrajna (owner of the field). Science can only talk about field, it has no clue about the owner of the field.

The science of three Gunas mentioned in ch.14 of Bhagavad Gita comes from Samkhya Philosophy of vedic sage Kapila (not the atheist sage Kapila) . According to Samkhya Philosophy, creative activity of the universe begins when the equilibrium of three Gunas is disturbed. Three Gunas are Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Sattva is of nature of light and knowledge etc. Rajas is of the nature of activity or kinetic energy. And Tamas is of nature of inertia or mass, lethargy, ignorance, darkness etc.

In modern science, before the big bang, all the four forces of nature, electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravitational were in a unified form. All the energies of the universe were confined to what is called a singularity which was in a state of symmetry or equilibrium. When this symmetry was broken, all the energies of the universe were rolled out into expanding universe. This is similar to disturbing of equilibrium of three Gunas in Samkhya philosophy. This theory of symmetry breaking comes from a Japanese physicist. Japanese are usually influenced by Buddhist philosophies and Buddha was the follower of atheist Kapila (500 BCE+) who took over the Samkhya philosophy of Vedic Kapila (10,000 BCE+) and removed God (Brahman) from it. So Buddhist doctrine does not require God or Brahman. The entire Electroweak theory which unifies electromagnetic force and the weak force is based on the spontaneous symmetry breaking.

The strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces can all be understood as arising from gauge symmetries. The Higgs mechanism, the spontaneous symmetry breaking of gauge symmetries, is an important component in understanding the superconductivity of metals and the origin of particle masses in the standard model of particle physics.

@ Hans van Leunen:

Mathematically Period is inverse of frequency. T = 1/f. This is the only fundamental expression for time which connects time with physical reality like oscillation. Similarly wavelength is also inversely proportional to frequency. Lambda = c/f. where c is the velocity of light. This is the only fundamental expression for space which connects space with physical reality like oscillation. These relations can be generalized to include parameters of massive particles. This makes up my underlying model discussed in following articles.

Periodic relativity: basic framework of the theory.

General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol.42, No.6,

pp.1345-1374, (June, 2010).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10714-009-0908-5

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225712819_Periodic_relativity_basic_framework_of_the_theory?ev=prf_pub

https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4539

Above article has some corrections and improvements mentioned in following article’

Periodic relativity: deflection of light, acceleration, rotation curves. Zaveri, V.H.

Progress in Physics, 2015, v.11(1), 43-49.

http://www.ptep-online.com/complete/PiP-2015-01.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.2233.pdf

Above theory show that time is periodic in nature. World time given by atomic clocks and meter standard for measuring Euclidean distance does not directly relate to physical reality. This is the reason when general relativity theorists talk about dilation of time they comfortably ignore space. They should be talking about dilation of space time as in my theory.

The fundamentals of my theory emerge when the fundamental substance of the universe in my theory begin to oscillate. There is nothing empty in my theory. What you call empty space is really the fundamental substance of the universe which is Brahman (Spirit). A saint who had directly experienced Brahman used following language to describe his experience. “God Himself has become the entire universe.” Degeneration of Spirit converts it into grosser substances of the universe. So there is no dividing line between Spirit and matter. It is just like steam, water and ice.

Upanishads are commentaries on Vedas and Bhagavad Gita is juice of all Upanishads. Bhagavad Gita is the most ancient field theory like the quantum field theory. The most fundamental field in Bhagavad Gita is the Brahman (Gita 13:13). Chapter 13 of the Bhagavad Gita talks about Kshetra (field) and the Kshetrajna (owner of the field). Science can only talk about field, it has no clue about the owner of the field. In my theory Brahman oscillates with its own inherent force called the WILL. Force of will or Will power. This force is ignored my modern science.

The cause of the first motion

The cause of the first motion is the force of Will associated with ufc (unified field of consciousness) which itself does not have any other cause. What is Will? What is the force of Will?

Will Power is the universal term known to all. In this term Will is not something physical but spiritual and is related to consciousness and mind in humans. Where as Power is a physical term related to Force and Velocity OR you can say with Force, distance and time. The Work is defined by Force and Distance. So term Force of Will is another way of talking about Will Power. We know that among humans different people have different Will Power.

Every work begins with a Will to do it. We know that everything that man creates, begins with an idea. So Will is a particular category of idea that allows or resists certain actions. I will do this OR I will not do this. Depending on the strength of the mind, this idea related to the WILL has higher or lower energy. So we can say the Will idea with Higher energy can have more Will Power.

Talking about Universal Consciousness (Spirit). Here also, all creation or work must begin with Will to do it. Compared to human Will Power, the Universal Will Power must be very great. The idea associated with Universal Will Power must have tremendous energy compared to human Will Power. This energy I propose is of the order of Planck energy which is 10^{19} GeV So the first particles created at the beginning of the universe (Savitons in my quantum gravity theory) represents the Will Power of the Universal Spirit. These particles are bosonic particles which are the carrier of force. So Will is the actuator. As I said there is nothing empty in my theory.

Dear Vikram Zaveri , Anne Ross

the ancient Indian concept of Brahman as something eternal, imperishable, and everlasting is an alternate to the christian concept of creation.

The two cosmological concepts of an eternal, curved cosmos of finite and constant size versus a big bang model are analogous. In this view, "Big Bang" obviously is a Christian concept.

I personally prefer the Indian concept for the cosmos, though my education is Christian. But religious aspects should not be used for any scientific reasoning.

Dear Wolfgang Konle:

The ancient Indian concept of Brahman as something eternal, imperishable, and everlasting is similar to the christian concept of Father in heaven, Muslim concept of Allah and Buddhist concept of Nothingness in Nirvana. Brahman is the creator not the creation. Brahman cannot be described as eternal, curved cosmos of finite and constant size. Brahman is indescribable. It can only be hinted at by negating the entire universe as “not this, not this.”

The first scientific model of the universe came with Einstein’s general relativity which was a static model later developed into expanding universe. Einstein was not a Christian.

Dear Wolfgang concepts are for thinking , or if you are of a scientific mind for the computation of a solution to a problem. Many scientific concepts have entered the discourse of everyday life, that is the experience the person, that is their phenomenology. But where do scientific concepts come from in the first place? They come from the person‘s phenomenology, in discourse with a community of people who share a common purpose, so a common initial phenomenology. Einstein’s insight that gave rise to Special Relativity was his first person phenomenology - imagining riding on a light beam. This is true in the history of science. So there is a two way interaction. If a scientist has an insight using ‘religious‘ concepts which gives rise to a testable scientific hypotheses, what’s the problem. The concept will be transformed in a scientifically useful way. People are simply thinking -usually ‘out of the box’, that which is necessary to go forward in science.

Dear colleagues,

According to my personal experience, I must confirm that description of Brahman in Upanishads, Bhagavad-Gita, and Veda is correct.

When we experience Brahman directly, we perceive it's stillness, it is Nothingness. Yet simultaneously, this Nothingness is the most powerful something perceived.

From stillness arises all that was created by the mere thought or by movement of the Spirit. Literally, something is arising from nothing.

When Brahman observed directly, it can be explained as an oscillating medium from will all can arise. It is similar to the experiments when on an oscillating metallic sheet is given sand. This sand creates patterns. In our reality, those patterns are atoms and matter.

Brahman has no space and time. It occurs with the 'sand grains'/atoms on the scene. Prior to their occurrence, a question about time and space is useless.

What do you think about it?

Jiri