This chapter will be part cold hard facts, and part philosophy. First the facts:
We have a long history of ignoring the aspect of rotation in our mathematical and engineering structures, as we discussed in the chapter on that subject. But one group of scientists do not: Astronomers and Astrophysicists. Astronomers and Astrophysicists need to consider rotation, because they have no other way of tracking and locating objects in the sky. Since our perceptual reality is basically just the observable sphere that surrounds us (we can currently visualize about a 12.5 billion light year radius), this is a natural. So the A&A’s pretty much use what is called Spherical Geometry, wherein each point is specified using three angular measurements and a distance. It is language of rotation that they use when they talk about locating objects by so many arc-seconds and so forth.
So the fact is this: rotational measurements are every bit as important as linear measurements, and any reasonably designed descriptive system should utilize and account for the inclusion of that component in the summary model. So when we put together a new measurement system, let’s be sure to include rotation as a specific variable that is included in all descriptions. After all, everything we see (and that includes everything I can think of, from electrons to galaxies) is rotating as well. They’ll be more on this in a couple of chapters, but for now, we’ve established one more fundamental aspect of our new system: It will include rotation.
Now the philosophy.
It has been mentioned before, but I’ll bring up again, that without motion, there is no time. (I’m really trying to beat this into your head.) This philosophically means that there is a minimum of three things required to establish a system (or a mini-universe, if you will). First, you must have a ‘thing’ a bit of matter of some sort. Secondly, it must be in motion, because motion creates both space and time. The universe creates its own space as it expands. Such is also true for our mini-system.
Thirdly, there must be an observer. This does not necessarily mean that a sentient observer is required, because, for example, a hydrogen atom could be said to exist of and by itself with the electron and the proton being mutual observers of each other’s motion (although, you’d have to say that if you were the electron it would be a pretty crazy path that the proton was taking). But in this example, you can see that all of the fundamental aspects are there: Mass and velocity being the only essential components required to define space.
Which raises another philosophical point. Can mass exist without time? Bear with me for a few minutes, here. This is not just another exercise in semantics. In most other geometries, we tend to believe that we can define space without mass, a kind of ‘a priori’ structure that happens to have mass in it. But is this philosophically logical? If it takes mass to define motion and thereby our concepts of space and time, shouldn’t there be some accounting for mass in the preconditions?
As we discussed in the chapter on General Relativity, Dr. Einstein thought so, and included the ability of mass, via gravity, to bend and warp space. This discovery has been spectacularly demonstrated by the discovery of ‘gravity lenses’ in the universe.
So, shouldn’t mass be included in the time function? And conversely, should we not consider time when we discuss mass? We will explore this subject later on when discussing the overall construct of a general equation for energy, but for the time being, we’ll let the questions linger.
Is there space without mass?
And if the units really do matter, does a geometry need to include mass?
From a logical perspective, it seems abundantly clear that mass must include a factor for time. The roundness of all things, and the fact that everything that we can observe is, is a fact that that is beyond dispute. From the tiniest of structures, the quarks, to the largest coagulations that we can see, galaxies, everything has, must have, these essential features. There are no cubic entities, excepting crystals, which are, as a matter of fact, made up from round atoms, and even the most dense, compact objects that we’ve ever examined have moving electrons and give off heat, which is really just a manifestation of their motion.
But the concept that mass has time has been difficult for me to internalize. I, like everyone that I’ve ever known or whose thoughts that I’ve shared through books or other means of communication, have always conceived of matter as something that just ‘is’, that doesn’t need to be considered as a time-based phenomenon. But the more that you think about it, the more necessary it becomes to cede credence to that concept.
Since everything is quite literally, moving through space and time, there are really no true ‘scalar’ values. Atoms, even subatomic particles can decay, and cease to be coherent entities. In that respect, they can be favorably compared to living things. They were born in the energy stew of the primordial universe, they exist and move through it, and at some point, they decay back into energy. Did you know that one of the most ubiquitous entities comprising all matter, the neutrons, are unstable outside of the nuclei of the atoms that contain them, and will decay into protons, electrons and neutrinos in a very short time if expelled? Until starting this project, I didn’t, either.
But they do.
So if all matter has a ‘birth’, a ‘life’ and a ‘death’, not to mention moving around during all that time, how can we avoid considering it as a time function? And so, somehow, out new geometry must include that concept, too.
This deduction will have some surprising consequences that will be developed in later chapters, but let me ask you this; if matter didn’t have an associated time factor, how could it exist?
– O. Penurmind