Straight Lines And The Nature Of Space

We define a straight line as the route by which light travels or as the shortest possible distance between two points. We can prove that light always travels in straight lines by the fact that we cannot see through opaque objects. But have you ever wondered why this is the case?

It is clear that what is a straight line is determined by space, and not by matter. Massive objects in space, such as large stars, can exert enough gravity to bend light. But it is not actually bending the light, rather it is warping space so that the light near the object is travelling a straight line through curved space.

We could say that such massive objects change the rules defining a straight line in space so that the light bends. But if the rules can be changed, that means that there must be fixed rules governing straight lines in space to begin with. This is made more obvious by the fact that the movement of electromagnetic radiation in space is consistent anywhere in the universe.

If light, or any other electromagnetic radiation, consists of ripples in the underlying structure of space, which is why we perceive them as electromagnetic because in my Theory of Stationary Space, concerning the cosmology of the universe, space consists of infinitesimal alternating negative and positive charges, we should expect that there will be some inconsistency in the path of light through space.

The shift of one of the charged particles of space will logically affect the other charged particles all around it, not only the ones in the opposite direction from the source of the light. The universe should look as if we are looking through translucent glass.

Yet, this is not the case and we do only see in straight lines.

I propose that it is the nature of the structure of space as described in my cosmology theory, at least one more dimension of space than we can see and space consisting of a near-infinity of infinitesimal alternating negative and positive charges, that determines what a straight line will be. Straight lines do not actually exist in absolute reality, but are a property of the space which fills our universe. If the nature of space was somehow different, the definition of a straight line could well be different.

Rules require organization and there are clearly strict rules concerning straight lines in space. This means that space must have some underlying structure. In my theory, Planck's Constant and Planck's Length show up in all manner of physics formulae simply because this represents the size of these particles of space. Waves appear electromagnetic in nature because they are actually ripples that expose the underlying charge structure of space.

The structure of space must "prefer" that light travel a certain route, which is what we refer to as a straight line. Space is conservative, electromagnetic radiation takes the route through space which will cause the least distortion to it's structure. A straight line consists of actually getting the energy of electromagnetism dissipated through the structure of space in the way that will cause both the least disruption in the structure of space and the least variation in the disruption of the structure of space.

This can only mean that space cannot be a homogenous medium, there must be an underlying structure that "enforces" these rules. If light can take one certain path from it's source, but not any other path, there must be a consistently organized structure to space. The one that makes by far the most space is the alternating charge model that I have presented.

Thus the fact that light radiates in straight lines, and indeed that we even have a definition of a straight line, shows that the structure of space that I described in my cosmological theory must be correct. In order to better understand how space operates, as described in the cosmological theory, I have found it useful to introduce the imaginary concept of what we could call "absolute distance".

In my cosmological theory, space consists of an infinity of infinitesimal alternating negative and positive and electric charges in multiple dimensions. This explains so much about the universe as it appears to us. It is vital to understand that these electric charges are not charges IN space. Rather, the vast matrix formed by these charges literally IS space.

Sometimes, the best way to explain something is to develop an imaginary concept. In the posting "Reverse Archeology" on the patterns and complexity blog, for example, I used imaginary space aliens who make periodic landings on earth to illustrate how humans think in patterns.

Today, I would like to introduce the imaginary concept of 'absolute distance' to better illustate how space operates. Suppose that there was actually a deeper level of space so that the multi-dimensional alternating negative and positive charges of space existed within this "nothingness" of space.

In my cosmological theory what we perceive as a straight line, the shortest distance or the path of light through space, is actually the path of least resistance through space. In some areas, the electric charges of which space is composed may be more compressed by the presence of matter than in other areas through which the beam of light must pass. Light, or other electromagnetic radiation, will take the path of least resistance through space.

We can see this on a localized scale by the fact that gravity bends light. It takes a powerful source of gravity to have an observable effect on light, but so-called gravitational lensing is a well-known phenomenon to astronomers. This is where the path of light from a distant galaxy is observably bent by a galaxy that is closer to us. The earth's gravity cannot bend light, if it could there would be no such thing as a horizon.

According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, a moving object is diverted by a source of gravity such as a star or planet. But it is explained as actually space in the area being curved by the gravity so that the moving object continues in a straight line, but through curved space. It is not that the moon is really in orbit around the earth, but that nearby space is curved by the earth's gravity and the moon moves along a straight line through this curved space.

While we notice this curvature of space on such a local scale, what about the galaxies and groups of galaxies in the universe? It may well be that the structure of space is distorted within a galaxy relative to the vast intergalactic space in between galaxies. There may also be a distortion of space within galactic groups, the grouping of which our galaxy is a part is known simply as the Local Group. But since we are confined to well within our own galaxy, there is no ready way for us to detect and such distortion as we can with localized orbits.

This brings us back to the apparently straight line through which light appears to proceed from a distant object to your eyes. It will always seem to us that the light is proceeding in a straight line, but this "straight line" is actually just the path of least resistance through the intervening space.

It is true that asking if the straight line, along which the light from the object appears to travel, and the path of least resistance through the intervening space is one and the same is a very irrelevant question, at least in practical terms. But in terms of this absolute distance, which is what the path of the light would be if the intervening space was completely undistorted by gravity or the presence of matter as it is in deep intergalactic space, the light may not be taking the shortest route.

This can be compared to going to a place on the other side of the city. There is a street which would take us directly to our destination, but the street has heavy traffic, many traffic lights, and stops for passing trains. Even though the street is the most direct route in terms of distance, it is the path of least resistance to take the highway to our destination on the other side of the city even if it is not the most direct route in terms of actual distance.

We will always perceive space as being uniform and consistent, with the exception of local sources of gravity like planets and stars. But this may not be true at all, particularly in sections of galaxies where matter is densely concentrated. It may be that a place some distance away is actually a lot closer to us than we perceive, but any observation or travel to that place must take a roundabout route along the path of least spatial resistance, even though it will always seem to us to be a straight line.

Space may not be consistent at all in terms of the density and distribution of the infinitesimal electric charges of which it is composed. It may well be that the light that we perceive as proceeding in a straight line from a distant object is actually arriving by a very roundabout route. There may be all manner of unknown compression and rarefactions in the particles of space that we cannot detect.

This does not, however, mean that we can take a "shortcut" across distorted space to a distant destination because the path that appears to us as a straight line to the destination is already the path of least resistance through that space.

Evidence of my version of string theory can be shown by the nature of geometric shapes.

The simplest geometry is a line, Point A to Point B. If there was only one dimension, then the only possibly geometric form would be a line.

If we add more dimensions, the default shape becomes a circle or sphere. This is the locus of points that are equidistant from any given point. For example, anything evenly spreading outward from any point will form a circle in two dimensions or a sphere in three dimensions.

Planets and stars are spherical in form because, as it seems to us, it is the shape with the lowest energy state. If a continuously moving body, such as a moon or planet in orbit, is to remain within the gravitational field of a larger body, then it must move in a circle in the form of an orbit. (An orbit is actually usually not circular but elliptical, and ellipse is similar to a circle but has two foci instead of one focus. But one of Kepler's Laws states that a line from the planet to the star moves over equal areas of space in equal periods of time, so that we can still describe the orbit as circular in nature).

Since atoms are also spherical in form it is safe to say that it is roundness, circles and spheres, that best describes the predominant shape of the universe.

The circle or sphere is the shape of the inanimate universe, but when we come to living things we find a variation of that shape predominates. These are the locus of points equidistant from a single point, but if we establish the similar concept of a locus of points equidistant from a line then we have a cylinder, which is a merger of a circle and a line. This is the predominant shape of living things.

The trunks, stems and, branches of plants, as well as the bones, limbs and thorax of living things tend to be roughly cylindrical in shape.

Living things rely on movement, either to or from themselves. The circle is the established shape of nature, of which the body must be constructed. But the requirements of living things is best achieved by basing the circle on a line, rather than on a point.

Humans have introduced an entirely new predominant geometry to the universe. Not in our bodily form, that is based on the cylinder in the manner of other living things. The new geometry is in how humans organize the world around them.

There are no meaningful right angle shapes outside of human activity. The use of right angles to form squares and rectangles involve more complexity and are not as structurally sound as circles. The great significance of right angles is that it enables figures to fit together with no wasted space.

Accurate measurement is a prerequisite of significant right angles. When humans go about organizing the world around them, it is inevitable that right angles as squares and rectangles show up as the predominant geometry of this organization. (If this seems familiar, it may be from "The Celestial Meridian" in the book "The Patterns Of New Ideas").

Don't you think it logical that the geometric shape which is unique in that it fits together with no left over space should reveal something about the nature of space and the universe?

Briefly, my cosmological theory is that space consists of alternating infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges in multiple dimensions. What we perceive as the fundamental particles comprising matter, such as electrons, are actually very long one-dimensional strings aligned mostly in one direction, after having been thrown across space by the Big Bang which began the universe. These strings are aligned in the dimension of space that we perceive as time, because time is actually the movement of our consciousness along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains. What we perceive as the speed of light, the maximum possible speed, is actually the velocity at which our consciousness is moving. If a bundle of strings, which we see as an object of some kind, is perfectly parallel to us, we see it as being at rest. If it's component bundle of strings is not parallel to ours, we see it as an object in motion. A string or bundle of strings perpendicular to ours will be seen as moving at the speed of light. A right angle is the maximum possible angle and the speed of light is perceived as the maximum possible speed.

One thing that this theory really has going for it is simplicity. It explains so much about the universe that is otherwise very difficult to explain, yet the basics are very simple. There is a well-established principle in physics known as Occam's Razor, this principle is that it is usually the simplest explanation that turns out to be the best explanation. This theory does not involve the Higgs Boson, it does not suffer if it is not found nor harmed if it is found.

Notice that my theory very much revolves around right angles, the alternating charges comprising space would have to be at right angles to one another. An object moving at the speed of light would actually be a string or strings at right angles to ours. We can only see into, and move at will in, dimensions at right angles to the one in which our bundles of strings are aligned.

This is why right angled shapes are so useful to us, they fit with the basic structure of the universe as described by my theory. Yet the circle is the default shape in the universe, which is the opposite of the right angle. The reason is also explained by the theory, right angles require lines in two perpendicular dimensions while the strings comprising matter are generally aligned in one dimension.

My belief is that, if space was really empty space with no internal structure, then no shape would fit together better than any other geometric shape. It is difficult for us to imagine, but if the underlying structure of space was somehow round then it is circles and spheres that would fit together with no leftover space.

But this brings us back to the axiom in my theory that we see the universe the way we do not only because of the way it is but also because of what we are. We would always see the particular shape that fits together as straight lines. Whatever characteristics there are to space, we exist within that space and so would have the same characteristics in us.

The everyday euclidean geometry that is taught in school revolves around theorems and postulates that are conclusions of other theorems and postulates. But eventually, this brings us to something that cannot actually be proven, but must be presumed to be true, and for the entire structure to be built on this.

The unproven foundation of euclidean geometry is that when there is a line, and one point outside that line, there is one and only one line that can be drawn through the point that will be parallel to the given line. This, of course, only holds true if the lines are perfectly straight lines. There are non-euclidean systems of geometry that have been developed that are based on curved lines.

What I continue to find interesting and surprising is how much straight lines and curved lines are a matter of definition. Let's look at this in another way.

The nature of straight or curved lines is another way in which we see the universe the way we do, not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. We will always see the line in which light travels as a straight line. If light, due to the nature of space, took some curved path to get to is, we would not be aware of it and would always define the path of the light as a straight line.

We see a straight line as the least distance between two points, but that may be due to the nature of space. If space were curved enough, and you went in a straight line for long enough, you may end up back where you started.

The physicist most associated with the possibility that space is curved, relative to our perspective, is the Netherlands' Willem DeSitter. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity also involves curved space in that gravity is supposedly brought about by space being "curved" by the presence of matter so that a moon in orbit is actually moving along a straight line, but through curved space. Curvature of space due to gravity can indeed be seen in how a powerful source of gravity bends light. This is referred to as "gravitational lensing" as a galaxy can, in effect, form a gravitational lens as a more distant galaxy in the same line of sight is observed.

So-called euclidean space, like euclidean geometry, is for "flat" space and designed for no curvature. The angles of triangle always add up to 180 degrees. The non-euclidean geometries are for applications in curved space. The "shape" of space can be defined in terms of tiling, meaning what shape of tiles would be required, as on a floor, to fit neatly together with no excess space.

In our supposedly euclidean space, it is perfectly square tiles will fit together with no extra space. The trouble is that any being, in any space, will perceive itself as being in flat space. It is only if a long journey is undertaken through space, and the traveler ends up back at or near the beginning, that it will then be known that the space is curved. Or possibly if powerful enough telescopes could be developed which would enable one to look far into space, only to find themselves looking at their own planet.

For a line to be curved, something must define it as curved. It is somewhat difficult to conceive, but any line can actually be considered as a straight line as long as light travels along that line. If only one line, it could not be curved because there would be no other line to define it as curved. It would have to be considered as a straight line, because there would be no other line to define it otherwise.

If space was only one-dimensional, meaning a single line, it would have to be a straight line because there could be no other line to define it as curved. If there were other dimensions of space within which that single dimension existed, then there would be the possibility of defining the single dimension of space as curved by using the outer dimensions as a definition.

We define a line as curved because there is a potentially shorter distance between it’s endpoints, but this is a definition by space. But a one-dimensional being existing within that one dimension would be utterly unaware of these outer dimensions and could not perceive of his own dimension as anything other than a straight line. Can you see how much a line being straight or curved is a matter of definition by the background space in which it exists?

A line is curved if it is not aligned with the curvature of the background space. Any line that does not match the curvature of the surrounding space will appear as curved. Except by definition, there is no such thing as a straight or a curved line.

We can bend a sheet of plastic But if the rest of the universe disappeared so that the sheet was then the only thing in the universe it would not be curved because there would be nothing else to define it as curved. This applies to a steady curve, not a sudden bend.

Clearly, could space be curved by matter as with the earth in orbit around the sun or the moon in orbit around the earth? Powerful sources of gravity bend the path of light to bring about the phenomenon known as gravitational lensing. If there are many dimensions of space, but the matter of which our familiar universe is composed was thrown out across space by the Big Bang over only four of those dimensions, one of which we perceive as time, then this may cause adjacent blocks of spatial dimensions with more or less matter to be curved relative to one another.

What we really mean by curvature of space is some difference between the curvature of space and that of matter within it. If both space and matter have exactly the same curvature, then the curvature would be unrecognizable and meaningless. But, to understand the universe, it is vital to keep in mind just how much curvature, or lack thereof, is relative and a matter of definition.