I can easily understand why no one responded to this thread of yours ngeo, it's quite a mouthful!
I'll address it piecemeal, with (hopefully) a summary at the end.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngeo
There is an assumption in some current theories of the nature of the universe that ‘space’ and ‘matter’ are separate physical entities, whose interaction takes place virtually at a metaphysical level. As the saying - the theoretical equivalent of a law - goes, ‘matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move‘. But this apparent ‘physical law’ only describes an effect between bodies of matter, not in an entirely different arena in which ‘space’ appears to act on itself, and ‘matter’ on huge scales is merely a helpless participant.
|
As a summary of the current state of play, against which you will introduce your ideas, I think you've started badly.
First, the workhorse in cosmology is Einstein's theory of General Relativity. At its heart, GR is just a bunch of equations; the extent to which it's a good description ('explanation'?) of the universe depends upon how well predictions from this theory (i.e. manipulating the equations, plugging in numbers, etc) match good observational results.
Next, how one chooses to interpret the terms in the equations is at least somewhat a matter of personal choice/taste ... it may very well be that, in order to work with the equations effectively, you need to make up some mental categories; you may, for philosophical reasons, choose to associate the entities with 'reality'. However, none of this is required, from the theory. In fact, we already know that GR and QFT (quantum field theory) are mutually incompatible, so 'reality' can't be some mental image of both (and there's no certainty that theories which replace these will have similar terms at all).
Quote:
|
When ‘explaining’ cosmological redshift, cosmologists are fond of pointing out that distant galaxies are not speeding ‘through’ space - it is space itself that is expanding, carrying galaxies with it. Distant galaxies are transported at speeds exceeding the speed of light - by 'space'. This assumption appears to be unquestioned, regarded as a truth that needs no explanation by 'physical law'.
|
You're really going off the rails here ngeo - we have a theory (GR), we apply to the universe; we make lots and lots of observations; we compare what comes out of GR with what we see and we find good agreement - where's the 'unquestioned assumption'?
Quote:
|
Simply by pushing on itself, 'space' is capable of carrying huge loads of matter far away from where they once were. Yet 'space' is given no physical qualities to carry out this work. Its 'power’ is the power of geometry.
|
If you like to look at it this way, OK. However, I'd say this picture creates a huge, unnecessary barrier to understanding the theory(-ies) - it introduces (intuitive) ideas from the world of classical physics that are not required in GR.
Quote:
|
However, there is a condition on this power of space. It expands only where it is ‘empty’. Where ‘gravity’ operates - that geometric ‘force’ capable of telling matter how to move - space does not expand. But what is the distinction between intergalactic space and galactic space?
|
Now you've lost me - what (in cosmology, or astrophysics, or GR) are you referring to here?
Quote:
|
Recent observations appear to show that expanding space is expanding more quickly than it once did. This ‘acceleration’ seems to require a repulsive ‘force’. At this point, geometric spatial expansion takes on a much more active role in the evolution of the universe. Yet this ‘revelation’ ignores the fact that spatial expansion, the expansion of a spatial volume, already requires an acceleration of three powers of radial distance simply to expand at a constant rate. Adding a constant volume of space per time unit will not do it. An constantly increasing volume must be added. This already indicates a kind of ‘super force’ at work.
|
I think you're referring to 'dark energy'. If so, then your summary is either strange or wrong - perhaps we could have a new thread, in the Q&A section, on this topic (so that you understand the theory better)?
Quote:
|
If spatial expansion is now to be regarded as a ‘force’, then it should always have been regarded as a ‘force’ rather than as a ‘physical geometric entity‘. And what is expanding? It is a spatial field. But ‘space’ is the overwhelming existent state of the universe. In other words, this ‘repulsive force’ of expanding space exists in the context of massive bodies such as stars, which are themselves ‘space’, and in the context of ‘particles’, which are themselves at their root spatial motions, as well as in ‘empty’ space. If the ‘repulsive force’ of space is puny, overwhelmed by gravity which is itself overwhelmed by nuclear and magnetic forces, it is nevertheless a primary force. The idea that ‘space’ ends with ‘mass’ may be fallacious. The idea that these two entities, ‘space’ and ‘mass’, are fundamentally different, or that ‘mass’ exists independently of ‘space’, may also be fallacious. It may be more true to say that ‘mass’ is a manifestation of the spatial field, an energetic field which then becomes the fundamental field of the universe. At that point the notion of independent yet related entities no longer applies; ‘mass’ and ‘space’ are simply forms of a single energy field. That this field is described only in geometric terms then requires either that mass be also described in geometric terms.
|
All this may, or may not, be a good foundation for a new (cosmological, physical?) theory. However, without something more (e.g. equations), it strongly resembles a 'word salad'.
(to be continued)