Dont time and space kind of "stretch" to make sure nothing goes faster than the speed of light? Time can flow at different rates and even space can stretch for different objects. Ugg. I took psychics in college and I got a C-. Its total overload for me. Sorry.

O fuc- it. The earth is flat I say!

I thought we already established that it is the universe that's flat.

Billy...

I am wondering what the purpose of the following question is???





According to relativity, 299,792,458 meters a second. This is one of several invariants(that which retains the exact same value in all frames of reference) in relativity. This has been attributed to the idea that an moving object has less length than when at rest(having only gravity acting upon it).

Unless, of course, you are traveling just above the surface of water, and the ray of light is underwater...



In that case, the ray would never reach you in order to pass you by.



Krimsa...



From my understanding of relativity...

The distance between any two events is what differs from one frame of reference to another, this in turn produces not only a new relative set of values for space, but time as well, effectively combining the two into space-time. I think that there are three different scenarios in which one could find themselves in a frame of reference to another. They are rather lengthy to explain, so I will not at this time.

Regarding the space-time fabric "stretching"...

In order for space-time to be "shaped", matter must exist within it. It is the presence of matter that gives space-time it's curvature. There are field equations of GR that give us specific values regarding the curvature that would result from any given distribution of matter/energy.The strangely altered Euclidian geometry of the space-time curvature is gravity, according to what I understand.

Would it not then logically follow, that matter is gravity, according to relativity ???

That would then make energy, mass, and gravity all the same thing...

It seems that Einstein just wanted a simple explanation for all things huh???




I want a plausible explanation for what determines which way the space will curve in response to the presence of matter. After all, the are nearly an infinity of directions, in terms of degrees(or seconds of a degree) that space-time could distort around a sphere...

What determines which direction space-time distorts???

Nobody knows and from the standpoint of physics it's a moot question.

You're definiely a hardcore philosopher.

The 'direction' is arbitrary. It's just a convention.

Massive bodies ATTRACT one another.

That's EXPERIMENTAL evidence. (i.e. it's what we experience and see around us uniformly without exception)

So Einstein wrote equations that have spacetime curving in a way that would logically have massive bodies attracting one another.

He could have created a mathematical model that sends massive bodies flying away from one another. But what would be the point to that? That's not what we observe. That would create an entirely different universe. In fact, some people have used his equations with changed signs to study what a universe with repelling gravity would be like. It would be nothing at all like the universe we live in. In fact, it would be quite uninteresting since even stars would have never formed.

Physics doesn't answer the WHY questions that philosophers love to ponder.

If you ask a physicist how billard balls bounce, he or she will give you the equations.

If you ask them why they bounce that way the physicist will just shrug his or her shoulders and say, "I dunno, ask God".

Physicists don't ask 'WHY?'.

They ask 'How?'.

Einstein's equations show us how gravity works. Why it is the way it is nobody knows. That for theologians and philosophers to guess at.

So far neither theologians nor philosophers have made any headway at all. Unless you consider, "God did it" as being headway. But most physicists will agree with that. That's like a given.

Then you can argue about who Mr. God really is. Will the real Mr. God please stand up?

If you're seeking logical answers to philosophical questions I think your barking up the wrong tree.

Seriously. My answer to you is quite simple. The universe is not logical. Therefore searching for a logical answer to explain it is silly.

Yes, the universe seems to behave in logical ways to a point. But QM certainly doesn't behave logically.

There is also no logical reason why any structure should have appeared out of nowhere.

Especially structure as precise as the atoms, and the overall structure of the universe as a whole.

Does that mean that there needs to have been a God? Or a preexisting intelligence?

Well, if it does, then I supposed that even that preexisting intelligence must have had a preexisting intelligence as well.

Round and round we go, the dog chasing it's own tail again.

Physics doesn't say WHY the laws of physics are they way they are. It simply reports how they work.

Einstein showed us that time dilates. He was right. It's been measured.

I think you're missing the point worrying about length contraction and/or 'points in space'.

That's back to thinking in terms of an absolute space out there in the Newtonian sense.

I think time dilation will indeed cause the 'illusion' of length contraction, and velocities being constant.

Just focus on time dilation ONLY.

Once you truly understand time dilation intuitively then you're home free with all the rest of it.

You need to understand time dilation so well that you can imagine experiencing it.

That's the key.

All other concerns will fall away once you understand time dilation on an intuitive level. And yes, it is possible to do this.

And again. Physics and Einstein's GR don't say WHY time dilation occurs. They simply say that they do indeed occur, and have been experimentally verified to be a real property of the universe in which we live.

Science is the art of observation and experimentation (the act of experiencing the observations precisely in a quantified way to verify that they are indeed occuring in our universe.

That's physics.

No philosophical whys asked or answered.

Only the physical hows are quantified and verified.

Time dilates. Period.

I just wish that I would have been in on this conversation from the beginning, TOE, TQM, the nature of God and the self have been my life study. C.G. Jung, F.D. Pete, D.D. Hoffman etc.

Creative wrote:



Really? You want a plausible explanation?

First, space does not "respond" to the presence of matter. Without matter, there is no space.

If you can imagine a condition where there is no matter (including anti-matter and or dark matter or matter of any kind seen or unseen) then you would see that what is left is not space, curved or otherwise.

What would you imagine is there then?

Nothing? A flat surface? A void? A vacuum? A black hole?

I don't know, but it would not be a three dimensional or four dimensional "space."

JB

Well, feel free to jump right in at any time. Or if you prefer just start a new thread on the topic that interests you.

We tend to use the religion forums for all philosophical and scientific topics, particularly those associated with questions concerning the 'god concept'.

We've asked repeatedly for a 'Science forum' and for a 'Philosophy forum' but to no avail. So we're stuck in religion.

There are many pantheisitic-minded people on the religion forum. So we entertain non-theological concepts of 'god'. And we can also talk about how theological concepts of god might fit into what is known about the actual unviverse, etc.

So feel free to jump in here, or start a thread on TOE, or whatever.

Regarding TOE, I'm somewhat familiar with the basics of String theory (which I'm not at all convinced of). I'm also slightly familar with some other grand unified ideas.

I'd be glad to hear what you've come up with, and I'm sure others would be interested as well. Welcome to the forums.

Jeannie makes a good point here Michael.

To speak of matter 'warping space' is a bit Newtonian. That's thinking in terms of an absolute space as a 'stage' and matter and energy as the actors.

In Einstein's presentation there is no 'space' by itself. Einstein did away with that idea altogether.

Spacetime is itself an 'actor', it's no longer thought of as an absolute 'stage'. If you take all matter and energy out of 'space', then you have no 'space' left.

You're still thinking Newtonianly in terms of an absolute 'space' that was always there preexisting before the universe was born.

Space and time where both 'created' with the Big Bang. They did not exist as independent preexisting 'entities' in their own right into which the Big Bang 'exploded'.

That's the wrong picture.

This reminds me of just how seriously lapsed I am. At one time I was somewhat well versed in precisely how spacetime 'arises' from nothingness, and that picture was very convincing.

Unfortunately it's been so long since I've studying that, that I can't even remember it well. I'm sure I have a book around here that describes it. I could reread that book. It might have been in "Black Holes and Time Warps" by Kip Thorne. I can't remember now. I should re-read that book again anyway. I'm losing my memory.

In any case, I recall reading a really well-laid-out description of precisely how the spacetime fabric can be created from basically 'nothing' (save for the quantum fields of course).

But things 'arise' from the quantum fields. The quantum fields are not the Newtonian absolute space. They simply don't have the right properties to be thought of as an absolute space in their own right.

But they do give rise to the fabric of what we call 'spacetime'.

Owl try to re-read Kip Thorne's book again to see if that was where I found such an elegant explanation. I'm not sure if it was in that book or some other one. That's my best guess though.

I mean, the concept was mentioned in a lot of books, but there was one book in particular that really laid it all out very well and I think it was Kip Thorne's book. (but I'm not certain)

Owl check into it, and get back to you.

Read "The First Three Minutes" By Stephen Wienburg

If you send me a PM with your email I have a copy you can borrow.

It explores inflation theory, and one possible way spacetime was born out of the big bang. It goes over nucleosynthesis, and talks about the CMBR ect.

Great read to get caught up on the big bang. (its not cutting edge anymore, being from late 1970's but its extremely good read, and still relevant being that this is still the standard.)

There is more on the subject, but I find it refreshing that nothing Mr Wienburg has said has been found inaccurate since then ; - )

Oh my...

James, my good man...

Yes, I am in pursuit of understanding...

BUT...

I asked not "why"...

I asked "what"...

In your support of JB's response, which dismissed a very pertinent question, you may have completely missed the relevance of my question. I will address hers and yours simultaneously depending, of course, on the frame of reference from which you perceive the events.





Here was my question...



I asked

This is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and it is based upon Einstein's very own proposition that matter/energy are the determining factor(s) that is/are responsible(create) for gravity(the curvature of spacetime).

The above qualifying statement is valid within General Relativity, furthermore...

If matter/energy are responsible(cause) for the curvature, then then curvature itself(gravity) is an effect of matter/energy.

So then..

WHAT is it that determines which direction the so-called spacetime fabric "stretches"???

Perhaps the answer to the question is beyond the available knowledge/understanding?



JB...

In response to below...



Perhaps from your particular frame of reference, but not according to Einstein's equations...

Without matter there is no curvature(gravity). Without matter space is flat! That understanding IS the very foundation of G.R.




Ok then, to borrow your common response...


So, what is your point?

That you do not know? Neither do I! I am simply following the logical progression throughout. Meanwhile, the inconsistencies scream out loud to me...

Perhaps it is because I have never been a blind follower of anything... religious or otherwise...

Since you have dismissed the question I asked, then what could have logically followed that answer will never be in a position to be considered.

Okay then, Creative, if there is a "direction" in which space can curve, how would you describe that direction? Up? Down? Left? Right? In? Out? Above? Below? 30% to the right?

Aren't "directions" relative to something??

What would you call the "space" above the sphere? How would you locate the "top" of a sphere? Where is up or down?

Your question was:
What determines which direction space-time distorts???

My question would be this: Is there only one sphere or is there other matter present?

If there is only one sphere, then the energy of that sphere is probably WHAT determines the "direction" of the curve of space, but even so, how would you describe or identify the direction?

Do you blame me for "dismissing" this question?

How would you even answer it, even if you knew the answer?

Care to take a stab at it?

You said:


Here you may have answered your own question. The WHAT is matter/energy. (Which boil down to energy/vibration.)

The nature and energy of the sphere determine the "direction" (however you decide to describe this direction) of the curvature of space.

Now the next question that should follow is HOW?

I would wager that it is the law of attraction which has to do with frequency/vibrations.




JB

Creative asked:



(I should have ask you what the point of your question is. )



Well good for you. Neither have I.



I dismissed the question because it seemed like a pointless question given that the description of a direction without any points of reference would be a little difficult to name. Do you know a way to identify a direction with no points of reference?

Do you know where the top and bottom of a sphere would be? Left or right? etc? If not, then what does it matter what determines a the direction of the curvature of space if you have no way to identify the direction?

A better question might be what determines the shape of the universe or the shape of known space-time.


JB

I've explained my position. Space curves in the direction that causes massive objects to attract to one another.

What other 'direction' is there?

The only other direction I'm aware of would be to make it curve so that massive objects repel each other. But that's not what we see happening around us, so why even consider it?

And as I've said, people have considered it, but it produces a universe that instantly flies apart and never forms into what we see around us today. So it's a fruitless pursuit that has been considered

You want to say that we're not considering your questions. But like Jeannie has suggested perhaps you need to be more detailed in what you are proposing.

What 'direction' are you considering?

If you could describe that then maybe we could also ponder that concept.

I'm just at a loss to understand what direction you're attempting to consider. That's all.

I see two possiblities.

1. Toward mass.

2. Away from mass.

Do you have other possibilities to suggest?

I must confess that I did find your original question a bit confusing. I mean, what other directions are there to consider?

If you could elaborate maybe we could understand where you are coming from.

That is precisely what I have been attempting to get at. Most of the conventional models that I have seen thus far are three dimensional representations of a Euclidian plane which bisects the sphere causing the space-time around the sphere to distort as if it were a rubber plane capable of stretching in a direction relative to the diameter of the sphere.



See above...



The space around the sphere...



There is no top of a sphere...



In relation to what?



One sphere



It is quite logical to conclude that the matter/energy cause a change, but it does not necessitate a logical ground for which direction the curvature assumes.



It is not for me to blame you for anything, I do not share your thought patterns therefore I cannot assume why.







So then, we must possess or gain a furthered understanding of the "nature and energy" of the object in question in order to determine which direction the space-time curvesrelative to the object itself?



Perhaps...




Sorry, I assumed that the sphere itself was the only point of origin in the given description, therefore it would have been the only answer to that question, which I thought was self-explanatory...



It matters because the shape of spacetime is gravity itself, according to General Relativity.



The answer to this is precisely what I asked for... lol


James...








Intuitively??? Time alone??? I suppose that I truly do not understand the foundations of G.R. then, because time, I thought, had no meaning all by itself.





I beg to differ with you James, science most certainly does say why and how time/space dilation occurs. The Lorentz transformations, a strangely modified Pythagorean theorem.

I think we're miscommunicating here because you seem to be viewing things from a purely philosophical point of view, and I'm viewing them from the point of view of a physicist.

When a physicists says to focus only one ONE parameter he doesn't mean to completely IGNORE all the others.

It's a mathematical concept. Hold everything else constant and just consider one variable at a time.

That's all I meant by that. This is what physicists do all the time to simplify things. It's like working with ordinary differential equations instead of partial differential equation. You don't ignore the other 'stuff' you just treat it as a constant whilst you consider one variable at a time.

That is completely doable in GR both mathematically and intuitively.



The Lorentz transformations are a mathematical relationship of how things are quantitatively related.

It doesn't say a damn thing about why they are like that.

Just like a parabola described the path of a ball thrown in a gravitational field. It will tell you how the ball will move. But it won't tell you why.

Einstein's General Relativity doesn't explain why time dilates. It simply says that it must dilate and it describes precisely how it must dilate quantitatively.

Measurements show that it actualy does.

I just don't know what else to say.

If you don't want to believe it fine.

All I can say is that the description works.

There are philosophical suggestions for why time dilates.

But I'm not even about to go there with you when you don't even understand why it must be so.

That's a prerequisite.

Give it time. (no pun intended)

Oh really?

I thought you asked:




I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound like the same question to me, but if you say it is... well okay then.

I would venture to guess that the answer to "WHAT" would be the sphere itself. (or the matter itself, whatever it is)

jb

So many smart people, but do you know the story of JOB? This one story alone tells you enough to know where we stand as humans, how and why GOD is all powerful, and why our understanding of the simplest things are muddled at best. Don't be so arrogant as to not go and read it?


There was an extremely pious man named Job. He was very prosperous and had seven sons, and three daughters. Constantly fearing that his sons may have sinned and "cursed God in their hearts" he habitually offered burnt offerings as a pardon for their sins.

The angels of heaven (literally, the Hebrew word translated as "Angels" means "the Sons of God") and Satan (literally, the Hebrew word means "the accuser" or "the adversary") present themselves to God. God asks Satan his opinion on Job, apparently a truly pious man. Satan answers that Job is only pious because he is prosperous. In order to test if Job would still be pious if he was stricken with poverty, God gives Satan permission to destroy Job's possessions and family.

All of Job's possessions are destroyed and all of his family are killed. Job does not curse God after this but instead shaves his head, tears his clothes and says "Naked I came out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return : the Lord has given, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Simplified).

As Job endures these calamities without reproaching Divine Providence, Satan solicits permission to afflict his person as well, and God says, "Behold he is in your hand, but don’t touch his life." Satan, therefore, smites him with dreadful boils, and Job, seated in ashes, scrapes his skin with broken pottery. His wife prompts him to "curse God, and die" but Job answers, "Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all of this, Job doesn't sin by cursing God.

In the meantime, only three of Job's friends come to visit him in his misfortune — Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite. A fourth, Elihu the Buzite, first begins talking in chapter 32 and bears a distinguished part in the dialogue; his arrival is not noted. The friends spend 7 days sitting on the ground with Job, without saying anything to him because they see that he is suffering and in much pain. Job at last breaks his silence and "curses the day he was born".


...now, go read the rest of the story!

Sorry, I don't get the connection to the topic we are discussing. We are discussing quantum mechanics not the Bible or even religion.

No you aren't going to tempt me to waste my time reading some silly story in some ancient manuscript to see if I can figure out the moral of the story or the point of your post. (I hate those kinds of stories anyway.)

If you have a point to make, just make it.

Jb...

I really do not want to go into the conversation any farther concerning the consistency between the two questions. If you think that they require two different answers, then that is your right to think so...

No rights...


No wrongs...


I simply see it differently, from my perspective...of course.


James...

It is quite obvious that there is a mis-communication between you and I, as you have so aptly pointed out. I care not to venture into the realm of why. I am just attempting to get back into the same paragraph, because the same page is not relatively close enough...



It is obvious to anyone who comprehends my words that I am a very analytical thinker. Admittedly, I type much slower than I think, and this can and has resulted in written expressions which span my thought process while consequentially leaving out the connecting dots. I sorta leave the logical train in the shadows, so to speak.

With all that in mind, after re-reading this thread's last several pages, I fail to find any substantiation in the conclusion that you arrived at.

Why would you think that I do not understand special relativity(time dilation)?

What does time dilation have to do with the theoretical concept of the curvature of space-time(gravity)?

Distance is still a product of speed and time, although it has been modified slightly, so perhaps I should say...


t' = t times the square of the difference between 1 and v squared.


An attempt to consider time dilation without taking into consideration the relative spatial distances is like attempting to make an egg sandwich without an egg.

It does not work.

I am going to humbly bow out of this conversation, as it seems to be a fruitless adventure at this point in time, relative to my own personal frame of reference.