Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Spacetime
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 23:26:47 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <816c22cd6777f919d255d5b5a98551e6@www.novabbs.com>
References: <46633b77bddb3b8bcf79567060ac4687@www.novabbs.com> <le0krbF2j9cU1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1185523"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$MEy6WAQ0EtcmmzD2uL/Ix.OmfWFf6XDeBsZFGysyjWmWYKwFi6.oa
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3480
Lines: 74

Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am Dienstag000025, 25.06.2024 um 14:20 schrieb gharnagel:
> >
> > “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
> > something quite different.” – Steven Carlip
> >
> > It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
> > as an actual "fabric."  It's really a mental model that
> > may not have any existence at all.  The equations of
> > relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
> > but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.
> >
> > I think the things that are real are THINGS.  I find the
> > basic concept of string theory very compelling: that is,
> > elementary particles are not points as the standard model
> > posits.  In the real world there are no such things as
> > dimensionless points.  It's a very good assumption because
> > the string theory particles are way smaller than we can
> > detect, but presuming elementary particles have extension
> > in space is surely correct, even though strings may not be.
>
> My own view:
> spacetime is real and particles are not.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :-)

> As 'proof of concept' I had effects, where seeminly matter comes from
> nothing or disappears without a trace.

I don't believe that has ever been observed happening.  Conservation of
mass-energy is quite firmy established.

> Examples for 'matter out of nothing':
> 'magic dust'

I'm not familiar with such.

> Growing Earth

An unscientific speculation.

> Matter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns'
> (of/in spacetime).
>
> See my 'book' about this idea:
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
> TH

"It's based entirely on geometrical relations within a smooth continuum,
that is supposed to be the spacetime of GR."

Yes, in GR fields are real things.  But as Feinman said in Q.E.D.,
photons
are PARTICLES.  QFT has tried to get around this by going back to
fields,
but string theory started out with particles.  I'm with Feinman.

"We treat ourselves as more or less as at rest and base observations on
our
own state of being."

This is essentially the first postulate of SR.

"By this definitions we turn imaginary phenomena into real observations.
But our observations are real only to us"

I don't believe in "imaginary phenomena."  What we observe IS the real
world.

"The idea is that we could create matter out of nothing"

That's not going to fly with me.