Theory of Everything?

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

I’m not even sure there is an ontological element here. But no, if there is an ontological element, if the measurements are consistent with a round Earth, then based not on the formulas, but on the evidence of the actual measurements, and any other evidence, the ontological conclusion would be a round Earth, if that’s what is the best inference from the observable evidence.

We do have measurements that are consistent with a lack of an absolute frame of reference.

@Jim

But I hesitate to use this as analogous with what we’re discussing as it’s got additional elements to it that are not present in the question we’re asking about space. For example, it’s about shape, which is more of a descriptive element, and it’s about the earth which we can objectively say exists.

Whereas with space we’re not asking about its shape, but the nature of its existence. And we can’t even objectively say whether or not it even exists. So I don’t think a flat or round earth analogy is a good application to what we’re discussing.

Photons are objects that exist, and they behave in a way that is inconsistent with a universe that has an absolute frame of reference. No matter what your relative velocity to something else, you still measure the same speed of light.

@Jim

I think there’s two separate questions going on here depending on what’s being addressed. When addressing mechanics the question is, “Does the mechanical formulation of absolute spacetime accurately describe what’s observed?” And the answer to that question seems to be no. (Although I would question why it’s even being attempted in the first place since absolute space is by definition immeasurable?)

Space is measurable. That’s what we have rulers for. We have all sorts of tools and instruments that we can use to measure both space and time. Meters and seconds are found in tons of equations in physics.

@Jim

But when addressing ontology the question becomes, “What makes more sense of the reality we observe and experience, space “existing” only if measurable and therefore dependent on spatial relationships, or space existing regardless of measurement, and therefore independent of spatial relationships?”

It seems as silly as asking if a tree falling in the forest makes a sound if no one is there to hear it. In our reality, energy and mass moves and evolves. Therefore, space and time.

[Jim]

@T_aquaticus

We do have measurements that are consistent with a lack of an absolute frame of reference.

I don’t doubt that’s the case. But I guess I’m not following your train of thought here. Seems to me this is about mechanics. My concern is with the ontological question of absolute space. How is this relevant?

@T_aquaticus

Space is measurable.

In the relative sense it is, but not in the absolute sense. As I understand it, Newton defined space that we could measure as “relative spaces.” However, his definition of “absolute space” is sort of as one continuous entity that possibly stretches out into infinity, and in its entirety is inaccessible to human measurement. That’s why it’s not possible to know exactly where something is located relative to absolute space.

It’s kind of like the analogy I used previously of being in the midst of a forest without knowing where one is relative to the entire forest. In such a case it’s possible to know ones location, and that of other observable objects, relative to other objects in the forest. But it’s not possible to know ones exact location, nor that of other objects in the forest, relative to the entire forest.

But just because it isn’t possible in such a scenario to know exact locations of any object’s relative position to the entire forest itself , it would be illogical to say that therefore those exact locations don’t exist. That’s, in essence, what the claim that absolute space doesn’t exist seems to entail when followed to it’s logical conclusion.

@T_aquaticus

It seems as silly as asking if a tree falling in the forest makes a sound if no one is there to hear it.

I agree that it seems silly. This is what I see as the real crux of what’s being disputed. Is the sound dependent or independent of the listener? Or to relate it more specifically to space and matter, is matter and space observer dependent, or do they exist independent of the observer?

My question is, “How does it make sense of our common experience and observation to say that everything in reality is basically observer dependent?” That certainly seems like a silly position to me. What’s your take on it?

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

I don’t doubt that’s the case. But I guess I’m not following your train of thought here. Seems to me this is about mechanics. My concern is with the ontological question of absolute space. How is this relevant?

I think you said it best in a previous post:

But no, if there is an ontological element, if the measurements are consistent with a round Earth, then based not on the formulas, but on the evidence of the actual measurements, and any other evidence, the ontological conclusion would be a round Earth, if that’s what is the best inference from the observable evidence.

The same would apply to absolute space. If observations are inconsistent with absolute spacetime then it is false in an ontological sense.

@Jim

In the relative sense it is, but not in the absolute sense. As I understand it, Newton defined space that we could measure as “relative spaces.” However, his definition of “absolute space” is sort of as one continuous entity that possibly stretches out into infinity, and in its entirety is inaccessible to human measurement. That’s why it’s not possible to know exactly where something is located relative to absolute space.

How would you identify the absolute spacetime frame of reference if you knew the entirety of the universe? Why can’t it be identified with the knowledge we already have?

@Jim

It’s kind of like the analogy I used previously of being in the midst of a forest without knowing where one is relative to the entire forest. In such a case it’s possible to know ones location, and that of other observable objects, relative to other objects in the forest. But it’s not possible to know ones exact location, nor that of other objects in the forest, relative to the entire forest.

That’s still relative, not absolute.

@Jim

Is the sound dependent or independent of the listener? Or to relate it more specifically to space and matter, is matter and space observer dependent, or do they exist independent of the observer?

A photon will have moved across spacetime before interacting with something else, so it would appear to be observer independent.

[Jim]

@T_aquaticus

I think you said it best in a previous post:

Jim:
But no, if there is an ontological element, if the measurements are consistent with a round Earth, then based not on the formulas, but on the evidence of the actual measurements, and any other evidence, the ontological conclusion would be a round Earth, if that’s what is the best inference from the observable evidence.

Umm, as I believe I more or less pointed out in that same post, the question is if absolute space exists, and if so, the nature of its existence; not if it’s flat or round. With this particular illustration, what I see is an actual physical measurement of the surface of an actual physical object in order to figure out what its shape is.

I have a hard time seeing how that is relevant to a question about something that’s nonphysical which doesn’t even have a “surface.” And again, the question isn’t about its shape, but rather the nature of its existence. If you see that as relevant, maybe you could explain to me how that works.

@T_aquaticus

The same would apply to absolute space. If observations are inconsistent with absolute spacetime then it is false in an ontological sense.

And I’m curious to know what the relevant observations are that suggest that absolute space is inconsistent with reality? Seems to me that relevant observation and experience suggest that it’s just the opposite. And remember, my contention is that it’s not mechanical formulas that are the concern.

If the formulas don’t match up with what’s observed, as far as I can tell, the only thing that’s evidence for is simply that the formulas are incorrect, not that absolute space doesn’t exist. Or am I’m missing something?

To my mind, what’s needed are observations that are relevant to the question of the existence of absolute space that either do or don’t support the theory. And based on those relevant observations, and any other relevant evidence, a judgment has to be made as to if it best explains that evidence or not.

But I don’t see how observations that falsify a mathematical formula are relevant. Formulas are descriptive, not explanatory. But what I do see as relevant are observations of objects existing and moving about in “something” that is identified as space.

And I think it’s relevant that I do observe a reality that by all accounts seems to be objective. At least there aren’t many people who would deny the fact that something like the Eiffel Tower exists.

And relevant also is the rotating buckets experiment that demonstrate an object moving through “space” without any apparent spacial relationship. And our intuitive experience that there is only one, not multiple locations for an object in that “something” we call space I would say is relevant.

So what reasons are there to doubt that space exists and that it is absolute? I don’t see any observable evidence relative to those questions that would tell me otherwise. If there are, what are they?

@T_aquaticus

How would you identify the absolute spacetime frame of reference if you knew the entirety of the universe? Why can’t it be identified with the knowledge we already have?

I don’t understand the mechanical aspects so much, and as I’ve tried to point out several times, I don’t see how they are relevant to the question I’m concerned with. However, despite my not having a clear grasp of some of the terms, let me know if this more or less makes sense.

If somehow “absolute space” could be “measured”, so that it was able to be mapped out with “geographical coordinates,” when the location and movement of an object within a particular “reference frame” of a particular time period needed to be known, measurements of the object within that “reference frame” would be made relative to those “known” “geographical coordinates” of absolute space within that “reference frame.”

However, since there’s no way to “know” the “geographical location” of where something is in “absolute space,” the next best thing is to take measurements relative to an inertial frame of reference realizing that we’re not dealing with an “exact” or “absolute” location, but a simply relative location. Somehow I think that’s what Newton was trying to get at with his absolute vs relative distinction.

@T_aquaticus

That’s still relative, not absolute.

I’m not sure I follow what you’re getting at. The space is absolute. The objects in it would be located relative to where they’re at in it. Does that address your concern?

@T_aquaticus

A photon will have moved across spacetime before interacting with something else, so it would appear to be observer independent.

I’m not sure I follow your train of thought here, either. But I do think that particles are observer independent. My reasoning for it is simply because of the apparent existence of objective reality. I think it’s pretty hard to deny that things composed of particles, like the Eiffel Tower, or the Empire State Building, are objectively real.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

I have a hard time seeing how that is relevant to a question about something that’s nonphysical which doesn’t even have a “surface.”

You are assuming that spacetime is nonphysical. We can measure the speed of light, the warping of spacetime by gravitational waves at the LIGO detectors, and the warping of spacetime around massive objects.

@Jim

And I’m curious to know what the relevant observations are that suggest that absolute space is inconsistent with reality?

The speed of light being the same in all frames of reference is a good example. If there was an absolute spacetime then the speed of light would be different in different frames of reference with respect to the absolute frame of reference.

What we observe instead are things like time dilation which is part of the general theory of relativity. What it shows us is that all you need to do to explain physics is use any arbitrary frame of reference. You don’t need an absolute frame of reference to explain physics. There is no preferred frame.

@Jim

I’m not sure I follow what you’re getting at. The space is absolute. The objects in it would be located relative to where they’re at in it.

That is not what is meant by an absolute frame of reference. Also, an object can be located relative to any frame of reference we come up with, and all of those frames of reference are equal with respect to the laws of physics.

[Jim]

@T_aquaticus

You are assuming that spacetime is nonphysical.

First, I think space and spacetime are two distinct terms. I’m not even sure if spacetime is anything more than a mechanical formula. Is it also considered a feature of reality? Regardless, my question concerns the reality of space, not spacetime.

And explanations can contain assumptions, or can be thought of as assumptions, although I think there is a distinction between the two. Just depends on how you want to define those terms.

@T_aquaticus

We can measure the speed of light, the warping of spacetime by gravitational waves at the LIGO detectors, and the warping of spacetime around massive objects.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to me another example of trying to use a description for an explanation. All a measurement does is describe what’s observed. Explanation is about what can’t be, or at least hasn’t been observed.

Don’t see any reason to believe there is a relevant connection between the two. And I don’t see how even the mentioned observations are relevant as evidence for an explanation of the nature of the existence of space. Still waiting for some reasons to convince me otherwise.

@T_aquaticus

The speed of light being the same in all frames of reference is a good example. If there was an absolute spacetime then the speed of light would be different in different frames of reference with respect to the absolute frame of reference.

What we observe instead are things like time dilation which is part of the general theory of relativity. What it shows us is that all you need to do to explain physics is use any arbitrary frame of reference. You don’t need an absolute frame of reference to explain physics. There is no preferred frame.

This is again all about measurements. Like I keep saying, I don’t see how they explain anything. They only describe. Where’s the relevance?

@T_aquaticus

That is not what is meant by an absolute frame of reference.

Not talking about reference frames. Those are again dealing with measurements. What needs to be dealt with is the nature of space itself, not how best to describe/measure how matter behaves in it.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

First, I think space and spacetime are two distinct terms. I’m not even sure if spacetime is anything more than a mechanical formula. Is it also considered a feature of reality? Regardless, my question concerns the reality of space, not spacetime.

Spacetime is space, and it is a feature of reality as shown by many experiments.

@Jim

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to me another example of trying to use a description for an explanation. All a measurement does is describe what’s observed. Explanation is about what can’t be, or at least hasn’t been observed.

Don’t see any reason to believe there is a relevant connection between the two. And I don’t see how even the mentioned observations are relevant as evidence for an explanation of the nature of the existence of space. Still waiting for some reasons to convince me otherwise.

The entire physics community disagrees. Spacetime warps around massive objects, and massive objectis sends out ripples in spacetime that we can measure with laser interferometers. You can see the warping directly through gravitaional lensing:

Those galaxies are smeared around massive objects in the foreground, similar to how glass bends light as a lens. This piece of evidence and others have convinced physicists.

@Jim

This is again all about measurements. Like I keep saying, I don’t see how they explain anything. They only describe. Where’s the relevance?

The physics community does see how this evidence explains the lack of an absolute frame of reference. The measurements do explain the physics of spacetime.

@Jim

Not talking about reference frames. Those are again dealing with measurements. What needs to be dealt with is the nature of space itself, not how best to describe/measure how matter behaves in it.

Measurements with respect to a frame of reference is how we deal with the nature of space itself.

[Jim]

@T_aquaticus

Spacetime is space, and it is a feature of reality as shown by many experiments.

“In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold.”

According to that quote from Wikipedia, it’s just a mathematical model used for measuring or describing how matter behaves. There’s nothing that’s observed that I’m aware of that would suggest that it is representative of actual reality.

The fact that the Lorentzian formulation of STR is empirically equivalent to the Minkowski formulation and treats space and time independently arguably demonstrates that there is no correlation between the models and reality, unless you possibly want to say that each represents a parallel reality.

@T_aquaticus

The entire physics community disagrees. Spacetime warps around massive objects, and massive objectis sends out ripples in spacetime that we can measure with laser interferometers. You can see the warping directly through gravitaional lensing:

But I still don’t see any relevance. If you take the actual observation, the warping affect of smaller objects as they move through space when close to massive objects, and the “ripples” that are observed from massive objects in nearby space, what does that infer about the nature of space?

Nothing as far as I can tell. It only serves to verify the occurrence of a particular type of behavior of matter involving massive objects and the nearby space it inhabits. I don’t see that it provides any information to answer relevant questions concerning the nature of space itself.

@T_aquaticus

The physics community does see how this evidence explains the lack of an absolute frame of reference. The measurements do explain the physics of spacetime.

As far as I can tell, it doesn’t explain the lack of an absolute reference frame, it simply confirms it. And it says nothing about the nature of space that I can see.

@T_aquaticus

Measurements with respect to a frame of reference is how we deal with the nature of space itself.

That I realize. But that’s precisely the question I’m raising. What warrant is there to use description of what’s observed as a way to explain something that isn’t observed? I’m still waiting for the reasoning behind it. So far no one, at least that I’m aware of, has been able to give me any reasons for how that makes any sense.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

There’s nothing that’s observed that I’m aware of that would suggest that it is representative of actual reality.

The observation of light bending around dense objects is just that observation. You can directly observe the effects of spacetime warping around massive objects.

@Jim

It only serves to verify the occurrence of a particular type of behavior of matter involving massive objects and the nearby space it inhabits. I don’t see that it provides any information to answer relevant questions concerning the nature of space itself.

You can lead a horse to water . . .

The entire field of physics can see what you fail to see. I can’t make you see or understand the science, so I’m not sure what to do at this point.

@Jim

What warrant is there to use description of what’s observed as a way to explain something that isn’t observed?

Gravitational lensing is observed.

[Jim]

We’re obviously not on the same page here. Maybe you could explain to me how these observations, which are relevant to the behavior of matter, have any relevance to the question of the nature of the existence of space.

The only thing they tell us, that I can see, is that we have mechanical descriptions that accurately represent the behavior of matter in space. But how are they relevant to the question of if space exists in an absolute sense or not?

The problem so far, as I see it, has not been a lack of understanding of physics, but a lack of understanding of metaphysics. What I see is I’m asking a metaphysical question about absolute space, but am getting unrelated answers about the behavior of matter that are only relevant to questions involving physics.

But the question I’m asking is a question that has to be dealt with by metaphysics, not physics. I would argue that giving a physics answer for a metaphysical question just doesn’t work. The best analogy I can think of is it’s somewhat like giving a legal answer to a political question.

To try and clarify things a bit, here’s what I see as the two opposing positions that are in question:

Absolute space exists in spite of it not being able to be observed or measured in its entirety.
Absolute space does not exist because it cannot be observed or measured in its entirety.

Here is generally what I would present as relevant evidence in an argument for absolute space.

If we experience a sense of “something” we call space in between objects we observe , and we can measure parts of it in relation to relative objects, it would seem logical to assume that it exists in an absolute sense in spite of the fact that we cannot step outside of it and observe or measure it in its entirety.

From that it seems to follow that absolute space exists in spite of not being able to observe or measure it in its entirety. And to say it doesn’t exist because it can’t be observed or measured in its entirety seems logically incoherent to me. In your view, what would be a relevant logically coherent response to this?

[Fred]

@Jim

From that it seems to follow that absolute space exists in spite of not being able to observe or measure it in its entirety. And to say it doesn’t exist because it can’t be observed or measured in its entirety seems logically incoherent to me.

I think you are bumping up against the idea that nothing can be “proved” absolutely. Everything we accept requires some a priori assumptions.

I would like to know if you have questioned the common assumption that time is a “real” thing. I do not accept that time is a thing that exists. It seems to me that we would need to accept that it does exist before attempting to integrate it with space to form a notion of spacetime.

[Jim]

Hi @Fred,

Welcome to the Peaceful Science discussion board. I’m sure you’ll find, as I have, that there are many here with diverse views that are interested in meaningful and respectful discussions.

Regarding time, I’m aware of the static vs dynamic view of time. I’m also aware that there are different views of whether or not time is in actuality a real entity of its own. I certainly am of the opinion that it’s dynamic as opposed to static. However, I haven’t really thought much about whether or not it’s an actual entity of its own.

And although it’s certainly related to the topic of this thread, I’m not so sure how directly related it is to the later part of this particular discussion. Was there something in particular you had in mind in regards to what was being discussed in the most recent posts, or was it just a general question?

[Fred]

Hi Jim,
Thanks for responding.

You were discussing space-time, absolute space and relativity. It seems to me that both space-time and relativity depend on accepting time as something that exists. If time is not an actual phenomenon the entire notion of space-time doesn’t seem right and then I don’t see how ideas like time dilation could describe an actual phenomenon.

I think relativity is consistent with the philosophy of science that says all we can claim to know, and all we can call truth, is what we experience. I think Einstein capitalized on that philosophy and many now believe, based on relativity, that we must accept what we see as what actually “is” rather than as what it looks like. I think there is a big difference between “is” and “looks like”.

I prefer to extend the philosophy of science (as above) to say that all we can know is what we remember (or have records of). The best explanation of time I have found so far is that time is an artifact of memory. We commonly say that in order for anything to “exist” it must present some evidence of its existence by some interaction with something else. I don’t find any claim that time interacts with anything.

I would appreciate your ideas.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

We’re obviously not on the same page here. Maybe you could explain to me how these observations, which are relevant to the behavior of matter, have any relevance to the question of the nature of the existence of space.

I already did:

“The observation of light bending around dense objects is just that observation. You can directly observe the effects of spacetime warping around massive objects.”

@Jim

The only thing they tell us, that I can see, is that we have mechanical descriptions that accurately represent the behavior of matter in space.

That is false. We have non-mass particles (i.e. photons) which only move in a straight line in a vacuum. Those photons are not moving in a straight line around massive objects. They are moving in a curved path. This is because spacetime itself is being warped by massive objects.

@Jim

What I see is I’m asking a metaphysical question about absolute space, but am getting unrelated answers about the behavior of matter that are only relevant to questions involving physics.

That is also false. You are asking about empirically testable features of spacetime. We can test to see if spacetime is absolute, and it isn’t. Spacetime is relative.

@Jim

Absolute space exists in spite of it not being able to be observed or measured in its entirety.

There is no absolute space. What you seem to be saying is that we can’t observe the entire universe, which would be correct.

@Jim

If we experience a sense of “something” we call space in between objects we observe , and we can measure parts of it in relation to relative objects, it would seem logical to assume that it exists in an absolute sense in spite of the fact that we cannot step outside of it and observe or measure it in its entirety.

“It makes sense” is a really bad way to do physics. Our human intuition is often wrong when it comes to physics. For example, it used to make sense that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter objects, but they don’t. It also used to make sense that something is either a particle or a wave, but photons can be a wave or a particle.

If absolute spacetime exists then we can test for it, and those tests have come up negative. There is no absolute spacetime frame of reference. Spacetime is relative.

[Fred]

@T_aquaticus

This is because spacetime itself is being warped by massive objects.

This is an example of what I referred to as using “is” when we should use “appears to be” or “acts as if it is”. I think its true that we don’t actually observe space, but only the objects in space.

@T_aquaticus

photons can be a wave or a particle.

I think it is true that light moves through space as a wave and a photon is a measure of the part of the energy of that wave which is detected by a device. If so, then isn’t it as munch the nature of the device as it is the nature of the light wave we discover and call a photon?

Since we are deep inside in Sun’s heliosphere I think we cannot look at the apparent bending of light without considering how a light wave interacts with it. Maybe Voyger 1 will give us a bit more insight into our Earth-bound and near-Earth observations, if it lasts another 30,000 to 40,000 years.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Fred

This is an example of what I referred to as using “is” when we should use “appears to be” or “acts as if it is”.

The phases “appears to be” or “acts as if it is”, implies spacetime really is not being warped, and our observations, measurements are wrong. Without a rigorously developed theory to back up such assertions, this strikes me as just nerdy high schoolers yammering around a campfire level cosmology.

[T_aquaticus]

@Fred

This is an example of what I referred to as using “is” when we should use “appears to be” or “acts as if it is”. I think its true that we don’t actually observe space, but only the objects in space.

Using that line of thinking, we can’t observe anything. Everything is an illusion.

@Fred

I think it is true that light moves through space as a wave and a photon is a measure of the part of the energy of that wave which is detected by a device. If so, then isn’t it as munch the nature of the device as it is the nature of the light wave we discover and call a photon?

The photoelectric effect demonstrates that photons can act as a particle. Traditionally, the wavefunction of a photon is a probability of a photon particle being at any one point. The particle could be anywhere within the probability distribution within the wave, and when a particle is detected it collapses the wave function so that the photon is in one place.

When an ocean wave crashes onto a beach it doesn’t hit one spot on the beach like photons do. Photons have more than just wave properties.

Photoelectric effect

[Fred]

@RonSewell

The phases “appears to be” or “acts as if it is”, implies spacetime really is not being warped, and our observations, measurements are wrong.

Hi Ron,
Would things close to a massive body look or act differently if we were to say space-time “appears to be” warped? It seems to me that since we observe only the things in space, and not space itself, we are saying something definitive about a thing we have not observed.

If space-time really is not being warped, would our observations and measurements be any different? My best understanding is, that in all observations, what we observe is effect and we assign cause. I accept that warped space is a good analogy and can be used as a basis for an explanation of what we observe but I think we go too far claiming that we know for a fact that space is being warped.

[Fred]

@T_aquaticus

Traditionally, the wavefunction of a photon is a probability of a photon particle being at any one point. The particle could be anywhere within the probability distribution within the wave, and when a particle is detected it collapses the wave function so that the photon is in one place.

Hi,
I have often wondered if we can construct a light source such that it would emit into free space only one photon. Is this possible? If so where would we put a detector so that we could detect that one lone photon?

The only “thought experiment” I have been able to envision to test this is for us to put a light source in space, power it so that it would emit a single wave (capable of producing only one photon) in all directions and set up detectors around the source. What I can’t work out is how far away from the source to put the detectors and how many to set up.

From what I see you say, if we set up 100 detectors all at the same exact radius from the source we should detect a photon at only one detector and if we were to set up more detectors at double that radius, but not in the same plane, we would detect no photons at these detectors because the wave would have been collapsed at the inner radius.

Would this experiment produce the desired results? If not, what am I missing?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@T_aquaticus

“It makes sense” is a really bad way to do physics.

Or any other science. I might add an extra 3 or 4 repeats of “really” in there.

Science is about testing our intuitions, not accepting them and calling it done.