What I am reading, Paul, is that Einstein presented a proposal and he understood that it was a proposal. The proposal shows us his ideas.
From your article:
Einstein: “Thus we can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure of the universe only if we base our considerations on the state of the matter as being something that is known.”
and: “If the displacement of spectral lines toward the red by the gravitational potential does not exist, then the general theory of relativity will be untenable.”
He says (in my words) that matter is the foundation from which to view the universe (matter and space). But he then also says that his general theory of relativity will be untenable if we do not turn space into a medium of some kind.
So, thank you for showing clearly what Einstein says and making it is clear where I disagree with him (not about the actual outcomes we know to be true, but about the larger view).
First off, space is a phenomenon. That is already distinct from what Einstein says, but he could have desired to say exactly that. A phenomenon is real, but it is not a something. From the looks of it, Einstein wanted space to be nothing special if not for matter and at the same time he had to make space real and functional. The word phenomenon would have fit the bill.
Einstein: “In the first place we entirely shun the vague word ‘space,’ of which, we must honestly acknowledge, we cannot form the slightest conception, and we replace it by ‘motion relative to a practically rigid body of reference.’”
As I see it, Einstein saw things correctly, but it was almost impossible for him to describe it well. With matter on the move, he had to describe space as if it had a relationship to that matter.
— -
I need Rubin's Vase to describe where Einstein and I differ, and even then it is hard to show what is going on. Ultimately, however, it should be plain and obvious.
Einstein considered the universe to be one system, and that is where he and I differ. I consider at most the Milky Way to be one system (unless another galaxy bumps into it), fully unrelated to any other galaxy in the universe.
Okay, Rubin's Vase, because now we have two clear overall positions about our universe: one states a single system, the other states a collective outcome.
Let's describe the two views differently from the common perspective. I will focus on their unimportant backgrounds and show their differences:
- Vase: 0 –1– 0
- Two Faces: 1– 0 –1
The Vase has two zeros, two unimportant backgrounds to the side of the Vase. Meanwhile, the Two Faces have just one unimportant background, but that zero takes in center spot.
One would think there are just two positions in total to describe the whole of our universe, but there are three (four to be most accurate).
The Vase is the position representing unification. All that is shown and known is embodied by the Vase, the single 1. Its second position that is almost identical includes the two zeros as the backgrounds and is then still centered on the Vase being in the middle and still being the only thing that ultimately matters. These are the first two overall positions, almost identical.
The two other positions are fortunately much easier to distinguish.
The Two Faces are each of matter and they are separated by the central background. As such, we have the same position for matter as found with the Vase, but then presented twice because each Face is centered on just itself and not on the other Face. Two self-based realities, not based on one another.
The second position of the Two Faces is found in the center and declares that unification is not found at the overall level. It declares that separation is the fundamental action of our universe. The Two Faces are indeed self-based.
—
Let me describe Einstein’s strange positions with Rubin’s Vase and the four overall positions in mind:
If we believe the universe to be one system as Einstein did, then we must embrace the Vase as the view for all. And yet Einstein describes the larger perspective for how it all works just like we find with the center position of the Two Faces.
- He wants his cake and eat it two times.
He places his theory of general relativity in the center and gives spacetime a prominent position. That is the single zero in the middle of the Two Faces.
Yet instead of declaring that the universe is then not one system, he holds on to the idea that the universe is one system. He places his theory in the air by making matter real plus making space a medium.
- He is eating his cake twice.
Instead, he should have declared matter the essence (which he did) and then declare that separation is a fundamental force that took place among matter as soon as distance (full separation) occurred.
No wonder it was always hard to understand what Einstein meant. He said both things that cannot be denied, but that cannot be true at the same time.
Thank you, Paul, for making this very easy to understand. I believe that we can keep Einstein inside classical mechanics. We just need to recognize that we must not mix and match Vase positions with Two-Faces positions.
—
If interested, this article about Einstein and his positions. The ultimate goal is not to show that Einstein was incorrect, but that he ended up melding truths together as he considered them to fit together. He was searching, looking, trying to explain his way toward the solution while he did not have it.
But… I am with Einstein. It is the others that took his general relativity theory to the extreme that Einstein himself did not approve. Instead of basing our universal view on Newton and augmenting it with Einstein, a very large number of physicists are taking Einstein as the foundation for their universal views. That is a mistake because as Einstein said, “we can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure of the universe only if we base our considerations on the state of the matter as being something that is known.”
