 Relative or absolute?
That's the key to understand Einstein's paradoxical views! He considered SPACE and TIME as given physical entities. For example: He proposed in his theories that the presence of mass will be able to curve space-time to cause gravity... is that the way it really happens?
If we approached the same analysis both with a different frame of reference... will it stand? Let's say that there is something we may call a "physical reality" and that we are trying to see how this reality "operates" so we could understand it and use it to our benefits, ok?
If we admit the idea that there is in fact an EATHER and not an ideal VACUUM, if we admit that REALITY is the perfect image of this eather then I believe we'll find a very different set of values here.
So! Let's assume that the eather is the only and true source of REALITY in the entire universe.... as we all know, a weird concept Einstein tried to erase from physics books in 1905 and it still the center of many contradicting phenomena among our discoveries.
Let's also assume that SPACE [3D space] and TIME are nothing more than the FINAL RESULTS OF OUR MEASUREMENTS using a unique system inside an unique SCALE.
One of the very fundamental pillars of science is to be able to "translate" or "transform" the lecture of our instruments in a sort of "system of equivalence" with repsect to other phenomena. For example: If we measure the strength of water vapor and we compare that with the force we need to move a train it will be equivalent to have a unique system that could enable us to invent things and improve our standards... one of the objectives of science... right?
The problem as I see it, lies in the equivalence between those "physical REALITIES" AT DIFFERENT SCALES. The paradoxical situation [what made quantum mechanics so weird] is that when we attempt to "measure" and intervine in other scales of existence we change the actual REALITY at those levels!
The sole explanation is that we are "including" [adding] a new set of variables into the nature of an EATHER already structured in a given region of the universe. We must expect then a change in the way we CONCEIVE concepts like "3D SPACE" and also the way we perceive those changes [entropy] around us... Making us reach an erroneous conclusion that even TIME is affected by it.
TIME as a measuring system is ONLY CAPABLE of helping us to "see" that some region of "3D SPACE" are being transformed in shape" accordingly with variables introduced to the LOCAL EATHER.
There is [therefore] two different concepts acting "hand-to-hand" here! An EATHER in charge of [responsible for] our REALITY and our own way in which we PERCEIVE changes depending to the status of that EATHER.
It's like the "chicken and the egg" paradox if you which!
By changing the EATHER we change the "topography" of 3D SPACE" and consequently any eventual measurement concerning the elapsing of TIME in our instruments. We change the existent REALITY into a new one [sometimes permanently and sometimes temporarely] and we find contradictions every where as a result.
It is as if we were not allowed to FIND THAT EQUIVALENCE GREATLY NEEDED IN OUR CONCEPTS OF SCIENCE!
That's is when the concept of T.O.E. comes in! We shouldn't believe that there has to be a set of equations capable of the perfect equivalence in every scale since that assumption is simply destined to colapse.
REALITY is "connected" to its local realities existent in deeper levels across the complex structure of the universe. Understanding how each REALITY [eather] WORKS IN EACH AND EVERY SCALE will give us a clue of how "affecting" one level may result in conclusions to be reach in consequent REALITIES.
It is not that simple as mass warps space-time and that's the end of the story! At deeper atomic scales there is no observable mass [given the primitive status of our instruments] but on the other hand there is a "CONNECTED STRUCTURE BETWEEN REALITIES" I used to call them "HARMONICS." That's why I can comprehend the puzzling results concerning an eventual violation of the "Pauli exclusion principle" in specific cases where our "models" can fit with true REALITY.
Think about it! You'll find the paradox extremely interesting!
HUMANBYDEFAULT  |