Jump to content

Trying to make sense of the Fabric Of Space (The field that consists of the smallest particle-like phenomenon )


Recommended Posts

So I have been trying to make sense of what space-time is from a practical point view. I thought of sharing with you some thoughts that came to my mind. 

1). The fabric of space must be made out of the smallest wave-like phenomenon. Since this is so tiny, think of it as the smallest particle. These particles (or let's call it a field), fill the entire universe.

2). When we place a heavy particle in this field, the particle would pull this field/the fabric of space (that acts as if it a spring) in every direction towards the particle and that's based on the mass of the particle that we place in this field. This pulling force that exerts on the spring, would depend on the mass of the particle. So let's say we place three protons next to each other in this field. If so, these three protons would pull the spring towards them with an equal force (since the mass of the protons is the same), therefore, protons can’t get close to each other. Similarly, two electrons would also pull the fabric of space towards them with an equal force, even electrons can’t get closer each other. 


image.png.a57a8bc7d4339a9330ed9de416cbdb5c.png

3). Now, let's say we place a proton and an electron close to each other. Since the mass of the proton is high, compares to the mass of the electron, the proton would pull the electron closer since its pulling power on the Fabric of Space is much larger (note that this pulling power depends on the mass of the particle). Since a proton pulls an electron closer, we call protons as positively charge and the electron as negatively charge (this is what we call as a charge). 

image.png.e9e442029a2e193d7c276bb2075bcd6a.png

(Imagine, proton (the blue ball) and the electron (the small red balls) pull the Fabric of Space towards each other, but since the proton's mass is larger than the electron, its pulling power on the Fabric of Space is larger, so the proton can pull these electrons towards it. More, protons means, there's more force on the Fabric of Space, so it is subject to a larger contraction (imagine, this spring getting squeezed), compares to a contraction of a single proton.

The Four Forces:

The mass of the particle and/or object, would always distort the fabric of space however and how far it can affect the fabric/field would depend on the mass of the particle. For instance, since the size of the proton is small, its effect on the Fabric of Space span only a tiny distance and when it comes to quarks, it’s even smaller.  

Strong Force:

Since the mass of the neutron is larger than the proton, the neutron pulls the Fabric of Space with a great force than a proton, therefore, it pulls the Proton towards it. Since the masses of these particles (neutrons and protons) is larger than the electrons, their pulling power is larger, so we see this as the strong force (which we see inside a nucleus). 

Weak Force: 

The quakes that make the protons and the neutrons are smaller than protons and the neutrons, and their mass is also small. This means their pulling power is also small. So, we see it as the weak force. 

Electromagnetic Force:

Since the mass of the proton is larger than an electron, it pulls the Fabric of Space towards it with a greater force, so for instance, it pulls the electron in a hydrogen atom. We call this the electromagnetic force.

In a helium atom, this force is large, since its nucleus is made up of a neutron and proton that has almost identical masses.

Gravity:

When we talk about Gravity, we talk about planets and other massive objects which are made up of a massive amount of atoms. Since we are referring to a planet, on this occasion atoms as a whole pull the Fabric of Space towards the planet, so the Fabric of Space or this field that consists of the smallest particle-like phenomenon contracts. 

Since the size of planets is massive compare to protons, neutrons, and electrons, planets can affect the Fabric of Space over larger distances. And that's because its pulling power on the Fabric of Space is so high. This pulling force on the Fabric of Space is high on the surface of the planet (Therefore, the amount of the contraction on the surface is high. On the other hand this increases the density of the smallest particle-like phenomenon), compares to the pulling force exert on the Fabric of Space at a distance from the planet (therefore, the amount of contraction gets smaller at a distant, this deceases the density of the smallest particle-like phenomenon). When this pulling force becomes weak, the gravity becomes weak (We know that this strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of the Earth. So, the effect rapidly declines).

Bending of Light around a body:

Since large objects contract the Fabric of space (or this field consists of the smallest particle-like phenomenon) over larger distances, the density of the smallest particle-like phenomenon increase on the surface of the planet (the Fabric of Space contracts), and this density decreases as it moves away from the planet (the Fabric of Space contracts but much less compares to the surface). In other words, massive objects distort the Fabric of Space (Einstein called this as curvature of spacetime) or the field that consists of particle-like phenomenon. Therefore, this curvature changes the path of light.

Light Energy Loss:

“This is fundamentally what happens to light, as it travels through an expanding universe. The universe as a whole is expanding, meaning that the space between many galaxies is increasing. As light travels away from a galaxy, the Universe is continually expanding, meaning that the distance the light needs to travel is continually increasing as well. As space stretches out underneath a beam of light, its wavelength increases, and its energy decreases”

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/04/28/astroquizzical-light-energy-loss/?sh=22cdf7815768

Alternative explanation

The reason why wavelength is increasing is that the tension of the fabric of space between the particles that fabric is made up of reduces (this is because galaxies/planets are not affecting the fabric of space to contract that much when we go towards the edge of the space). Therefore, the distance between these particles increases (the particle-like phenomenon that the fabric of space is made up of), this increases the wavelength of a photon. When wavelength increases, its frequency decreases, therefore, photons' perceived color would change. This can be identified as the reason behind redshift.

(There’s no such a thing called space-time. It’s a mistake).

However, the fabric of space does experience a contraction or expansion depends on the particles/objects in a given location in space. The more the mass, the planet/object or a particle has, the pulling power increases, this is what causes the fabric to contract (or the particle-like phenomenon that the fabric of space is made up of).

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, kai00 said:

So I have been trying to make sense of what space-time is from a practical point view. I thought of sharing with you some thoughts that came to my mind. 

1). The fabric of space must be made out of the smallest wave-like phenomenon. Since this is so tiny, think of it as the smallest particle. These particles (or let's call it a field), fill the entire universe.

There is no fabric of space, you seem to be confusing an analogy with the real thing.  Space is a volume so saying it is made of particles makes no sense.  Since your idea is based on this idea of a nonexistent fabric the rest does not make sense either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kai00 said:

Now, let's say we place a proton and an electron close to each other. Since the mass of the proton is high, compares to the mass of the electron, the proton would pull the electron closer since its pulling power on the Fabric of Space is much larger (note that this pulling power depends on the mass of the particle)

What about a proton and a positron? Same mass relationship, but a repulsive force.

Quote

Similarly, two electrons would also pull the fabric of space towards them with an equal force, even electrons can’t get closer each other. 

But electrons do more than "not get close to each other" - they actively repel, with the same force as exists between two protons.

Quote

 

Since the mass of the proton is larger than an electron, it pulls the Fabric of Space towards it with a greater force, so for instance, it pulls the electron in a hydrogen atom. We call this the electromagnetic force.

In a helium atom, this force is large, since its nucleus is made up of a neutron and proton that has almost identical masses.

 

The electrons are pulled with the electrostatic force.  Deuterium doesn't have twice the attractive force on an electron owing to the extra neutron. The effect is small, owing the different reduced mass of the system, which shifts the energies a small fraction of a percent - not anywhere close to a factor of 2.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swansont said:

But electrons do more than "not get close to each other" - they actively repel, with the same force as exists between two protons.

Quote

Before repel two electrons must come closer. So I think it could be that the electrons end up increasing the tension of the Fabric of space ( The field that consists of the smallest particle-like phenomenon) while trying to come closer. Here at some point the electrons will not be able to push any further, so it will start releasing this tension (imagine a scenario where a mass ends up squeezing a spring). Perhaps, this could attribute to the repelling behavior. Good questions, I don't have answers to all the questions you raised. But one thing to note is that the radius of the Deuterium nucleus is smaller than expected. 

https://physicsworld.com/a/proton-radius-mystery-deepens-as-deuterium-measurement-comes-up-short/

3 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

There is no fabric of space, you seem to be confusing an analogy with the real thing.  Space is a volume so saying it is made of particles makes no sense.  Since your idea is based on this idea of a nonexistent fabric the rest does not make sense either.

I agree. My wording could be a bit misleading. This smallest particle must reside in space. There must be space, time is simply time and then we can also find particles that arise in space.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kai00 said:

Before repel two electrons must come closer.

No, we know Coulomb’s law works. If you contradict known, confirmed physics (and you have), you’re finished. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maxwell, Stokes and others worked all this out in great detail in the early to mid 1800s.

But they rejected these mechanical models is unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons, and finally devised experiments to disporove aether models once and for all.

How much less satisfactory do you think we now find them 150 years alter, armed with our greater knowledge and many, more refined experiments ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kai00 said:

There’s no such a thing called space-time. It’s a mistake).

However, the fabric of space does experience a contraction or expansion depends on the particles/objects in a given location in space. 
 

Space is what we see as volume and what keeps things apart. Time is what stops everything from happening at the same instant and can be defined as the rate of change, or what clocks measure. Both depend on one another and either would not exist without the other. Space and time are interchangeable...hence the notion of spacetime. So no, its not a mistake. The fact that two people in two different FoR's, will not agree on a particular distance or on the rate of change [time] supports the model of spacetime and the fact that Intervals of space and time when considered separately, are not the same for all observers.

And as Minkowski [Einstein's teacher] said........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".

Hermann Minkowski
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Obviously, any mistake is yours.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you invested as much time trying to understand accepted science as you have wasted on this useless conjecture, you would be that much further ahead, and have a good base to build on.
Space-time has no associated 'fabric', nor can it be pushed or pulled.

Stop wasting your time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, beecee said:

Space is what we see as volume and what keeps things apart. Time is what stops everything from happening at the same instant and can be defined as the rate of change, or what clocks measure. Both depend on one another and either would not exist without the other. Space and time are interchangeable...hence the notion of spacetime. So no, its not a mistake. The fact that two people in two different FoR's, will not agree on a particular distance or on the rate of change [time] supports the model of spacetime and the fact that Intervals of space and time when considered separately, are not the same for all observers.

And as Minkowski [Einstein's teacher] said........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".

Hermann Minkowski
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Obviously, any mistake is yours.

 

My position on this would be the same as Nikola Tesla:

 

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." - Nikola Tesla

Anyone who think from the perspective of Space-time, are wasting their time. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, kai00 said:

My position on this would be the same as Nikola Tesla:

My position is that held and suported by observational and experimental data.

6 hours ago, kai00 said:

Anyone who think from the perspective of Space-time, are wasting their time. 

Not at all. The vast majority of professional cosmologists hold that view, and it is supported by the evidence. While Tesla made some notable discoveries, he was also some what eccentric. 

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone agrees with Einstein. I think someone will disprove his theory within this decade. Tension would be a parameter of the equation and we will also end up addressing an expansion and contraction of a field. Further, the universe itself must be expanding and contracting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kai00 said:

My position on this would be the same as Nikola Tesla:

 

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." - Nikola Tesla

Anyone who think from the perspective of Space-time, are wasting their time. 

 

 

Oh no, not another Tesla crank. That's two in the space of a week!

Tesla was a turn of the c.20th inventor, electrical engineer and Groucho Marx lookalike, who went mad* and died 80 years ago. Quoting what Tesla had to say about a branch of physics he knew nothing about, not being a physicist, does not enhance anyone's credibility.     

 

*In 1932 he announced he had invented a motor that would run on cosmic rays:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be missing something.

Somebody arguing for the properties of the fabric of space, quotes Tesla for support, who said "... for the simple reason that it can have no properties ...".

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

I must be missing something.

Somebody arguing for the properties of the fabric of space, quotes Tesla for support, who said "... for the simple reason that it can have no properties ...".

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Oh no, not another Tesla crank. That's two in the space of a week!

Tesla was a turn of the c.20th inventor, electrical engineer and Groucho Marx lookalike, who went mad* and died 80 years ago. Quoting what Tesla had to say about a branch of physics he knew nothing about, not being a physicist, does not enhance anyone's credibility.     

 

*In 1932 he announced he had invented a motor that would run on cosmic rays:

 

Today we know that certain claims of Tesla are false. There's no question on that. But what makes you think space that is made up of nothing can end up having a curve?

Edited by kai00
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, kai00 said:

Today we know that certain claims of Tesla are false. There's no question on that. But what makes you think space that is made up of nothing can end up having a curve?

The point is that one of Tesla's false claims relates directly to your proposition.

What makes you think space has no properties ?

This is just false, and Tesla of all poeple as an electrical engineer should have known better.

Empty or free space has a measurable electromagnetic impedance of about 377 Ohms.

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, kai00 said:

Today we know that certain claims of Tesla are false. There's no question on that. But what makes you think space that is made up of nothing can end up having a curve?

How can a cylindrical or spherical coordinate system have a curve?

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, kai00 said:

But what makes you think space that is made up of nothing can end up having a curve?

A coherent, testable and logical theory along with experimental evidence supporting the theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to the mountain of very sound objections. I'm curious: How do you explain muon decay as a property of chains of protons? What about mesons? What would Tesla have to say about that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kai00 said:

Today we know that certain claims of Tesla are false. There's no question on that. But what makes you think space that is made up of nothing can end up having a curve?

Experiment. The model has been subjected to all manner of tests over the last century and has passed them all. It is even used to make GPS work in our phones.

Being a chemist, I have not learnt tensors so I don't pretend to understand the maths of GR, but I have learnt enough science - mainly QM - to appreciate that the way the universe works is not always intuitive and can be at variance with what everyday "common sense" may suggest.  And non -Euclidean geometry is not that hard to grasp, in principle, at least.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)
On 5/13/2021 at 12:25 PM, swansont said:

How can a cylindrical or spherical coordinate system have a curve?

If ,in the latter case the lines of latitude and longitude are wavy?

All points of  the surface of the sphere can be assigned a pair of values even if the lines of latitude and longitude are not straight.

I think that is what  Einstein referred to as a "reference-mollusk" (the spacetime coordinate lines turning wavy in the presence of mass-energy)

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-einstein-meant-when-he-termed-something-a-mollusc.391139/

Edited by geordief
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geordief said:

If ,in the latter case the lines of latitude and longitude are wavy?

All points of  the surface of the sphere can be assigned a pair of values even if the lines of latitude and longitude are not straight.

I think that is what  Einstein referred to as a "reference-mollusk" (the spacetime coordinate lines turning wavy in the presence of mass-energy)

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-einstein-meant-when-he-termed-something-a-mollusc.391139/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.