Consider the following question:
"Just as Einstein banished the ether as a medium for electromagnetism we must now complete his work by banishing space-time as a medium for string theory. The result will be a model in which space-time is recovered as a result of the relationship between interacting strings. It will be the first step towards a reconciliation of physics and philosophy. Perhaps it will be quickly followed by a change of view, to a point from where all of our universe can be seen as a consequence of our possible experiences just as the old philosophers wanted us to see it. What other ways will we have to modify our understanding to accommodate such a theory? Not all can be foreseen."
Phil Gibbs
To answer the question, there are two key ways we will have to change how we view the Universe.
First, we need to dispel a popular myth about space and time, that there has been some question as to whether space and time are absolute or relative. Indeed, it is often heard that Newton answered that space and time were absolute, while Einstein answered they are relative. In actuality, this is what Newton had to say:
"it will be convenient to distinguish [time and space] into absolute and relative: Relative time is some sensible and external measure of [absolute time] by the means of motion; Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies."
Clearly, Newton believed the Universe consisted of both absolute nature and relative nature.
Second, we must extend the absolute and relative framework to the issue of matter. In other words, it will be convenient to also distinguish matter into absolute and relative.
Here's how it works.
As per Gibbs, the model is not founded on relative space or relative time, nor relative matter.
Instead the model begins with absolute matter in absolute space and absolute time. He refers to absolute matter as "strings", because he is a string theorist, but I prefer a much more generic term, "monads".
The monads interact, and, for the model to work properly, the monads must interact in such a manner as to act like the sense organs and a brain.
So when Gibbs says "the result will be a model in which space-time is recovered as a result of the relationship between interacting strings", he is essentially saying the same thing as Newton, that relative time and space are determined by the senses and, we know now, encoded in the brain.
Toward the goal of devising such a model, I created a research environment using the object-priented programming language Visual FoxPro.
It can be downloaded here: http://cloudmusiccompany.com/science/download.htm
As a simple example, to get familiar with the concepts, load the following code into the research environment:
Computer simulations have two basic parts, the initial conditions and the rules to progress the program along.Setup() for ln1 = 10 to 19 oMonads.Add(createobject("monad", ln1 , 0 , 0, -1, 0, 0)) endfor do while not lquit RefreshScreen() for each oMonad in oMonads oMonad.DoStuff() endfor =Sleep(1000) enddo * End of the program! * The rest defines the monad class and functions define class monad as custom nX = 0 nY = 0 nZ = 0 nDx = 0 nDy = 0 nDz = 0 nDotColor = 255 procedure Init(tnX, tnY, tnZ, tnDX, tnDY, tnDZ) this.nX = tnX this.nY = tnY this.nZ = tnZ this.nDx = tnDX this.nDy = tnDY this.nDz = tnDz this.PaintMonad() endproc function DoStuff this.nX = this.nX + this.nDx this.nY = this.nY + this.nDy this.nZ = this.nZ + this.nDz this.PaintMonad() endfunc function PaintMonad * This code just draws the monad on the screen _screen.FillColor = this.nDotColor _screen.ForeColor = this.nDotColor _screen.Circle(2, this.nX / n_scale + x_offset, this.nY / n_scale + y_offset) return enddefine function Setup public oMonads oMonads = createobject("collection") set decimals to 6 public lquit, nstep lquit = .F. nstep = 0 _screen.Cls() public n_scale, x_offset, y_offset n_scale = .1 x_offset = _screen.Width / 2 y_offset = _screen.Height / 2 on escape lQuit = .T. return function RefreshScreen nstep = nstep + 1 _screen.Caption = "VFP Monads Step: " + transform(nstep) doevents clear _screen.ForeColor = 0 _screen.Line(0, y_offset, _screen.Width, y_offset) _screen.Line(x_offset, 0, x_offset, _screen.Height) _screen.FillStyle = 0 return
program A.
Program A initially creates ten monads (absolute matter) in 3-D space (absolute space). The monads are placed along the X-axis from 10 to 19. They have a nDx property which is given the value -1.
The rules for the program are to apply every monad's nDx property to its nX property. Which is accomplished with this line of code:
The same is true for the appropriate Y and Z properties, but in this case they are zero all around.this.nX = this.nX + this.nDx
When you run the program, after 10 steps, all the monads have shifted 10 units to the left.
In examining the results of the program, I consider the monads to form a rod, and I ask a question.
Question: what is the length of the rod?
We know from the inital conditions that monads have values for nX ranging from 10 to 19. Simple substraction, yeilds 9 units.
In science length must be discussed in some units, the meter being a good one.
But the meter is a unit of measurement, which according to Newton's definition is relative space, not the absolute space we're dealing with here.
The answer requires us to devise a method of modeling the act of measurement inside the model. It is no longer sufficient to model an object alone, but instead to model an object and a subject together.
If and only if the monads of the rod were not alone, but instead accompanied by more monads which were interacting with the rod in such a way as to make a measurement of it, then and only then will relative space, relative time, and relative matter make their appearance in the model.
Here is a (not-so) artistic rendition of more monads arranged into an object and a subject:
Learning not simply about an object in a model, but what a subject knows about the object would provide us with an entirely new set of relative data from the model which can be used to make predictions instead of the underlying absolute data. This would be the break-through to which Gibbs eluded.
Think about placing two subjects in the experiment with different speeds relative to the object. Both their observations would be encoded in their respective brains. Would they be equal? Or would they differ? Since they require light (or some similar interaction) to make their measurements, would observers moving at speeds approaching the speed of light detect any strange effects?
It seems to me this could very likely be the appropriate explanation of length contraction and time dilation.
It also seems that distinguishing absolute matter from relative matter provides an entirely novel approach to modeling the double-slit experiment by allowing us to make predictions from the relative emergent data instead of the underlying absolute data.
But, we won't know for sure until we test it, and we can't test it until a model with an internal observer is actually constructed.
So I'm going to need a supercomputer. Some money for food would be nice too. Oh, and at the very least, I need your curiosity and willingness to understand.