How exactly does space/time fabric work?
- Thread starter high|hgih
- Start date
Doer
Well-Known Member
So funny, Padawan-san. Has it been brought up? Very good, and let's do beat this one in, I agree. As Pad bring us back again, the reason we are here on this topic of Space Fabric, is because someone asked how it works. And magnification is the key.Has gravitational lensing been brought up yet?
How does Keynes explain that?
Clear evidence of space being warped by gravity.
Love those diagrams. It is what got me thinking, how can that be?? I thought about and discussed here, can this be a depression in another dimension? If space is warping, where is it warping to? It was Mr M, that reminded us that this possible compression instead of the press phrase, "fabric warp" is what the math predicts.
We could visualize in 3D, with color codes of gradient, we give that an excellent picture an upgrade. Just imagine the depression around the Earth is a clear sphere.
Then throw in the transparent, glowing, color gradients in a geodesic of smaller and smaller spheres, getting closer and closer and, say, light gold, to blue-green, at the surface. Now examine that in our minds and see that the Space Station, at it's speed, occupies an area of gradient...it's orbit.
And the moon, way out in the light gold gradients, is moving at the appropriate speed. All that math works and space never warped into some, perhaps orthogonal, (and unknown) direction. It is crushed outward slightly by the mass and that creates orbit zones from the center out. Our molten core is in a orbit gradient, at the appropriate speed, as well.
We, surface creatures, are fine in our blue-green gradients, here in the bio-sphere, luckily in the same gradients.
See, it is exactly the same as these pictures, but 3D.
So, Math made a model. The model is subject to experiments. The experiments validate this diagram. New thinking about gravity waves have lead to new experiments. A new diagram can be thought of, that is just an upgrade.
So, there is absolutely nothing to argue about, unless, as good Pad has said, there is an alternate explanation to Gravity Lens.
We truly do not know, exactly why the tide goes in and out.
In this model, it would simply be following the gradient as it's modified by the moon's gradients.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
thats the thing bro. mathematics IS jargon, its a means of communication between specialists in a field which seems vaguely familiar to those outside, but for those inside the meaning is completely different. when one physics nerd talks to another they understand each other's language, but conversely they would not be expected to understand the differences between a lifter pump and a compression pump in a fuel injection system, nor the subtle difference between discing a feild and harrowing a field. if i told you to meet me at my blind in the woods for some deer huntin and you went to my stand in the woods half a mile away i would not declare you an incompetent fool. even though any jackass knows the difference between a huntin blind and a huntin stand.
i would not expect a physician to be able to sharpen an axe with a fine bastard, nor would i presume my lawyer could gut and skin a deer without fucking it up.physicists however simplky presume that everybody can quote coulombs law, and understand it's ramifications, just like christians assume everybody reads the bible and gets the same meaning from it's text.
for YOU the idea of gravity distorting space and this distortion redirecting light may seem like the most obvious thing in the world but i still dont get it at all. not one bit.
i understand that if i roll a marble on a flat surface it goes straight, but if i roll that same marble on a curved surface it will follow the curve, but WHAT IS THE SURFACE THATS MOVING THE LIGHT OFF COURSE? something must be interacting with the photons to alter their course, yet if gravity aint doin it (and thats my best suspect since gravity has a proven track record of moving things of course) then what is the mechanism of the interaction between the presumed curvature of space and the light which does not otherwise seem disturbed by space?
also, i GET the concept of evolution in the broad strokes. critters with longer necks can feed on higher branches so longer necks give advantage, and eventaully you get giraffes... i see that. but gravity (with it's regular habit of moving things) is not responsible for the movement of light, instead gravity is changing space, and space (which does not seem to do anything usually) now moves the light off course because it's distorted... dude. even if i assume a photon has no mass, not a bit, absolute zero mass, and that gravity DOES in fact distort space, HOW does gravity distort space, and WHY does this distortion effect a photon's course. since photons have no charge it cant bee lectro-magnetic, since they have no mass, it therefore cant be gravitic, this therefore has removed as i understand it, bot the strong force, AND the weak force from the equation leaving what? a third force? or are electromagnetic forces and gravitic forces no longer the strong and weak forces of quantum mechanics?
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Doer
Well-Known Member
K, I like when you make sense. You have stated the problem. It is a matter of your beliefs. You are finally admitting that your world view does not jib with the experimental evidence. Good for you. But, you stray when you think this is a right-fight. You stray when you dismiss science as si-fi, mumble, fantasy and myth. Again, just a world view problem.
So, I for one, stipulate to all your analogy as patently un-useful. I so get what you mean, so, leave it all out. Just straight talk please.
Math is not "like" a box of chocolate. It is the Box. A container for ideas. Math is not jargon. Math is numbers. Numbers form patterns and things reduced to more and more simple number patterns, finally, can show some symmetry to the human mind, let's say it that way.
But, I see you are on the right track now, yet, defensive. You would not have been so had you not set out on this right-fight so long ago.
Can you not simply understand that there is no Theory of Gravity for just the reasons you say? But, please, again no more, with the analogy. We are not talking about rolling marbles on a surface, that was an old analogy. Nothing is interacting with the photon. It's path is modified, like a dirt bike track. A bigger hill, takes more dirt. The path of the bike is longer. It comes up higher and comes down longer on a bigger hill.
It the same with Black Holes. That, I see is another Red Herring for you. The old Press Release version has light being effected by Gravity. I understand. Don't fight us. This is from the Press, not Science. Actually, now the thinking is the light path is made more lengthy, in the super-super dense SPACE inside a BH, it never gets out. It goes down and around, and before it can make it back out it, the photon energy is absorb into maintaining the dense knot of space time that is forming the gravity in the first place. Another clue. There is no matter left in a black hole. Just a Knot of pure Gravity source.
And Pad's picture is not completely correct, but needs an upgrade. The light that we thought was simply refracted is not. It is curved. So that sharp angle and only 2 ray paths is not incorrect. It is a magnifying sphere of PERHAPS crushed space itself.
No, K, don't go wild with this. We can calculate the value of distortion. It amounts to, get this, less than 1/10 of the width of a Helium atom. That is what the gravity wave experiment is looking for. I'm not sure they have the sensitivity, yet.
So, we don't know. That is why it is frustrating with you. First, you act like you know and we don't. Then you challenge it all very oddly. And now finally you understand it is a world view problem, that's all. We are all waiting, now with you, for more experiments.
Yet, you want to run ahead. You want the final answer. You phoned friends and we are saying wait with us, brother. We too would like to know WHY. So, I welcome your last paragraph. It shows you are doing some thinking and not just arguing from a weak position.
So, K might now ask, if crushed space slows down light (in relativity, of course) by making it take a longer path, then what would space look like if it was crushed enough to stop light all together?
Space would then look like Matter. So, there is a very simple Key here somewhere. Space and Matter could be the same thing. And that is why they are so easily compared with E = M c2 Why is it Squared? Leads me to think Space Density is a 4th root of Light Speed. I somehow am intuitively skipping the Cube Root. But, that's how math works. Definitions for intuition to work against.
We are hot on the trail, but no final answer, just the Current Understanding.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
wait wait wait...
are you suggesting that space under gravity's influence is not bending or distorting, but concentrating?
just like soup on the boil, as i pass my spoon through it with a force of X it moves through the soup at a set constant speed, but as the soup gets thicker the force of my spoon remains constant, and the spoon moves through a constant amount of soup, yet merely seems to be moving more slowly because the soup is more concentrated, and thus the same amount of soup fits in the smaller area of my spoon's course of travel?
sorry for the analogy bro, but soup is relevant to my interests.
are you suggesting that space under gravity's influence is not bending or distorting, but concentrating?
just like soup on the boil, as i pass my spoon through it with a force of X it moves through the soup at a set constant speed, but as the soup gets thicker the force of my spoon remains constant, and the spoon moves through a constant amount of soup, yet merely seems to be moving more slowly because the soup is more concentrated, and thus the same amount of soup fits in the smaller area of my spoon's course of travel?
sorry for the analogy bro, but soup is relevant to my interests.
Doer
Well-Known Member
No, I like soup and cake....
You are getting there. But, to propose condensation is broad thinking, indeed. I'll ponder that. But, it may be too complicated.
How about this? Liquid jello is Space. Mass is a point source of Cold. But, the "cold" doesn't spread very far. If it did, the entire jello would freeze and we would have no Space (liquid Jello) at all, right?
So, the bigger the mass the most Jelling is happening. It fades from very firm Jell near the Cold (ie gravity source) to liquid Jello in a cube root gradient.
So, is the Jello condensed? Was there material evaporated, like soup? No. It became more firm around the Cold Source (our mass analogy), formed a transparent Sphere of various density and can now magnify light, btw. Try it at home with a super cooled marble in almost jelled Jello. That is your analog. See?
So, WHY, HOW, etc, does Space get more Dense around Matter? That's a good question. A Nobel Prize awaits.
You are getting there. But, to propose condensation is broad thinking, indeed. I'll ponder that. But, it may be too complicated.
How about this? Liquid jello is Space. Mass is a point source of Cold. But, the "cold" doesn't spread very far. If it did, the entire jello would freeze and we would have no Space (liquid Jello) at all, right?
So, the bigger the mass the most Jelling is happening. It fades from very firm Jell near the Cold (ie gravity source) to liquid Jello in a cube root gradient.
So, is the Jello condensed? Was there material evaporated, like soup? No. It became more firm around the Cold Source (our mass analogy), formed a transparent Sphere of various density and can now magnify light, btw. Try it at home with a super cooled marble in almost jelled Jello. That is your analog. See?
So, WHY, HOW, etc, does Space get more Dense around Matter? That's a good question. A Nobel Prize awaits.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
well since BHO got a nobel prize for getting elected, should i not receive one for my soup analogy? and you for your jello?No, I like soup and cake....
You are getting there. But, to propose condensation is broad thinking, indeed. I'll ponder that. But, it may be too complicated.
How about this? Liquid jello is Space. Mass is a point source of Cold. But, the "cold" doesn't spread very far. If it did, the entire jello would freeze and we would have no Space (liquid Jello) at all, right?
So, the bigger the mass the most Jelling is happening. It fades from very firm Jell near the Cold (ie gravity source) to liquid Jello in a cube root gradient.
So, is the Jello condensed? Was there material evaporated, like soup? No. It became more firm around the Cold Source (our mass analogy), formed a transparent Sphere of various density and can now magnify light, btw. Try it at home with a super cooled marble in almost jelled Jello. That is your analog. See?
So, WHY, HOW, etc, does Space get more Dense around Matter? That's a good question. A Nobel Prize awaits.
You get a nobel prize! You get a nobel prize! You get a nobel prize! You get a nobel prize! and You get a nobel prize! EVERYBODY GETS A NOBEL PRIZE!! Look under your seats everybody!! NOBEL PRIZES FOR EVERYONE!!!!
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
what? i cant even make an Oprah joke now? dude. thats fucked up.
they give out nobel prizes for chanting "Hope and Change" so yeah. your jello and my soup both had more substance than previous winners.
personally i dont feel bad that i cant do THAT math. seems like nobody else can either.
also, whats with the name calling? i dont call you names for not being able to break through the defensive line on a handoff, or plow a straight furrow under donkey power. my skills tend to be less math oriented, but math wont help you run a clean bead with oxy/acetylene or keep your combine out of the irrigation ditch.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Troll Hole! LOL...
Doer
Well-Known Member
Well, that's right. There are may of these "Prizes" and some don't seem so Nobel, considering the recipients. But, remember what the first Prize was named...for the inventor of Dynamite. So, I ignore the drift into foo-foo and reserve the term Nobel Prize for the Hard Sciences.
The Peace Prize to me is more like a Dog Bone. Here, let's throw this. Good boy. Speak?
Making Jokes? Look in the mirror? If you work in the trades, as I have you would know that without the mathematical design and pre-setting everything mathematically, on a Combine or whatever, you would not be able to drive the equipment into the ditch in the first place. I have done farming, welding and rougher trades.
The blue collars certainly don't cotton to the bull you call joking. The answer is mostly likely to take a swing at you, as you say you should know.
You can fix your Math Envy.
fb360
Active Member
That's because the math is a constant work in progress, and even Einsteins equations are just approximate in terms of us, and him, not having a full understanding of gravity, physics, or the universe. Everything we do is theory, no better. The smartest individuals in the world will be the first to tell you that, until you understand that you don't know basically anything for certain, you cannot possibly come to have great knowledge.
Math is a language that was created by HUMANS. It is not some mystical, godlike writing, that explains the universe and everything in it, in entirety... Rather, it is a numerical language (numerical is key, because it goes beyond the spoken language barrier, thus is equally distributed to all) that tells of how we observe our world. I like to ask many novice math heads, "Why did we define the circle as 360degrees? Why not 400 to make things easy?". People who know nothing about math will blabber "because sin, cosine and tangent define it so", or "because a right angle is 90 degrees". However, both entities are arbitrary values that are calculated based upon 360 degrees = a circle... To get to my point, THERE IS NO ONE REASON. It was arbitrarily chosen by a Human, and forever kept as such. A great example of how this language isn't "perfect", and was indeed created and added upon by Humans.
This forum has responses that are like 50 lines long; can't focus enough to read all that shit. So if I said anything that was already said, my bad
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"Everything we do is theory" - indeed, everything that is done is theory.
Math is a tool that is universal. If humanity ended, and some other intelligent species rose to prominence, mathematics would still persist. I can't remember the quote exactly, or even who said it (if you can, please link it!), but a great mind once said something along the lines of; If your religion was wiped off the face of the planet, it would never be recovered exactly as it exists today, but if science were wiped off the face of the planet, the next intelligent enough species would develop it EXACTLY as it is today. Science is eternal, regardless of the intelligence that discovers it. There is no rebuttal for this statement.
Science is eternal.
To me, there is no greater accomplishment. To me, it tells me we've succeeded. We've reached a level of capability to be proud of. The next level is the abandonment of silly religious traditions. Perhaps then, we can finally accept fate and what it means to truly exist.
fb360
Active Member
See, my first post is telling to your post.
Mathematics WOULD NOT EXIST as they are today, if another species were to start over.
Math is a language created by humans, to be understood and expanded upon by humans. If that other species is slightly more intelligent that us, they may create their "own form of math" which describes the universe numerically..
What if the universe is better understood in another language, another sensory, and not numerically? We don't know, our species is relatively primitive (only existing for such a short period of time, on an astronomical scale).
It is a great concept to project that "understanding the universe", what we call mathematics, would be equivalent with another life form. The facts are, that is just not true.
We have much to learn
e;
besides that though, I agree with you. Science is our most valuable "commodity".
Doer
Well-Known Member
That is so true it actually hurts.
All Si-Fi has us believe that math is a universal language. But, look how long it took us to get a Zero in there.
Math, to alien beings, might be that Unity or lack of, is a stupid concept for some reason. Or that counting "items" at all, is not within their concept. Maybe they see double, never Unity. Maybe they don't know or care about Primes.
Maybe there is no "they." Similarly. We listen in the Hydrogen bands for Radio signals. Perhaps these "beings" decided long ago that was stupid. Maybe they fell backwards into sub-space communication like we did for fire. We just found it. Maybe they have sub-space tree. Maybe they don't "talk" or do math.
Maybe we should not want then to find us as an important source of protein.
Old Albert said something like, perhaps the Universe is more strange than we CAN comprehend.
All Si-Fi has us believe that math is a universal language. But, look how long it took us to get a Zero in there.
Math, to alien beings, might be that Unity or lack of, is a stupid concept for some reason. Or that counting "items" at all, is not within their concept. Maybe they see double, never Unity. Maybe they don't know or care about Primes.
Maybe there is no "they." Similarly. We listen in the Hydrogen bands for Radio signals. Perhaps these "beings" decided long ago that was stupid. Maybe they fell backwards into sub-space communication like we did for fire. We just found it. Maybe they have sub-space tree. Maybe they don't "talk" or do math.
Maybe we should not want then to find us as an important source of protein.
Old Albert said something like, perhaps the Universe is more strange than we CAN comprehend.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Mathematics would exist. They would have different symbols for the numbers, but all the relationships would be the exact same. All geometric relationships would hold true. Everything in nature that can be broken down to fundamental units would still function as predicted by math regardless of the nomenclature.
Doer
Well-Known Member
No no, as fb360 said, and, I agree, math is based solely on Human perception. We can far less propose or expect our math from aliens than, say, for Hawks that perhaps can see Ulta-violet in binocular vision. Or whale math could be pod count based and depends on the numbers present to count a baby as 1 or -1, for a top of the head example.
We cannot even say if human math is the very most primitive way of looking at the Universe. Perhaps causality itself is a mere human concept.
So, even if you think our math would hold up anywhere in the Universe, for us, I don't even see evidence for that. We are possibly experiencing only local conditions of fundamental forces. These conditions may only make the Universe appear to us as it does, right now.
Quantum math is not the same as Newtonian, is just a minor example. Just because we prove our math to ourselves, that is only meaningful to us, right?
We cannot even say if human math is the very most primitive way of looking at the Universe. Perhaps causality itself is a mere human concept.
So, even if you think our math would hold up anywhere in the Universe, for us, I don't even see evidence for that. We are possibly experiencing only local conditions of fundamental forces. These conditions may only make the Universe appear to us as it does, right now.
Quantum math is not the same as Newtonian, is just a minor example. Just because we prove our math to ourselves, that is only meaningful to us, right?
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
The 'alphabet' might change but mathematics will work no matter where you are in the universe. Whether you write 10+10=20 or X+X=XX, the concept of twenty doesn't change. Pi is 3.1415926... regardless of how you measure it. All ratios from e to the Pythagorean to that of mass and gravitation, will be the same whether you use numbers to describe them or harmonics of various lengths of vibrating strings. The laws of probability do not change depending on where you are. The only question is how they will be represented, what number-base and symbols used are inconsequential.
fb360
Active Member
Mathematics can most simply be comprehended as a numerical language that explains how we observe ourselves, the world we live in, and what we like to call the universe.
So to get straight to the point, I agree that another intelligent species, much like us, would have a universal language that they use to describe themselves, their surroundings, and their universe. I also agree, that relationships, ratios, and fundamental entities (the 4 dimensions we describe things with), would all still hold and exist. However, the key point is: would their language of understanding the universe, indeed be a numerical language, or even remotely resemble ours?
What if their senses are different than ours? What if they are extremely more capable in terms of brain computing power? What if they don't have any senses to observe their environment, and can only speculate and understand the universe through "dreaming" or thought? If another species perception of the universe is different than ours, it is probable that their language of understanding is also different than ours.
I think we tend to believe that other intelligent life forms will be much like humans (physical entities made up of energy. Oxygen breathing, CO2 respirating, endothermic beings), when the probability of that is near 0. Shit, just look at physical life before humans; none of Earth's creature even remotely resembled a human, and this is just one planet. I tend to believe that other intelligent life forms will also come in the form of energy, but not be coupled with a physical structure.
A thought to keep in mind:
Humans can only see 3.5x10[SUP]-26[/SUP] % of the light spectrum. What else could be out there
