Forces contained in spacetime that transcends them

[lemur]

There is a radical cognitive difference between conceptualizing space(time) as a container of all forces that transcends (i.e. is separate and distinct from) those forces and conceptualizing space(time) as an internal product of force-interactions. Since this language may sound convoluted, take the following examples: 1) space(time) is viewed as a container housing matter and energy phenomena but it is assumed that the forces are not themselves the ultimate container 2) gravity and/or other forces are viewed as directly interactive and what is observed/perceived as space(time) is purely an effect of interactions between forces.

 

If spacetime is indeed a trancendent container of forces as a fact of nature, there is really no need for discussion here (unless there is some empirical or other non-axiomatic basis for demonstrating that such is the case). However, if spacetime is in fact nothing more than force-interactions, the question is whether there is something about human cognition that causes us to interpolate empirical observations as occurring within a transcendent container? Are we for some reason prone to thinking of things as being circumscribed and defined, and thus always thinking about anything as having something outside/beyond its presumed boundaries?

 

Probably someone will mention Kant now, but I don't really think it would be interesting to have a discussion about such cognition as being an absolute imperative. I would rather consider what possibility there is to conceive of empirically observable forces and objects/particles/energy as co-constituents of a universe without a container-concept. If you would like to explore why/how cognition may be biased in favor of circumscription/container-thinking that is fine; just please no Kantian insistence on absolute/imperative concepts (only because it stifles discussion of the alternative, imo).

[Athena]

There is a radical cognitive difference between conceptualizing space(time) as a container of all forces that transcends (i.e. is separate and distinct from) those forces and conceptualizing space(time) as an internal product of force-interactions. Since this language may sound convoluted, take the following examples: 1) space(time) is viewed as a container housing matter and energy phenomena but it is assumed that the forces are not themselves the ultimate container 2) gravity and/or other forces are viewed as directly interactive and what is observed/perceived as space(time) is purely an effect of interactions between forces.

 

If spacetime is indeed a trancendent container of forces as a fact of nature, there is really no need for discussion here (unless there is some empirical or other non-axiomatic basis for demonstrating that such is the case). However, if spacetime is in fact nothing more than force-interactions, the question is whether there is something about human cognition that causes us to interpolate empirical observations as occurring within a transcendent container? Are we for some reason prone to thinking of things as being circumscribed and defined, and thus always thinking about anything as having something outside/beyond its presumed boundaries?

 

Probably someone will mention Kant now, but I don't really think it would be interesting to have a discussion about such cognition as being an absolute imperative. I would rather consider what possibility there is to conceive of empirically observable forces and objects/particles/energy as co-constituents of a universe without a container-concept. If you would like to explore why/how cognition may be biased in favor of circumscription/container-thinking that is fine; just please no Kantian insistence on absolute/imperative concepts (only because it stifles discussion of the alternative, imo).

 

 

I am not sure I understand you have said, but what you caused me to question what would exist if we start removing things such as gravity.

 

This is how I reason this. Fire is dependent on fuel. With no fuel there is no fire. Without particles whould gravity exist? Without gravity, particles would no longer gravitate to each other, so atoms would not exist. The container would be empty. We can not have this without that, and this is all there is so there is no outside.

[lemur]

 

 

I am not sure I understand you have said, but what you caused me to question what would exist if we start removing things such as gravity.

 

This is how I reason this. Fire is dependent on fuel. With no fuel there is no fire. Without particles whould gravity exist? Without gravity, particles would no longer gravitate to each other, so atoms would not exist. The container would be empty. We can not have this without that, and this is all there is so there is no outside.

I've never thought about it subtractively like that, but that essentially captures the reason I am interested in an affirmative existence for space. I.e. I don't see how physics can deal with things that don't exist as some form of matter/energy/force. Time seems to exist as regularities of motion, which is the result of energy being expressed in similar ways in separate mechanical systems (clocks). Space seems thus to exist as the ability for things to be non-convergent and to be in motion relative to each other. The potential for separateness and relative-motion among multiple particles/object seems, imo, to be dependent on the ability for some fields to penetrate and inhabit others. E.g. if electrons couldn't penetrate the electrostatic field of the protons and move around within that field, there would be no space within the atom, right? Likewise, if electrostatic matter couldn't penetrate and inhabit gravitation, matter would be trapped outside all gravity-wells (wherever that would be). So not only does there seem to be "no outside" to these fields, as you said, but the one seems to be able to inhabit the other relatively sustainably because of differences in force-strength. I.e. what would it be like if atoms were so densely packed together that their gravity was equivalent to the electrostatic force binding the electrons to their nuclei? How would they move relative to each other any more freely than they move relative to their nuclei? So, if you were to go on collapsing forces to the point of convergence between not only gravity and electrostatic strength, but also weak and strong nuclear, in what sense would "space" exist? Wouldn't all particles be bound together as a single nucleus? And would that nucleus have "volume?" How could it if it didn't exist relative to another particles or atoms? And how could other particles or atoms exist relative to it if there was no electrostatic force weaker than nuclear force or gravitational force weaker than the other forces? Still, I wonder if there could be another force weaker than gravity that contains gravity fields in a way that allows them to separate from each other with something else in-between. I would have no idea how to empirically observe such a force.

[Athena]

I've never thought about it subtractively like that, but that essentially captures the reason I am interested in an affirmative existence for space. I.e. I don't see how physics can deal with things that don't exist as some form of matter/energy/force. Time seems to exist as regularities of motion, which is the result of energy being expressed in similar ways in separate mechanical systems (clocks). Space seems thus to exist as the ability for things to be non-convergent and to be in motion relative to each other. The potential for separateness and relative-motion among multiple particles/object seems, imo, to be dependent on the ability for some fields to penetrate and inhabit others. E.g. if electrons couldn't penetrate the electrostatic field of the protons and move around within that field, there would be no space within the atom, right? Likewise, if electrostatic matter couldn't penetrate and inhabit gravitation, matter would be trapped outside all gravity-wells (wherever that would be). So not only does there seem to be "no outside" to these fields, as you said, but the one seems to be able to inhabit the other relatively sustainably because of differences in force-strength. I.e. what would it be like if atoms were so densely packed together that their gravity was equivalent to the electrostatic force binding the electrons to their nuclei? How would they move relative to each other any more freely than they move relative to their nuclei? So, if you were to go on collapsing forces to the point of convergence between not only gravity and electrostatic strength, but also weak and strong nuclear, in what sense would "space" exist? Wouldn't all particles be bound together as a single nucleus? And would that nucleus have "volume?" How could it if it didn't exist relative to another particles or atoms? And how could other particles or atoms exist relative to it if there was no electrostatic force weaker than nuclear force or gravitational force weaker than the other forces? Still, I wonder if there could be another force weaker than gravity that contains gravity fields in a way that allows them to separate from each other with something else in-between. I would have no idea how to empirically observe such a force.

 

 

I hoping to find an argument proving me wrong, because I love the idea of time travel. I just find it hard to believe there is any reality besides the present. I know if people are traveling between distant planets they are kind of going back in time. But each planet has its place in space time. It many appear to exist in light rays, when in fact it no longer exist. Wow, wouldn't that be a trip to be traveling to a planet that no longer exist. At what point in the trip would it become obvious the planet no longer exist?

 

Your question about gravity is one that I have struggled with for years. If the only force is gravity, everything would collide together. Something is holding everything apart and I don't know what that is.

[lemur]

I hoping to find an argument proving me wrong, because I love the idea of time travel. I just find it hard to believe there is any reality besides the present. I know if people are traveling between distant planets they are kind of going back in time. But each planet has its place in space time. It many appear to exist in light rays, when in fact it no longer exist. Wow, wouldn't that be a trip to be traveling to a planet that no longer exist. At what point in the trip would it become obvious the planet no longer exist?

I find it easier to just think of yourself as inhabiting a certain place within the photon-sphere of anything that is within visual range. That way, you don't think of yourself as seeing the past of the object but rather the part of its photon-sphere where you are located in your own present. As you move in the direction of the planet, its star could supernova etc. but by the time you saw that happen, it would be in your present regardless of when it happened for the star in question. In short, simultaneity doesn't take place between distant objects but between photons and observers at their point of intersection.

 

Your question about gravity is one that I have struggled with for years. If the only force is gravity, everything would collide together. Something is holding everything apart and I don't know what that is.

Energy. Energy is what causes motion, which resists attractive force. I suppose you could also say that some force impedes other force from becoming completely dominant. E.g. if all the nuclei of all the atoms of Earth suddenly magically lost all their nuclear and electrostatic force allowing gravity to compress all the remaining particles as if they were neutral to all force except gravity, would the Earth continue to have volume? BTW, I used to think of gravity as being very centripetal but someone better than me in astrophysics explained to me how difficult it would be to fall into the sun. The fact of Earth's atmosphere makes it seem like any satellite that slows below a sufficient orbital speed would drift downward and eventually fall and/or burn up from atmospheric friction. Apparently, however, it would take quite a lot of energy directed in just the right way to propel something into the sun. There is a much higher chance of achieving some form of orbit than actually hitting the sun as a target, even though it is so massive to keep all the planets orbiting around it.

Edited February 3, 2011 by lemur