What is the fabric of spacetime? It's not geometry. Geometry is only a representation of the fabric of space. The dimensions have an associated metric, that depends on the local energy density. That metric is simply a "virtual ruler", which sets the unit length of the dimension.
The fabric is the vacuum. Space is really a 4d fluid. One geometry that can be used to decribe it is a hypercube. The fabric representation of a sheet distorted in 3d, is used for visualization purposes. It's really a 4d fluid that's expanding, and that's the vacuum. That's the real part. The geometry is just a mathematical repressentation of it.
Sticking with "fabric", for visualization purposes. Gravitation is an energy that stretches a sheet in 2 dimensions, into a third dimension. In that picture, the changing metric of the fluid space, is represented by a changing metric for the third dimension, at each point on the sheet. This visualization contains only one dimensional metric which changes according to some energy density. The other 2 remain fixed. In the representation for the real fluid, the metric for all the dimensions change.
Notice in the fabric representation, the fabric is strtched. That means the fibers of the fabric are in tension, if there's any energy to distort it. The energy is contained as potential energy in the stretched fibers. It is negative energy. Note that no gravitons eminate from any energy density. If they did, they would carry all the energy away as negative momentum. Gravitons are particles of negative momentum that appear in the sheet when the distorting energy is applied. The negative energy in the sheet came as a result of doing work on the sheet. There's an equal "disappearance" of positive energy somewhere. So the total sum must remain zero.
In the universe, the total positive energy, that consists of energy, mass, dark matter and dark energy, is almost exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field. The sum is almost exactly zero. The same is true in the vacuum, the sum of the energy is almost exactly zero. The sum of the slight differences from the observable universe, and the vacuum is zero. The vacuum gravitates very slightly.
Consider the virtual particles that pop out of the vacuum as particle pairs. The pair is negative energy moving backwards in time and postive energy moving forwards in time. They appear to us as paticles moving forwards in time, of equal positive energy and opposite charges. It takes a postive amount of energy, such as a photon equal to twice the energy of either particle and a massive particle for momentum conservation to pop them out parmanently, so they can be seen. Conservation of E.
Now there's no reason that these particles ahould not be seen as equivalent positive energy in the vacuum and gravitate as such. That's the nature of the Cosmological constant problem. The particle pair in the vacuum does not gravitate, except as above. The total energy in the vacuum in all the possible particle pairs is ~10100, but we see only a tiny bit of that energy, something very close to zero. So, there's an apparent missing amout of negative energy and momentum, that is unaccounted for. That missing negative energy is what Randell's high gravitational coupling constant and "gravitons off the brane" is about. Those gravitons off the brain, are in the vacuum.
Particle models don't incorporate gravity, so such models as are contained in the standard model are asymptotic theories. They approach a representation of reality to a very high degree, but "blow up at high interaction orders, because the gravitational effects in the vacuum are not accounted for. The stadard model itself also has a vacuum that has a cosmological constant, ~1085 to big.
Getting back to outdents. An outdent is just the same plot, or graph upside down. What really happens is that the tension, or negative energy in the fabric changes. In the case of the 4d fluid vacuum, which is a superposition of all possible particle states, including the 85 orders of magnitude "missing" gravity, an expansion of that fluid, requires an increase in energy, that increase in energy appears as a decrease in the negative energy of the gravitational field. The expansion, thus accelerates. Note the decreasing gravitational field means the positive energy of the universe is decreasing. It's returning to the vacuum. From the beginning, throughout, and at the end, the total energy is zero.
Normally in particle physics, when a large vacuum energy is created by a brokem symmetry. It's tossed, or ignored, because only the real particles matter. Gravitation is not considered in the interactions, so there's no effect, other than that they are asymptotic theories. In string theory the same problem still arises. When the effective energy content of the vacuum is set to tiny, a broken symmetry bumps it right back up to over 1050. "I suspect you see energy/matter being the cause of the expansion of space/time."
I see it as a phase transition. Like a bubble forming in a pot of boiling water. The new vacuum fluid and it's contents, the visible universe, are headed back to the original condition. In this case, it's like a phase transition that propagates like a ballon, through the original vacuum(space). It's more of a propagation of a phase distubance in the original vacuuum.
"I see energy/matter being created as the universe expands "
Conservation of energy applies. The total must be zero. The orignal phase transition was a separation, a parting. It is on it's way back to the original vacuum. That's the waters God hovered over in Gen 1. They contained the empty and formless Earth. The vacuum is a superposition of all possible vacuums, thus it is not a water, but the waters. Then God said, let there be light, which was the beginning of the phase transition, that separated night and day. This is the beginning of inflation when some original symmetry was broken. The original phase transition is what will propagate as the surface of a bubble and be the sky.
" In either case, space/time and energy/matter are phenomenons of the expanded universe."
The universe expands at ~c. That is the propagation velocity of a disturbance through the vacuum. The surface of the bubble moves at ~c. There's no way I can think of to determine what the elocity actually is, other than it's close to c. All the energy contained in the visible universe as carried as if it were impurities carried along with a phase disturbance as in zone refining. In zone refining, a pure metal containing some impurities is purified by producing a melted zone that travels through the bar from end to end. The impurity concentration in the vacuum is about 10-30g/cm3, that's the density of the whole visible universe. So, I don't see it as some do. They have a front that travels at c, and into nothing, that came from something that popped out of no where. That's not physically possible according to their own model, or logic. That's done to simplify the matter, to look at and understand parts of the picture. It doesn't give a complete picture.
"You are perceiving extra-dimensions as compactified (string theory) whereas I am perceiving expanded dimension(s) from the big bang (higher dimensional dynamics.) Perhaps that is why you have confidence in CERN’s upcoming test to observe the so far undetected Higgs field/boson?"
There is no real difference as far as the phenomina, only the representations differ, and both representations are mathematically equivalent by mapping one into the other. Vassa's (5d,2t) mapps directly to a string theory of 10d, or 11d. They are just different ways of looking at the same reality. Neither one of these are too accurate though, just remarkably close in some aspects. Regarding the Higgs, it will be observed, only particulars of it could vary, like it's exact E. So, a compactified string theory, gives what looks like a Higgs, the std model does, and so does Vaffa's (5d,2t) in the interaction, it's in the mappings that show they are mathematically equivalent, asymtotic representations.
"what we consider to be “real.”"
We can only use representations of the reality to know and understand it. The physics is really the reality itself. The physical theories are just representations of it.
I didn't finish the reply to 7900. I take Gen 3 as parable and the characters Adam and Eve are there to explain why we are here. Each individual is represented by Adam and Eve. It was not only that God wanted to reveal Himself. He also wanted to give the gift of life. It was a gift of love. He wanted all men to reveal themselves. They were to choose where they would live. The characters Adam and Eve couldn't do that, per Ezekiel 18. Would they choose Him, or would they prefer some other set of values. Those that live in Heaven, would choose values like the Holy Spirit. Those that choose other values, unlike those held by the Holy Spirit, would live with others like them.
God put the world on the stage, so that they would in turn reveal themselves. It was to be mutual, they were made in His image and likeness, not in His Holy Spirit. They'd have to choose and develope their own spirit, with the gifts given, including free will.
" We cannot clearly see the spiritual reality from here which is to say, while yet in the flesh."
I think we can. That's why He came to teach. Some recognized Him, others did not. It's that stage thing and each was to reveal themselves. John 9 gives a good example of characters revealing themselves. Matt 11:25,
"At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."
Luke 8:17,
"For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open. "
I don't think naturalism has anything to do with the stage play. It's those things that concern the relations amoung sentient rational beings that do. That is what the stage play is about. Naturalism is just a side show. In the end, the anthropic principle applies. Nature is just what it takes for us to be here. The recognition of God depends on looking at what He has to say, not what nature has to say.
In the parable of the garden, the fruit was eaten, yet neither of them had what they attempted to take, which was the bread of life. The gifts given in Gen 1:26-27 must be used to determine how they will chew and digest the bread of life, and how they do the same with, or whether they prefer the bread of someone else.
I think Earthlings are going to have to head out to the high heavens if they're going avoid the sun's red giant phase, and go all the way to the big rip. Being that the we are only a part of that universe, and I see no reason God should limit his love in such a way to include only one planet as the only stage in the whole universe, the great part of which can't be seen, there may be others that get rescued from the big rip. LOL! Just a musing...
Wow. Thanks.
About as much of a stretch as timer's posts but somewhat more comprehensible at least in spots!
Thanks.
Our views of physical reality cannot reconcile, because neither of us are “wrong” – it is a matter of worldviews. We are different observers.
By all appearances, we are stuck on the Aristotle v Plato paradigm. In the Aristotle paradigm, mathematical structures – forms – universals – geometries do not exist, they are language terms only. The mathematician invents the geometry. In the Plato paradigm they do exist, geometry exists and the mathematician comes along and discovers it.
A mathematical structure is an abstract, immutable entity existing outside of space and time. If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of it but to the entire videotape. Consider, for example, a world made up of pointlike particles moving around in three-dimensional space. In four-dimensional spacetime — the bird perspective — these particle trajectories resemble a tangle of spaghetti. If the frog sees a particle moving with constant velocity, the bird sees a straight strand of uncooked spaghetti. If the frog sees a pair of orbiting particles, the bird sees two spaghetti strands intertwined like a double helix. To the frog, the world is described by Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation. To the bird, it is described by the geometry of the pasta — a mathematical structure. The frog itself is merely a thick bundle of pasta, whose highly complex intertwining corresponds to a cluster of particles that store and process information. Our universe is far more complicated than this example, and scientists do not yet know to what, if any, mathematical structure it corresponds.
Despite that, it is quite refreshing for me to be corresponding with you on matters of reconciling spiritual and physical realities from Genesis to Revelation. Differences are to be expected there too because we are different observers delving into an area where, at least in my case, the Spirit does not lead me strongly for or against some interpretations. For me, it is a license to “muse.” LOLOL!
My musings on Genesis (and Revelation) is that there is more “real” than “metaphor” being revealed to us – though I hasten to add that I do have a leaning in the Spirit that Genesis 1 and 2 are not speaking merely of the creation of the physical realm but the spiritual as well – and more specifically that the Garden of Eden (aka paradise) exists in the spiritual realm. Also, that Adam and Eve are real beings, made for eternity but banished to mortality, the physical realm.
The days for instance are also real to me, but not from our space/time coordinates. God is the author of Genesis 1 and observer of His own Creation – and when we consider inflationary theory and relativity, 6 equivalent days at the inception space/time coordinates is equal to approximately 15 billion years from our present space/time coordinates. Age of the Universe
At the same time, I am not offended at all by your interpretation of Genesis – or Revelation for that matter. These are musings on both of our parts, and, in the end (as you say) we’ll know. But for now we see through a glass, darkly.
But I am tickled pink that you are interested in reconciling the spiritual and physical realms! (I just wish you were a mathematical Platonist… LOLOL!)