Space and Time don't Exist

[Hector Valdez]

I recently wrote this blog post on how the current perceptions of space and time might not hold water. If you want to check it out, the link is here: Dace Vitos. Please bear in mind that I am still trying to get the "feel of the blog, and am currently pondering what to do with it, so it's a little sketchy.

String theory tells us that we live in ten spacial dimensions, plus one time dimensions. The major three dimensions are complemented by tiny, curled up dimensions which are too small for us to see or move through. This may be so, but space changes shape with change in eye number...

[Stevil]

Nice

I ponder this stuff often

I don't agree that reality can have anything other than 3 dimensions.
- one dimension is a singularity which has infinite density, this is absurd
- two dimensions is a plane with length and width but its depth is infinitely dense, this is also absurd
- three dimensions is what we have, length, width and depth, no infinite density.
- four dimensions seems impossible to visualise it is as if the same three dimensional coordinate can consist of a path of continuous points which are different from each other. In our reality it seems that if we do have a fourth dimension, we can't see or observe it.
All our observations thus far are consistent with a three dimensional existence.

String theory postulates more than three dimensions therefore I currently discount string theory as viable.

Space, as far as I gather is simply a three dimensional coordinate system, not a substance.
This means that Space doesn't actually have an existence. Matter and energy do exist, but space doesn't, this is existence within non existence, cool huh?

Time is a sequence of events. Events are changes in matter and energy therefore time is relative to matter and energy.
Time itself is not a substance (matter nor energy), therefore time does not have an existence, it is conceptual only, merely a consequence of changing matter and energy.

The only thing that exists is matter and energy.
Note: Matter is a form of energy, hence existence is simply three dimensional energy.

[McQ]

However, Einstein did prove that space is more than simply three dimensions (yes, lots of other names can be dropped here, too, but let's give the big guy credit where it is due for putting it all together, both specially and generally). Spacetime does exist, and it cannot exist in only three dimensions.

Some great recent books on the subject are:

Why Does E=MC², by Brian Cox and (who cares who else? it's by Brain Cox!)
An older one, from 1996, but still a good one, The Whole Shebang, by Timothy Ferris
Relativity Visualized, by L.C. Epstein
and of course, the original and updated versions of Stephen Hawking's, A Brief(er) History of Time.

Spacetime is no longer even in question, and hasn't been for a hundred years.

Best site for describing it to most people I've ever seen is here: http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/sptmtop.html

[ThinkAnarchy]

I found it interesting. I once bought a book on string theory at the airport, and it took me about 25 pages to realize I wasn't comprehending anything.

You may want to think about changing the color of the contents background, the white on red made my eyes hurt and the text hard to read. I may be alone on this though.

Nice post though.

[Stevil]

However, Einstein did prove that space is more than simply three dimensions

Time isn't a spacial dimention.
Spacetime is a way of joining dimentional space with time.

I read a book by Stephen Hawkins, well after Einstein's time and he articulates why it is impossible to have anything other than 3 dimensions, but he also goes on to show the spacetime model.

[Crow]

Interesting stuff but this is honestly one thing that I do not care about be it 3 or a million. Still interesting though.

[Siz]

Nice

I ponder this stuff often

I don't agree that reality can have anything other than 3 dimensions.
- one dimension is a singularity which has infinite density, this is absurd
- two dimensions is a plane with length and width but its depth is infinitely dense, this is also absurd
- three dimensions is what we have, length, width and depth, no infinite density.
- four dimensions seems impossible to visualise it is as if the same three dimensional coordinate can consist of a path of continuous points which are different from each other. In our reality it seems that if we do have a fourth dimension, we can't see or observe it.
All our observations thus far are consistent with a three dimensional existence.

String theory postulates more than three dimensions therefore I currently discount string theory as viable.

Space, as far as I gather is simply a three dimensional coordinate system, not a substance.
This means that Space doesn't actually have an existence. Matter and energy do exist, but space doesn't, this is existence within non existence, cool huh?

Time is a sequence of events. Events are changes in matter and energy therefore time is relative to matter and energy.
Time itself is not a substance (matter nor energy), therefore time does not have an existence, it is conceptual only, merely a consequence of changing matter and energy.

The only thing that exists is matter and energy.
Note: Matter is a form of energy, hence existence is simply three dimensional energy.

Not that I claim to understand it, but the maths used by physicists contains their 'proof' of the existence of the dimensions not perceived by us rationally. Unless we can grapple with the maths used I don't see we have any grounds to legitimately argue against the conclusions of those who claim to understand. Does our lack of ability to comprehend extra dimensions within the frame our experience preclude their existence?

To add to McQs short list, I'd like to include 'The Elegant Universe' by Brian Greene (1999). This is the single most accessible book I've read on the subject of spacetime, String and quantum theory. Much better than Hawkings' fashionably-liked but inaccessible 'Brief History...'.

[McQ]

However, Einstein did prove that space is more than simply three dimensions

Time isn't a spacial dimention.
Spacetime is a way of joining dimentional space with time.

I read a book by Stephen Hawkins, well after Einstein's time and he articulates why it is impossible to have anything other than 3 dimensions, but he also goes on to show the spacetime model.

Yeah, I know. I wasn't clear in my post, my fault. Trying to rush, as always. I'm still rushing now, but wanted to reply.

Time isn't a spatial dimension any more than space is a "spatial" dimension. In Spacetime, you can't unlink them. That's what Einstein proved. Hawking supports Einsteinian Spacetime. His theories on Black Holes can't exist without relying on both Special and General Relativity.
Those things aren't in question by theoretical physicists.

However (big however) is whether or not subsequent theoretical models like String, M , Superstring, etc. will fundamentally change Einsteinian Spacetime as it changed Newtonian Space (they are all competing to see if it will be knocked off or modified).

All of this is comes under the caveat of "as far as I am aware" according to the books and articles I read. And I'm sure not up to even the most fundamental mathematics when it comes to this. They lose me as soon as they start using the greek alphabet in place of numbers!

[McQ]

Interesting stuff but this is honestly one thing that I do not care about be it 3 or a million. Still interesting though.

I wish I didn't like this stuff so much, because I spend too much time reading about it which would otherwise be spent on more practical matters. My wife looks at this stuff and asks me, "Ok, you've read all this crap. How will you use it today?"

And I slink away with no good answer. This stuff just isn't practical for everyday life for most of us.

[Stevil]

How will you use it today?"

And I slink away with no good answer. This stuff just isn't practical for everyday life for most of us.

It is good exercise for the brain.
Most people's occupation doesn't allow them to get into such deep contemplative, imaginative thought.
I'm sure this exercise improves your abilities to think through just about anything.

And if you love it, it is just as relaxing as sinking yourself into a novel.

[Hector Valdez]

I have added a new post that includes an illustration of how four dimensional space can be perceived. Check it out ad DaceVitos. Or, just look at it here.

[ablprop]

In Feynman and the Rainbow, Leonard Mlodinow quotes Feynman on string theory as saying that string theory makes one testable prediction (11 dimensions) and it fails. Why, then, take it seriously?

String theorists find ways to make the theory consistent with the world we observe, but that's not proof. The only reason to take string theory seriously is if it improves our explanations of the world. If the LHC discovers supersymmetric particles, then string theory will look a lot better - though there are also non-string theories that include supersymmetry. It's also possible that future experiments will reveal one or more of the hidden dimensions of string theory. The great thing about science is, one day we will know.

As string theorist James Gates says, "If string theory can't make a testable prediction, then no one should believe it." Imagine a priest, rabbi, or imam saying that!