Einstein on Matter and Spacetime

[Patty23]

Did I understand Einstein correctly when I’m getting the impression that he’s saying time and space’ existence depends on matter?

In other words, matter is not in space and time but rather space and time is in matter.

Thoughts?

 

[EasterBeagle]

Did I understand Einstein correctly when I’m getting the impression that he’s saying time and space’ existence depends on matter?

In other words, matter is not in space and time but rather space and time is in matter.

Thoughts?

According to Bible interpretations there is a relationship between matter, space, and time as they expand together from the Big Bang. Outside the Big Bang (everything in the Universe) is the purest meaning of nothingness:

"The “Big Bang” theory based on 14 creation references in the Bible was first proposed by Catholic Priest Fr. Georges Lemaitre in 1927, and is the most widely accepted creation scenario among scientists for 87 years, holding that everything in the Universe was created from nothing, at an exact point 13.7 billion years ago. (1, 2, 3). Notwithstanding the puzzling folly of famous atheists such as Steven Hawking basing entire books touting Lemaitre’s mathematical redshift models (without ever mentioning Lemaitre’s name). His motivation was the Catholic Bible which asserts that God created everything from nothing (Genesis 1:1) (Hebrews 11:3), as well as 14 mentions of God creating the Heavens (and the Earth) in the Bible, 13 of which utilize the words “stretch, stretched, stretches, stretcheth, stretching, stretched-forth spanned, spreadeth and spread-out. “A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like spots on an inflating balloon” to illustrate the redshift of the galaxies moving away from each other in the “Big Bang” model. The Universe is literally stretching out, exactly as stated in the Bible. Pope John Paul II felt that the Big Bang theory was the Creation scenario closest to that portrayed in the Bible (4). According to a April 10, 2014 article in Astrobiology Magazine; “The most powerful space telescope ever built, the Hubble provided evidence that the Universe is slowing down in its infinite rush into whatever lies beyond” (5). According to Fr. Lemaitre, the inevitable conclusion to the Big Bang scenario is the Big Crunch, when gravitational forces overcome and halt the expansion, causing the Universe to collapse in upon itself. The unfathomable gravity eventually creates one enormous massive super black hole containing all matter in the Universe, collapsing in on itself with such great gravitational force as to approach zero in size. The properties of matter falter as this super black hole reaches critical mass and explodes into pure energy, triggering another Big Bang, forming a new Universe. This cyclic recreation process is confirmed in both the Old and New Testament, God creates a new Heaven and a new Earth, as the old Heaven and Earth pass away (Isaiah 65:17, Revelations 21:01)” (ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Bible_References.htm).

 

[Beryllos]

Did I understand Einstein correctly when I’m getting the impression that he’s saying time and space’ existence depends on matter?

Could you give us some background on that, or cite a quotation or source?

I suspect physicists do not agree. According to the theory of general relativity, matter affects space and time. Perhaps also space and time are necessary in order to have matter. To ask whether the existence of one depends on another may be like asking whether the chicken or egg came first.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

Did I understand Einstein correctly when I’m getting the impression that he’s saying time and space’ existence depends on matter?

In other words, matter is not in space and time but rather space and time is in matter.

Thoughts?

I don’t recall anything like that, but what I do recall is that he said something along the lines of: “Space-time tells matter how to move, and matter tells space-time how to curve.”

 

[Patty23]

I read something years something about it years ago I’m actually trying to find it again. Not trying to prove something he didn’t say.

Anyhow, it was also to my understanding that time and space didn’t have real or phsyical existence like that of matter. It was like time and space exists only insofar as there is matter. Much more like Kant’s apriori categories of time and spacen, where we see everything in time and space but time and space as such doesn’t exist. But unlike Kant, time and space co-exist with matter, since there are physical bodies moving in relation to each other.

Am I entirely wrong? Thanks

 

[Pat_Albertson]

I read something years something about it years ago I’m actually trying to find it again. Not trying to prove something he didn’t say.

Anyhow, it was also to my understanding that time and space didn’t have real or phsyical existence like that of matter. It was like time and space exists only insofar as there is matter. Much more like Kant’s apriori categories of time and spacen, where we see everything in time and space but time and space as such doesn’t exist. But unlike Kant, time and space co-exist with matter, since there are physical bodies moving in relation to each other.

Am I entirely wrong? Thanks

I was looking for something else and may have just found what you are talking about:

“When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.” - Albert Einstein

Here is the site in question, and among other things it has a lot of quotes by Einstein.

I think what you were referring to in your original post was essentially a distortion forced by the single sentence summary. What he is saying is that as soon as you introduce matter the flatness of space is gone and matter introduces space-time curvature within itself and a distortion in the metric of space-time outside of itself.

 

[Patty23]

I was looking for something else and may have just found what you are talking about:

Here is the site in question, and among other things it has a lot of quotes by Einstein.

I think what you were referring to in your original post was essentially a distortion forced by the single sentence summary. What he is saying is that as soon as you introduce matter the flatness of space is gone and matter introduces space-time curvature within itself and a distortion in the metric of space-time outside of itself.

Wow, thank you so much.

Great, now here’s where I’m going at but reluctant to do so yet.

There’s are a couple of threads about God and time here which I think can be somewhat settled by Einstein’s notions.

I’m thinking, Einstein somewhat proved that time and space are realites only applicable to matter and therefore all immaterial realities are not bound by time and space.

So Einstein wouldn’t find any logical problems with God being outside of time since God is immaterial. Any form of temporal succesion to him is not possible because he is immaterial. Angels too are not in time but are creatures after God.

 

[Beryllos]

I was looking for something else and may have just found what you are talking about:

“When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.” - Albert Einstein

I agree. I think Einstein’s use of the word “existence” (assuming he wrote it in English - otherwise it was the translator’s choice) may be confusing. I don’t think he meant that time and space cannot exist without matter, or that their very existence depends on matter. Perhaps by the phrase “no separate existence,” Einstein meant that time and space are not a fixed universal framework, unaffected by the presence of matter, as previous generations of physicists had assumed.

 

[wanstronian]

"The “Big Bang” theory based on 14 creation references in the Bible was first proposed by Catholic Priest Fr. Georges Lemaitre in 1927, and is the most widely accepted creation scenario among scientists for 87 years

No. The Big Bang theory as accepted by the majority of scientists, contains no references to, or dependencies on, anything espoused in the bible.

Nor did Lemaitre base his hypothesis on biblical references. Pius XII retrofitted the biblical account to Lemaitre’s hypothesis and declared it proved the bible was correct (a hilariously desperate tactic that still continues today with theologians both amateur and professional). Lemaitre was unhappy at Pius doing this.

, holding that everything in the Universe was created from nothing, at an exact point 13.7 billion years ago. (1, 2, 3). Notwithstanding the puzzling folly of famous atheists such as Steven Hawking basing entire books touting Lemaitre’s mathematical redshift models (without ever mentioning Lemaitre’s name).

Hawking is a scientist. He happens to also be an atheist, but his profession is as a scientist, and it’s as a scientist that he writes and theorises. Please stop poisoning the well.

His motivation was the Catholic Bible which asserts that God created everything from nothing (Genesis 1:1) (Hebrews 11:3), as well as 14 mentions of God creating the Heavens (and the Earth) in the Bible, 13 of which utilize the words "stretch, stretched, stretches, stretcheth, stretching, stretched-forth spanned, spreadeth and spread-out. “A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like spots on an inflating balloon” to illustrate the redshift of the galaxies moving away from each other in the “Big Bang” model. The Universe is literally stretching out, exactly as stated in the Bible.

No, not “exactly as stated in the Bible.” This is retrospective exegesis, pure and simple.

Pope John Paul II felt that the Big Bang theory was the Creation scenario closest to that portrayed in the Bible (4). According to a April 10, 2014 article in Astrobiology Magazine; “The most powerful space telescope ever built, the Hubble provided evidence that the Universe is slowing down in its infinite rush into whatever lies beyond” (5). According to Fr. Lemaitre, the inevitable conclusion to the Big Bang scenario is the Big Crunch, when gravitational forces overcome and halt the expansion, causing the Universe to collapse in upon itself. The unfathomable gravity eventually creates one enormous massive super black hole containing all matter in the Universe, collapsing in on itself with such great gravitational force as to approach zero in size. The properties of matter falter as this super black hole reaches critical mass and explodes into pure energy, triggering another Big Bang, forming a new Universe. This cyclic recreation process is confirmed in both the Old and New Testament, God creates a new Heaven and a new Earth, as the old Heaven and Earth pass away (Isaiah 65:17, Revelations 21:01)" (ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Bible_References.htm).

More exegesis - where does the bible say that “the heavens shall shrink and contract?”

No - it just says, “there will be new heavens.” Well, what do you know, this fits with the cyclical universe hypothesis. Oh, and also with the Multiverse hypothesis. And just about every other scientific hypothesis other than the long-abandoned steady-state hypothesis. So the bible is hardly revelationary here, is it?

And what about all the parts of the bible that science has irrefutably disproved, eh? Adam and Eve, the Noachic flood, and so on?

Cherry-picking and manipulation are not terribly impressive ways to make a point.

 

[Beryllos]

Wow, thank you so much.

Great, now here’s where I’m going at but reluctant to do so yet.

There’s are a couple of threads about God and time here which I think can be somewhat settled by Einstein’s notions.

I’m thinking, Einstein somewhat proved that time and space are realities only applicable to matter and therefore all immaterial realities are not bound by time and space.

So Einstein wouldn’t find any logical problems with God being outside of time since God is immaterial. Any form of temporal succession to him is not possible because he is immaterial. Angels too are not in time but are creatures after God.

An interesting suggestion. I wonder if Einstein’s other sayings and writings would shed more light on his understanding of God.

I am sure he would be fine with the idea that God is not restricted to our mere four dimensions (space and time). Proponents of string theory think of higher dimensions which, if they exist, are practically imperceptible. Whatever the true dimensionality of the material universe, whether it is 3, 4, 10, 26, or infinite, God is beyond all that. I suspect Einstein would say time and space of any number of dimensions are an insufficient and even unsuitable framework for contemplating the nature of God.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

I agree. I think Einstein’s use of the word “existence” (assuming he wrote it in English - otherwise it was the translator’s choice) may be confusing. I don’t think he meant that time and space cannot exist without matter, or that their very existence depends on matter. Perhaps by the phrase “no separate existence,” Einstein meant that time and space are not a fixed universal framework, unaffected by the presence of matter, as previous generations of physicists had assumed.

Yes, exactly so.

 

[EasterBeagle]

No. The Big Bang theory as accepted by the majority of scientists, contains no references to, or dependencies on, anything espoused in the bible.

Nor did Lemaitre base his hypothesis on biblical references. Pius XII retrofitted the biblical account to Lemaitre’s hypothesis and declared it proved the bible was correct (a hilariously desperate tactic that still continues today with theologians both amateur and professional). Lemaitre was unhappy at Pius doing this.

The article is sited with multiple links, and Pope Pius XII must have had a DeLorean to change the Bible, because all the Old Testament references can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, some dating to 3,500 BC.

 

[Patty23]

Yes, exactly so.

Ok, now. If it’s not matter but it’s not a somethign that exist only in the mind what is it’s ontological value or in other words what is the mode of it’s existence? Is it somewhat parallel to ether? Not so material but not so purely ideal?

 

[Bahman]

Did I understand Einstein correctly when I’m getting the impression that he’s saying time and space’ existence depends on matter?

In other words, matter is not in space and time but rather space and time is in matter.

Thoughts?

That is correct in the classical regime.

That is because that tensor of energy momentum is zero in Einstein’s equations leading to the results are the vacuum Einstein equations namely when Riemann curvature tensor is zero.

You can read more here.

 

[hildegaard]

According to Bible interpretations there is a relationship between matter, space, and time as they expand together from the Big Bang. Outside the Big Bang (everything in the Universe) is the purest meaning of nothingness:

"The “Big Bang” theory based on 14 creation references in the Bible was first proposed by Catholic Priest Fr. Georges Lemaitre in 1927, and is the most widely accepted creation scenario among scientists for 87 years, holding that everything in the Universe was created from nothing, at an exact point 13.7 billion years ago. (1, 2, 3). Notwithstanding the puzzling folly of famous atheists such as Steven Hawking basing entire books touting Lemaitre’s mathematical redshift models (without ever mentioning Lemaitre’s name). His motivation was the Catholic Bible which asserts that God created everything from nothing (Genesis 1:1) (Hebrews 11:3), as well as 14 mentions of God creating the Heavens (and the Earth) in the Bible, 13 of which utilize the words “stretch, stretched, stretches, stretcheth, stretching, stretched-forth spanned, spreadeth and spread-out. “A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like spots on an inflating balloon” to illustrate the redshift of the galaxies moving away from each other in the “Big Bang” model. The Universe is literally stretching out, exactly as stated in the Bible. Pope John Paul II felt that the Big Bang theory was the Creation scenario closest to that portrayed in the Bible (4). According to a April 10, 2014 article in Astrobiology Magazine; “The most powerful space telescope ever built, the Hubble provided evidence that the Universe is slowing down in its infinite rush into whatever lies beyond” (5). According to Fr. Lemaitre, the inevitable conclusion to the Big Bang scenario is the Big Crunch, when gravitational forces overcome and halt the expansion, causing the Universe to collapse in upon itself. The unfathomable gravity eventually creates one enormous massive super black hole containing all matter in the Universe, collapsing in on itself with such great gravitational force as to approach zero in size. The properties of matter falter as this super black hole reaches critical mass and explodes into pure energy, triggering another Big Bang, forming a new Universe. This cyclic recreation process is confirmed in both the Old and New Testament, God creates a new Heaven and a new Earth, as the old Heaven and Earth pass away (Isaiah 65:17, Revelations 21:01)” (ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Bible_References.htm).

Lemaitre may have had creation in mind when developing the theory, but the foundations of the big bang theory are crumbling, and have been for the last 15 years, even longer once you realize that inflation was a desperate attempt in 1980 to keep the theory afloat (and it held for another 20+ years).

The anisotropies in the CMB, in addition to pointing right back at earth (bit.ly/1p1O91j), also have made it difficult for any reasonable inflation model to work. So nonw, more speculative inflation models that posit the multiverse are being pulled out of the hat.

Inflationary schism after Planck2013
arxiv.org/pdf/1402.6980v2.pdf
ABSTRACT
“Classic inflation, the theory described in textbooks, is based on the idea that, beginning from typical initial conditions and assuming a simple inflaton potential with a minimum of fine-tuning, inflation can create exponentially large volumes of space that are generically homogeneous, isotropic and flat, with nearly scale-invariant spectra of density and gravitational wave fluctuations that are adiabatic, Gaussian and have generic predictable properties. In a recent paper, we showed that, in addition to having certain conceptual problems known for decades, classic inflation is for the first time also disfavored by data, specifically the most recent data from WMAP, ACT and Planck2013.
Guth, Kaiser and Nomura and Linde have each recently published critiques of our paper, but, as made clear here, we all agree about one thing: the problematic state of classic inflation. Instead, they describe an alternative inflationary paradigm that revise the assumptions and goals of inflation, and perhaps of science generally.”

So in addition to post-modern society, we now have post-modern inflation!

“This makes clear that a schism has erupted between classic inflation and what might appropriately be called postmodern inflation.”

“New measure problem – All favored models predict a multiverse yet data fits predictions assuming no multiverse”

The authors (themselves mainstream scientists) ask:

“The scientific question we may be facing in the near future is: If classic inflation is outdated and a failure, are we willing to accept postmodern inflation, a construct that lies outside of normal science? Or is it time to seek an alternative cosmological paradigm?”

 

[EasterBeagle]

Google & Yahoo searches still indicate that the Big Bang is still the most widely accepted creation scenario:

"According to a April 10, 2014 article in Astrobiology Magazine; “The most powerful space telescope ever built, the Hubble provided evidence that the Universe is slowing down in its infinite rush into whatever lies beyond” (astrobiology.com/2014/04/the-importance-of-plumes.html)

 

[Pat_Albertson]

Ok, now. If it’s not matter but it’s not a somethign that exist only in the mind what is it’s ontological value or in other words what is the mode of it’s existence? Is it somewhat parallel to ether? Not so material but not so purely ideal?

In a different but new and similar thread, I made the following post:

DavidFilmer;12086121:

I don’t know about the Jews, but Christians have always believed matter was created

The almost universally accepted scientific theory of the origin of the universe (the Big Bang) happens to agree - all matter (and energy) came from nothing (which the Big Bang describes as a zero-dimensional singularity, which is, as far as we are concerned, “nothing”).

Yes, when our universe (the manifold we are on at present) expanded from the point of zero dimensionality to a very small volume compared to the present volume, there was a very brief time when there was no matter but there was a false vacuum.

At the end of this short period (10 ^ -36 seconds to 10 ^ -33 seconds or 10 ^ -32 seconds; also known as the inflationary epoch), the false vacuum either decayed into a stable state or a metastable state with the evolution (“creation”) of a great deal of energy and mass.

If you want something more familiar from your own experience, something you can more readily imagine, think of a jet of steam leaving a nozzle (or perhaps the hole of a tea kettle, that is if your kettle holds just a tiny bit of pressure, just enough for the steam to have to speed out and then nucleate. One of those whistling kettles is much more likely to show this than the sort where the steam just drifts out.). As it first leaves the nozzle (or hole, or whistle), it is transparent and seems to be a gas much like the air, but after a very short distance, it is filled with a fog of fast moving tiny droplets which have just nucleated out of the steam. In this example, the transparent steam is analogous to the false vacuum and the new fog is analogous to the way the universe was after the brief cosmic inflationary period. After the inflation, the universe was suddenly filled with matter and energy.

In other words, there was a time (a very very brief time) when space, time, and a false vacuum existed, but nothing else.

There are also a number of toy universes that follow Einstein’s field equations without matter being present. One of them, which I would like to play with myself (I just haven’t gotten around to it) is known as a de Sitter universe. A de Sitter universe is fairly similar to the early inflationary epoch of our own universe.

It doesn’t consist of “the ether” or anything, it’s just expanding space-time.

 

[EasterBeagle]

A de Sitter universe is fairly similar to the early inflationary epoch of our own universe. It doesn’t consist of “the ether” or anything, it’s just expanding space-time.

That would still follow Lemaitre’s Bible model which is based on expanding (stretching). It’s just amazing how every mention of the Creation of the Heavens in the Bible follows the Big Bang (Expansion Model) and how a Catholic Priest found it to be correct by the redshift of far away galaxies moving away from each other:

Job 09:08 Who alone stretches out the heavens

Isaiah 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the sphere of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. Note: This is the very first written text on the planet earth that describes the earth as a sphere, or ball. This must have been inspired by God, as ancients could never have imagined anything like that.

42:05 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein.

44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.

45:12 I stretched out the heavens with My hands.

48:13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: [when] I call unto them, they stand up together.

51:13 And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where [is] the fury of the oppressor?

Jeremiah 10:12 And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens.

51:15 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

Job 09:08 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing. Note: The first written text on the planet earth that describes the earth as free floating in space. This must have been inspired by God, as ancients could never have imagined anything like that.

37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?

Psalms 104:02 Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.

Zechariah 12:01 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

That would still follow Lemaitre’s Bible model which is based on expanding (stretching).

Yes, as it says in the article I linked to:

It is common to describe a patch of this solution as an expanding universe of the FLRW form where the scale factor is given by a(t) = e^{Ht}, where the constant H is the Hubble expansion rate and t is time.

And then they have that link FLRW, which stands for Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric.

I have seen it in books before as the Robertson-Walker metric, and worked exercises based upon it. The exercises simply served up that metric as something real you could sink your teeth into so that you could generate real Christoffel symbols (gotta have Christoffel symbols for the Riemann tensor, Ricci tensor, Einstein tensor, curvature tensor, Einstein stress-energy tensor, etc.) from a real metric.

I’ve done it a time or two with paper and pencil, but nowadays it’s more to the point for me to set it up for Mathematica to tear into so as to see that I can get Mathematica to do it rather than me.

Since I haven’t really worked on the de Sitter universe metric yet, I can’t say for sure how I will perceive the FLRW metric as compared to the de Sittter one once I set them up and run them, but at this point the de Sitter one looks simpler than the FLRW one. Of course, that might not hold true once I get into it. I’ve seen before where monstrous output came from relatively simple (name removed by moderator)ut, and even surpassed things that looked more complicated and more worthy of generating monstrous output. But, the de Sitter universe has the reputation of being simple though, so there is that.

Doing the de Sitter universe is sort of on my bucket list of things to try, but it isn’t really a very high priority for me.

 

[hecd2]

Yes, as it says in the article I linked to:
And then they have that link FLRW, which stands for Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric.

I have seen it in books before as the Robertson-Walker metric, and worked exercises based upon it. The exercises simply served up that metric as something real you could sink your teeth into so that you could generate real Christoffel symbols (gotta have Christoffel symbols for the Riemann tensor, Ricci tensor, Einstein tensor, curvature tensor, Einstein stress-energy tensor, etc.) from a real metric.

I’ve done it a time or two with paper and pencil, but nowadays it’s more to the point for me to set it up for Mathematica to tear into so as to see that I can get Mathematica to do it rather than me.

Since I haven’t really worked on the de Sitter universe metric yet, I can’t say for sure how I will perceive the FLRW metric as compared to the de Sittter one once I set them up and run them, but at this point the de Sitter one looks simpler than the FLRW one. Of course, that might not hold true once I get into it. I’ve seen before where monstrous output came from relatively simple (name removed by moderator)ut, and even surpassed things that looked more complicated and more worthy of generating monstrous output. But, the de Sitter universe has the reputation of being simple though, so there is that.

Doing the de Sitter universe is sort of on my bucket list of things to try, but it isn’t really a very high priority for me.

Isn’t the de Sitter solution a subset of FLRW with no matter, just a Lambda constantin time and space, just as the Einstein-de Sitter solution is a subset of FLRW with no cosmological constant, just homogeneous dust? Surely there are exact solutions for these cases and the subsets are simpler than the FLRW?