Science is Clueless About Space-Time

[PhoenixRising]

http://www.space.com/17399-gamma-ray-photons-quantum-spacetime.html

Another example of how scientists know next to nothing about the nature of space-time.

 

[s0cratus]

‘ A world without masses, without electrons, without an
electromagnetic field is an empty world. Such an empty
world is flat. But if masses appear, if charged particles
appear, if an electromagnetic field appears then our world
becomes curved. Its geometry is Riemannian, that is,
non- Euclidian.’

/ Book ‘Albert Einstein’ The page 116 . by Leopold Infeld. /
===.

1.
Universe as a whole without masses, without electrons,
without an electromagnetic field is an empty world.
Such an empty world is flat ( infinite flat ).
2.
But if masses appear, if charged particles appear,
if an electromagnetic field appears ( in local places )
then our world becomes curved ( in local places stars
and planets were created ).
From outside point of view it is local Riemannian geometry,
non- Euclidian geometry.
==..

 

[Architect]

http://www.space.com/17399-gamma-ray-photons-quantum-spacetime.html

Another example of how scientists know next to nothing about the nature of space-time.

Please don't make dramatic statements when they aren't true.

We DO know a lot about space time. The biggest problem in modern physics is reconciling QM with GR, Planck length quantum foam is part of that effort - like many things in science we may discard or refine the idea, but that certainly doesn't obviate our extensive knowledge about space time. All of the experimental evidence, such as gravitational lensing, black holes, structure of the universe, cosmology doesn't disappear in a puff of smoke.

If this little experiment proves that QF doesn't exist (probably unlikely), then it will need to explain the Casimir effect.

 

[s0cratus]

Universe as a whole is infinite flat.
Gravity laws are local laws.
=.
What is our intellect ?
We can see this practically :
after “ big bang “ all Galaxies run away from us.
=.

 

[Etheri]

Please don't make dramatic statements

This.

In light of 'the truth', we will always know 'nothing'.

 

[s0cratus]

This.

In light of 'the truth', we will always know 'nothing'.

Have Three Little Photons Broken Theoretical Physics?
http://www.space.com/17399-gamma-ray-photons-quantum-spacetime.html
==.

Even one single photon can broken the opinion of modern theoretical physics.
=.
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
/ Einstein /
In light of ' the quantum of light ', we will always know the truth.
Socratus

 

[PhoenixRising]

Please don't make dramatic statements when they aren't true.

We DO know a lot about space time. The biggest problem in modern physics is reconciling QM with GR, Planck length quantum foam is part of that effort - like many things in science we may discard or refine the idea, but that certainly doesn't obviate our extensive knowledge about space time. All of the experimental evidence, such as gravitational lensing, black holes, structure of the universe, cosmology doesn't disappear in a puff of smoke.

If this little experiment proves that QF doesn't exist (probably unlikely), then it will need to explain the Casimir effect.

My point isn't that we are completely unaware of the existence of space-time. It's that we have no idea what space-time is. I have my own theories, as do many others, but no one can say with complete certainty that time is "_____" or space is "_____".

It is likely that space is the volume of the universe, and time is the movement of the universe outward as it expands. But then where does Einstein's theory of general relativity come in? Space-time is supposed to be a substance, a thing, but there is no observation that makes this a fact.

This experiment with the three photons points to the truth about space-time. Scientists interpret it as meaning space-time is smooth. However it could also be that space-time as a substance isn't really there, like the aether imagined in medieval times. I have never seen an experiment that indicated that there is a substance between objects in space. Einstein was a genius, but his pre-quantum approximation of the cause of gravity is a bit archaic at this time.

Theories are supposed to evolve over time. It's unfortunate that most scientists are unwilling to let go of the idea of space-time as a literal "sheet". As it has always been, new ideas are being presented every day, but the preconceptions of the many slow down scientific progress.

 

[Architect]

My point isn't that we are completely unaware of the existence of space-time. It's that we have no idea what space-time is. I have my own theories, as do many others, but no one can say with complete certainty that time is "_____" or space is "_____".

Ah, but see you are asking the wrong question. Science doesn't answer the 'what' questions, in the sense you mean. 'What' is space? What do you mean by 'what'? You see? That kind of question isn't quantifiable, it's subjective. "Space-time is a kind of jello pudding that deforms". What does "kind of a jello pudding" mean? Can we all verify that it is a kind of jello pudding? How about that bloke who says it's more like treacle?

Science just answers the questions like "how fast does a rock fall in the Earths gravitational field?" That is a question that can be tested, verified and communicated precisely. You want to know "what IS the gravity field?" Science says "it is the force that accelerates mass". You say "well then what IS force?" And we would go on and on, and ultimately end up no where.

I suggestion trying over in the philosophy department, but I think you won't get many more calories from that exercise.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Ah, but see you are asking the wrong question. Science doesn't answer the 'what' questions, in the sense you mean. 'What' is space? What do you mean by 'what'? You see? That kind of question isn't quantifiable, it's subjective. "Space-time is a kind of jello pudding that deforms". What does "kind of a jello pudding" mean? Can we all verify that it is a kind of jello pudding? How about that bloke who says it's more like treacle?

Science just answers the questions like "how fast does a rock fall in the Earths gravitational field?" That is a question that can be tested, verified and communicated precisely. You want to know "what IS the gravity field?" Science says "it is the force that accelerates mass". You say "well then what IS force?" And we would go on and on, and ultimately end up no where.

I suggestion trying over in the philosophy department, but I think you won't get many more calories from that exercise.

Science answers the "what" as well, we just don't have the technology or the sense to physically test space-time and understand what it's made out of. Or if it's even there in the first place, for that matter.

We know what matter is made out of, we can test the exact composition of quarks, leptons and bosons in a particle with the LHC. Before colliders and sophisticated sensors we had theories, but we didn't really know what things were made of with certainty. We know what light is made of, photons, little packets of energy that follow the uncertainty principle and so are both particle and wave. We know the exact chemical composition of sea water, the atmosphere, the rocks in the earth, and the different systems in our bodies.

Science answers the "what", but only when it is capable of observing the composition of the thing that is being studied. Philosophy can apply to things in the mind, like human thought and emotion, but real things that actually exist in this universe, such things should stay in the realm of science.

 

[redbaron]

My point isn't that we are completely unaware of the existence of space-time. It's that we have no idea what space-time is.

If that's your point, the title of the thread could have been worded better.

It's more than a little bit melodramatic at the moment.

 

[Architect]

Science answers the "what" as well, we just don't have the technology or the sense to physically test space-time and understand what it's made out of. Or if it's even there in the first place, for that matter.

We know what matter is made out of, we can test the exact composition of quarks, leptons and bosons in a particle with the LHC. Before colliders and sophisticated sensors we had theories, but we didn't really know what things were made of with certainty. We know what light is made of, photons, little packets of energy that follow the uncertainty principle and so are both particle and wave. We know the exact chemical composition of sea water, the atmosphere, the rocks in the earth, and the different systems in our bodies.

Warning, you're talking to an ex particle physicist. First, LHC doesn't test the composition of most of the things you mention - I'll highlight leptons which are fundamental. That's why it's call the "large HADRON collider". Colliders are designed as specific 'microscopes' which can look at a class of phenomenon.

In any regards, I don't know what you are saying other than it sounds like pea soup. You are saying we know what quarks are, but we don't know what space-time is, but that isn't true. We know how quarks act, just as we know how space-time acts. It binds planets together, it is a mental representation of a gravitational field, which we can observe. Just as we can observe the strong force.

Look, general relativity (GR) is one of our most verified theories. The next better verified theory (to the highest precision) is QCD (has to do with quantum mechanics). You're getting slippery around the words you are using, but to say that we know GR/space time less than we know (say) the strong force simply isn't true.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Warning, you're talking to an ex particle physicist. First, LHC doesn't test the composition of most of the things you mention - I'll highlight leptons which are fundamental. That's why it's call the "large HADRON collider". Colliders are designed as specific 'microscopes' which can look at a class of phenomenon.

In any regards, I don't know what you are saying other than it sounds like pea soup. You are saying we know what quarks are, but we don't know what space-time is, but that isn't true. We know how quarks act, just as we know how space-time acts. It binds planets together, it is a mental representation of a gravitational field, which we can observe. Just as we can observe the strong force.

Look, general relativity (GR) is one of our most verified theories. The next better verified theory (to the highest precision) is QCD (has to do with quantum mechanics). You're getting slippery around the words you are using, but to say that we know GR/space time less than we know (say) the strong force simply isn't true.

Oh really, how delightful I do love talking to people who have worked in the field. You must have some interesting stories to tell about the theories and experiments you worked with. I'd be all ears if you were interested in sharing.

Well, all I know is I've seen studies from the LHC that documented the contents of a proton (2 up quarks, 1 down quark). It detailed neutrons as well I believe. I didn't say that the LHC probed the contents of leptons, that would be redundant being that leptons don't have a complex structure like atomic nuclei.

If we know what space-time is as well as we know what a hadron is, then what is it? Is it made out of particles? Is it an M-brane? Is it a field? If you are saying space is synonymous with gravity, then why say there is space? Aren't gravitons supposed to be the mediators of gravity? Then in that line of thought, wouldn't space be a field of graviton particles?

General Relativity may be one of the most verified theories, but that doesn't mean in a thousand years from now it's still going to hold up. A thousand years from now, the Quantum Foam theory is probably going to be thought of in the same way we regard the theory that the earth was flat. We know next to nothing. Yes, we know how to make a laser or a light bulb, but we don't understand what the universe is, how it got here, why it's expanding, what time is, if time travel is possible, how life started, what consciousness is, etc. We seem to know something about the little questions, but not much at all about the big ones. So really what I'm saying is that it's funny how scientists act like they have the answers to everything, when in fact they don't. I also think that the scientific community should reassess its fixation on a few very far-out ideas; such as the multiverse theory. It just seems like people are making things up anymore.

 

[PhoenixRising]

If that's your point, the title of the thread could have been worded better.

It's more than a little bit melodramatic at the moment.

eh, whatever. The title got you to look at the post didn't it? lol

 

[Architect]

You must have some interesting stories to tell about the theories and experiments you worked with.

Not really, for the most part actually doing science is fairly boring.

If we know what space-time is as well as we know what a hadron is, then what is it?

Again we get to the question of what “is” is. You have to be more precise about your terms before we could have a discussion about this. In actuality what I would say, considering general relativity and quantum mechanics, is that general relativity is the “better understood” theory. It's clean, comprehensive and beautiful. Particle physics is messy, ugly and barely seems to hold together in most places.

General Relativity may be one of the most verified theories, but that doesn't mean in a thousand years from now it's still going to hold up.

Of course.

We seem to be discussing is that you have a subjective feeling that general relativity is less comprehensive than quantum mechanics. Most physicists would probably argue the opposite.

 

[Irukanji]

There is no space-time, there is no magic clock keeping time to make sure everything happens at the right time. Before humans invented the stick in the sand to measure time, they just went off cycles.

The same way the universe does it, and animals, bacteria, human bodily functions, regulation of neurotransmitters, the frequency of the electricity flowing into your computer, etc.

Once you remove time as a physical constant(and lets face it, people experience different speeds of time, for instance during a dmt trip, or when they are in a life or death situation). Maybe we need to give the scientists more drugs?

 

[redbaron]

There is no space-time, there is no magic clock keeping time to make sure everything happens at the right time. Before humans invented the stick in the sand to measure time, they just went off cycles.

The same way the universe does it, and animals, bacteria, human bodily functions, regulation of neurotransmitters, the frequency of the electricity flowing into your computer, etc.

Once you remove time as a physical constant(and lets face it, people experience different speeds of time, for instance during a dmt trip, or when they are in a life or death situation). Maybe we need to give the scientists more drugs?

I think you're confusing 'spacetime' with time.

 

[Irukanji]

I think you're confusing 'spacetime' with time.

Space + time = spacetime, no?

 

[PhoenixRising]

There is no space-time, there is no magic clock keeping time to make sure everything happens at the right time. Before humans invented the stick in the sand to measure time, they just went off cycles.

The same way the universe does it, and animals, bacteria, human bodily functions, regulation of neurotransmitters, the frequency of the electricity flowing into your computer, etc.

Once you remove time as a physical constant(and lets face it, people experience different speeds of time, for instance during a dmt trip, or when they are in a life or death situation). Maybe we need to give the scientists more drugs?

Well the way I see it there is this thing called a universe. It's expanding a a very rapid rate. The distance between things is what we humans like to call "space". As it expands, things change, the changing of things in increments is what we call "time". Therefore you have space-time, two observations of one thing.

And yes, we should give scientists drugs. Why do you think Carl Sagan was so awesome?