Tag Archives: Spacetime

Is space-time relative or quantized?

When we look at light reflecting from an object such as a grandfather-clock, we see a time-delayed reflection through a radiation source, a photon. Our brains then process and turn that electromagnetic (EM) radiation into colours. So what our brains see is an interpretative description of electromagnetic radiation. If you are colour blind, you will see shades of grey; this is how matter looks before the human brain processes and adds colour.

So what is electromagnetic radiation? Electromagnetic radiation can be defined as: “Energy resulting from the acceleration of electric charge and the associated electric fields and magnetic fields. The energy can be regarded as waves propagated through space (requiring no supporting medium) involving oscillating electric and magnetic fields at right angles to each other and to the direction of propagation.“Source: Oxford Dictionary of Science, John Daintith, Elizabeth Martin, et al., 2005, Oxford University Press.

Electromagnetic radiation can be seen as a form of heat, and heat can be transferred from one body or system to another by electromagnetic radiation. We measure the amount of heat within any body or system as temperature. Temperature can be seen as a measurement of work, as the hotter something is, the more energy it has. Different forms of electromagnetic radiation are composed of varying forms of electrical charge (eV) and a corresponding frequency (Hz), with an associated wavelength λ in meters (m). Continue reading

Comments Off on Is space-time relative or quantized?

Filed under NatSci

A new definition of space-time?

What is space-time?

Well we all know of its description in terms of Einstein’s Special and General Relativity papers, not to mention countless other interpretations and further work to Einstein’s original thought experiments, from John Archie-ball Wheeler through to modern-day scientists such as Kip Thorn, Paul Davies, Michio Kaku, Roger Penrose and Stephen W. Hawking, to name a few.

But none of these great minds, as far as I am aware, have come up with a physical tangible non-mathematical description. The closest we have describes space-time akin to a 2 dimensional rubber sheet where planets and stars glide across the top of it. Modern day computer graphics can provide images of 6 dimensional space manifolds, but these are still represented on 2 dimensional paper; no element of time is represented pictorially. Continue reading

Comments Off on A new definition of space-time?

Filed under SFF

One of our Dinosaurs, or is that Universes, is missing?

Like the accolade to Disney in its heyday with the great comedic British Actor… I feel a certain sense of nostalgia to the missing Universe debate; an article published at http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/19/6/5/1 discusses how “dark matter” is still nowhere to be found.

If astronomers are correct in that only 4% of the known visible universe is made up of ordinary matter, with the rest being made up of dark matter and or dark energy {which is responsible for the universe’s expansion}, then one might sensibly ask, where is the rest of the missing matter? Or is it missing?

It is good to debate, discuss and form hypothesis, as this keeps people thinking; though to describe dark matter in scientific journals as though it was “real” as normal matter that we can see and touch, is stretching it a bit. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for debates, discussions and hypothesis, but also, there is nothing wrong in saying: “we don’t know” where the rest of the missing matter is.

Continue reading

Comments Off on One of our Dinosaurs, or is that Universes, is missing?

Filed under NatSci