Is space matter?

PSI Blog 20090930 Is space matter?

Glenn --I recently looked again at your text in Vagabond and I remarked that I missed your important statement: "Space always contains “matter” and matter always contains “space.” Therefore we agree that space is matter."

When space is matter then any motion of matter would be within itself. Still the motion of matter requires dimension outside of matter. Doesn't it contradict the notion that space is matter and matter is space?

Sincerely, William


William:

Good question about an extremely difficult subject to grasp. I think the key to this is the fact that matter is an abstraction, just like “fruit” is an abstraction. In reality, there is no such thing as a “fruit,” there only are individual examples of fruit, such as apples and oranges. So the view that “space is matter” simply means that each xyz portion of space contains within it specific examples of matter, whether it be the nitrogen molecules of air, the ether particles of the intergalactic regions, or the stars of the Milky Way. Each of these “microcosms” must be in motion with respect to all other portions of the universe. There really is no “dimension outside matter”—just more matter. You might find it helpful to think of “empty space” as a scaled-down Milky Way. No matter how small the scale, there is always some matter (like the stars) separated by “empty space” (like the interstellar regions). This is the essence of the consupponible assumptions of INFINITY (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) and INTERCONNECTION (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). Thus we should never think of the universe as really containing solid matter or completely empty space. Those concepts are ideas; the reality always is something in between.

The shorthand notion of “space as matter” is based on the observation that no xyz portion of the universe is completely void of matter. We can’t produce a perfect vacuum and the 2.7^oK cosmic background radiation (CBR) tells us that even intergalactic space contains microcosms in motion (completely empty space would have a temperature of 0^oK). At the other end of the continuum, black holes, if they exist, could not contain “solid matter” without “empty space.”

The Impossibility of Time Travel

A discussion from a popular forum, “The Edge of Nowhere” (http://www.edgeofnowhere.cc/ ):

Nowherelander wrote:

Any scientist who believes that time travel to the past is feasible is a delusional Sci-fi fan that can't let go.

Anon wrote:

Time travel to the past (to a certain extent) is feasible. All it would require is an anchor to the point in the past where you want to go--meaning you have to have the technology to travel to the past before you can, erhm, travel to the past. And even then, you're limited to the point(s) where you've anchored. There was a Science Channel show about this a while ago.

My reply:

The scientific assumption of IRREVERSIBILITY (Borchardt, 2004) explains why time travel is impossible. One way to view it is this:

1. It is a fact that all the planets, stars, galaxies, etc. are in motion with respect to each other.
2. That makes the night sky unique. It is never the same even two seconds in a row.
3. "Going back in time" would entail moving all those heavenly bodies back to the positions they had on the night targeted for this fanciful adventure. Good luck with that.

Reference:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.

Anon wrote:

All the laws of science run forwards just as well as they do backwards. One might say the only reason we don't see things happening backwards in time is because our memories are being concomitantly erased.

My reply:

Reversibility is the indeterministic (non-scientific) opposite of the scientific assumption of IRREVERSIBILITY. Reversibility only looks at things in isolation. When the rest of the universe in taken into account, no reaction is actually reversible, for it occurs in a context that always is changing. This is one of the reasons that we never get the exact same experimental result twice in a row. When we look at all things as being interconnected, "reversibility" is then seen as an idealization that cannot happen in reality. For many reactions we may assume reversibility because the environmental influence is insignificant, but this definitely is not possible for so-called "time travel."

INFINITY

Dr. Borchardt:

As difficult as it is, I can try to imagine microcosmic infinity by visualizing sub-atomic particles being composed by as yet smaller particles ad infinitum (i.e., the incredible shrinking man would shrink forever).

What I am having difficulty with is the reverse. As objects get larger into the macrocosmic universe, it seems that there is a threshold or limit.

Protons are not the size of planets. And the largest single object appears to be on the order of a red giant.

Why is there no limit to how small objects can be, but seemingly limited to how large objects can be?

Does this have something to do with equilibrium?
It seems beyond coincidence that the threshold of size in our infinite universe makes it conducive for life.

Frederic Frees


Thanks for another great question—I don’t think that the macrocosmic has a threshold or limit anymore than the microcosmic. After all, there are identifiable galactic clusters as well, which one might “define” as yet another “microcosm.” The scale of each type of microcosm has limits. Atoms, like all microcosms, have diameters that vary from one to the other, but they are neither infinitely small or infinitely large. Below is a scanning tunneling microscopy photo of the tip of a tungsten needle that tapers down to the thickness of a single atom (Moh'd, R., Jason, P., and Robert, W., 2006). Note that no two atoms are identical and that some are blurry because they have moved during the 1-sec exposure time. As always, the “limits” akin to each microcosm are determined univironmentally--by the matter in motion within and without. So you are right that each microcosm reaches an “equilibrium” with its macrocosm. A tree, for instance, may reach a height as great as 379.1’, but it will never reach a height of one mile. Each univironmental relationship varies greatly, but does not vary outside the confines of what is physically possible for that particular univironment. Outside those confines, the matter that makes up a particular microcosm may coalesce or subdivide as it is transformed to yet another thing defined, once again, by the univironment in which it exists.

Life, like the tungsten atom, appears to form within a narrowly restricted niche involving an infinite number of parameters, each with enough variation to allow a wide enough range for its transient existence. Indeterminists often consider life to be “highly improbable,” or, if they are religious, a “miracle.” But remember, the infinite universe always has an infinite number of possibilities at the same time that it can have no impossibilities. What we think of as “coincidence” occurs when two or more microcosms come together, which is inevitable in an infinite universe. The infinite universe has no accidents. On the other hand, the infinite universe requires no superior intellect or guiding hand for any of this to happen. An infinite concatenation of cause and effect is all that is necessary.

Reference:

Moh'd, R., Jason, P., and Robert, W., 2006, Tungsten nanotip fabrication by spatially controlled field-assisted reaction with nitrogen: The Journal of Chemical Physics, v. 124, no. 20, p. 204716.

Does Energy Have Mass?

PSI Blog 20090909 Does Energy Have Mass?

Bill:

Glad you are enjoying www.scientificphilosophy.com and TTAOS (Borchardt, 2004). I hope you were able to see the media file (Borchardt, 2009a).

Your question was:

Re: E=MC², if I do the algebra and if c is constant, then c=(sqrt) E/M. Since M can't be 0 (as far as our physical universe is defined), then doesn't E have to have some mass, even if vanishingly small? If the above is true, then could the (even vanishingly small) amount of mass in all the electromagnetic radiation in all of the universe contribute a significant portion of the 'missing mass' problem in cosmology? This question also gets into the current 'solution' to the missing-mass problem that proposes the existence of dark matter. Seems to me that it's fundamentally based on a refusal to question the assumption whether Newton's Law is universal. It seems so much simpler to both me and Occam's razor to admit we may be ignorant about the cosmos and then look at Modified Newtonian Dynamics instead of hypothesizing a theoretical substance that we can't detect but that simply MUST exist so that Newton Law can remain valid. Anyway, just some thoughts for your consideration (or amusement :)


Another interesting question. It’s a logical solution for c that I don’t remember seeing before. You might want to review the chapter in TTAOS on INSEPARABILITY along with my abstract on “The Physical Meaning of E=mc²” (Borchardt, 2009b). I am writing the paper now, so your question is specially apropos. I included that section in the video conference, so maybe that will help. In brief, E has no mass, because it is a matter-motion term for an idea. Likewise, radiation has no mass, if one assumes, as I do, that radiation is the motion of matter. Thus, ether is the medium for the motion called light, just as air is the medium for the motion called sound. Few would think of sound as having mass, but, as you have picked up on, well studied modern physicists would be remiss if they did not consider light to be material (although a contradictory matterless particle, at that). Like most of us, you are playing with the cards that we have been dealt, so it is not surprising that we might think of “dark energy” as a “thing” having mass. The ether, like the air, indeed has mass (Borchardt, 2007, p. 203), and is an absolute necessity for Infinite Universe Theory. The Cosmic Background Radiation is evidence for the presence of the ether, which, like all matter, vibrates to produce temperature.

Remember that many of the paradoxes and many of the questions still being asked by Big Bangers and relativists are based on indeterministic assumptions. Once the correct assumptions are used, those disappear. I haven’t studied the “dark matter” problem well enough to make up my mind whether or not it is an artifact of the BBT. It could be that the mass of the forbidden ether is enough to satisfy some of the math once we assume that the universe is infinite and not expanding.

As Einstein admitted, Newton’s great work will remain so for all time. Newton’s error, similar to Einstein, was to assume finity. Your somewhat prescient call for a Modified Newtonian Dynamics was answered in the “Neomechanics” chapter of TSW (Borchardt, 2007, pp. 127-151). Instead of getting rid of the ether, however, it absolutely required it. So no luck with that for saving the BBT.

References:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.

Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.

Borchardt, Glenn, 2009a, The Ten Assumptions of Science: First Steps in the Overthrow of the Big Bang Theory (Part 1), Natural Philosophy Alliance Video Conference, Natural Philosophy Alliance ( http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=243 ).

Borchardt, Glenn, 2009b, The physical meaning of E=mc² [abs.], in 16th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, Natural Philosophy Alliance (http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=3002&tab=2 ).

Elderly Galaxy Disproves Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20090904 Elderly Galaxy Disproves Big Bang Theory

Contradictions of the Big Bang Theory gather steam with each new discovery. Recent work shows the existence of a 12.8-billion year old galaxy containing a “black hole”: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090904-most-distant-blackhole.html “Black holes” are the super-dense nuclei of galaxies, which, if they are like our Milky Way Galaxy, must be about 10 billion years old. Even the solar system took 4.6 billion years to form, but here we have an entire galaxy that supposedly formed in only 0.9 billion years after the universe supposedly exploded out of nothing (13.7 billion year-“age” of the universe-12.8 billion years). This data, instead, supports Infinite Universe Theory ( http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/IUT.pdf ), which claims that galaxies of all ages will be found at all distances from Earth. Now, I suppose the Big Bangers will have to cook up some cock-and-bull story about superfast evolution in the “first billion years” so they can keep their fairy tale alive. Thanks to Mike de Hilster who instantly recognized this for what it really was and kindly gave me a timely heads-up on it.