One would think that some as simple as that would be easy to define.

However history has shown that it is not the case.

For example Parmenides argued that “nothing” cannot exist because to speak of a thing, one has to speak of a thing that exists. Therefore nothing (or empty space) cannot exist because one cannot speak of it.
While Aristotle countered the logical problem posed by Parmenides by distinguishing things that are matter and things that are space.  In this scenario, space is not “nothing”, but a receptacle in which objects of matter can be placed.  Therefore the void (as “nothing”) is different from space and is removed from consideration.

However understanding the difference between space and “the void” or nothing not only had relevance to the Greek philosophers but also to modern scientists because the science of “nothing” is an integral part of modern theories of our universe.

For example both Einstein’s General and Special Theories of Relativity define existence in terms of a space-time geometry.  However it only defines the forces it encompasses and not what they were acting on or the material aspects of their environment.  In other words it defines them in terms of existence of “nothing”.

Granted it is possible in the abstract mathematical world of Einstein’s theories to fully define an environment in terms of nothing, as he seems to have done however we do not live in that world we live in the real world in which forces can only act on physical objects.

One could also consider the other bed rock of modern science or quantum mechanics as being based on the existence of nothing because it defines a reality in which particles do not exist until an observation is made.  In other words it assumes they materialize out of nothing at a specific point in space.

However if one assumes that forces are the result of an interaction between space and time as Einstein did then one also must assume that space cannot be made up of nothing because if it was one would have to also assume that forces are also made up of nothing.  Therefore they could not exist because as Parmenides point out “nothing” cannot exist.

The fact that Einstein was aware of this was made evident in the speech “Aether and the theory of Relativity” he made on May 5th 1920 at the University of Leyden Germany where he indicated “The General Theory of Relativity predicts, that “space is endowed with physical qualities” “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists something he called Aether.  According to the General Theory of Relativity space without it is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time, nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.”

Yet it is difficult to form a clear picture of how the something that makes up space or the “ponderable media” Einstein mention above can interact with time because as was shown in the article “Defining what time is” Sept. 20, 2007 time is not perceived by most as matter or a “ponderable media” as Einstein called it but only as an irreversible physical, chemical, and biological change in physical space.  Therefore it is difficult to understand how these abstract properties could interact with space to create the physicality of the world we live in.

However Einstein gave us the ability to solve this dilemma and develop more direct understanding of how and why space and time can interact with when he used the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of matter in a space-time universe.  This is because that provided a method of converting a unit of time associated with energy in a space-time dimension to unit of space in four *spatial* dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

This makes it possible as was shown in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 to derive all forms of energy and forces, including gravitational in terms of a physical displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension

In other words one can use Einsteinâ€s theory to redefine forces and how they interact to create our world based exclusively on the physicality most associate with space instead of non-physical properties of time.

For example, we know from observations water in a dam exerts a force on its walls which is stationary with respect to time.  Therefore it cannot be logically explained in terms of Einstein’s space-time environment because the water is not moving thought time yet it still generates force.

However this problem is irreverent if one views all forces including those that do not vary with time, such as forces created by water in a dam as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 in terms of the physical separation of a three-dimensional volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension because it shows how they can interact with geometric property of space to create them

Yet this still does not tell us what the “nothing” Aristotle told us that the objects of matter can be placed in is made of.

Einstein gave us a clue when he showed that there exists a dynamic balance between energy, mass and the surface of three-dimensional space similar to the balance that exists between the air in a balloon and its surface.

For example when the air pressure in a balloon is reduced by cooling and becomes more concentrated the magnitude of the curvature in its surface increases while heating it causes it to expand resulting in decreasing its curvature.

Similarly Einstein theories tell us if one views them in terms of their spatial instead of their time properties as was done “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 when energy is concentrated in the form of mass, the energy pressure on the “surface” of three-dimensional space is reduced thereby increasing magnitude of its curvature and the strength of the gravitational field associated with it while decreasing the mass in a given volume of space by converting it to energy causes space to expand thereby decreasing its curvature and the gravitational field associated with that volume.

In other words Aristotle would say the receptacle or space which matter objects such as all of the particles known to science occupy is made up geometric properties of space which is supported by a dynamic balance between mass and energy.

Some may disagree by claiming that all of a particle’s energy/mass is concentrated in its volume and that the intervening space contains nothing.

However observations suggest otherwise.

For example we know that gravitational and electrical energy permeate space therefore we cannot say that it is empty because it does contain energy which according to Einstein also has the properties of mass or the substance he referred to in his speech mentioned earlier.

However this means that space is not composed of nothing as many of the proponents of Einstein theories believe but is made up of energy/mass.

Yet If one accepts the Aristotelian perspective that space is not nothing and the logic of the arguments presented above then Einstein does not leave us much choice but to assume “the void” or the space between particles is made up of energy/mass which would according to his theories posses gravitation potential.

In other words the Aristotelian philosophy that space is not “nothing”, but a receptacle in which objects of matter (or energy) can be placed provides a basis for assuming that a portion of the gravitational potential associated with Dark matter may not be due to the existence of particles but due to the existence of space itself.

However Aristotelian belief that the “nothing” many call space is something also provides the conceptual foundation for the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass and how particles can appear out of nothing as is assumed by many of its proponents.

For example one can by extrapolating the laws governing resonance in a three-dimensional environment, as was done in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 to the physicality of Aristotelian space can explain why particles seem to appear out of nothing.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial can only occur if there is mass to oscillate.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the “something”of space to oscillate spatially with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established space.

Therefore, these oscillations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment.

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

These resonant systems formed in a by space are responsible for the discrete quantized energy associated with the quantum mechanical systems.

In other words particles do not appear out of nothing but do as was shown above appear as out of the energy/mass of space or as Aristotle’s may have said the thing that is space.

This shows why Aristotle’s realization that there are “things that are matter and things that are space” opens the door to a possible explanation for some of the greatest mysteries of modern science such as the origin of Dark Matter and how particles can seemly appear out of empty space.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015

The post An Aristotelian perspective on Dark Matter and Quantum Mechanics appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

He then compared his result with the mass evaluated from the light the galaxies shed. He realized that there was way more matter in the cluster than what was visible or baryonic matter. This matter of an unknown type generated a gravitational field without emitting light; hence its name, dark matter.

Further observations suggest the baryonic or visible forms of matter in the universe only comprise approximately 5 to 10% of the mass required to account for the total gravitational energy in the universe.

The search for this missing mass has focus on three different types of particles or objects that would be invisible or would not interact with electromagnetic energy while at the same-time influenced by the gravity forces of the visible mass component our universe.
The first or Axions are very light particles with a specific type of self-interaction that makes them a suitable CDM candidate.  Axions have the theoretical advantage that their existence solves the Strong CP problem in QCD, but have not been detected.

The second or MACHOs or Massive Compact Halo Objects are large, condensed objects such as black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, very faint stars, or non-luminous objects like planets. The search for these consists of using gravitational lensing to see the effect of these objects on background galaxies. Most experts believe that the constraints from those searches rule out MACHOs as a viable dark matter candidate.

Finally WIMPs or Dark matter which is composed of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. There is no currently known particle with the required properties, but many extensions of the standard model of particle physics predict such particles. The search for WIMPs involves attempts at direct detection by highly sensitive detectors, as well as attempts at production by particle accelerators. WIMPs are generally regarded as the most promising dark matter candidates. The DAMA/NaI experiment and its successor DAMA/LIBRA have claimed to directly detect dark matter particles passing through the Earth, but many scientists remain skeptical, as null results from similar experiments seem incompatible with the DAMA results.

However Einstein suggested another possibility in the speech “Aether and the theory of Relativity” he made on May 5th 1920 at the University of Leyden Germany where he indicated that The General Theory of Relativity predicts, that “space is endowed with physical qualities”

“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists Aether. According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time, nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts, which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

However Einstein only endowed space with the field properties of a space-time dimension and not the physical qualities of mass.  Therefore if one accepts the validity of his theory the physical properties he was referring to must be a result of those field properties not those of mass in its particle form.  This suggests the missing mass found by Fritz Zwicky may be related to those field properties not those most associate with the mass of objects or particles.

Yet it is difficult to form a clear picture of how a field consisting of space-time can have the physical properties of Dark Matter because as was shown in the article “Defining what time is” Sept. 20, 2007 time is not perceived by most as matter or space but as an irreversible physical, chemical, and biological change in physical space.  Therefore it is difficult to understand how the physical properties Einstein associated with space or Dark Matter can interact with the non physical properties of a time or a space-time dimension to create a gravitational field.

But Einstein gave us the ability to solve this and develop more direct understand how and why the field properties of space-time can be responsible for Dark Matter when he used the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of mass in a space-time universe.  This is because that provided a method of converting a unit of time associated with energy in a space-time dimension to unit of space associated with mass in four *spatial* dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

This tells us that one can use Einstein’s theory to define gravitational potential in terms of the continuous field properties of four *spatial* dimensions which means if one is to accept his theory one must also assume that space contains a continuous field of mass.

However this contradicts the current world view shared by most physicists and cosmologists that mass only exists in its particle or quantized form.  This is true even though observations tell a different story.

For example Louis de Broglie was the first to predict space is made up of the field properties of mass when he theorized that all particles have a wave component.  His theories were confirmed by the discovery of electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer.

In other words the mass we associate with the particles must be composed of the oscillation in the field properties of space because that is the only thing that could be responsible for their wave components.  Therefore those fields must also have the properties associated with mass.

If this is true why then do we only observe its particle properties?

One can understand why by extrapolating the laws of governing resonance in a three-dimensional environment, as was done in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 to the field properties of the wave Davisson and Germer observed particle to be composed of to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give the continuous field properties of mass the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold to oscillate spatially with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established space.

Therefore, these oscillations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment. 

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

Hence, these resonant systems in the field properties of space would be responsible for it particles properties.

Yet one can also define its boundary conditions in terms of the classical laws space and time.

For example in classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface.  However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space. 

Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of the field properties of mass with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the spatial boundaries associated with a particle in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“

However there are at least two reasons why we are unable to directly observe the field properties of the mass component of space. The first is because all observations require an exchange of energy between what is being observed and the observer.  However the most effective and efficient way for nature to transfer information to our instruments is, as was shown in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“ in a resonate system made up of the field properties of mass.  Therefore in all measurements the particle properties associated with its resonant system will always be predominant over its field ones.

This is why as mentioned earlier its field properties are only observable in terms of the interference of the wave properties particles as was demonstrated by the discovery of electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer.

The second is that to measure a quantity there must be a physical difference between what is being measured and what is doing the measuring.

For example one cannot measure the changing level of water in a ship lock from a ship in it by measure how high it is above the surface of the water ship is floating on because it is changing at the same rate.

Similarly one cannot measure the field properties of the mass component of space because the field properties in the measuring instrument would be changing at the same rate.

However as mentioned earlier we can indirectly measure how the field properties of mass interact with particles as was shown by in 1927 by Davisson and Germer observation of electron diffraction by crystals

The above discussion not only defines why we cannot directly observer Dark Matter but also how it creates gravitational potential in terms of the field properties of four dimensional space-time or four *spatial* dimensions.

Unfortunately for those who disagree the above conclusion is based purely on observations and the validly of Einstein theories.  Therefore to deny the existence of a continuous field of Dark Matter and it gravitational influence one would have to deny the validity of Einstein theories.

It should be remember Einsteinâ€s genius allows us to choose to define all environments in either space-time or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined their geometry in terms of the constant velocity of light. This interchangeability broadens the environment encompassed by his theories by making them applicable to both the quantum and field properties of space thereby giving us a new perspective on their interactions.

Later Jeff

Copy right Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015

The post Dark Matter as a field property of space-time appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists Aether.  According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.  But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts, which may be tracked through time.  The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

But why have the best minds in the scientific community been unable devise an experiment to detect the physical properties of space that Einstein was so sure must exist to support the propagation of light.

The reason may be because they are not looking in the right direction.

For example 1887 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley devised an experiment to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary Aether (“Aether wind”) by creating a device that sent yellow light from a sodium flame through a half-silvered mirror that was used to split it into two beams traveling at right angles to one another. After leaving the splitter, the beams traveled out to the ends of long arms where they were reflected back into the middle by small mirrors. They then recombined on the far side of the splitter in an eyepiece, producing a pattern of constructive and destructive interference. If the Earth is traveling through an Aether medium, a beam reflecting back and forth parallel to the flow of Aether would take longer than a beam reflecting perpendicular to the Aether because the time gained from traveling downwind is less than that lost traveling upwind.

However they did not observe a fringe shift and therefore concluded that space did not contain the “physical medium” called Aether.

However Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity did not endow space with the physical qualities of mass, he endowed it with the geometric properties of a space-time dimension.  Therefore, when Einstein referred to space as having physical properties he may not have been referring to the physical properties of a medium made up of mass but those imparted to it by its geometry.

For example he derived the energy of accelerated reference frames not in terms of mass but how it changes as it approaches a gravitational field by assuming it moved through curvature or change in geometry of space-time.  However he could not do the same for the energy associated with inertial reference frames in constant relative motion because it does not change with time,

Therefore to define the energy and mass associated with of the geometry of an inertial reference frame one must transposes or convert Einstein’s space-time geometry to four *spatial* dimensions because that is only thing that changes in inertial reference frames in motion .

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he use the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because it provided a method of converting a unit of time he associated with energy to an equivalent unit of space in four spatial dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

(This was the bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that one can derive all forms of energy in terms of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.) 

However If it is true that the physical medium Einstein was referring to was related to the geometric property of space and not a properties of mass as we are suggesting one should be able to explain why Albert Michelson and Edward Morley were unable to detect it in terms of geometry of its spatial properties.

Einstein told us that gravitational mass was the result of a curvature in the geometry of a space-time manifold.  In other words a change in the relative height of an object in three-dimensional space with respect to the time-dimension was responsible for the gravitational energy of mass

Similarly one could define the energy associated with the constant relative motion of an inertial reference frame in terms of a constant spatial displacement of a “surface” of a three-dimension space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

In other words it showed the energy of relative motion was not imparted to it by its motion through time but by a linear geometric displacement of three-dimensional space with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension.

However Einstein also told us that mass and energy are interchangeable therefore the substance of the Aether he was referring to in his address was the energy of the relative motion of inertial reference frames.

This means in an inertial reference frame in constant motion all of it parts in including the energy and therefore any Aether it contains is part of its geometric properties therefore must share the motion of as all its other parts.

In other words the reason Albert Michelson and Edward Morley were unable to detect the relative motion of an inertial reference frame through the geometry of space-time or four spatial dimensions because the Aether is that geometry.  In other words no relative motion was observed in their experiment for the same reason that an object or reference frame cannot have any relative motion with respect to itself

It should be remember Einsteinâ€s genius allows us to choose whether to define the mass or substance contained in all systems in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined it and the geometry of space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013

The post The geometry of Einstein’s Aether appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.