Mike Smith Cosmos

.You have put you finger on the exact confusion , that I have ! I have a fear that using math without any contact with reality , is just maths , in the air , so to speak . Or as you put it , trying to test the plan , rather than the real house . So taking your other analogy , the Arena , is a space for things to happen , but not the real happenings themselves . ( the architects plans ) So , trying to tie this together with both SPACE-TIME and MATHMATICS , where Spacetime is the ARENA for things to exist and happen in. MATHMATICS , is the Architectural plans for the house to be built, which is not yet realised. Then the activity we see across the entire COSMOS , Includes this ARENA of SPACE-TIME having maths and other things being made REAL . ( in other words the house being built - the universe we see and examine , before our very eyes ! Does that sound right, better, and plausible ? Mike . I think, only think , what you are saying here , has some bearing on this issue of ( Space - Time ). And Maths/ geometry . But I am a bit in a muddle at this "blurry " edge between geometry and reality , and the need of one for the other , if ( a) one is just going to calculate something away from reality , or ( b) one is trying to understand what is actually going on , in order to get at it, poke it , test it ? Mike

" Arena " I like that ! Humm! Arena ! It still has me wondering quite what the curved rubber sheet style grid emanating away from heavy objects like the earth , is ? If it is spreading out from the earth , like a 360 degree carpet waiting for things to happen in the carpeted arena . I like it is, just for the moment at least . So I have my curved lines of gravitational force emanating out and away from the centre of the earth, through or in the ' arena ' of 'space-time ' . They Appear to be going through my China plates and interacting so as to stimulate and maintain for some time this oscillating motion of the plate. ................... Now have we a motion , sustained , in space time , observed and ready for investigation. Where can the laser light come in , as well as the quantum ? Mike

. Perhaps I can adapt the experiment carried our by " Stranges quote " by " The PoundRebka experiment " Ref :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment . If there is an opinion around that space-time is not a medium . What ever it is , it must be capable of some form of contact with ( even by induction ) . Or something . Otherwise surely " IT DOES NOT EXIST " if Spacetime does not exist , then what was all this work by Einstein and others , is to no avail . For a moment though , even if you are right , then where does the curvature exist ? Is it that , anything moving through the total void of nothingness moves following a curve , as if there was a rubber sheet there , but there is nothing there . That leaves the question how does the information get to all the points of the trajectory , by the dreaded " ACTION AT A DISTANCE " , as it is the influence of the distant Earth , in this instance ? Unless the gravitational field is in some form of " source and sink " configuration ? Mike

.Well what can I latch on to . In order to make a physical test ON Spacetime ? Mike

.Yes but I thought light was curved slightly by space-time . Or have I got that wrong ? I have. A Dilemma, here . I have ALL the ingredients within reach by my finger ends . Yet not totally clear , what to latch on to to make measurements . I have the Earth beneath our feet , the obvious source of GRAVITY . It is evident the gravity is what is acting on the 'PLATE ' . The container of this area of the universe is SPACE-TIME , through which both GRAVITY and the PLATE are functioning . General relativity tell us that GRAVITY is the CURVATURE in SPACE-TIME . What is the LINK , which will enable me to measure ( say by a lazer and a fixed mirror ) ? Mike

.Is not space- time supposed to interact with light . So could I set up an experiment that somehow , incorporated the oscillating China plates but has some connection with a laser and mirror . Say a piece of mirror on the oscillating China plate with a low power lazer reflecting off the mirror . Then I will have the quanta of light comming into the picture ? Will this give me any access to SPACE-TIME ? Mike

.Quite.! It is a privelidge to see the effects of gravity , performing , in front of our eyes. It's like seeing an electric motor going around without any input energy. True the effect wears off after a time , but enough to ' almost see the gravity field ' in operation . You could say we see this in every swing of a pendulum , kiddies swing, or whatever. But because of the oscillations , being so near in frequency to otherwise automated machines, it is amazing to peer and listen to this " bench top experiment " and think and contemplate of the ( SPACE-TIME GRAVITY INTERPLAY ) And this is just the beginning . Mike

No , not just plates. Because the restorative force of gravity is permeated across space time , in order to cause the plate to oscillate. Mike

. Yes . Delighted to do ( as best as I am able to ) , the Observations , Bench top experiments , propose any suggestions , as well as any results gained ,or which ' may ' appear. The first observation , revolves around the fact that :- China saucers( offset ), oscillate with an extraordinary regularity and persistence , than one might expect. The sort of comparative measurements could be at different positions of the moon and tides. I think the results may have some interesting results. So I would make a hypothesis for those results. Mike

. I am not sure ....yet .... But , if whatever ' SPACE-TIME '. is , and it IS just in front of you , as much as it is , . ' away out in space ...' .. One should be able to ' prod , poke, observe, and do whatever to ' IT ' right there ...just in front of you . It sounds like you have already done this ! I have noticed , just by accident , that there is some very precise ' goings on ' happening with these ' OSCILLATING CHINA PLATES' . In a stack of solid plates , heavy China plates on a granite work top , the top plate if accidentally ' off set ' , will OSCILLATE FOR QUITE SOME CONSIDERABLE TIME ' . This China Plate phenomenon appears to approach , the sort of observation / bench experiment that I refer to above ? But conducted under experimental conditions ! Say ! But I am not sure how Quantum Behaviour relates to this phenomenon. If it does at all ? I have not investigated ' Studios ' references yet , but there does appear to be the makings of some quantum effects there ? Mike

I will need to read and sleep on that ref . Strange ! ThanksMike

. Oh ! I need to get my head around what you have said . If the mass of the earth is causing the curvature of space, why quite it does not curve the material stuff it's interacting with into an earth shape . If it isn't , what is pulling it into a curved shape . I thought it was gravity, that did it ( and I thought gravity was the curvature of space ? Where have I gone wrong ? As far as I can see from what you say . If I can imagine a curve , running around the earth , caused by the mass of the whole earth , say 12" ( inches ) up off the earths , it would In fact only be that particular curve where it is in circular orbit . So whatever is in orbit ( if it has any mass ) it must be travelling at 17,700 mph . If it does not have mass , then I have no idea what quite is going on ? Are you saying it's like the rings of Saturn ? Also you spoke about ' light ' orbiting , a massive object . Presumably you mean a neutron star or black hole ? Again I do not quite know , what is going on ? What a chump , what am I thinking , the curvature is the " rubber sheet model. ". So the shaper of earths round curve ,presumably, is the sharpness of the edge within this gravitational cone? Mike

. Why not ? Surely the settlement of the surface curvature and the settlement of the sea curvature , and the curving of space - time , settle down and shape the same curve , do they not ? If not , why not ? It is after all Gravity that is curving space-time , and gravity that pulls the earth into shape ? Or did I miss something ? MIKE

Well , if the presence of all the mass of the earth is supposed to warp space time , around it vicinity , then the water in the pool , should curve in sympathy , or in response to the nearby curvature . And thus should be curved. ( covering the space bit of space -time . I will have to think of an observation or experiment to do with ' time ' which I understand is your province ? If one was to do a sillier extension of this curvature experiment or observation , one would surely find the water , ( eg the oceans ) curved completely around the globe. which is roughly what we observe . Or have I ' missed a trick ? Mike Ps assuming I can in fact measure or identify the correct curvature across my ' fish pool ' ? And assume it follows around the globe ?

. Well! I am assuming ' space- time , is there , in front of me , as much as it is 1000's of miles up? As such , whatever is affecting 1000miles up , I can get my hands on , 2 meters in front of me? So , the space time is ( according to theory ) subject to ' CURVATURE ' . So the curvature , likely to be caused my the mass presence of the earth , is curving , space time before my eyes . If I put water 2 meters in front of my face , say by a tub of water , a fish pond of water , WILL BE SUBJECT TO CURVATURE , which I assume is measurable ? I predict the water on the fish pond , will be curved , according to existing formulae ? Testable ? How ? Mike

.Well yes bench top , idea , but anywhere in the region of " land surface height to just above head height . " along the lines of " Bench-top" experiments , conducted in the fashion of some of the early experimenters . 1700 to 1930's as well as experimenters to the present day , who still potter around with bench top experiments ! Mike

. I wondered if it were possible to conduct observations , and conduct experiments , on space-time, at or just above ground level . * And could the results be valid enough , considering the nearness of surrounding materials generally , including, the Earth itself. Mike * ..

.Got it ! So it's the ' slot ' or ( energy band , spin requirement , or other requirement for taking up that 'slot' ,) that is the difference , that the electron ' takes on' , if it enters the atoms ' zone' ( if it were , a bit like an crumpled overcoat , underneath ,the crumpled overcoat, is a pristine, polished, shiny , electron , identicle to all the rest , ' you need to spin that way sir, if you wish to come in ' . The atom must have a fairly busy , efficient , cloakroom attendant , raking in a good load of 'tips ' ! ) . Wait a minute , maybe I have got that the wrong way round . Maybe, it is the nucleus particles, the fermions , that do all the chopping and changing ? Mike Ps when I first went to Uni in the 1960's , I remember our Physics lecturer , when I struggled then , with what was going on inside the atom. He said go away and read this book written by a then famous atomic physicist ( not sure , " ghost in the atom " or something ) . Where the author made an adventure within an atom of someone following his way around the inside of an atom .

What is it called now , when it's in the same state as an electron . But not an electron ? Mike

.I am assuming that somewhere in all this maths , that there will be a tie into some measured and proved relationship to something tangible . Eg a set of data turned into a formula ( say dy/dt , etc as to how a variable is observed as to how it actually behaves with respect to time. ) and so on , and so on , dx/dt, dz/dt . Going ever more deeper into the actual behaviour of reality , with all its curves fibres, cylinders and manifolds ( I personally can only guess at what the relationships are tied in to , to get this link with reality. ) IF that is true ( and it's not just UNATTATCHED maths namely it has no tangible link into reality ). Then I can see why it's possible to understand to a limited extent , how maths is able to model and develop an understanding of what is going on in :- SPACE-TIME and its waves . Based on suitable mathmatical models . If on the other hand the current model is based on a lot of speculation , with no observable data ( to provide the formula ) then the whole thing " could just be based on a mathematical speculation . And is very unreliable as a mechanism for understanding what the Universe is composed of . If as another alternative ( which I have grave fears , may be near to what is happening .) That theoreticians are using their maths to build up model upon model ( BASED ON NO STARTING POINT OBSERVATION ) . That they are bringing to bear all sorts of mathmatical operations, transformation, maths systems that would make me wince. And somewhere along the way say ( " hey that looks like a model of a sun and planet , or an atom , or a particle or a string ! ") and construct a model on maths itself ! I worry that we took a wrong turn! If however that is not the case , and it is all built on rigorous observations , then all is well. I do wonder however , how you observe ' space ' and ' time ' as they are both a bit vacuous , slippery , and not easily observed , measured , or pinned down easily . You can see and observe how things move in space , but because of its transparency , one could find it difficult to work out which invisible thing affects the invisible space-time . As the New Scientist says What is it that exists and how does it work ? Or word for word ......--- WHAT EXISTS ? and . - WHAT DOES IT DO ....-------this -( SPACE-TIME ) I think the . - WHAT DOES IT DO ? Is easier to capture by observation ..................... WHAT EXISTS ? Is the tricky one ( this one I would say " the space -time Medium " ) Namely space-time itself is the medium ( but it's not nothing) . Mike

.Yes , but that is what I am saying " space time is NOT NOTHING . I can't say I am totally clear what it is .? Except that it exists , and has a characteristic . Hence , you can apply all these maths rules to it . You can produce a manifold , out of it , you can put some mathmatical fibres ,in a bundle , around the middle of a cylindrical ' whatever . You can do some maths manipulation , and you can ' see ' the waves , or feel the waves , or detect the waves . You can do all sorts of Riccii Tensors all over it . Provided there is an 'It ' to do it on . The ' it ' is the thing that EXISTS ( that the New Scientist writer was saying ) . Reality is , what exists , and what it does . ( Easy , just , he said . ) So what it is ( even if we can't see it in our minds eye ) EXISTS as 4 dimensional space time . It's all around us , right up to the edge of the universe . After that is Nothing . (Well there might be something else , but that's another story ! ) If you had tried the exact same mathmatical procedure on ' NOTHING ' you would detect nothing , nothing would ' do ' or 'does ' because there is nothing to ' do' or 'does ' Quote "...........So, job done reality explained? Not so fast, says Westerhoff. You need to be absolutely clear about the sense of the word reality otherwise the discussion is going to be all over the place. For a start, do only physical objects like earth or atoms count towards reality or things like minds and consciousness, too? Although the scope of our definition determines the complexity of the puzzle, physics should still supply the solution, says philosopher Tim Maudlin of New York University. Physics is about just two questions, he says: -- .- WHAT EXISTS ? and . - WHAT DOES IT DO ? ." Unquote So what EXISTS is 4 Dimentional space time , , what it DOES is all those maths with manifolds , bundles, fibres and cylinders exposed to Ricci Tensors The difference between that and nothing is surely , like trying to do all that maths on NOTHING , over in the corner of the room ? Is it not ? Mike

.But it would not be an electron , then , so it would not be identical anyway , regardless of spin or energy ? Or have I missed the point ? -------- ------------- I am trying to assertain whether the universe does not favour identical 'items ' particularly when one is trying to build more complex structures. Eg . children , or living things , atoms , complex structure , crossing genetic families ? Mike

.Well that electron ,over there CAN be identical to this electron over here . But if the two electrons are both attached to the same nucleus , they have to be different states ( Pauli Exclusion Principle ) if I have understood correctly ? Namely it's operating ( operation ) as part of a whole atom . Presumably , if it came from afar off , if it was drawn into the atom, it would adjust or be adjusted , as it came into orbit ? As per my illustration of an axel and wheel . Apart , they can be identical ! But operating as an assembly , one would need to be slightly different , or the wheel would just Jam up ? Mike

So from this it would appear ? Some particles , must be identicle for their operation , Other. ' things '. must be different in their state for their particular operation to function? Bringing this back into an Engineering , Manufacturing, Creating. Context . In making piece parts , say for an Aircraft Engine or any other machine , you would need to know for sure , that a replacement part , was identical ! On the other hand , when designing and building a new engine , fitting tolerance and lubrication may require slightly different dimentions , in order to ensure correct and lasting operation of the two complimentary parts . Maybe this is why atomic structures have this Pauli Exclusion principal in operation ? Mike

So from this it would appear ? Some particles , must be identicle for their operation , Other particles/molecules must be different in their state for their particular operation to function? Mike