Curved space

[IM Egdall]

Anilkumar's question, and mine, is:

what is this grid made of?

If this grid is made of "nothing", then the analogy collapses.

 

I find it easier to think of the warping of distance (or in more formal terms the warping of the space interval). It is the distance between two points which is stretched by the presence of a massive body. Look at the grid analogy. Pick two intersecting points on the grid close to the large object. See the line between them? It is dipping down. This represents that the distance between the two points is now longer due to the presence of the large object.

 

Similarly, two points in space are a certain distance apart. Put a massive object near the two points, and the distance between them (as seen from far away) is greater. This is what general relativity is telling us. (Here the distance I am referring to is a radial distance).

 

So when they say space is warped or curved by the presence of a massive object, it means the distance between the same two points is changed (as seen from far away).

 

And similarly, when they say time is warped or curved by the presence of a massive object, it means the time interval between two events is changed by the presence of the massive object.

 

Together spacetime curvature is the change in the time interval and space interval (distance) between two events due to the presencce of a massive object. (Actually any object produces spacetime curvature -- but it's only significant for massive objects.

 

I hope this helps a little.

Edited December 13, 2011 by IM Egdall

[Anilkumar]

I find it easier to think of the warping of distance (or in more formal terms the warping of the space interval). It is the distance between two points which is stretched by the presence of a massive body. Look at the grid analogy. Pick two intersecting points on the grid close to the large object. See the line between them? It is dipping down. This represents that the distance between the two points is now longer due to the presence of the large object.

 

Similarly, two points in space are a certain distance apart. Put a massive object near the two points, and the distance between them (as seen from far away) is greater. This is what general relativity is telling us. (Here the distance I am referring to is a radial distance).

 

So when they say space is warped or curved by the presence of a massive object, it means the distance between the same two points is changed (as seen from far away).

 

And similarly, when they say time is warped or curved by the presence of a massive object, it means the time interval between two events is changed by the presence of the massive object.

 

Together spacetime curvature is the change in the time interval and space interval (distance) between two events due to the presencce of a massive object. (Actually any object produces spacetime curvature -- but it's only significant for massive objects.

 

I hope this helps a little.

Very elegant explanation there, IM Egdall,

 

"or in more formal terms the warping of the space interval",

 

this is a better way of putting it.

 

However, the objection raised does not concern, whether or not the space & time are warped or not.

 

The objection is regarding the describing of the warp. That is,

 

The GR says,

 

the change of distance is due to a change in the shape of the structure of space.

 

How can it be, when the space does not have any structure? Space is nothing but 'Vacancy'.

 

Let me try to put it this way;

 

In the absence of a massive body,

 

if an object moves from say point 'A' to point 'B' in a straight line, covering a distance of 'd1'.

 

Now in the presence of a massive body,

 

the same object takes a different path at the same velocity & now the distance covered becomes 'd2', which is say, greater than 'd1'.

 

This change of distance is said to have been caused due to the warping of the space, according to GR.

 

Which, I object. The reason is-

 

"The space can not be warped. Because it has no structure", and instead,

 

I would like to say, that;

 

the object takes a different path not because the space around the massive object is warped but instead because, it is forced to do so by the gravitational field of the massive body. May be the tangential component of the Gravitational force is forcing the object to change its path.

 

Like a magnetic needle gets deflected in a magnetic field.

 

Likewise, Gravity has the potential to deflect motion & duration of objects & events respectively.

 

what are the drawbacks or flaws in saying that?

Edited December 13, 2011 by Anilkumar

[URAIN]

 

 

I did not mean 'Non-existant'.

 

Though I appreciate your concern;

 

(I had a glance through the links you suggested)

 

 

Thank you for clearing your view.

 

 

'Nothing' here, means, 'made up of nothing', i.e.

 

I suggest you to call 'nothing' as 'the place where we not see or we not experience anything'.

 

Anil, Now in science there is no consciousnesses about the question, what is space?

 

Some people say according to Quantum mechanics there is no empty space. All space is full of virtual particles and vacuum energy.

 

To get answer about space I had also started thread

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60496-matter-occupies-space/

 

But we were not came to any consciousnesses.

 

Before we go to any conclusion. we must have to know, what is space?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Greg Boyles]

Thank you for clearing your view.

 

 

 

 

I suggest you to call 'nothing' as 'the place where we not see or we not experience anything'.

 

Anil, Now in science there is no consciousnesses about the question, what is space?

 

Some people say according to Quantum mechanics there is no empty space. All space is full of virtual particles and vacuum energy.

 

To get answer about space I had also started thread

 

http://www.sciencefo...occupies-space/

 

But we were not came to any consciousnesses.

 

Before we go to any conclusion. we must have to know, what is space?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree.

 

How can it be, when the space does not have any structure? Space is nothing but 'Vacancy'.

 

He is basing is failure to understand how space-time can warp on an assumption that is not necessarily valid.

 

If he was to accept that space is not necessarily empty simply because he cannot perceive or measure (yet) anything being present then he may be able to begin to understand how space time might be warped.

[Anilkumar]

Thank you for clearing your view.

 

I suggest you to call 'nothing' as 'the place where we not see or we not experience anything'.

 

Anil, Now in science there is no consciousnesses about the question, what is space?

 

Some people say according to Quantum mechanics there is no empty space. All space is full of virtual particles and vacuum energy.

 

To get answer about space I had also started thread

 

http://www.sciencefo...occupies-space/

 

But we were not came to any consciousnesses.

 

Before we go to any conclusion. we must have to know, what is space?

 

The one and only definition of Space is;

 

"Empty-vacant region/place/area/expanse/span (for lack of adequately expressive word), which permits itself to be occupied"

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

. . . Some people say according to Quantum mechanics there is no empty space. All space is full of virtual particles and vacuum energy . . .

The fact mentioned by any knowledge seeking sector, that there is no AVAILABLE empty space, does not alter the definition of SPACE.

 

IF MATTER OCCUPIES SPACE; THERE HAS TO BE EMPTY SPACE IN THE OCCUPIED PLACE.

 

Kindly consider the fact that I have begun this thread to "comprehend the Spacetime curvature theory as proposed by GR".

 

I do not intend to be diverted into any other point of views like Consciousness, Reincarnation etc other than GR.

 

Thank you.

 

Edits: Italics

Edited December 13, 2011 by Anilkumar

[StringJunky]

 

I do not intend to be diverted into any other point of view.

 

Thank you.

 

That's the end of the thread then.

[Anilkumar]

Agree.

 

He is basing is failure to understand how space-time can warp on an assumption that is not necessarily valid.

 

If he was to accept that space is not necessarily empty simply because he cannot perceive or measure (yet) anything being present then he may be able to begin to understand how space time might be warped.

Hello Greg Boyles,

 

The fact whether Space is occupied or vacant, does not, in any way, alter the definition of Space.

 

. . . He is basing is failure to understand how space-time can warp on an assumption that is not necessarily valid . . .

Please clarify, 'What ASSUMPTION is necessarily not valid'.

 

If he was to accept that space is not necessarily empty simply because he cannot perceive or measure (yet) anything being present then he may be able to begin to understand how space time might be warped.

 

Are you proposing that;

 

whereas, 'empty Space' can not be warped, however 'occupied Space' can be warped?

 

 

---------------------------*********************

 

That's the end of the thread then.

Unsubstantiated.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Anilkumar

[StringJunky]

 

Unsubstantiated.

 

No, that's an unequivocal declaration of self-imposed intransigence. Future discourse with you on this matter is futile if that's your position. Impasse.

Edited December 13, 2011 by StringJunky

[Anilkumar]

No, that's an unequivocal declaration of self-imposed intransigence. Future discourse with you on this matter is futile if that's your position. Impasse.

I have added a couple of words more to the post which created the superfluous impression. Please kindly go through the post#80 again.

 

 

 

[StringJunky]

 

I do not intend to be diverted into any other point of views like Consciousness, Reincarnation etc other than GR.

 

Thank you.

 

Edits: Italics

 

That's better.

[Greg Boyles]

The one and only definition of Space is;

 

"Empty-vacant region/place/area/expanse/span (for lack of adequately expressive word), which permits itself to be occupied"

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

The fact mentioned by any knowledge seeking sector, that there is no AVAILABLE empty space, does not alter the definition of SPACE.

 

IF MATTER OCCUPIES SPACE; THERE HAS TO BE EMPTY SPACE IN THE OCCUPIED PLACE.

 

Kindly consider the fact that I have begun this thread to "comprehend the Spacetime curvature theory as proposed by GR".

 

I do not intend to be diverted into any other point of views like Consciousness, Reincarnation etc other than GR.

 

Thank you.

 

Edits: Italics

 

We are not talking about the dictionary definition of space, which is entirely irrelevant.

 

We are talking about the nature of space as defined by modern physics.

 

Hello Greg Boyles,

 

 

Please clarify, 'What ASSUMPTION is necessarily not valid'.

 

 

 

Are you proposing that;

 

whereas, 'empty Space' can not be warped, however 'occupied Space' can be warped?

 

 

 

'Anilkumar' your assumption is that the dictionary definition of 'space' is the only valid reality.

 

In actual fact the dictionary definition of 'space' is merely a convenience for classic newtonian etc physics, and in this context I guess that definition serves its purpose well enough.

 

But as I have previously stated there are countless neutrinos streaming out from the sun and passing through the space between it and the Earth.

 

When you look up at the sun some of those neutrinos pass through your eye ball, out the back of your head and through the Earth to the space on the other side. Neutrinos barely interact with ordinary matter so I believe from standard model.

 

You have no clue that this is going on. If neutrinos barely interact with matter, of which our bodies and eye balls are made, then there is no possible way that we can have senses to detect them and 'see' in neutrino 'light'.

 

But the physicists have detected them by means of a huge vat of bleach in a deep mine. Apparently neutrinos very rarely react with chlorine atoms and convert them to something else, and the scientists apparently have detectors sensitive enough to detect this.

 

So if there is a world of neutrinos right in front of your eye balls that you have no way of perceiving then what makes you so sure that space is entirely devoid of anything, other than matter which you can perceive easily.

[Anilkumar]

We are not talking about the dictionary definition of space, which is entirely irrelevant.

 

We are talking about the nature of space as defined by modern physics.

 

 

 

'Anilkumar' your assumption is that the dictionary definition of 'space' is the only valid reality.

 

In actual fact the dictionary definition of 'space' is merely a convenience for classic newtonian etc physics, and in this context I guess that definition serves its purpose well enough.

 

But as I have previously stated there are countless neutrinos streaming out from the sun and passing through the space between it and the Earth.

 

When you look up at the sun some of those neutrinos pass through your eye ball, out the back of your head and through the Earth to the space on the other side. Neutrinos barely interact with ordinary matter so I believe from standard model.

 

You have no clue that this is going on. If neutrinos barely interact with matter, of which our bodies and eye balls are made, then there is no possible way that we can have senses to detect them and 'see' in neutrino 'light'.

 

But the physicists have detected them by means of a huge vat of bleach in a deep mine. Apparently neutrinos very rarely react with chlorine atoms and convert them to something else, and the scientists apparently have detectors sensitive enough to detect this.

 

So if there is a world of neutrinos right in front of your eye balls that you have no way of perceiving then what makes you so sure that space is entirely devoid of anything, other than matter which you can perceive easily.

There can not be two definitions of Space, whether given by the Science Dictionary or Modern Physics. [The English literary dictionary may have a slightly different or more descriptive meaning according to different contexts, but we are not concerned here.]

 

Is the nature of space as defined by modern physics, any different?

 

What is the definition of Space according to Modern Physics?

 

The Neutrinos mentioned by you are contents of Space.

 

They or any other particles or objects inside the Space are not bodily parts or ‘personal’ parts of the Space. They are contents of Space.

 

The Space does not have any body, or any parts.

 

So we can not consider their properties as properties of Space.

 

The property of Space is ‘It allows itself to be occupied’.

 

Matter can affect it only by occupying it.

 

It can not affect it in any other way by, like bending or warping it.

 

 

[Greg Boyles]

There can not be two definitions of Space, whether given by the Science Dictionary or Modern Physics. [The English literary dictionary may have a slightly different or more descriptive meaning according to different contexts, but we are not concerned here.]

 

You are absolutely wrong mate.

 

Take a closer look at your dictionary. Many english words have multiple definitions depending on the conext in which the word is used.

 

Consider the word chief for example. It can mean a 'the head indian tribesman' or 'the main issue or concern' depending on the manor in which it is used.

 

Consider the word 'fruit'. In terms of botany a fruit is any structure that contains seeds. So pea pods, gum nuts, capsicums, egg plants, apples, bananas and tomatos are all types of fruit in a botany context.

 

But in a food context any fruit that does not have a high sugar content is refered to as a vegetable, i.e. cheffs regard a capsicum as a vegetable rather than a fruit.

 

Is the nature of space as defined by modern physics, any different?

 

What is the definition of Space according to Modern Physics?

 

So it is entirely resonable for the definition and contents of 'space' to vary depedning on whether your a refering to in a classic newtonian physics context or a quantum mechanics/particle physics conext.

 

The Neutrinos mentioned by you are contents of Space.

 

They or any other particles or objects inside the Space are not bodily parts or 'personal' parts of the Space. They are contents of Space.

 

The Space does not have any body, or any parts.

 

So we can not consider their properties as properties of Space.

 

The property of Space is 'It allows itself to be occupied'.

 

Matter can affect it only by occupying it.

 

It can not affect it in any other way by, like bending or warping it.

 

 

I am merely using neutrinos as an example of why, just because you can't see it or touch it does not mean that it does not exist.

 

I.E. Just because you can't see or touch the fabric of space time does not amount to evidence that a fabric does not exist.

 

Consider air. You can't see it or touch it unless a breeze blows. It conducts sound. It refracts light. And a solid object displaces the air when introduced to what you would regard as empty space.

 

The fabric of space time is similar. When a massive object is introduced it warps, rather than displaces, the fabric of space-time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look Anilkumar, at the end of the day I do not have any in depth understanding of warped space-time or the fabric of space-time any more than you.

 

We are talking about space-time being warped in the 4th dimension I believe.

 

But we are 3 dimensional creatures trapped within 3 dimensions, and all our perceptions and experiences are limited to those 3 dimensions.

 

The only way we can begin to understand this concept is through mathematics, which is certainly not confined to the 3 dimensional world in which we live our lives.

 

I comprehend very little of such mathematics myself.

 

But I can begin to comprehend how this stuff might be possible through a number of useful analogies that various scientists have come up with over the years.

 

Why don't you look au Carl Sagan's 2D flatland analogy that he used to explain how our universe is finite but boundless by being curved back on itself through a 4th physical dimension that is simultaneously at right angles to the 3 dimensions we know. It also explains how creatures that inhabit this 2 dimensional universe would perceive a 4 dimsional creature from another universe or reality.

 

It makes for compelling reading.

 

It was in his book Cosmos but I am sure if you look hard enough you will find it some where on the web.

 

If you can begin to see how a 4th physical dimension might exist even though you can't perceive it then the wiring in your brain may be reconfigured such that you begin to comprehend how 'space' might not be as 'empty' as we perceive it to be.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[URAIN]

There can not be two definitions of Space, whether given by the Science Dictionary or Modern Physics. [The English literary dictionary may have a slightly different or more descriptive meaning according to different contexts, but we are not concerned here.]

 

Is the nature of space as defined by modern physics, any different?

 

What is the definition of Space according to Modern Physics?

 

The Neutrinos mentioned by you are contents of Space.

 

They or any other particles or objects inside the Space are not bodily parts or 'personal' parts of the Space. They are contents of Space.

 

The Space does not have any body, or any parts.

 

So we can not consider their properties as properties of Space.

 

The property of Space is 'It allows itself to be occupied'.

 

Matter can affect it only by occupying it.

 

It can not affect it in any other way by, like bending or warping it.

 

 

"Anyone will be get accepted from the group or not accepted. But TRUTH is one,which must & should be accepted by everyone. May be it came from any simpleseeing man".

 

 

 

What is your finalconclusion and what are your PERSONNEL views about GR.

 

 

[Greg Boyles]

 

Here you go Anilkumar, I saved you the trouble.

 

Here is Carl Sagan going through the flatland analogy as an explanation of how our 3 dimensional universe can be finite in size but boundless.

 

"Anyone will be get accepted from the group or not accepted. But TRUTH is one,which must & should be accepted by everyone. May be it came from any simpleseeing man".

 

 

 

What is your finalconclusion and what are your PERSONNEL views about GR.

 

 

 

The nature of the universe and of space is not determined by your or my opinion about it.

 

It is determined by the scientific process and by the mathematics behind it.

 

These are the only impartial means by which we can determine the truth about our universe.

 

The universe is not determined by trivial human politics and popular uninformed opinion.

 

As for me, I have an entirely open mind about it all.

 

While I do not pretend to understand the complex maths and science behind it, I can begin to imagine how it might be so. Again through the analogies provide by Carl Sagan and others.

 

I accept that space may be composed of some sort of 'fabric' that is warped by matter to create the force of gravity, even though I cannot perceive that fabric through my senses.

 

I do not accept that the dictionary definition of word 'space' is a universal truth of the space that exists between the planets, stars and galaxies.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[swansont]

The one and only definition of Space is;

 

"Empty-vacant region/place/area/expanse/span (for lack of adequately expressive word), which permits itself to be occupied"

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

I will reiterate: in this context (GR), "space" is shorthand for spacetime. That's not the definition of spacetime.

[Greg Boyles]

"Anyone will be get accepted from the group or not accepted. But TRUTH is one,which must & should be accepted by everyone. May be it came from any simpleseeing man".

 

 

 

What is your finalconclusion and what are your PERSONNEL views about GR.

 

 

 

For interest's sake.

 

How old are you and Anilkumar?

 

"Anyone will be get accepted from the group or not accepted. But TRUTH is one,which must & should be accepted by everyone. May be it came from any simpleseeing man".

 

 

 

What is your finalconclusion and what are your PERSONNEL views about GR.

 

 

 

 

Let me also point out to you and Anilkumar that the elastic membrane analogy for spacetime are exactly that.....an analogy and not a description of the nature of spacetime.

 

And elastic membrane is composed of matter and the spacetime is clearly not composed of matter.

 

The word 'fabric', that is often associated with spacetime, is merely borrowed from every day life and is not intended to describe the reality of sapcetime. Any fabric that we can perceive is composed of matter.

 

Perhaps space time is composed of something entirely different to the matter that we interact with every day.

 

Perhaps the fabric of spacetime is actually some sort of force field that resembles the magnetic force field that surrounds a magnet. A magnetic field can also be warped and distorted by other magnets and by electric currents etc.

[Anilkumar]

. . . When a massive object is introduced it warps, rather than displaces, the fabric of space-time.

I feel we are making a mistake here.

 

We are focusing on two different aspects.

 

I think we must first decide on whether,

 

Mass warps;

 

Space,

 

or

 

Spacetime?

 

I have an objection if you say,

 

Mass warps Space.

 

But if you say,

 

Mass warps Spacetime, and

 

Space ≠ spacetime,

 

I had assumed you were speaking of space as a shorthand for spacetime

Space ≠ spacetime

Spacetime is what is "bent". That is, the geometry of space and time that applies to phenomena is not the same near massive objects as it is far away from them.

 

and,

 

I will reiterate: in this context (GR), "space" is shorthand for spacetime. That's not the definition of spacetime.

 

and if,

 

Spacetime is not a fundamental entity like space but is only an abstract mathematical model/object or a graphical/geometrical representation, which facilitates the description of motion/event, using 3+1 dimensions and taking into consideration the invariance of velocity of light.

 

Then 'spacetime warp' is out of my league.

 

Is it so?

 

 

---------------------------******************

 

"Anyone will be get accepted from the group or not accepted. But TRUTH is one,which must & should be accepted by everyone. May be it came from any simpleseeing man".

What is your finalconclusion and what are your PERSONNEL views about GR.

 

Dear URAIN,

 

You must forgive me if I have hurt your feelings.

 

But,

 

you must understand that,

 

'spacetime curvature' is a theory proposed by GR. And so,

 

only GR can explain it adequately.

 

Thank you.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Anilkumar

[URAIN]

How old are you and Anilkumar?

 

 

Were, anything wrong came from me?

Edited December 14, 2011 by URAIN

[Greg Boyles]

I feel we are making a mistake here.

 

We are focusing on two different aspects.

 

I think we must first decide on whether,

 

Mass warps;

 

Space,

 

or

 

Spacetime?

 

I have an objection if you say,

 

Mass warps Space.

 

But if you say,

 

Mass warps Spacetime, and

 

Space ≠ spacetime,

 

 

 

It appears to be that you some how believe that there are two versions of space that exist side by side.

 

One that is linked to time and can be warped by matter, that offends your perception of everyday experience, and one that is not linked to time and cannot be warped, that you 'like'.

 

It is not the theory of spacetime warping that is flawed here mate.

 

The problem is that the word space and its definition were determined long ago before the true nature of space and the universe was understood.

 

So it is the dictionary definition of space that has been found to be not entirely correct rather than your notion that the theory of spacetime warping is incorrect.

 

There is only one reality and your dictionary does not adequately describe it. Perhaps the dictionary definition of 'space' needs to be updated to reflect the reality of the universe as we currently understand it.

 

 

and if,

 

Spacetime is not a fundamental entity like space but is only an abstract mathematical model/object or a graphical/geometrical representation, which facilitates the description of motion/event, using 3+1 dimensions and taking into consideration the invariance of velocity of light.

 

Then 'spacetime warp' is out of my league.

 

Is it so?

 

 

No 'Anilkumar' spacetime is not an mathematical delusion, spacetime is very real.

 

However we are 3 dimensional creatures trapped in 3 dimensions with senses that are restricted to 3 dimensions.

 

Spacetime involves a 4th physical dimensions that we can neither perceive nor ever experience through our senses.

 

But fortunately the tool of mathematics allows us to throw off these shackles and explore the universe beyond the limitations of our 3 dimensional senses.

 

Allow me to put this to you another way.

 

No doubt you would agree that mobile phones, computers and electron microscopes etc all work and are not the result of mathematical or psychological delusions.

 

All these things contain semi conductors and other eletronic components. And these designed to work a a specific and convenient way (for our electronic deivces) based on the fixed properties of atoms and sub atmoic particles.

 

There is no way that we can directly perceive atoms and sub atomic particles because they are simply to small. We can only rely on our mathematics to guide us in creating components that make our electronic devices work.

 

If we agree that mathematics works to describe and create our electronic devices, and that it is not all a mathematical delusion, then why can we not also agree that the same mathematics provides an accurate description of the true nature of spacetime/space even if we can't comprehend the answer in terms of sight and touch etc?

Edited December 14, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[Anilkumar]

Esteemed Greg Boyles,

 

you have missed my point.

 

You have taken it all wrong.

 

 

It appears to be that you some how believe that there are two versions of space that exist side by side.

 

No, I do not believe that there are two versions of space that exist side by side. And I haven't said anything, which gives that perception.

 

 

The problem is that the word space and its definition were determined long ago before the true nature of space and the universe was understood.

 

So it is the dictionary definition of space that has been found to be not entirely correct rather than your notion that the theory of spacetime warping is incorrect.

 

There is only one reality and your dictionary does not adequately describe it. Perhaps the dictionary definition of 'space' needs to be updated to reflect the reality of the universe as we currently understand it.

 

So you mean to say.

 

Space = spacetime and,

 

spacetime is a new version of Space.

 

That brings us back to square one.

 

 

No 'Anilkumar' spacetime is not an mathematical delusion, spacetime is very real.

 

I never said spacetime is a mathematical delusion. Instead I asked if,

 

spacetime is a mathematical method [or way of looking at things] of explaining motion/event, and not a fundamental entity.

 

However we are 3 dimensional creatures trapped in 3 dimensions with senses that are restricted to 3 dimensions.

 

Spacetime involves a 4th physical dimensions that we can neither perceive nor ever experience through our senses.

 

 

But Greg Boyles,

 

I am perfectly comfortable with the 4 dimensions proposed by GR.

 

I am totally convinced that events can not be described without taking into consideration all the 4 dimensions.

 

 

But fortunately the tool of mathematics allows us to throw off these shackles and explore the universe beyond the limitations of our 3 dimensional senses.

 

Allow me to put this to you another way.

 

No doubt you would agree that mobile phones, computers and electron microscopes etc all work and are not the result of mathematical or psychological delusions.

 

All these things contain semi conductors and other eletronic components. And these designed to work a a specific and convenient way (for our electronic deivces) based on the fixed properties of atoms and sub atmoic particles.

 

There is no way that we can directly perceive atoms and sub atomic particles because they are simply to small. We can only rely on our mathematics to guide us in creating components that make our electronic devices work.

 

If we agree that mathematics works to describe and create our electronic devices, and that it is not all a mathematical delusion, then why can we not also agree that the same mathematics provides an accurate description of the true nature of spacetime/space even if we can't comprehend the answer in terms of sight and touch etc?

 

 

I should not be saying anything about this, as, it is not the subject of this thread. But I see that it is being raised & linked to this subject frequently, I am compelled to express my views. But I would appreciate if no further discussions are taken forward on this. We could start a new thread if need be. My view is as follows;

 

I feel,

 

Mathematics is a short-cut way to get answers.

 

It gives you the answers, even before you are convinced.

 

Everybody agree when Mathematicians agree,

 

Mathematicians agree when Mathematics agrees.

 

If Mathematics says: 'It is',

 

then 'it is'.

 

If Mathematics says 'It isn't',

 

then 'It isn't'.

 

It's like that because humans err. Mathematics doesn't. Because it moves through proper channels.

 

When someone hits,

 

2, +, 2, & = on a calculator,

 

it gives you 4.

 

Nobody objects.

 

But you will not know how 2+2 became 4.

 

You just agree, because

 

there can't be disputes on the verdicts of Mathematics, even if you are not humanly convinced.

 

If you want to know how 2+2 became 4, then

 

you will have to take the long cut.

 

You have to go for analogies.

 

Take two balls,

 

and another two balls,

 

mix them up,

 

count them again.

 

They are four now.

 

That's how they become four.

 

I am an odd man. Perhaps a fool, who wants to take long-cut.

 

I want to be humanly convinced.

 

If you ask me to 'just shut up because Mathematics is unquestionable',

 

I will.

 

But I beg to be humanly convinced.

 

Thank you for, your kindness,

 

for bearing with me.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Anilkumar

[Greg Boyles]

Esteemed Greg Boyles,

 

you have missed my point.

 

You have taken it all wrong.

 

 

 

No, I do not believe that there are two versions of space that exist side by side. And I haven't said anything, which gives that perception.

 

 

 

 

So you mean to say.

 

Space = spacetime and,

 

spacetime is a new version of Space.

 

That brings us back to square one.

 

 

 

 

I never said spacetime is a mathematical delusion. Instead I asked if,

 

spacetime is a mathematical method [or way of looking at things] of explaining motion/event, and not a fundamental entity.

 

 

 

But Greg Boyles,

 

I am perfectly comfortable with the 4 dimensions proposed by GR.

 

I am totally convinced that events can not be described without taking into consideration all the 4 dimensions.

 

 

 

 

I should not be saying anything about this, as, it is not the subject of this thread. But I see that it is being raised & linked to this subject frequently, I am compelled to express my views. But I would appreciate if no further discussions are taken forward on this. We could start a new thread if need be. My view is as follows;

 

I feel,

 

Mathematics is a short-cut way to get answers.

 

It gives you the answers, even before you are convinced.

 

Everybody agree when Mathematicians agree,

 

Mathematicians agree when Mathematics agrees.

 

If Mathematics says: 'It is',

 

then 'it is'.

 

If Mathematics says 'It isn't',

 

then 'It isn't'.

 

It's like that because humans err. Mathematics doesn't. Because it moves through proper channels.

 

When someone hits,

 

2, +, 2, & = on a calculator,

 

it gives you 4.

 

Nobody objects.

 

But you will not know how 2+2 became 4.

 

You just agree, because

 

there can't be disputes on the verdicts of Mathematics, even if you are not humanly convinced.

 

If you want to know how 2+2 became 4, then

 

you will have to take the long cut.

 

You have to go for analogies.

 

Take two balls,

 

and another two balls,

 

mix them up,

 

count them again.

 

They are four now.

 

That's how they become four.

 

I am an odd man. Perhaps a fool, who wants to take long-cut.

 

I want to be humanly convinced.

 

If you ask me to 'just shut up because Mathematics is unquestionable',

 

I will.

 

But I beg to be humanly convinced.

 

Thank you for, your kindness,

 

for bearing with me.

 

Well with spacetime warping it is simply not possible to take the long cut is it.

 

You have no choice but to the trust the mathematics that has given us the right answers and right results in all other human endeavours so far.

[Anilkumar]

Well with spacetime warping it is simply not possible to take the long cut is it.

 

You have no choice but to the trust the mathematics that has given us the right answers and right results in all other human endeavours so far.

Nobody can mistrust Mathematics. Mathematics will keep giving right answers for, infinite time or for as long as it is employed. It can never give wrong answers.

 

I firmly believe that there must be a theoretical explanation for all Mathematical proofs. And so, whether the spacetime curvature proposition can be given a theoretical explanation; is yet to be seen.

 

Having said that however, let us first come down to; which view, does mathematics endorse;

 

This,

 

GR tells us how mass curves space, i.e. it gives us the details of the curvature. That's why differential geometry is involved. It does not tell us why this curvature happens.

and,

 

I had assumed you were speaking of space as a shorthand for spacetime

 

Space ≠ spacetime

 

Spacetime is what is "bent". That is, the geometry of space and time that applies to phenomena is not the same near massive objects as it is far away from them.

OR this,

 

The problem is that the word space and its definition were determined long ago before the true nature of space and the universe was understood.

 

So it is the dictionary definition of space that has been found to be not entirely correct rather than your notion that the theory of spacetime warping is incorrect.

 

There is only one reality and your dictionary does not adequately describe it. Perhaps the dictionary definition of 'space' needs to be updated to reflect the reality of the universe as we currently understand it.

 

No 'Anilkumar' spacetime is not an mathematical delusion, spacetime is very real.

i.e. does Mathematics say;

 

Space ≠ spacetime, i.e. spacetime is an abstract mathematical model.

 

OR

 

Space = spacetime, i.e. spacetime is the new version of Space. And spacetime is a fundamental entity.

 

Thank you.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Anilkumar

[Greg Boyles]

Nobody can mistrust Mathematics. Mathematics will keep giving right answers for, infinite time or for as long as it is employed. It can never give wrong answers.

 

I firmly believe that there must be a theoretical explanation for all Mathematical proofs. And so, whether the spacetime curvature proposition can be given a theoretical explanation; is yet to be seen.

 

Having said that however, let us first come down to; which view, does mathematics endorse;

 

This,

 

 

and,

 

 

OR this,

 

 

i.e. does Mathematics say;

 

Space ≠ spacetime, i.e. spacetime is an abstract mathematical model.

 

OR

 

Space = spacetime, i.e. spacetime is the new version of Space. And spacetime is a fundamental entity.

 

Thank you.

 

If you want to put it that way then I would say that the mathematical theory of relativity actually replaces 'space' with 'spacetime'.

 

'Space' is therefore relegated to the long list of discredited human ideas such as flat earth and the four elements or fire, water, earth and air.

[StringJunky]

This might give a bit of insight, that Swansont mentioned in another thread, that's relevant here I think.