What is "the fabric" of space-time?

It doesn't invalidate the argument, nor am defining physical in any other way that science defines physical. Moreover, it's not the label I am trying to get you to address but the picture, the qualities and properties and processes involved. You can define physical as items outside time and space with no mass, nor energy, if you want, and we'd still be talking of a process outside time and space with no mass, nor energy. So let's address the specific qualities first to get an understanding of perhaps where we agree.Wouldn't that be a better place to start?We can discuss later whether physical or material things must have a location within space and time and whether they must have energy or mass. Obviously, I think calling things which have no location, no energy and no mass "physical" or "material" is inconsistent with how science defines those terms, but if you want to expand those terms to include anything, including God if He exists, so be it.Let's first see if we can discuss the properties of the process involved. That's the point. It doesn't work via materialistic or mechanistic means within space and time. That's the point. It doesn't work via materialistic or mechanistic means within space and time. That's the point. It doesn't work via materialistic or mechanistic means within space and time. The reason I use entanglement to illustrate this point is my point here is the same in the many-worlds interpretation and the Pilot Wave theory. It's still action at a distance. In the Many-Worlds, it's an instant mechanism to create consistency between the 2 particles. Of course, positing the creation of infinite multiple universes doesn't explain where the energy for all those universes come from. In other words, it still must stem from something outside space and time.The Pilot Wave theory seeks to preserve causality, but it still results in the violation of local realism, and in terms of this thread, it doesn't change anything.Entanglement was described as spooky action at a distance by Einstein for a reason. Why do you think that was?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I can think of a better place to start. With you actually coming to terms with the points I've already made.Such as: The unified field is what physical reality is. It is very much a part of the science of physics. On those grounds it seems absurd to call it anything other than physical.

quote:

---

The reason I use entanglement to illustrate this point is my point here is the same in the many-worlds interpretation and the Pilot Wave theory. It's still action at a distance. In the Many-Worlds, it's an instant mechanism to create consistency between the 2 particles.

---

That isn't the conclusion I came to. My conclusion is that "which universe you are in" is a universal "hidden variable". When you make the measurement you gain some information about that variable - which gives you information about the entangled particle. There is no need for information to be transmitted to the other particle at all !

quote:

---

When have I stated the process is supernatural? I have laid out specific facts very clearly. What specific physical mechanism is involved in creating what Einstein called "action at a distance."

​

It's clear that entangled particles act as one system, but whatever the connection that causes that is "outside time and space" as Zeilinger put it, and there is a reason he and other quantum physicists say that. Physical things have properties such as location (time and space), energy and matter. If you want to quibble with that, go ahead, but at least address the picture here.

​

There is no way that physical particles travel faster than the speed of light, or at least that's the current thinking, and to do so these particles would have to adjust their speed to create instant action at a distance, as Einstein put it.

​

So whatever medium is connecting the different particles is not something within space and time. It can be described mathematically as a wave-function, but that doesn't mean it has physical properties such as being limited to the speed of light, or definite locations within space-time.

​

You say, well, the field connects it. Ok, let's go with that. Why is the action instant?

​

Why does Zeiliner say it's "outside time and space"?

---

So, if the entangled particles are able to move simultaneously at such great distances apart, then practically T(time)=0. That, in turn, would mean that we are en route to create a time travel machine and change events that have already ocurred.

It just seems to me that the dimension of time is too small like is the energy within the atom able to go slip into a dimension where the atom exists going forward or backward in time?Like the universe is not moving light travels across the universe so its not like the earth is multiplying its just that the atom exists in the past present and future simutaneously so that say if light travelling across the universe if its going towards the earth is not going to hit a parallel universe. Leaning parallel universes is not whats happening but that the atom exists in the past present and future that its just a property of the fabric of space?Is string theory based off how the energy within the atom exists simutaneously in the past present and future ? due to something like entanglement where you change the past you instantly change the future?If mass can not go faster than light and the dimension of time exists within the atom by design how would it be possible for mass to slip backwards/forward in time ? not saying God is not able to, in fact prophecy strongly suggests he is quite able, etc...+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Other dimensions could exist, however, if they were curled up in little balls, too tiny to notice. If you moved through one of those dimensions, you’d get back to where you started so fast you’d never realize that you had moved.“An extra dimension of space could really be there, it’s just so small that we don’t see it,” said Bars, a professor of physics and astronomy.Something as tiny as a subatomic particle, though, might detect the presence of extra dimensions. In fact, Bars said, certain properties of matter’s basic particles, such as electric charge, may have something to do with how those particles interact with tiny invisible dimensions of space.http://www.physorg.com/news98468776.html

I don't know enough about string theory to comment but it strikes me that if extra dimensions would appear very small if not undetectable from our vantage point, but could be very large from the perspective within an extra dimension.

I wouldn't say they move simultaneously, but rather they exist without physical form in no location within space and time, and then become physical in a discrete form simultaneously.As far as time travel, that's a whole different subject.

PaulK, but the particle's form is dependant on what can be known of it, meaning what's asked of it so to speak. It takes a form based on the observation event. So it's not preexisting in that form.The entangled particle then is affected by that same event.As far as information being transmitted, you can discuss this in a lot of ways but what has been verified is that the 2 particles act as one system. That's just as much true in the Many Worlds theory as any other. Just the idea that another universe is created so that the particle appears differently in the other universe doesn't explain why or how the entangled particle would appear consistent within the same universe. In other words, the same thing is true whether the Many Worlds is right or not. Either way, entangled particles act as one system with no physical mechanism explaining that.

Taken from the article you linked to....this fits with my personal conceptions of the universe and what I have been saying, especially the "shadow" comment.http://www.physorg.com/news98468776.htmlEdited by randman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

PaulK, but the particle's form is dependant on what can be known of it, meaning what's asked of it so to speak. It takes a form based on the observation event. So it's not preexisting in that form.

---

This simply doesn't address anything I said in the post you are responding to.

quote:

---

The entangled particle then is affected by that same event.

---

My point is that the "event" - the measurement - effects the whole universe by forcing a "split" in reality.

quote:

---

As far as information being transmitted, you can discuss this in a lot of ways but what has been verified is that the 2 particles act as one system. That's just as much true in the Many Worlds theory as any other. Just the idea that another universe is created so that the particle appears differently in the other universe doesn't explain why or how the entangled particle would appear consistent within the same universe.

---

The laws of physics say that the particles must be in a consistent state. However they do not fully dictate what that state is. In the many-world interpretation all the possible states are real - but each exists in another universe.So the question of how the other particle "knows" what state it should be in is solved - not by super-luminal "communication". It is solved by the split in the universe. Whichever universe you end up in, the particles will necessarily be in a consistent state. Thus the universe amounts to a universal "hidden variable".Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Is that really germane to the argument here? Think about it. How does the entangled particle know what universe which particle should be in?Imo, the Many-Worlds idea doesn't change a thing when it comes to entanglement. But which specific laws? The laws at work here are the principles of quantum mechanics. That's the only law or rule I know of dictating that an entangled particle acts as one system with the particle it's entangled with. So once again, the Many Worlds idea doesn't change anything when it comes to entanglement except that if there is a split in the universe, there are 2 entangled particles in the other universe as well. I am glad to see we are communicating, but I have to ask you.....exactly what part of the universe creates the consistency in entangled particles? My point as above is that the rules of entanglement are the rules of QM. The entangled particle becomes discrete not randomly but rather dictated by what happens with the other particle. That same action occurs even if there is a split in the universe.So either way, you get action at a distance in a process outside time and space. Heck, if the universe as a whole could sense what needs to happen instantly across time and space within itself so it makes all things come out consistently, or if there is some hidden mechanism making that happen, it's still the same point I am making. That's still a mechanism outside time and space because it's independent of time and space in the sense it's instant action.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Well we agree on that then. No, what was said is that the field is the only thing that exists. There is nothing but the field. Anything else that appears to exist is really just the field. There isn't anything more physical than the field, because the field is the universe.Again, when cavediver or anyone else said the field is 'nothing' (if indeed he did say that, I haven't checked), I think this is referring to the fact that the field is fundamental. It has no constituent parts, it's just the field.

This is a tautology. If you want to say anything within the universe is automatically physical, fine. That means if God exist, He is physical, same for angels or whatever.But I think rather than clouding the issue with labels since under your definition of physical, all spiritual things are actually physical too, it's better to talk about properties. It's clear that there are operations outside space and time as shown by entanglement. If space and time are derived properties as well as energy and mass of the field, then absent the derived properties, what does this field consist of?We know it consists of information because it can be described mathematically. Btw, Cavediver said he describes it "as mathematics" and so under your definition coupled with his comment, math itself is a physical thing. I am not sure that equates with the scientific understanding of what math is, but like I said, the label is a just a word to describe properties.Would you agree that mass, energy, space and time are derived from the more fundamental state of the field or whatever one wishes to call the matrix giving rise to these things?

The seven heavens of Islam? Fantasy books like the Lord of the Rings? Greek Mythology? The list is endless. I wonder what you had in mind.(I realise that made up ideas of what might be outside the fabric of spacetime also might be outside the topic, so my apologies if they are).

My best ideas have always come while decompressing Thanks for the compliment. Yes - Wheeler long ago wanted to unify matter with the gravitational field, in a study called geometradynamics. It was compelling, but couldn't fully reproduce the properties of fermions (matter). The extended idea is to use separate metter fields that eventually unify with the gravitational field along with the other gauge (photon, gluon, etc) fields. Good question There has been a rather interesting paradigm shift over the past fifty years. Physics was always concenrned with the modelling of the parameters of physical objects with mathematics. This is the core of Gallilean and Newtonian mechanics, Kinetic Theory, and later with Relativistic Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics. However, as we started to look at Quantum Field Theory, we started to notice that it was no longer the parameters of some physical object that was being described mathematically - it was the object itself. An electron is not some 'ball' that has such and such properties. *only* the properties exist. Once we have decribed the properties mathematically, there is nothing left over to say 'and that's the thing we are modelling'. Contrast this with the mechanics of a ball bearing. It is very difficult to convey just how astounding this is - to reach the bedrock of existence to find that we have run out of 'blobs' to describe. Distinctions are not made, as a distinction in many ways would be unparsimonious - none is required. That's not to say we are at the final level, not by any means. But the levels are now simply layers of intertwined mathematics. And if 2+2=5, how would normal arithmetic work? Mass cannot 'appear'. So I cannot describe how space-time would respond because its occurance demonstrates that what we know of space-time is wrong! Mass is simply a measure of the energy in a volume. But yes, disturbances to space-time, say caused by a binary system, propagate outwards at the speed of light. Not quite - the motion of an object through space is purely dictated by the curvature of that space. That space, however, will be curved by both objects. True, except this becomes very difficult, if not impossible, because of the complexity of the situation - this is non-perturbative, or exact, theory. Much easier is to fourier decompose the field and simply work on individual fourier modes. We can then hopefully build these modes back up again to see the big picture. We have a term for these fourier modes - we call them particles Individual gravitons are phenomenally hard to detect - we probably never will. We haven't even managed to detect unambiguously an entire gravitational wave, never mind one tiny quantum of such a wave! Excellent question (what was that about stupidity?)All objects have a 4-velocity, and these 4-velocities all have the same magnitude - c. In free space, if you are not being acted on by any forces, your 4-velocity has components (c,0,0,0) which in loose translation means that you are travelling at the speed of light in the time direction. What we call 'motion' is a rotation of this vector out of the pure time direction, so that there is a (very small) component in the spatial directions. Thus it is now clear why there is a limit to 3-velocity - it is simply a projection of a rotating 4-vector of fixed magnitude. Now, in curved space-time, what you think of as your time direction *here*, may well not appear to be the same direction over *there*. So you may well see someone else 'moving' but as far as they are concerned, they are 'still'. The obvious example of this is someone in orbit watching someone falling radially towards the earth. Both have their 4-velocities pointing purely in the time direction (both are 'weightless', i.e. experiencing no forces), but they have very different perceived motion. Both are simply following unhindered their respectives paths through time. Compare this with standing on the Earth. here you are being continually accelerated vertically, and you can feel the accelartive force on your body via your feet from the surface of the Earth pushing you up, as you try to follow your natural path through time, which actually points slightly inwards, towards the centre of the planet. So if straight up through time actually takes you inwards towards the centre of the Earth, then the surface of the earth must be travelling outwards, from a 4d perspective