The Universe as a Hologram (my interpretation)

[exchemist]

Right, like teleportation. I know...

No, like “pure velocity” is meaningless.

Do you think you can have “pure velocity”, then? What would that mean, without some object whose velocity you were describing?

 

[cyberdyno]

Energy is not stuff.

You take a point in empty space and stretch it apart and you get space tension, or energy, at the same time you are creating a spacetime bubble. It's as simple as that.

 

[DaveC426913]

You take a point in empty space and stretch it apart and you get space tension, or energy, at the same time you are creating a spacetime bubble. It's as simple as that.

Are you writing a science-fiction fantasy story? This should be moved to the appropriate subforum.

 

[cyberdyno]

Entangled particles only seem to be instantaneous, the information transfer is just too fast to measure.

Spooky Action at a Distance?

Not Really. Bodies in space never acted on each other from a distance, as Newton argued while explaining gravity: there is no action at a distance because there are no distances to be covered. The aether is one and everywhere, it has no moving parts, motion is not necessary. This is why state can be instantaneously registered throughout material systems. Which means that there are no faster than light (FTL) information transfers, just changes in state (where stress-energy tensors and lines of force can be affected), at the aether level.

If the aether is an all-pervading substance, why would it need a property like motion? Motion and time are for objects, for parts which follow a time-line in spacetime. It is an error to think in terms of spatial extension when trying to understand what is going on at the aether scale. The aether is everywhere, it is the set of all sets. It is the circle Zeno, Bruno, St. Augustine, Pascal, and Borges among others, once talked about; a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere. The aether is not dependent on geometry, but helps determine the geometry of spacetime. It is a plenum, a matrix... the origin.

 

[cyberdyno]

Are you writing a science-fiction fantasy story?

No, it's all natural philosophy, which is the basis of your physics.

Philosophers survey the ground a good physicists use to build their structures.

 

[exchemist]

You take a point in empty space and stretch it apart and you get space tension, or energy, at the same time you are creating a spacetime bubble. It's as simple as that.

Energy of what?

And how do you "stretch apart" a location in space, with nothing there?

This is just a new kind of quantum/relativity woo, isn't it?

 

[DaveC426913]

No, it's all natural philosophy, which is the basis of your physics.

Philosophers survey the ground a good physicists use to build their structures.

No it isn't.

And there's no theory here. Certainly no math. It's not even speculation. It falls under word salad.

You're just making it up:

You take a point in empty space and stretch it apart and you get space tension, or energy, at the same time you are creating a spacetime bubble. It's as simple as that.

 

[TheVat]

Existence starts with the field

The field is a mathematical description of a fundamental force. It's a way to quantify it at every point in space.

Empty space which is not really empty but full of pure energy.

Energy is the capacity to do work or bring about change in a system. It is a scalar quantity, meaning it only has magnitude. Nothing can be "full of" it. Change in a system happens due to force carriers (bosons). The scalar that is energy is a property of those systems as they are mediated by the bosons. Sunlight hits the brick wall. That's photons, force carriers, not "pure energy." Energy is about an interaction where a force from the sun acts on atoms in the wall which in turn act on temperature receptors in my skin or an adjacent thermometer. Or cats, of course. Energy is an abstract quantifying of what's going on when force carriers mediate between one sort of motion (hydrogen nuclei fusing, say, and another (faster jiggling of atoms and electrons jumping up orbitals and then back down in a brick). It's the vector stuff that makes everything happen, i.e. forces. Scalars like energy just say what is the magnitude of the change going on.

 

[cyberdyno]

I didn't learn it, despite studying quite a bit of physics. I hope you can teach me more about it.

Since the speed of light, hence the propagation speed of fields, must remain constant for all the other fundamental constants to continue to be proportionally the same, mass has to increase in order to keep up, but to a limit; once we go over the speed limit and fields can no longer keep up, matter disintegrates. When we reach the speed of light, wavelength and frequency drop to zero, waves become flat, devoid of any information, and we are back to being immaterial empty space.

Because energy is finite and the speed of light needs to be kept constant for fields to work in the allowable speed range (0 to 300,000 km/s), there is time dilation and space contraction for material systems moving at relativistic speeds.

The speed of light sets the scales. For fields to continue to work regardless of spacetime conditions, there must be time and spatial distortions between the observer and the observed when moving at relativistic speeds. Because a field's speed must not change regardless of relative motion, and because energy is finite, for reality to work, all parameters must be adjusted around the speed of light. This is how and why we get time dilation and length contraction.

 

[cyberdyno]

Energy is the capacity to do work or bring about change in a system.

According to Einstein, energy IS space in motion.

 

[exchemist]

According to Einstein, energy IS space in motion.

What ballocks.

 

[cyberdyno]

Which leading cosmologists? Can you name, say, three of them who hold this view, and point me towards their writings or a summary of their views?

"Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?" (Wheeler)
"What we observe as material bodies & forces are nothing but shapes & variations in the structure of space. Subject & object are one." (Schrodinger)
"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time, space & gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Einstein)
"If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration." (Tesla)

Space Aether Ether, Physics: On Absolute Space (Aether Ether) and its Properties as a Wave Medium

www.spaceandmotion.com

 

[DaveC426913]

...once we go over the speed limit and fields can no longer keep up, matter disintegrates. When we reach the speed of light, wavelength and frequency drop to zero, waves become flat, devoid of any information, and we are back to being immaterial empty space.

This is all wildly untrue. I will wager you've made it up yourself, since there's no way any physicist would write any of this.

"once we go over the speed limit and fields can no longer keep up" False.
"matter disintegrates." False.
"When we reach the speed of light" Does not happen.
"wavelength and frequency drop to zero" They do not.
"waves become flat" False.
"devoid of any information" False.
"and we are back to being immaterial empty space." False.

Your ideas are founded on a gross misunderstanding of the relevant science. Don't you think it's important to know what you're talking about before trying to develop ideas about it?

 

[James R]

Surely it’s in Canada, isn’t it? Or are there two organisations with the same name?

Oops! My brain melted. I think I read .ca at the end of the web address as California rather than Canada, and then connected that with (too-)vague prior knowledge of what - and where - the Institute is.

It's in Ontario. Which, last time I checked, was in a "Western" nation.

 

[James R]

cyberdyno:

The aether, as described over four thousand years ago, is materially non-dimensional.

Is that the aether you believe in?

I have asked you three or four times now to define the aether that you think is real. Each time, your replies don't even seem to acknowledge the question.

In fact, I have asked you a number of specific questions relating to particular statements you have made, and you have answered almost none of them.

What's the problem?

Motion is not one of the aether's properties, neither is time, nor change. This makes it immutable, or eternal. Since it lacks the property of motion and cannot be described as containing parts that follow a time-line, we can conclude that it is not matter. At the sub-quantum level, the level at which energy is before it turns into multiple entities, motion loses meaning. Any material substance will occupy space, but this physical non-material substance does not. It becomes matter as fields vibrate, or pulsate at very high speeds. Creating material properties like volume, extension, motion, time, mass, gravitation and solidity, eventually causing the formation of objects in spacetime. Once we have the limits, the boundaries, we can talk about notions like size, extension, motion, time, and process.

You keep adding more claims, or repeating earlier ones, with ever trying to justify your position, even in response to direct requests.

Why is that?

The aether gives the universe properties like wholeness, interconnectedness, continuity, and non-locality.

How? Explain.

There are no parts when you refer to the aether, but you can look at electric and magnetic fields as different things, or parts of a greater whole. All made from the same continuous and non-fragmentable aether. Everything is connected to the aether because everything is made from it. This is where wave-particle complementarity comes from.

Your aether seems to be everything and nothing, all at once. It seems very vague, as a hypothesis and it seems to lack predictive power.

Can any of this be tested?

Contemporary Quantum Field Theory supports the idea that the ontology is in the process which matter undergoes as it fluctuates in and out of nothingness.

The ontology? Please explain.

Are you talking about physics or philosophy, now?

According to Louis de Broglie, et al., every object exists as a body coupled to a matter wave, or pilot wave, and its displacement through space can be described by a wave-function. Information about the object's relation to its surroundings and the rest of the universe is picked and brought in by each object's particular pilot wave.

Are you sure that was de Broglie? Sounds more like Bohm to me.

Bodies in motion need to continuously reset their energy requirements.

Why does a body in motion have energy requirements? What kind of energy are you talking about?

Cloud-like standing waves which require a continuous energy flow from the substrate to the particle.

What?

Can you please give me a specific example of a cloud-like standing wave providing continuous energy flow to the substrate of a particle? (What substrate?)

This is why position and momentum cannot be known at the same time. This is where the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle comes from.

It's not where Heisenberg said it comes from.

Matter is continuously changing, becoming. What was a second ago is no longer, and the only things real or meaningful to us are the information and processes through which things become and now are. But the immutable, the eternal, the real, is the empty space in which the universe sits. Matter and fields are little more than apparitions, active information, as David Bohm called it. Basil Hiley, one of David Bohm's collaborators, is correct when he says that being is a relative invariant in the overall process of becoming. The fundamental laws, that which remains unchanged, is what is real.

Are you a Bohmian mysticist, then?

Can you be without materially existing?

Doesn't "being" logically require "existing"? What does "materially" add to that?

Logic tells us that creation ex nihilo is physically impossible.

No it doesn't. Logic by itself has nothing to say about that.

You could perhaps attempt to make a logical argument, with some premises that lead to the conclusion. But you haven't made one yet.

Existing is not the same as being, you can be without existing, but you cannot exist without being.

Can you please give specific examples of (a) something that is, without existing; and (b) something that exists without being?

Is empty space real? Can we prove it? Can we measure it? Can we mathematically describe the rotation or acceleration of an object in empty space without assuming empty space to be real? I mean, if you were the only particle in space, how could you tell when spinning or accelerating? Is the only time we can have space, rotation, and acceleration when we have more than one object to consider?

Are those meant to be rhetorical questions, or are they things you'd like to discuss? Please let me know.

Empty space may be empirically untenable, but it is already considered as real by present theory.

Er... okay. But "empty space" is just a space that doesn't have things in it. Present theory considers space to be real. I'll grant you that.

Which is why we have spacetime metrics.

We have spacetime metrics to describe spacetime in the theories that use spacetime metrics.

The aether is not in spacetime, spacetime is in the aether.

I have already asked, but I'll ask again. Is the aether you think is real the same aether as Einstein's? Or are there differences? What are the differences between your aether and Einstein's?

Empty space and spacetime are not the same thing.

That's obvious. "Space" is "Spacetime" minus "time".

Einstein's spacetime is material, empty space is not.

Didn't Einstein explicitly say that his spacetime is not material? See the quote that exchemist posted above, for example.

Are you following the discussion?

There can be no space without time nor motion, this is why Einstein called it spacetime.

Er... okay, I suppose. But Einstein's focus was not on "motion", there.

As Einstein once said: if we had no time (process), everything would have to happen at once. That is why Einstein described reality as a spacetime continuum where he saw process as the weaver of the fabric of space, a fabric made from space and time. Reality is process... spacetime is process.

I don't think Einstein said any of that. Do you have a reference?

Time, space, and matter start with the quantum, and quanta can exist only when in motion.

Who said quanta can only exist when in motion? Is that your own idea?

Field motion, or energy, turns into matter.

Impossible. Energy isn't a substance that can turn into something else.

I don't know what "field motion" is.

If we could stop the motion, matter would go back to being just empty space.

Why?

Outside of time, quantum events are not possible.

Why not?

There is time and space because there is motion, and there is motion because there is energy.

That sounds completely backwards to me, in every respect. Putting the cart before the horse.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

The aether itself does not move, matter does, the quantum does.

Does your aether have a preferred frame of reference in which it is absolutely stationary, then?

That is the kind of aether that the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes.

As Einstein used to say: energy is space in motion.

Please provide a reference for this common (?) quote from Einstein.

In this sense, aether is synonymous to energy, it is pure energy.

So aether is just a number, then, like energy?

In this view, the aether is the substrate to all matter, including Wheeler's Quantum Foam.

That sounds very different from a number.

It is before geometry.

Geometry is an abstract field of mathematics. What are you talking about?

Everything depends on this substrate, this is where the laws of gravity and electromagnetism are administered from.

Administered? What do you mean?

Electromagnetic fields should not appear as ultimate, irreducible realities.

If you say so.

Does your aether appear as ultimate, irreducible reality? Should it?

Existence starts with the field, and before that there is what we call empty space, or aether, which is neither big, nor small: extension is not one of its properties. Spacetime and geometrization happen after the aether. The aether, unlike spacetime, is primary. Matter, space, and time are not. Empty space which is not really empty but full of pure energy. Energy which exists before EMR, and therefore is neither hot, nor bright.

You're rambling.

Is there a point to any of this? Are you going to make an argument for any of this, later? Or do you just want to spread the word about your private beliefs?

 

[exchemist]

cyberdyno:

Is that the aether you believe in?

I have asked you three or four times now to define the aether that you think is real. Each time, your replies don't even seem to acknowledge the question.

In fact, I have asked you a number of specific questions relating to particular statements you have made, and you have answered almost none of them.

What's the problem?

You keep adding more claims, or repeating earlier ones, with ever trying to justify your position, even in response to direct requests.

Why is that?

How? Explain.

Your aether seems to be everything and nothing, all at once. It seems very vague, as a hypothesis and it seems to lack predictive power.

Can any of this be tested?

The ontology? Please explain.

Are you talking about physics or philosophy, now?

Are you sure that was de Broglie? Sounds more like Bohm to me.

Why does a body in motion have energy requirements? What kind of energy are you talking about?

What?

Can you please give me a specific example of a cloud-like standing wave providing continuous energy flow to the substrate of a particle? (What substrate?)

It's not where Heisenberg said it comes from.

Are you a Bohmian mysticist, then?

Doesn't "being" logically require "existing"? What does "materially" add to that?

No it doesn't. Logic by itself has nothing to say about that.

You could perhaps attempt to make a logical argument, with some premises that lead to the conclusion. But you haven't made one yet.

Can you please give specific examples of (a) something that is, without existing; and (b) something that exists without being?

Are those meant to be rhetorical questions, or are they things you'd like to discuss? Please let me know.

Er... okay. But "empty space" is just a space that doesn't have things in it. Present theory considers space to be real. I'll grant you that.

We have spacetime metrics to describe spacetime in the theories that use spacetime metrics.

I have already asked, but I'll ask again. Is the aether you think is real the same aether as Einstein's? Or are there differences? What are the differences between your aether and Einstein's?

That's obvious. "Space" is "Spacetime" minus "time".

Didn't Einstein explicitly say that his spacetime is not material? See the quote that exchemist posted above, for example.

Are you following the discussion?

Er... okay, I suppose. But Einstein's focus was not on "motion", there.

I don't think Einstein said any of that. Do you have a reference?

Who said quanta can only exist when in motion? Is that your own idea?

Impossible. Energy isn't a substance that can turn into something else.

I don't know what "field motion" is.

Why?

Why not?

That sounds completely backwards to me, in every respect. Putting the cart before the horse.

Just on the "ontology" point, this may be referencing ideas such as Rovelli's relational interpretation of QM according to which, as it is only during interactions that the properties of a QM entity become manifest, one thus need not assume a continuous physical existence of them in between interactions. (Though something continues, obviously, described mathematically by the wave function, until the next interaction.)

It looks to me as if cyberdyno may have read a fair bit, but without understanding enough science to ground his ideas and thereby prevent him building a castle of quantum/relativity woo in the air.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Spooky Action at a Distance?

Not Really. Bodies in space never acted on each other from a distance, as Newton argued while explaining gravity: there is no action at a distance because there are no distances to be covered. The aether is one and everywhere, it has no moving parts, motion is not necessary. This is why state can be instantaneously registered throughout material systems. Which means that there are no faster than light (FTL) information transfers, just changes in state (where stress-energy tensors and lines of force can be affected), at the aether level.

If the aether is an all-pervading substance, why would it need a property like motion? Motion and time are for objects, for parts which follow a time-line in spacetime. It is an error to think in terms of spatial extension when trying to understand what is going on at the aether scale. The aether is everywhere, it is the set of all sets. It is the circle Zeno, Bruno, St. Augustine, Pascal, and Borges among others, once talked about; a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere. The aether is not dependent on geometry, but helps determine the geometry of spacetime. It is a plenum, a matrix... the origin.

It doesn't matter how you consider the information transfer is accomplished, It is still not instantaneous.