What is Space?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

   A Brief Exposé of our Neglected Stepchild in Physics

          By: David Cox

Space, that place where everything exists and moves within. Space is empty. Space is not entirely empty. Space, it seems to be expanding. Space, it’s a place that can be distorted and curved. Space, it has at least three dimensions but some theories endow it with 11, and even 25 dimensions have been speculated.

Space seems to have almost as many definitions as Time, which is a travesty indeed. Time however is one of our favorite children; we give it a lot of attention and so called “detailed” definition. Space on the other hand has several “vague” definitions and receives our abuse instead of love. Space is never the center of attention like energy/mass, time and the fundamental forces. It’s always the supporting actor, seldom the star. Space; what exactly is it?

One of the few moments of the universe in which space has a starring role is close to the “beginning”. The Big bang model generally alludes to a theory posited by Alan Guth called the Inflationary Period. Due to issues regarding Homogeneity, the theory states that space experienced a brief and sudden period of inflation shortly after the “beginning”. When we step away from the mathematical model and conceptualize this proposed event we basically define space at that point in the same manner in which we do now. It is required for “things” to participate in, and the more space that is available, the larger the participants can be. Furthermore, with more space, things can be farther apart, which allows multiple distinct things to form instead of possibly one, or a very few. Historically the basic concept of space is this; when space exists, there can be more of it. When there is more of it, there can be more and larger things in it and the things can be farther apart. Exactly “what” makes space exists we don’t know. Exactly “what” makes more space we can only speculate with our mathematical models.

Although we’re not generally aware of it, our definition of space is one of the few definitions that continues basically unchanged throughout every aspect of human cognition. Wherever you happen to be reading this paper you can glance away and notice things occupying the space around you. If it is dark you can glance at the sky and notice things occupying space. Relative to our current understanding the integrity of the “shape” which things exhibit is due to the fundamental forces, including Gravity. This understanding further tells us that the relationship between these distinct things in space is mainly the result of Gravity. If it were not for this relationship the things in space would not be predictable (no stable relationships) which negates beings like us ever coming into existence. Because all things are in motion, this stable relationship “holds” things together in space. Notice at this point that we are still carrying the same definition for space. We have only added the fundamental forces which govern the relationships of things in space.

The models of Special and General Relativity changed this definition somewhat. It states that space is distorted or curved by the presence of matter. This is the first point along our definition of space that it becomes interactive with the things in it. However the details of this interaction are not explained. There is however, a very good explanation of how we can make and subsequently interpret measurements regarding this interaction. In the General Relativity model this explanation is in the form of spacetime. This is a mathematical construct facilitated by the Lorentz Transformations which as we know provides accurate measurements of physical phenomena. However we must remember that it is only a framework for measurement. It is not an explanation of the interaction between space and the things in it. In other words it doesn’t explain “how” things can distort space only that it does. It doesn’t explain the particular properties of space that allow it to be distorted. In order to explain “how” this happens we first have to know the exact “properties” of space itself. 

The Special Relativity model has its framework for measurement known as Minkowski Space. The conceptual components responsible for this framework are Time Dilation and Length Contraction. As with General Relativity these explanations posit a relationship between space and things where space is malleable but does not explain “how” the interaction takes place.

Quantum models explain the things in space in much more detail which even reduce to the point of minute quantum fluctuations. This explains that space is not empty. However these fluctuations are still “in” space. There is still no complete explanation of the interaction between things and space.

Like a golf game the same definitions of space are still playing through. Although the Relativity models describe a “geometrically” distorted and curved space; things are still active “in” space; the details of the interaction are not described.  The mathematics of Relativity, although robust, are actually very simple and work very well. It is when we consider the conceptual implications that we become confused. The mathematical model in General Relativity uses a four vector function which cements a relationship between space and time. There is one value for time and one for each of the three dimensions of space. This relationship defines the space component throughout the equations. As you will notice, even mathematically, space is still something that things occupy. It is not something that things interact ‘with”, it’s only the stage for things to play in and can change shape due to the things.

General Relativity gets us much closer to understanding space than the Newtonian model did. At least with Relativity there is some interaction between things and space. The next model must explain “how” this interaction takes place. The only way we can explain how this interaction takes place is by defining the properties of space itself.

In my new model, Composite Relativity, due to be published mid to late 2010 I explain exactly that, the properties of space itself. As it turns out, space is not a three dimensional stage for things to play in but rather a “thing” itself. It’s more accurate to apply the three dimensions to the things rather than space. The transparency of space is misleading regarding its interaction with other things. Its detect ability through measurement is something we partially already do, and is closely related to what we now interpret as gravity.

The interpretation of gravity in the Newtonian models was reversed but the mathematics worked and still do because they are non-directional. Relativity more or less gets the order corrected and institutes an interaction between things and space but still doesn’t have gravity correctly defined. This is almost entirely due to not defining “how” the interaction between things and space take place. A portion of the conflict between current Relativity and Quantum models is a result of the “lazy” space component in them. We are trying to make energy/mass and the fundamental forces do more than they actually do which has created a few partially false relationships. When we let space do its share of the work the actual relationships become very clear and concise.

There is a small problem regarding how Relativity treats the Time component but by equating Time with energy in certain ways, the mathematics compensate where the conceptual model doesn’t. The Quantum models do not treat the Time component in the same manner as the Relativity model. This results in the incorrect treatment of Time being a contributing factor. See my paper, The End of Time, at www.compositerelativity.weebly.com for more on the Time component.

In the end, it is not as much an incorrect definition of space but rather a lack thereof that is the main problem. Composite Relativity moves space from the neglected stepchild to a dominant component in the universe. There is a large measure of vindication for space. As it turns out, it’s not so much what things do to space, but rather what space does to things. However at the end of the day it all boils down to interactions, relationships and describing how and why they happen.

One of the most pleasing aspects, at least to me, of the definition of space in Composite Relativity is it’s easily conceptualized. It is “patternistic” in a layered context. Let me explain with a general example. All matter evolves (is constructed) through the compilation of parts and pieces. The “policemen” that “direct” these parts and pieces to their “destinations” are the fundamental forces. As we observe this process we extract certain laws from it which are simply patterns and processes that never change. In order for humans to participate in the universe above an animal instinctive level we must understand the world around us. We understand the world around us through conceptual models. These are built by observing the behavior of things and discovering there are patterns evident in the behavior of all natural phenomena. At this point our conceptual model “matches” the real world. We then use these patterns to “capture” the “policemen”; the fundamental forces responsible for producing the patterns. Once captured, we “force” them to give us information regarding things we can’t easily see. We don’t easily see the very small or the very large but by constructing more powerful “eyes” we can “see” at those levels and what we see is a layered continuation where the laws still apply. We don’t easily see the atomic world or the universe at its largest scale but we can still conceptualize them because they are participants in the overall layered context. The reason we can still conceptualize the entire picture is because the pathways from one end to the other is unbroken; we can “walk” the entire stretch without encountering a chasm that breaks the continuity.

The current Relativity and Quantum models introduce a chasm into our conceptual pathway. When we encounter a chasm we turn to the policemen for instructions as to bridging the chasm. When the policemen who have led us so competently for so long can’t help us we turn elsewhere for guidance. Up until we reached the chasm we could easily “see” (conceptualize) everything along with the policeman and our mathematics but when the policemen fail us we are led from that point by the mathematics alone. Our conceptual “eyes” are taken from us and we must trust the mathematics completely for our guidance.

When observations seem to agree with the mathematics we no longer know “why” simply because we are blind; we can’t build a conceptual model. This is very dangerous territory we are crossing and we must always question the mathematics that are leading us. In the past we often assumed that operational mathematics “must” be “integrational” with, and completely match the real world it is modeling. However we have known for sometime that is not the case; we “can” construct operational mathematical models that do not match the real world it is attempting to model.

As scientists, or anyone for that matter, we are “constrained” to not abandon the policeman too soon. The policemen control the laws but do not give us a constituency list. They can point to “unseen” constituents or become agitated at ill defined ones but it is up to us to “see” and correctly define them.

Composite Relativity as any scientist would expect is not a replacement of General relativity but rather a refinement. It removes the chasm “mirage” and allows us to continue our march with eyes wide open and keep a tight leash on our mathematics. It does not guarantee that we won’t eventually encounter another chasm nor is there written anywhere that we must be able to conceptualize everything. However with the lessons learned from this experience at a chasm it’s likely the next obstacle will be a wall/barrier through which a participant in this system cannot enter. In regards to humans not having the capacity to conceptualize our entire system there is one inescapable fact; we are not only participants within the system we are products of the system. It is likely we will always be able to conceptualize our system of the universe.

The bottom line with Composite Relativity is that it works and works very well. Of course it’s easy to see in retrospect but it was the haste in which we were attempting to answer certain questions that left space and time ill defined in Special and General Relativity. The growing awareness that motion was relative was something the aether based models couldn’t define. The seeming constancy of the speed of light coupled with it not submitting to composition of velocities had to be defined. Einstein answered these questions and others leading to the satellite models of Quantum Theory. The “visual” mind experiments (conceptual models) Einstein used and described to us are more or less correct. It’s the description of each constituent within those visual models that comes up short. Composite Relativity makes “small” corrections that at the end of the day make a large difference and it is the definition of space that is mostly responsible.           

Note to Physicists: The compilation of testing data from all perspectives is time consuming but will hopefully stay on schedule.

As you would expect the model is much more concise than the current models, a prime example of Occum’s Razor at work. As always, we are constrained to defer to the most concise model available that precisely agrees with observation and makes accurate predictions.

    Respectfully, David Cox