The death of dimensional space

2014-02-20T09:57:00.001-08:00

Many modern investigators have grown up learning, and post graduating conveying that "space" is an entity in and of itself. The word "space" is so often 'overused' that it has become trite and trivialized. I will endeavor to create a formal usage of the word here to develop specific meanings. I will to warn the reader that my use of the word is not what they've grown used to and for that reason if I use the word 'space' it is likely in the traditional sense and if I am trying to convey my interpretation of that view I will use the term Space (S). "Space" then refers to the spatial components of the 'space-time' construct and "Space (S) is 'nothing'. There is a vast and profound distinction with ramifications that ultimately lead to The Elegance of Reason and the unification of physics, but you'll have to go read The Elegance of Reason for all of that. Here we are specifically concerned with the death of traditional notions of dimensional space and the development of the concepts associated with Space (S). For example. A few minutes ago I went to Wikipedia to look up the definition of the word geometry. Here's what I found there a few minutes ago:

"Geometry (Ancient Greek: γεωμετρία; geo- "earth", -metron "measurement") is a branch of mathematics concerned with questions of shape, size, relative position of figures, and the properties of space."

In order for 'space' to have properties it must be 'manifestly real'. Right? If it is in fact 'real' then it must be considered an entity in and of itself. Most theoretical physicists today concur with those statements. They believe that the Universe itself emerged from "quantum fluctuations in finite regions of space". Just for the sake of argument, let's presume they're all correct. I don't agree, but those points are discussed in articles augmenting The Elegance of Reason and not here. Stephen Hawking in his seminal 1975 paper on Black Holes pointed out that there are "coupling issues" relative to the dimensional nature of the space-time construct which nobody has reconciled and and will not reconcile until someone unifies physics. He's absolutely 100% correct in that point. Ironically, The Elegance of Reason does exactly that and it too reconciles every other issue as well, but again, none of that is why we are here. Here we are concerned not with the something's that are the Universe. Here we are concerned with the nothing that is Space (S) and why the modern concept of space not only is not, it can never, reconcile the requisite set of issues. And there is one very salient reason why that is true and it deals with where the geometric basis point is perceived to exist.

True as that may be however, there actually is a different way to ponder all of these issues and it is in the context of "Systems Engineering". Scientists have all sorts of theories all the time. It is in no short order part of the beauty of science. However, one the central tenants of science is there be a single 'most correct' theory. I need to parse the language fairly carefully here because I am separating The Emergence Model (as a model) from the theory postulating it. The Elegance of Reason and the blog that augments it holistically posit The Emergence Model and while that 'theory' is essentially a 'single theory', the "model" is highly pluralistic in its nature because it recognizes the vast permutations of configurations of most basic particles (MBPs) which are the 'somethings' on which the entirety of the Universe exists and only some tiny fraction of those configurations are within the threshold of perception due to their relative and respective architectures. On the blog augmenting The Elegance of Reason I wrote an article entitled "Systems Engineering in Physics" and it discusses concepts borrowed from the information technology industry. Chiefly notions of distinctions between logical systems and physical systems. And if you are not trained in Systems Engineering concepts it is almost certain you do not understand what I just said. There are issues with what constitutes logical and physical in the realm of IT based concepts. Because we are not here to discuss "what is", and we are here to "discuss isn't", we are not getting into those issues here. Those issues are discussed on the blog in articles augmenting The Elegance of Reason. Another concept borrowed from the IT industry is from the realm of the Internet infrastructure in the form of something called the "IP Translation Table". When you type in a human readable URL address all the computers involved in conducting the communications presenting that information on the proverbial glass of your computer's display screen have to figure out where exactly on the network that resource is. Central to performing that task is the "IP Translation Table". Basically it has a column for the human readable stuff and a column for the computer readable addresses and a row for all the resources the computer (server) being asked is aware of. If the resource is not in that table (e.g. on that server) the machine asks all the other servers it knows about if one of them knows about the requested resource. One of two things happens. Either you get the resource displayed (because someone did know where it was) or you get an error message. In the aforementioned article we describe application of translation tables in this context and an example might be the table below. It should be noted in this table here that there are two columns missing for brevity purposes. Model 2 is an Invariant mass model where the mass-energy formula is E0=mc2. Model 3 is an 'emulation mode' of model 4 that can behave as either models 1 or 2 depending on how one sets the values of the variables.

Paradigm	Space	Space (S)
Model	1	4
Mass	Variant	Invariant
Mass - Energy:	E = mc²	E₀ = S₀iℂ⁴_mc²
Age of the Universe	~13.7 Billion Years	Ancient. The actual age of the Universe is highly dependent on a comprehensive review and reconciliation of "z factor" data from many cosmological data sources. Here "z factors" are reassigned to reflect Rapidity and not expansion of "space-time". Early estimates range from 20+ Billion years to greater than 78 billion years to potentially completely unknowable. Ever.
Basis Constructs	Two dimensional branes coupled to lower dimensional constructs manifesting from the geometric basis point of "space-time"	Space (S) is nothing. All "somethings" in the Universe are configurations of MBPs.
Big Bang	Quantum Fluctuations in Finite Regions of Space.	Colliding tenth order architectures of mass with great rapidity exceeding Severance for the relative and respective configurations involved. Simplistically said: "singularities colliding with great rapidity".
Dark Energy	Theoretical "Energy" associated with "dark matter"	See "Energy" in this column below (e.g. Energy in Space (S))
Dark Matter	Form of matter which does not interact well with 'normal' matter and radiation	Dark Matter is simply configurations of MBPs which due to their relative and respective architectures do not interact with other permutations of configured MBPs. These interactions (or not) follow principles of Quantum & Systems Engineering long established.
Dimensions:	Five 0: Geometric basis point 1: Length 2: Width 3: Height 4: Time	None Space (S) is Dimensionless
Energy	Vibrations of space-time	Relative and respective interactions of mass whose intrinsic architectural nature results in the ability to do work.
Extent	Unknown. Said to be 'inflating' and 'expanding'.	Infinite, Pervasive, Isotropic, Homogenous
Force	Because the geometric basis point is by definition in and of "space" and that all manifestations of matter and radiation are said to be "manifolds of space-time", any given force must then be expressed as 'tensions between manifolds' existing "of folded space-time".	Force is the work instantiated by the action of mass (as defined by The Elegance of Reason) driven by energy resulting from the Fundamental Entanglement Function limited by Severance in an Event Frame.
Geometric Basis Point	In and of "space"	MBP or set of MBPs not "space" nor "Space (S)". "All geometric dimensions are measurements of MBPs not of 'space' nor of Space (S). MBPs have length, width, and height. MBPs being somewhat flexible possess the ability to act (e.g. move relative to their center of existence). Any MBP or set of MBPs may act as the geometric basis point of any Event Frame.
Inertial Frame	An inertial frame of reference (also inertial reference frame or inertial frame or Galilean reference frame or inertial space) is a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner. All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; an accelerometer moving with any of them would detect zero acceleration. The motion of a body can only be described relative to something else - other bodies, observers, or a set of space-time coordinates. These are called frames of reference. If the coordinates are chosen badly, the laws of motion may be more complex than necessary. For example, suppose a free body (one having no external forces on it) is at rest at some instant. In many coordinate systems, it would begin to move at the next instant, even though there are no forces on it. However, a frame of reference can always be chosen in which it remains stationary. Similarly, if space is not described uniformly or time independently, a coordinate system could describe the simple flight of a free body in space as a complicated zig-zag in its coordinate system. Indeed, an intuitive summary of inertial frames can be given as: In an inertial reference frame, the laws of mechanics take their simplest form.	The Event Frame, especially EFPS2, is inherently an inertial frame in the traditional sense of its usage. There is no aether and mass by definition here is a vector quantity. Space (S), then having no nature or character cannot influence any mass in any manner.
Inflationary Theory	Physical theory representing a model of our understanding of the Universe. The Universe is said to be based on "space-time" which is both "inflating" and "expanding".	Logical Theory. That is to say the description to the left is 'logically correct' based on the logic, paradigms and language of that model. It is however not the physical model of the Universe. The Emergence Model holds that the Universe is expanding but it is not inflating. After all, "nothing" can neither inflate, nor can it be 'warped' because it does not exist. All "existence" resides in the somethings (not the nothings) of the Universe which are configurations of MBPs.
Material of basis	"Fabric of space-time"	Space (S) is nothing. MBPs are the only material. There is no aether, luminiferous or otherwise.
Motion	Because everything in the Universe is a derivative construct of the "space-time" model, all objects in motion must, by definition, be coupled to this "aether" as well. Consequently all motion must be described in terms of and in context of the underlying aether that is the "space-time" construct.	Mass is a vector quantity.
Newton's Laws	The only way for Newton's Laws to be true is to systemically "decouple" objects in an "inertial frame" from an independent stationary geometric basis point in "space-time". Preferably this basis point would be located at the objects vector origin.	Newton's Laws are self-evidently true because space is nothing and all forces are the work instantiated by the action of mass in an Event Frame.
Origin	Big Bang	Space (S) is nothing. "Nothing" as a concept has no intrinsic character nor intrinsic nature, saving it being absent everything. It is the absence of all that is. It is not "in" anything. The somethings that "are", are not "in" it. They simply exist.
Reference Frame	"space-time" diagram	The Event Frame
Time	4th physical dimension	Action Displacement Index

The above items are not actually presented in an 'official' "translation table". An official table would need to be constructed in a formal manner by an international community and every paradigm noted would need to be assigned a unique ID such that it can be described with language consistently rationalizing it within each and every different model such that logic mathematics can be processed against that particular "cell in the table" according to effective scientific principles. The point of this article and the table above is simply to provide a basis for pondering, consideration and debate. The above list is neither exhaustive nor adherent to those principles. It is simply an example. Please don't read anything into it more than that. Having said that, we need to get back to the point of this article, but recognizing that for any given paradigm peripherally relevant to the concept of "space" actually has more than one way to think about it. We know that because we can clearly see the above table and hold it to be self-evident.

Are there a set of questions which inevitably lead to the conclusions requiring us to understand that the concept of "space" as presented by The Emergence Model (e.g. space is nothing) is not just the correct physical view but is the only physical view to the exclusion of every other interpretation? I think there is.

Q: If the Big Bang was initiated by "quantum fluctuations in finite regions of space", followed by rapid expansion of "space-time":

Q: Why do black holes demonstrate unbounded growth?

A (space): Stephen Hawking's answer to this is to deny the existence of Black Holes all together.
A (Space (S)): The aether of space-time does not exist. Space is nothing. All forces are a function of the relative and respective architecture of mass in an Event Frame. Structure equals property and properties infer intrinsic structure; perceivable or not. If a given structure manifesting a given property is destroyed due to being subjected to forces exceeding Severance so too do the properties that structure exhibited. Consequently (and due to Equation 104: Entanglement Function Density per Unit Area, page 415 in The Elegance of Reason). Point being that 'gravity' is not a point mass force, but instantiated by integration of the graviton structure relative to mass as a function of the Fundamental Entanglement Function limited by Severance within the sets of relative and respective architectures. If Equation 104 exceeds Severance along "event boundaries" descending into black holes higher order structures are dismantled and their constituents consumed by lower ordered but higher active structures below and because the singularity is growing as a result so too is Equation 104's "unit area" maintaining a given "saturation" and "density". Consequently, Black Holes - grow. And this is exactly what we find in nature.

Q: If the concept of time is in fact a constituent of a real entity called "space-time" and its intrinsic nature derived from an event called the Big Bang, how is it possible for fluctuations to have occurred absent time?

A (space): such "coupling issues" are currently unknown and unresolved to science. (e.g. they have no answer for this issue.)
A (Space (S)): There is no aether and consequently there is no 'coupling issue'. Time as a concept is not a spatial dimension; rather, it is an "action displacement index" and transpires with great rapidity giving the illusion of constancy. The Big Bang is not defined in that manner. The Big Bang resulted from two singularities colliding with Rapidity exceeding architectural Severance for the system resulting in disintegration down to basic MBP constituents. These MBPs reformed (e.g. re-entangled) following the Fundamental Entanglement Function limited by Severance, to form all the Universe we know. Supermassive singularities now departing the known Universe are examples of the process starting all over again in some other place. How many times this has already occurred... only Shiva knows for sure. It should be noted too that the MBPs we know today may not be the ultimate MBPs. Division of MBPs is a function of Severance for that system. Energies necessary to 'sever' MBPs we find in existence today may only be further subdivided by exceedingly high rapidities achievable in no other way than those experienced during the Big Bang as defined holistically herein and holistically by the set of materials associated with The Elegance of Reason.

Q: If the fabric of space-time is inflating and expanding as indicated by the Inflationary Theory how do we characterize the integrity of the model over cosmological time? What "tension" is set up at "maximum inflation", at "maximum expansion"? How do we distinguish "energy" from "space-time"? In this model "energy" is not nor can it be a derivative of "space-time" because of the definition of the Big Bang being "quantum fluctuations in finite regions of space" requires 'energy' to have existed prior to the creation of the construct of "space-time". And since these "quantum fluctuations in finite regions of space" had to have 'begun' before they banged, we must to ask where - exactly - was the geometric basis point for the construct about to bang?

A (space): Reconciliation of these issues has not been reconciled by current science to my knowledge.
A (Space (S)): The aether of "space-time" does not exist. Space is nothing and the Big Bang is not defined in this manner as we discussed and consequently - neither does this problem. Occam would be proud.

Q: If the Universe is in fact both "inflating" and "expanding" then the construct of "space-time" is fundamentally pervasive and contains everything in the Universe. That being said:

Q: At what point is the common geometric basis point systemically "decoupled" from any given "inertial frame"?
Q: While we might use the concept of the "inertial frame" as "a frame of reference" it is in fact more than that because in order to manifest the physicality of both "inflation" and "expansion" it must be a tangible and 'real' entity and we therefore are required to explain motion in the "fully coupled context" of the underlying aether of the construct.
Q: All motion, relativistic or otherwise, must be in the fully coupled context of the common geometric basis point of the underlying aether of the core construct. Decoupling it in any manner cannot be allowed. That being said, why then do orbiting bodies not twist the construct beyond recognition.
Q: If the mass of matter and radiation is a manifold manifestation of the space-time construct explain then why photons can traverse the known Universe without resistance, without tension, and without mass.
Q: If E=mc2, then why are photons said to not have mass given that same formula solved for mass? Then simultaneously explain why atoms gain that amount of mass after they absorb photons.
Q: If all matter and radiation are fundamental manifolds of the space-time construct what fundamental construct, process, or function is responsible for both what is labeled 'normal matter' and 'dark matter'?
Q: Given the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the various orbital factors of electrons about the nucleus of an atom why are the angles of refraction and reflection so predictable?
Q: If E=mc2 explain how this single formula accounts for energy differences due to temperature. Demonstrate using this formula why Newton's Laws and Thermodynamics of the intrinsic and underlying medium of the construct of "space-time" are true.

There are to be sure, other similar questions and indeed probably better questions which could be asked but these are a few that ultimately lead to the dismantling of dimensional space. Space (S), indeed space, is dimensionless. It has no basis for any dimensions because it is nothing and no "nothing does not exist, using the circular logic to claim it exists." Nothing is just that. Nothing is absent everything. It is not "empty" because that implies a container that does not exist. MBPs are not said to be "in" space. MBPs simply exist and the geometric basis point, indeed the dimensional aspects we normally attribute to space are with them not space. MBPs have dimensional existence. Space does not. Therein lay the chief and fundamental distinctions between the traditional model and The Emergence Model posited by The Elegance of Reason discussed on the blog that augments it and On The Nature of Space (S).

On The Nature of Space (S)
ISBN 9780977229284
00 version 15

SolREI Publishing
Boca Raton

#OnTheNatureOfSpace

On The Nature of Space (S) [the book]

2014-02-19T09:34:00.002-08:00

On The Nature of Space (S), explores the relationship between matter and the medium in which it sits. On the cover is a portion of the Hubble Deep Field Image circa 2004 depicting galaxies some 72+ billion lightyears distant.

ISBN13: 978-0977229284

ISBN: 0977229289

LCCN: 2009913606

In 1916 Albert Einstein stated that "curvature of spacetime is directly related to the four-momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present". It is impossible to discuss Space (S) in the absence of also discussing matter and radiation. This thesis sprang from a thought experiment that asked "How can 'nothing' be curved?" The answer On The Nature of Space (S), explores the is "nothing" cannot be curved because there are no intrinsic reference frames on which to attach geometry. Consequently the only intrinsic features of Space (S) are it's empty and inert. This requires manifestations of curvature to be directly attributed to the matter and radiation within the Universe and not to the medium of Space (S). Traditional observations of 'curvature' are treated as a logical system and a new system of topology describes the physical system. Obviously, the implications of this are profound. Fundamentally, this observation shifts attention away from the medium and onto the manifestations of matter and radiation. It connects physics and chemistry more tightly demanding that "structures equals properties" flowing the concept to an intrinsic level. It would demand a continuum of structure through matter that blends baryionic and dark matter in a manner never before considered. The blended mechanics of structure yields all of the particles and radiation found in nature as well as each of the fundamental forces. There is a potential for it to completely eliminate the notion of 'dark energy'. Faster than light speed is quantified. Implications to the age of the Universe & all we can ever see are profound. And include the reasons for the Big Bang event. This shift in thinking can indeed manifest itself intrinsically from the quantum world to that of cosmology and in so doing unify the fundamental forces of nature.

On The Nature of Space (S) is available now!

#OnTheNatureOfSpace