Questions, Speculations & Thought-Experiments Concerning...

[RArvay]

This set of thought experiments reflects upon the nature of space-time-energy-mass (STEM) and the relationships between these four components of physical reality.

Can Pure Space Exist?

To begin the experiments, try to imagine a universe in which there is only space and nothing else. We say, “try,” because it may not be possible, but then again, that impossibility may be useful to recognize. Is a universe consisting solely of space possible?

If a universe could exist in which there is nothing but space, then the question arises, how large is that universe? In other words, how much space might this universe have? With nothing to measure against, would the question of size have any meaning?

Can there be any such thing as space with nothing in it? This might be possible if space has discrete elements of structure. If it does, are the components of that structure all the same? Are there different kinds of components that make up space-molecules?

Can Any Object Exist by Itself?

Using our previous empty universe of pure space, what if we were to insert one object into that space? For simplicity, let’s introduce a steel ball. While recognizing that the ball has discrete elements of structure, let us say that this ball is the only object in the universe. Is there any space surrounding this object? How much? Is space itself defined by the mass it contains?

Can Any Two Objects Exist by Themselves?

Let us now add a second object to our otherwise empty universe. This now raises a whole host of new questions. If the two objects are separated by space, will they have gravity? If so, will they then attract each other and collide? Or can they rotate around each other, thereby maintaining a steady distance? If so, what defines the circle of their orbit? If the orbit is elliptical, an observer outside this universe would see the distance between the two objects oscillate, but would there be any reference point to explain that oscillation?

What about three objects?

If our imaginary universe has three point-particles in it, the entire universe might be considered planar. A fourth particle outside that plane would give the universe three dimensions. Were there no motion, there would be no time. Time requires motion. Motion requires energy. Thus are unified space, time, energy and mass.


What About Chirality?

The universe contains molecules that are identical to each other with the important exception that they are mirror images of each other, that is, either right-handed or left-handed. Like a right shoe and a left shoe, they are not interchangeable. Other than with reference to each other, there is no known universal frame of reference that distinguishes between right-handed and left-handed molecules (or other objects).

Is there an absolute frame of reference for chirality (or anything else)?

Speculations Arising from these Thought-Experiments

Space-time-energy-mass (STEM) may be all of a piece. That is to say that while STEM is conceptually separable into four components, all four may be simply different aspects (or properties or some other descriptor) of one and the same thing. There may be other fundamental components of physical reality as well, for example related to dark matter and dark energy. In addition, there may be fundamental roles in physical reality for life, consciousness and volition, without which the other components of STEM would be as meaningless as “empty space.”
.

[muon200]

"Space-time-energy-mass STEM"
Not charge? Q...STEMQ : I am loving charge more than space.

"How much space might this universe have? "
Infinite is possible. Relative size is important for us shrinking galactic dwellers. Atoms shrink space and grow time. This is gravity. The cnservation of continuum affects your experiment.

"If it does, are the components of that structure all the same? Are there different kinds of components that make up space-molecules?"
The Herenowium has a manifold velocity ether which is at rest relative to each hadron. It can accelerate atoms while they free fall. Diffusion of Herenowium follows Folmsbee's First Law of Diffusion of Herenowium. The time gradient and the space gradient are multiplying effects which diffuse as more than Fick's flux velocity. Gravity accelerates.

" Is there any space surrounding this object? How much? Is space itself defined by the mass it contains?"
Yes. The space shrinks into the steel and time grows out. At the rate of 200 megavolumes per second, the universe establishees itsself, given time. After 14 billion years, the steel ball will establish that much , about 200mega x 14 gig x proton volume x n protons.


"all four may be simply different aspects (or properties or some other descriptor) of one and the same thing"
nope

[muon200]

A more poignant example of mass establishing space is found in our own universe. It is estimated that there are 10^91 protons and neutrons in our known universe, counting dark matter. This has already been calculated but that is done again:

250 million proton volumes per second = 1/tau
proton volume is 4 x 10^-45 cubic meters
10^91 hadrons
14 billion years

That results in a universe that has a volume that is 100 billion light years in radius as is now shown...

volume of universe is V2

V1 = 2.5 x 10^(8-45+91) cubic meters per second are shrunk into the masses.

V1 = 2.5 x 10^54 m^3/second

number of seconds
1.4 x 10^10 x 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 = 4.4 x 10^17 seconds = t

V2 = V1 x t = 2.5 x 4.4 x 10^71 cubic meters

V2 = 10^72 cubic meters

R2 radius of universe = cube root 10^72 = 10^24 meters
R2 in light years is 10^24 meters/n meters per light year

at 10^13 meters per light year

R2 is 10^(24-13) = 10^11 light years

100 billion light years radius due to matter in Universe, according to F-C Theory.

For a 14 billion light year radius, use fewer hadrons. 7^3 fewer. so we may have 10^88.5 hadrons, not 10^91
In theory

[friend]

You ask some interesting questions. It basically asks where the metric of spacetime comes from, and how is that related to objects within it. Since the most basic objects are subatomic, this is that same as asking how the metric is related to quantum theory. And since the metric of spacetime describes gravity, your questions seem to imply the necessity of a quantum gravity theory.

A metric, in general, is an added structure on top of a manifold. A manifold has properties that allows one to inscribe a coordinate system on it. And a metric allows one to calculate a distance between any two points on the manifold given the coordinates of those two points. The present understanding is that a metric is independent of the manifold; one can impose any distance function they want given two coordinates. There seems to be no reason for the metric of general relativity except that it relates to the speed of subatomic particles, photons. And quantum theory is presently formulated on an assumed background metric that is accepted without question.

What is needed is to find some necessary relation between quantum mechanics and the properties of a manifold. If it should be determined that quantum theory is a necessary structure of a manifold, then we are closer to unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity. The quantum mechanical fluctuations of virtual particles of the zero point energy of the vacuum will at least provide point particles for objects as a reference with which to measure the distances of a spacetime metric.

I think I've found that necessary relation between quantum mechanics and the properties of a manifold. I use the Dirac measure to derive quantum mechanics. The Dirac measure equates to the number 1 if a point is an element of a set that is specified by a geometrical region, and it equates to 0 if the point is not within the region. I use the Dirac measure to represent material implication which describes the wave function of quantum mechanics. I let the region of the set shrink to a point in the Dirac measure. And this procedure is very much like (if not identical to) the Hausdorff property of a manifold. The Hausdorff property states that for any two points (arbitrary close) there is always a neighborhood of each point that does not include the other point. These neighborhoods are regions around each point that are arbitrarily small, much like (if not identical to) the regions of the Dirac measure that are shrunk to arbitrarily small size. In other words, it seems quantum theory is a necessary structure of a manifold. Every manifold includes an hereto undiscovered quantum structure. See details at: logictophysics.com.

The question then is why the metric of spacetime? Well, what we do know is that every manifold is locally Euclidean with the flat space metric d^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2. I have yet to understand why we would subtract t^2 to get the spacetime metric of special relativity or why that metric should change to get general relativity.

[Ben6993]

Can pure space exist?

Can nothingness exist? Can substance exist? I think space or vacuum is nothingness plus substance. The substance (preons of matter in my model) that is the nature of vacuum could be (very mysteriously) considered a Dirac sea below
the threshold of being considered as positive energy. This vacuum substance when in the form of fields has no mass. So the abundance of vacuum substance in the universe does not seem to be included in the mass of the observable
universe not even in the reported 27% dark matter and 68% dark energy. The vacuum substance is overall neutral fields but a field can be split into exact opposite particle pairs eg electron and positron or higgs+ and higgs-. But the
substance only gains positive mass when the field collapses to a pair of point particles. In particle interactions, the mass/energy of the outgoing particles is constrained by the mass/energy of the incoming particles so the electron
cannot gain all its mass from the higgs by interacting as particle with particle. Instead the mass is mostly gained when interacting field to field.

Can n (small) objects exist by themselves?

Can n objects exist in the vacuum? This is what happens at the end of cycle in Penrose's Cyclical Conformal Cosmology. When the last fermion gets converted to yet another boson, the metric of space collapses to a point. The cycle of
the universe can be thought of as an oscillation between all bosons (at the end point) and a mix of fermions and bosons at other times. The starting point of the cycle has all the contents of the universe in a single state (c.f. see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80 ... condensate). During the beginning stage of the cycle, the expansion/ monotonic increase in entropy has bosons converting to fermions which because of Pauli's Exclusion Principle need
to occupy more and more states. Flavour changing oscillations (i.e. between generations of particles) can, in my model, also add to the increase in entropy as higher generations contain more preons than lower generations. In this model
it is a bit of a stretch to think of the last few fermions at the end of cycle existing by themselves: they would be the only fermions left, but not the only 'things' left.

At the end of cycle the metric of space has collapsed to a point but no preons/or/substance has been destroyed in the cycle and so all still exist. These preons all contain dimensions within them: red, green and blue colour branes of string theory and our 4D space time. So the metric is lost at the end of cycle but not the dimensions, which implies that the space metric is 'emergent' in a new cycle.

Wave function collapse of a particle

In my preon model, the collapse of a field to a particle mimics that of the Cyclical Conformal Cosmology of the universe. The field of a particle expands until its internal metric is lost and it collapses to a point/or/single state. As we know that particle interactions have multi-particle energy considerations, it is possible that dark energy is driving our universe to an end of cycle (preceded by an almost infinite cold spread of matter, in time and space) to conform with energy considerations some of which are determined outside our universe. And to an observer outside our universe, it is assumed that they would not suffer a boring long wait for the interaction/end-of-cycle to occur as their observed metric would be different to that of an internal observer.

Note: In my preon model, the preons are string-like though they just happened to be like that as my model grew, rather than by my initial design. When the universe cycle ends as a point, these preons all still exist as strings but are within bosons. The universe still ends at a point or as a single state despite the use of strings to avoids problems with points!