Continuum???

[Stevie]

Is the statement true that, "All space still exists, therefore all time still exists."

 

I.E. the past and the future still exist, you are not born yet and you're already dead.

[Martin]

Is the statement true that, "All space still exists, therefore all time still exists."

...

 

No. At least not according to Einstein's interpretation of Gen Rel.

He explicitly said that points in the continuum have no objective physical reality. I'll get the quote. It was from 1915 in a paper on the perihelion of Mercury (one of the first GR papers).

 

Some Einstein quotes:

 

 

“Dadurch verlieren Zeit & Raum den letzter Rest von physikalischer Realität. ..."

 

“Thereby time and space lose the last vestige of physical reality”.

 

(Possible paraphrase: space does not have physical existence, but is more like a bunch of relationships between events)

 

In case anyone wants an online source, see page 43 of this pdf at a University of Minnesota website

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/Besso-memo.pdf

 

==quote from the source material==

...In the introduction of the paper on the perihelion motion presented on 18 November 1915, Einstein wrote about the assumption of general covariance “by which time and space are robbed of the last trace of objective reality” (“durch welche Zeit und Raum der letzten Spur objektiver Realität beraubt werden,” Einstein 1915b, 831). In a letter to Schlick, he again wrote about general covariance that

“thereby time and space lose the last vestige of physical reality” (“Dadurch verlieren Zeit & Raum den letzter Rest von physikalischer Realität.” Einstein to Moritz Schlick, 14 December 1915 [CPAE 8, Doc. 165]).

==endquote==

 

Both quotes are from Nov-Dec 1915, one being from a paper on perihelion motion. and the other from a letter to Moritz Schlick a few weeks later.

==================

 

Events have physical reality. Like when I strike the table with my fist, or press the return key on the keyboard with my little finger. Atoms of one substance collide with another substance marking an event. Space is more like the geometric relations between events. Spacetime is a mathematical construct representing information, namely geometric/historical relations among events. (The name "relativity" can remind you that it is about relations, if you need reminding.)

 

That's what I hear Einstein saying in these quotes. Space is not a substance. It does not have physical existence. There are material events and they are related by a (certain classical or uncertain quantum) geometry. That geometry is called the gravitational field and it's not a fixed static affair, it's responsive like other fields.

 

There are unanswered questions here, we humans are still working hard to figure out the underlying reality out of which space time and matter emerge. You might try reading Chapter 1 of a new book that just came out. It's completely unmathematical, but it's not dumbed-down, so don't expect an easy read.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0604045v2

The piece is called "Unfinished Revolution" and it is the lead chapter in a book called Quantum Gravity: Towards a New Understanding of Space Time and Matter. Amazon lets you look inside the book, to sample it:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Approaches-Quantum-Gravity-Toward-Understanding/dp/0521860458/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240071183&sr=1-1

The publisher, Cambridge University Press, also lets you browse the book online some

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521860451

I'm not recommending the whole book! I'm suggesting you read Chapter 1, which has the gist of it in brief and indicates where we are on the main issues of the book as a whole.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Martin

[vacuodynamic]

No. At least not according to Einstein's interpretation of Gen Rel.

He explicitly said that points in the continuum have no objective physical reality. I'll get the quote. It was from 1915 in a paper on the perihelion of Mercury (one of the first GR papers).

 

Some Einstein quotes:

 

 

“Dadurch verlieren Zeit & Raum den letzter Rest von physikalischer Realität. ..."

 

“Thereby time and space lose the last vestige of physical reality”.

 

(Possible paraphrase: space does not have physical existence, but is more like a bunch of relationships between events)

 

In case anyone wants an online source, see page 43 of this pdf at a University of Minnesota website

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/Besso-memo.pdf

 

==quote from the source material==

...In the introduction of the paper on the perihelion motion presented on 18 November 1915, Einstein wrote about the assumption of general covariance “by which time and space are robbed of the last trace of objective reality” (“durch welche Zeit und Raum der letzten Spur objektiver Realität beraubt werden,” Einstein 1915b, 831). In a letter to Schlick, he again wrote about general covariance that

“thereby time and space lose the last vestige of physical reality” (“Dadurch verlieren Zeit & Raum den letzter Rest von physikalischer Realität.” Einstein to Moritz Schlick, 14 December 1915 [CPAE 8, Doc. 165]).

==endquote==

 

Both quotes are from Nov-Dec 1915, one being from a paper on perihelion motion. and the other from a letter to Moritz Schlick a few weeks later.

==================

 

Events have physical reality. Like when I strike the table with my fist, or press the return key on the keyboard with my little finger. Atoms of one substance collide with another substance marking an event. Space is more like the geometric relations between events. Spacetime is a mathematical construct representing information, namely geometric/historical relations among events. (The name "relativity" can remind you that it is about relations, if you need reminding.)

 

That's what I hear Einstein saying in these quotes. Space is not a substance. It does not have physical existence. There are material events and they are related by a (certain classical or uncertain quantum) geometry. That geometry is called the gravitational field and it's not a fixed static affair, it's responsive like other fields.

 

There are unanswered questions here, we humans are still working hard to figure out the underlying reality out of which space time and matter emerge. You might try reading Chapter 1 of a new book that just came out. It's completely unmathematical, but it's not dumbed-down, so don't expect an easy read.

 

Dear Martin,

 

In 1920, Einstein had made a quotation as;

 

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standard of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.

 

This is according to Frank Wilczek (a Nobel Prize winner in physics 2004) recent book - “The Lightness of Being (Mass, Ether, and the Unification of forces)”, in which he has talked about Einstein’s aether as – “Einstein’s relationship with the aether was complex and changed over time “!

 

Do you have any additional comment?

 

Sincerely,

Nimit

[Bob_for_short]

Is the statement true that, "All space still exists, therefore all time still exists."

 

I.E. the past and the future still exist, you are not born yet and you're already dead.

 

In our imagination many things are possible. Most of all we remember the past but we do not know the future.

 

Thinking of the past creates sufficient space and time for our imagination. We "extrapolate" the lasting past to the future. When we film events and watch them again and again (a movie) it is still all about the past.

 

Bob.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Bob_for_short

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

Events have physical reality. Like when I strike the table with my fist, or press the return key on the keyboard with my little finger. Atoms of one substance collide with another substance marking an event. Space is more like the geometric relations between events. Spacetime is a mathematical construct representing information, namely geometric/historical relations among events. (The name "relativity" can remind you that it is about relations, if you need reminding.)

 

That's what I hear Einstein saying in these quotes. Space is not a substance. It does not have physical existence. There are material events and they are related by a (certain classical or uncertain quantum) geometry. That geometry is called the gravitational field and it's not a fixed static affair, it's responsive like other fields.

 

There are unanswered questions here, we humans are still working hard to figure out the underlying reality out of which space time and matter emerge.

 

Space may be nothing we have or possibly even can imagine but I don't see how it can be any less physically real than your fist, your table, your keyboard, or little finger. How can you be either touching or not touching your keyboard without the physical reality of space.

 

It is more than just math. Something is doing the math and doing the accounting, doing it very consistently and very well. It may be like nothing we can imagine, but that something is space.

[vacuodynamic]

Space may be nothing we have or possibly even can imagine .......

 

It is more than just math. Something is doing the math and doing the accounting, doing it very consistently and very well. It may be like nothing we can imagine, but that something is space.

 

Dear J.C.MacSwell,

 

I seem to agree with you, and I would like to propose that “something is space” is what I will call it as “vacuum medium”. It is not something as the old aether that filled vacuum space; instead it is the fabric structure of vacuum space itself!

 

But what is the vacuum medium? It is the primordial substance which is the geometrical structural gravitational potential energy; the energy that each of its infinitesimal part holds each other together by its internal gravitational force and forming to be the physical fabric structure of our space. For its mechanical property, vacuum medium is a continuous isotopic homogenous medium which have a peculiar mechanical property. It is very thin in mass density so it is permeable by all matters almost without any observed resistance. But it has very large elastic coefficient and sensitive to shear force (rotational force) while not to compressive or longitudinal force.

 

Now, the question is could we prove the existence of the vacuum medium? The answer is yes, we could do it via a simple scientific experiment prove. By using two nearly identical solenoids, the smaller diameter one was inserted in the bigger one. When both solenoids are feed with the same amount (and same polarity) of direct currents, then the sum of the generated magnetic field is double. But when the feeding currents are opposite, then the sum of the generated magnetic field is zero!

 

Someone may say that it is what it should be, yes it is, but where is the generated energy gone (in the second case)? It is not possible to be something like that, because we still feed the same amount of energy into both solenoids. Is this means that we can violate the law of conservation of energy? Of course not, we can not do something like that! The only one sensible explanation is that there is a cancellation of the opposite phase of internal rotational stress in the vacuum medium. So this means that vacuum medium is existed, isn’t it?

 

Sincerely,

Nimit

....................

http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Edited July 19, 2009 by vacuodynamic
add information