Jump to content

Without Space And Time


rabe
 Share

Recommended Posts

If we see space and time as generated by mass and energy, it is suggested to develop reduced physics, giving up the notions of space and time The article published now on a website has not passed the peer review of NATURE, but nevertheless it seems to be a very different and attractive way to tackle the question of a primary system. This approach could even reconcile scientists with recent development in minimal arts and allow for a modern definition of the term of transcendence.

As neither the standard model nor the Big Bang model nor even the relativity theory with the cosmological constant are free of hypothetical assumptions mainly in form of interpreted constants, the only two hypothetical assumptions in this article seem to be justified. First the old argument of Occams razor that our world is basically simple, - much simpler than all those really complicated theories in actual cosmology and elementary particle physics. Second the pretty obvious conception that quantum numbers are more basic than space and time. This may allow for completely new conclusions about a possible identity of energy and antimatter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it was the BBC that established the answer to the universe is 42.

 

ref: "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Actually it was Douglas Adams who established that in the book you referred to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we see space and time as generated by mass and energy, it is suggested to develop reduced physics, giving up the notions of space and time The article published now on a website has not passed the peer review of NATURE, but nevertheless it seems to be a very different and attractive way to tackle the question of a primary system. This approach could even reconcile scientists with recent development in minimal arts and allow for a modern definition of the term of transcendence.

As neither the standard model nor the Big Bang model nor even the relativity theory with the cosmological constant are free of hypothetical assumptions mainly in form of interpreted constants, the only two hypothetical assumptions in this article seem to be justified. First the old argument of Occams razor that our world is basically simple, - much simpler than all those really complicated theories in actual cosmology and elementary particle physics. Second the pretty obvious conception that quantum numbers are more basic than space and time. This may allow for completely new conclusions about a possible identity of energy and antimatter.

What article are you referring to? Could you post a link here?

 

For instance time is as real, and can be defined by the physical changes that occur within an interval. Time then is a comparison of changes by use of a standard which we call a clock. Space is as real as the distance between at least two physical entities, or the volume which encompasses contiguous matter. Space then is a comparison of distances by use of a standard such as a comparison with the size of the physical units that space separates, via a ruler of sorts, or by comparison with a light year, etc.

 

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Albert Einstein) Of course simplicity like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so I think this statement by Einstein shows the simplest understanding of both space and time. "Matter" must be used to define the concepts of both space and time.

 

Like the man-made concepts of space and time, so is the whole of physics man made. Another alien society of comparative intelligence might organize reality in a very different manner. Mathematical constants like pi, on the other hand, will be forever the same within the framework of Plane Geometry. So-called "constants" in physics instead seem to have the theoretical possibility of changing over time.

 

I think the assertion that physics needs to be simplified is a good idea. But opinions are widely divergent concerning how this might be done. Concerning space and time: I don't think there are generally simpler definitions/ concepts than the ones that I described above. But as you suggest, mainstream theory presently asserts that time and space are much more complicated, with no overall consensus concerning their definitions.

 

//

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What article are you referring to? Could you post a link here?

 

For instance time is as real, and can be defined by the physical changes that occur within an interval. Time then is a comparison of changes by use of a standard which we call a clock. Space is as real as the distance between at least two physical entities, or the volume which encompasses contiguous matter. Space then is a comparison of distances by use of a standard such as a comparison with the size of the physical units that space separates, via a ruler of sorts, or by comparison with a light year, etc.

 

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Albert Einstein) Of course simplicity . . . .

 

 

The article is at the underlined link in the initial post.

A theory based on the assumed framework of linear space and time, of course, must show no separate existence of space and time from matter. Time can be defined by changes within an interval. But now the opinion arises that time has to be defined not only by such an interval, but also in dependencence from space units which could vary depending on the density etc. The same, inversely, would be true for space.

Using an alternative framework depending, as proposed, on quantum numbers, could certainly lead to different results and possibly make accessible the hypothetical primary matter.

 

Yes it was the BBC that established the answer to the universe is 42.

 

ref: "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

 

 

Thanks for the very friendly words. But you should have seen that the travel aims not only at the galaxies, but also at the elementary particles, and even at things on our Earth. Is this arrogant, or what else ? Doubts about the basic framework are uttered. Arguments would be better than polemics.

Edited by swansont
fix quote tag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article is at the underlined link in the initial post.

 

!

Moderator Note

That's a web page, not a media or journal story, which makes this not a candidate for science news. Moved to speculations

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.