Section II: Space as the Fundamental Substance, and Aether, from "Is Space the Only Substance in the Universe|?"
II. SPACE AS THE ULTIMATE SUBSTANCE, AN “AETHEREAL” DISCOURSE
One Logical “Short Leap” Forward Changes Everything
The
name applied to this proposal is the “Nothing but Space” model, but this will
be open to future changes in terminology. The basic thesis or Fundamental
Principle is that many of the unsolved mysteries of science could be
unraveled by conceiving of space as not only a component of
the universe, but as the fundamental substance of which the universe is made,
as well as the medium of fields. Matter, energy, and anything else that exists would consist of processes
including waves and additions/deletions of quantized space, with discrete,
constant, universal units. Most of what is proposed here as flows
logically, directly or indirectly, as hypotheses from that Fundamental
Principle. It is a single but critical step
forward toward unity and simplicity of physical theory.
This is actually
not far from currently accepted theory, and therefore should not be rejected
out of hand. It is a logical next step from currently accepted concepts that will
be reviewed in this article, including that space has physical properties, that
it is expanding, that particles have wave equivalents, that familiar mechanical
waves require material media to transmit them, and that in the absence of an
aether, we have nothing but space itself to serve as such a medium where matter
cannot fill that role. Yet this short conceptual “quantum leap” has apparently rarely
been previously taken by physicists, probably because it seems to defy both human
intuition and physics orthodoxy.
In recent years, a number of both professional and amateur
scientists and philosophers have continued to express dissatisfaction with
current theories, and to explore solutions to the mysteries of space and matter
in which either space or spacetime is a fundamental substance and/or medium.
Much of this work has been self-published or posted on the Internet without
peer review. Goodman (1994), in a self-published book, presaged the Fundamental
Principle by proposing that all forms of matter and energy are vibrations of
space itself, propagating at the speed of light, or a flow of space. Schaffer
(2009), a philosopher, called spacetime “the one substance.” He supported the
view that regions of spacetime define material objects, and claimed that
DesCartes had held a similar view. LaFreniére (2009) said
that matter and energy are entirely made of waves, and attempted to
characterize some of them graphically. He described the electron as a spherical
standing wave. Hobson (2013), a
physicist, dared to assert that there are no particles, only waves.
Lindner
(2015), a physician and philosophy of physics scholar, assailed modern physics
theory on philosophical grounds, as being mathematical but not relating to
actual cosmic entities, and called for a theory of space. He proposed that
gravity is due to space flowing into matter, but did not say why that occurs or
what becomes of the space. Ryan, another philosopher, published a book, “The
Substance of Spacetime” (2016), in which he characterized spacetime as the
fundamental substance on which both matter and energy depend. (See also “Space as a Substance;
Substantivalism” below.) Information on other such past theorists
with similar views is welcomed, so they can be appropriately cited and credited.
These innovative thinkers have not
extrapolated the implications of space as the ultimate substance as extensively
as has been attempted in the present paper, to all of physics and of physical
reality.
The
ontology of the proposed model differs from traditional lay concepts. It suggests
that rather than assuming things other
than space exist and have
properties, things may instead be entirely
defined by their properties. This is reasonable, because in history, humans
have first become aware of properties, then have decided or learned what to
attribute them to. Thus, we sense that solid objects fall to earth, and that it
takes energy to move them. We are taught to call those properties gravity and
inertia, and to attribute them to a hypothetical substance called mass, and
another concept called matter if the mass occupies space. However, mass may not necessarily have independent
existence and then just happen for some reason to have properties of gravity
and inertia. Manor (2015) distinguished that inertia, not mass, increases with
velocity, suggesting that these properties are separable. We should focus on the properties we detect,
and see whether scientific evidence suggests that they may be associated with
something else. In this model, gravity and inertia are all associated with
waves and other processes in space.
“Other processes in space,” a term utilized throughout this
article, is meant to include vibrations and
seemingly random motion of units of space. Also included are additions and
deletions of units of space, both as general trends of expansion or contraction
and as to-and-fro oscillations of individual or small groups of units.
Energy
and its various types are other hypothetical entities to which we attribute
various properties that we experience. Heat and sound are examples of how
properties can be attributed to phantom entities. Each seems like a real “something” to
us, but actually consists of motion or waves within a medium. Sound is produced
by vibrations, the energy of which is transmitted to mechanical waves
transmitted by any medium of matter, gaseous, liquid, or "solid."
Heat can be described as being an entity that
causes molecular motion, but can more
simply be defined as being molecular motion. This eliminates
the unnecessary theoretical conception of a separate and independent heat
entity. The energy of the molecular motion is interconvertible to radiant
heat, which is the range of electromagnetic waves (mostly in the infrared
spectrum) that can most easily be generated by moving molecules, and can
conversely cause molecules to move.
Analogously
to sound and heat actually being processes in mechanical media, matter
and energy are proposed in the present model to be inter-convertible processes
occurring within the medium of space. These either consist of or capable of
generating waves in that medium.
Space as a Substance;
Substantivalism
A common conception of space, dating
to antiquity, is that it consists of nothingness. Leucippus, Democritus and
Lucretius wrote that the world was constructed out of “atoms and the void,” and
the void was a truly empty place. This concept persisted in Epicurean
philosophy during the Greek and Roman periods. (Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy 2016). However, not all
classical philosophers thought that space was devoid of properties. Plato, in his work Timaeus, described physical
bodies (matter) as a part of space limited by geometric surfaces, themselves
containing nothing but space (Jammer, 1954).
During
later centuries, philosophers debated whether space was a substance of some
kind. Philosophers who argued that space and time exist in their own right were
called substantivalists, while relationalists were those who disagreed. Newton
supported the substantivalist position, but his views were nuanced. He thought
that
absolute space was definitely not material, yet it was part of the physical,
not mental, realm. Newton described space as what might be called a “pseudo-substance,”
“more like a substance than a descriptive property, yet not quite a substance”
(Huggett & Hoefer 2021). Maudlin (1993) did a historical and
philosophical review and found substantivalist arguments stronger. Schaffer
(2009) claimed that most philosophers today are substantivalists, and distinguished
between dualistic substantivalism (material objects being one substance and
regions of spacetime being another, which he admitted is the more natural and popular
view), vs. monistic substantivalism which he supported (comprised of several
schools of thought in which spacetime defines material objects). P. Jackson
(2012) argued strongly against the persistent idea that space is nothing,
proposing that if instead it is considered as a “diffuse
dielectric medium” of intergalactic extent, it should be helpful in unifying
relativity with “quantum systems.”
In
support of its being a substance, space has a number of physical properties on
its own. It conducts electromagnetic waves and gravitation, and their fields and
quantum wave functions exist within space. Space also allows matter to exist
within it and to travel through it. Its expansion implies that it is
“something” that can be increased. Dimensions and geometry of course depend on
space. Ruh (2022) derived a number of real properties of space including
pressure and density.
Space has
permittivity and permeability. Permittivity
measures the resistance offered by the material in the formation of an electric
field, while permeability
measures the ability of the material to allow the magnetic lines of force to
pass through it (Byju’s 2021).
One of the
most definitive properties of space is an apparent limiting velocity for anything
passing through it, which we refer to in equations as c, the speed of light. Characteristics like these strongly suggest
that space is an integral and essential component of the universe.
What then exists beyond the extent
of our universe? Since the 1950s, Everett and some other theoretical physicists
have proposed a hypothetical multiverse consisting of multiple universes, a
concept long found in ancient Greek philosophy and Eastern religions. Speculation
is possible that an irregularity found in the cosmic microwave background
radiation could be due to collision with another universe, however today’s experimental
physics cannot receive any information from beyond the universe we know, so hypotheses
about other universes cannot be experimentally tested or verified for now
(Fernandez 2020). They are utilized in
science fiction (Koboldt 2021), but also seem an appropriate and serious ongoing
topic for the philosophy of science. What the present model suggests, however,
is that the universe is not surrounded by space, because space
is what is inside and not outside the universe.
The Aether Hypothesis and Space
From Aristotle
in the 4th century B.C. until 1887, most scientists believed in a hypothetical
"luminiferous aether" as a medium that filled space and conducted
light, but the Michelson-Morley experiment that year showed it not to be a
medium that could speed up or retard the speed of light, by means of its own
motion relative to the observers on earth. Many scientists thereafter ceased to
believe in an aether altogether (Ball 2004, Pilkington 2004).
That seemed to leave just “empty
space,” with no additional substance to take over the properties that had previously
been assigned to the aether, including being the medium for transmission of
light waves and gravity. Yet for some
reason, the reassignment of those properties to space itself as
a substance apparently has rarely been seriously proposed. The dots have all been there but apparently were rarely connected fully. Descartes,
though, may have presaged this concept, because he used the words aether and
space synonymously (Pilkington 2004).
Einstein
had evolving views about the existence of an aether. His special relativity
theory made no reference to such a substance and he was widely credited with
having destroyed the concept of it. However, 15 years after introducing special
relativity and 5 years after introducing general relativity, he delivered a
lecture at the University of Leiden that included these selected remarks
(translated; highlighting added):
…The next position
which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be
the following. The aether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are
not states of a medium, and are not bound down to any bearer, but they are
independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, exactly like
the atoms of ponderable matter…Certainly, from the standpoint of the special
theory of relativity, the aether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty
hypothesis… But
on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the
aether hypothesis. To deny the aether is
ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever…Newton
objectivizes space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real
things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his
absolute space "aether”…More careful reflection teaches us however,
that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny aether. We may
assume the existence of an aether; only we must give up ascribing a definite
state of motion to it…We shall see later that this point of view…is justified
by the results of the general theory of relativity…Recapitulating, we may say
that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore,
there exists an ether… (Einstein,
1920).
Thus, Einstein acknowledged that
Newton could have accepted absolute space as the “aether” medium, and he seemed
to imply that he could as well, and that the term aether could be applied to
the ability of space to carry out its many properties.
In the “Nothing but Space” model, no medium
other than space is required for transmission of gravitational effects and
electromagnetic waves. Space also can be considered to be made up of basic minimum
units, unchanging in size, time, or location, as building blocks. The
advantages of such a conception are discussed further below.
Units of Space
The
fundamental units of space are probably related to Planck units. It turns out
to be meaningless to consider anything smaller than a cubic Planck length,
which equals approximately 1.616255*10−35 meter, because
physics breaks down for anything smaller than that due to quantum effects.
Likewise, the shortest time interval that can be measured is a Planck second,
the length of time for light to traverse a Planck length. The radius of a
quark, considered as a “point particle” in QCD theory, is now estimated at 0.43
x 10−18 m, larger
by an order of 1017 than a Planck length (Center for Perfection
Studies 2014; Butterworth 2018).
The smallest possible basic units of space,
which could not be composed of anything smaller or simpler, would therefore likely
be cubic Planck lengths. Units containing a larger volume of space might
each be capable of carrying energy information in each, but so could
collections of multiple, multi-functional, minimum-size units involved in a
wave. A new term, “volon,” is proposed
for the fundamental volume unit of space, in the style of electron, proton,
etc., to represent a unit of volume. No association is intended with any past or
present commercial or other unrelated use of the term, or to Rousseau’s term
“volonté” to refer to the general will (e.g., https://www.masarishop.com/brands/the-volon.html).
In Figure 1, “volons” are
represented as tiny cubes, but they could be tiny blobs without fixed shapes
that fit together. There could even be tiny gaps between them if conceptualized
according to Euclidean geometry (or the geometries of special and general
relativity). As discussed immediately below, any geometrical system is a
theoretical framework or grid to localize events in space, which may
approximate reality but not necessarily conform perfectly to it. If there were indeed geometric gaps between
units of space, those could not themselves be referred to as “space.”
Such
quantum-scale units of space are reminiscent of the quantum-scale loops of
spacetime in loop quantum gravity theory (Rovelli 2008). That theory similarly postulates
quantized units of spacetime (though not simply of space). In the course of
over a century that both general relativity and quantum theory have existed,
this and many other efforts (including string theories) have been proposed to
develop a theory of quantum gravity, but none have yet been considered complete
or have been generally accepted (Wood 2019; Rovelli 2008). This leaves an opening for the present model,
which may involve simpler mathematics because only three dimensions need to be
considered at a time, and complex metric tensors in curvilinear spacetime may
be unnecessary. .
Questioning the Reality of
Dimensionless Points, “Singularities,” and Infinity
Euclidean
geometry, about 2,400 years old and historically the second most studied
reference after the Bible, has concepts that are abstract and theoretical rather
than real, for example definitions that imply the existence of points without
dimensions, lines with only one dimension and that can extend straight
indefinitely regardless of the curvature of space, and surfaces with no
thickness (Norton 2022). There is no
evidence that any of these exist in reality. The geometries of special
relativity with 4-dimensional spacetime, and of general relativity with curbed
spacetime, contradict Euclid and are similarly hypothetical.
Points would have to occupy at least “volon”
size, lines and flat surfaces would have to have at least “volon” thickness and
to occupy three-dimensional space, which violates the Euclidean definitions.
Lines could not be truly straight, because they would be curved by space
deletions and additions. Waves and quantum uncertainty also require
distributions in space and cannot exist in dimensionless points. These
contradictions do not negate the usefulness of Euclidean geometry for
mathematical problem-solving, but are important when considering the reality of
such concepts as “singularities” and “point particles” in physics and cosmology
theories. LaFrenière (2009) preferred to refer to points
as granules, “because a point cannot exist.”
A
“singularity” would be infinitely small with no volume, so there is no way it would
contain, generate, or destroy anything. Since physics would break down in such
entities (Walchover 2018), it seems unwise to include them in major physics
theories like the “Big Bang” or black holes. Nothing infinitely large or small
in space or time has ever been identified, even though the concept of
approaching it as a limit is useful in calculus, so the concept of any actual infinity
should be excluded from physics theories.
The Dimensions
of it All
No comprehensive
modern theory of the universe seems to be able to make do with only our
familiar three dimensions. Special and general relativity require four. Current
string theories depend on the existence of ten or eleven (Melbeus & Ohlsson
2012). This new model includes the capacity for space to be deleted from or
added to an existing manifold. If "volons" of three-dimensional space
suddenly appear and disappear, the question naturally arises, where does this
space go to or come from? A convenient way to imagine this is that there
are three additional dimensions, to and from which space transfers.
In the present proposed model, these
extra dimensions would always be present, but we could not see them, because
light (including the entire spectrum of electromagnetic radiation) as we know
it is limited to transmission in only three of them. Hypothetically, there
might be a different equivalent of light in the alternate dimensions.
Comments
Post a Comment