Spacetime

[rigney]

After reading much about it, I continue to be dumbfounded by the word "spacetime" and how it is used. As far as I can read, space and time are yoked together by physicists much as a team of oxen or horses. It's hard to believe that it can be described in such a fashion, since time is an entity, as is space, matter and our overall universe. Does anyone out there have a better description?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

[swansont]

Neither time nor space is an entity as such. They are abstractions used to help describe what we observe or predict future behavior.

[rigney]

Neither time nor space is an entity as such. They are abstractions used to help describe what we observe or predict future behavior.

My problem is that, I can understand time as an abstraction; but not space. Space is like a bologna sandwich, for good or bad; it actually exists. Time is a figurative concept we have developed that is totally irrelevent to what the universe thinks or does.

I'm not trying to be controversial, since I don't have the ammunition. Just trying to find answers that I can build on.

[Essay]

My problem is that, I can understand time as an abstraction

 

 

Try not to think of space or time as fundamental; think of them (it) as derivative of some higher reality, or as an artifact of some process in some other (true) reality.

 

Your picture of spacetime might benefit from losing that "concept" of time, and then starting over with 8 dimensions (of nonspatial attributes) visualized as a large ball of 8 strands of wet spaghetti. They are all touching, there is no empty space. As different strands touch, crossing over and looping back and sliding over other strands, and as other parts of the strand do the same with other strands at various other places within the ball, change (or a state) occurs and then those interactions (or the statements) are perceived as a shadow which we call spacetime. There is but the illusion of space and time; everything is part of a whole and still touching everything else, all at once--now. Consciousness of Change or process in the fundamental dimensions will generate the illusion of space--here--creating the illusion of time, which can only be expressed and perceived as changes in space.

Consciousness is (or causes, or is expressed as) the expansion of spacetime.

 

Alternatively, if the flying spaghetti monster doesn't help break your preconceptions, consider how the term "space" would be meaningless without the time that allows space to be or to change; and how the term "time" would be meaningless without the space that allows change to occur.

 

You can't have change without a place, and you can't have a place without change.

...Well you can, but then this would all be an illusion; which brings us back to the illusion of spacetime. It is only an artifact of some higher dimensional reality.

 

~

[swansont]

My problem is that, I can understand time as an abstraction; but not space. Space is like a bologna sandwich, for good or bad; it actually exists. Time is a figurative concept we have developed that is totally irrelevent to what the universe thinks or does.

I'm not trying to be controversial, since I don't have the ammunition. Just trying to find answers that I can build on.

 

Can you the crusts off of some length, put it a baggie and hand it to me?

 

For any observer, do events happen in some order, or not?

[The Observer]

Space and time must be bunched together. Any event in the universe needs not only a location to be specified but also a time. In fact due to some of the effects of relativity, different observers can disagree about space and time separately, but space-time taken together is agreed upon by everyone. One observers time is another observers space. Its a necessary consequence of everybody measuring the velocity of light to be exactly c.

[rigney]

Can you the crusts off of some length, put it a baggie and hand it to me?

For any observer, do events happen in some order, or not?

 

Your second question I can answer to some degree. As to your first, I haven't a clue.

 

Try not to think of space or time as fundamental; think of them (it) as derivative of some higher reality, or as an artifact of some process in some other (true) reality.

 

Your picture of spacetime might benefit from losing that "concept" of time, and then starting over with 8 dimensions (of nonspatial attributes) visualized as a large ball of 8 strands of wet spaghetti. They are all touching, there is no empty space. As different strands touch, crossing over and looping back and sliding over other strands, and as other parts of the strand do the same with other strands at various other places within the ball, change (or a state) occurs and then those interactions (or the statements) are perceived as a shadow which we call spacetime. There is but the illusion of space and time; everything is part of a whole and still touching everything else, all at once--now. Consciousness of Change or process in the fundamental dimensions will generate the illusion of space--here--creating the illusion of time, which can only be expressed and perceived as changes in space.

Consciousness is (or causes, or is expressed as) the expansion of spacetime.

 

Alternatively, if the flying spaghetti monster doesn't help break your preconceptions, consider how the term "space" would be meaningless without the time that allows space to be or to change; and how the term "time" would be meaningless without the space that allows change to occur.

 

You can't have change without a place, and you can't have a place without change.

...Well you can, but then this would all be an illusion; which brings us back to the illusion of spacetime. It is only an artifact of some higher dimensional reality.

 

In physics, spacetime (or space-time, space time, space-time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

In all honesty, what does this gibberish imply?

Edited February 21, 2012 by rigney

[D H]

In physics, spacetime (or space-time, space time, space-time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

In all honesty, what does this gibberish imply?

First off, you were quoting from the introductory paragraph of the current version of the wikipedia article on "Spacetime". You should have given a reference for those words that were not yours.

 

That gibberish at the end is some very bad badness on the part of a wikipedia author way back in January, 2006. Just as you didn't site a reference for your quote, neither did that wikipedian. Those words are copied almost word-for-word straight out of the book "Pseudo-Riemannian Geometry, δ-Invariants and Applications" by Bang-Yen Chen. A reference would have been nice, particularly since those words were not MagnaMopus's words (the wikipedian in question).

 

So what do those words mean? In the context of this wikipedia article, perhaps not much. In the context of that book, they mean a whole lot. That "whole lot" is written in mathematics, which is the language of science (particularly physics). It is anything but gibberish -- but only if you can grok the math. If you can't, that math just like someone took a shovelful of mathematical symbols and scattered them across the page.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

qsa, your post has been moved to a new topic. It's against the rules to hijack threads by answering questions with speculation/pet theories. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64534-how-space-is-produced/

[qsa]

I did not mean to hijack the thread I could have opened a new one. My intention was to do an illustration to give an idea as to how some hypothetical modelling can link space and matter, to get GR like effect (which is hard for many people to imagine). it was an example ,that is all. Essay gave his idea and you did not seem to mind, but I guess mine came accross as a a pet theory advertizing. No problem moving it, I am sure the OP will see it eventually, thanks.

Edited February 21, 2012 by qsa

[rigney]

!

Moderator Note

qsa, your post has been moved to a new topic. It's against the rules to hijack threads by answering questions with speculation/pet theories. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64534-how-space-is-produced/

I apologize Mr.T. Had no idea I was doing something wrong and simply quoted verbatum from an article on wikipedia. Should have made a referral to it, and didn't. Edited February 21, 2012 by rigney

[D H]

!

Moderator Note

qsa, your post has been moved to a new topic. It's against the rules to hijack threads by answering questions with speculation/pet theories. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64534-how-space-is-produced/

I apologize Mr.T. Had no idea I was doing something wrong and simply quoted verbatum from an article on wikipedia. Should have made a referral to it, and didn't.

That post by swansont wasn't aimed at you, rigney. It was aimed at another member who posted his/her personal theory in this thread.

[rigney]

I did not mean to hijack the thread I could have opened a new one. My intention was to do an illustration to give an idea as to how some hypothetical modelling can link space and matter, to get GR like effect (which is hard for many people to imagine). it was an example ,that is all. Essay gave his idea and you did not seem to mind, but I guess mine came accross as a a pet theory advertizing. No problem moving it, I am sure the OP will see it eventually, thanks.

No problem with me guy! I made the mistake, and would have jumped on your backside just as quick, had I an answer as quick and precise as yours. Edited February 21, 2012 by rigney

[Essay]

In physics, spacetime (or space-time, space time, space-time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

In all honesty, what does this gibberish imply?

...I'm not sure what I missed over the past few hours, and (maybe I should have entitled my last post "Lunchtime Little Theater"); but:

 

 

 

re: "...giberish...."

Right.... That was not meant to promote any particular cosmology, or to unite space and time mathematically. The point was to move beyond your preconceptions and see space/time as something other than fundamental; to see spacetime as derivative of something else--anything else, whatever gibberish it may be comprised of. Seeing spacetime as an artifact of some other reality helps overcome those preconceptions.

 

<Or>

If that doesn't help, try visualizing "all that exists" (space) without time. How does it come to be without time; can anything happen or change or inflate without time? Also, try visualizing change (time) without any existence or space. How can time exist without something or some place to operate upon? It's not about melding time and space together; but rather seeing that neither can exist without the other, or at least that their existence (or the concept of either space or time) is meaningless without the concept or existence of the other.

===

 

<Then>

Once space and time become derivative properties or at least inseparable in your mind, then it is easier to see them as a single property that responds or interacts or can be measured. Think of spacetime as a seesaw which may be viewed as smaller or larger, or as turned, or tipped to emphasize the space or time aspects more, but it is still just the seesawing of a single property. Whatever you do, I think it is important to break the preconceptions of seeing space or time as fundamental properties. That was to be the only importance or significance to the flying spaghetti monster cosmology--viewing spacetime as derived from some more fundamental reality--breaking preconceptions.

 

~ but maybe not?