In the history of popular physics the world was flat for centuries and centuries, and the universe revolved around it. No-one questioned it. It was obvious.
Then a greater common sense prevailed, the world was round, and the universe revolved around it. At first it wasn’t common sense, it was a scary proposition. People didn’t want to believe it until someone had physically sailed round the world without falling off the edge. Obviously it takes a lot to change a paradigm.
Then a greater common sense prevailed, the world was round and it orbited around the sun. At first this common sense was so uncommon that to suggest the world wasn’t the centre of the universe was punishable by death.
It took quite a bit to realise, sitting back and breathing in the implications. How could we not be the centre of the universe? It was such a huge paradigm shift that the people of the time must have questioned whether their God loved them.
Yet all the physical evidence of the paradigm was there. Empirical evidence. It was real.
Now a greater common sense is at hand. All the physical evidence is here. Again it involves our perception being centred less round the self. Even more objectivity is required. No doubt the next paradigm will have us kicking and screaming all the way to realisation. Yet once it is here en mass it will be, of course, naturally, how could it be any other way.
The adjustments of definition include Relativity Theories; Quantum Mechanics and Newtonian mechanics.
Along the way the fallout includes the Big Bang, Black holes, and the Expanding Universe.
Let the adventure begin.
Empirical Relativity proposes an equation with far reaching implications: an equivalence between two fundamentals of physical reality – mass and distance.
The respectable response to the theory is the same as the upshot of Albert Einstein’s Special Relativity equations when they revealed an equivalence between mass and energy. Matter is energy. The response to that was: how can that be true? It’s not obvious, it must be implicated. And a century later we take Einstein’s equation and its technological benefits for granted.
The key to the veracity of these or any underlying equivalences lie in the outcome of physical experiment providing hard evidence of such claims.
In the practical world of physics we have captured the laws of the universe as that which can be substantiated by physical experiment. This is called empirical evidence.
These ideas, these physical laws, are far reaching. They give us day to day assurance that the foundations of the earth are sturdy. From these taken for granted theories – Special Theory of Relativity, General Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Newtonian Mechanics - we spawn myths of the universe: The beginning - The Big Bang Theory, and the Nature of it - The Expanding Universe, Black Hole Theory etc.
Before we can get to the equivalence of mass and distance we must elucidate the way we establish laws of the universe. Our perception of empirical proof is that if properties of physical reality come to the same conclusion at a high percentage rate then those properties are elevated to the rarified definition of immutable universal reality.
Let us now explore a paradigm staring us in the face.
If we could look close enough at the tip of our nose we would see molecules. If we got really small we would see an atom. And smaller than that, the atom’s nucleus - proton/s and/or neutron/s, and smaller again, a quark or an electron. Although at that point the electron is so small that if we smashed our nose - or the particles in our nose - in the most modern of particle accelerators we would only be able to ascertain our nose’s electron’s speed or position, not both.
If our nose grew physically smaller (to the rest of us), the electron that we could detect in our normal sized nose wouldn’t exist in the smaller nose! In our nose’s smaller size our capacity to measure microscopic or macroscopic extremities would have changed – the goal posts moved so to speak.
If our proboscis grew vastly bigger and we were the size of an atom within we would experience a different nose. Vast amounts of emptiness, and the centre, the nucleus, ten thousand times smaller than the atom, of which is hundreds of thousands times smaller than the width (not length) of a nostril hair. The electron is nearly a couple of thousand times smaller than the nucleus again, so small that it hardly exists as an entity, it is more a field. Yet if we were the size of an atom the electron would be a tangible physical phenomenon to us, with far greater mass. It wouldn’t display the quantum effects it would from our current perspective. Depending on our relative perspective the physical nature and motion and time of our space-time changes, literally.
But aren’t we measuring effects in space-time to elucidate dynamics of reality? Dynamics that underlie cause and effect reality. And with consistency of proof we call them laws.
Without realising it science defines reality by our parochial empirical bias of it, not actual reality.
But aren’t we objective?
Whatever measurements and experiments we make, we, or any physical entity, limit the reaches of space-time just by having form. No matter how intelligent or objective we are, being of finite dimension naturally entails a physical perspective that actually defines and limits space-time to an extent.
The very nature of space-time can be dependant on its relative size and mass. If an object shrinks enough it becomes invisible, its mass decreases too, but not to itself, to us. Our capacity to measure a microscopic electron has its physical limitations, to us. It’s just too small!
It doesn’t mean it’s not big to itself, or has particles smaller than ‘it’.
We cannot depend only on how the universe impacts on us for universal empirical truth.
But aren’t we throwing out the baby with the bathwater when we orient our theories only within our empirical pocket of the universe?
Is there more to take into account to complement a complete picture of the universe? If we remain stoically attached to our interpretation of empirical evidence then when we try to understand our extremities our theories collapse.
We are prolonging the paradigm the universe revolves around us and only us. We have grown up. We can use our minds. We do not have to put empirical proof before our minds without fearing losing it in subjectivity.
At this point there are physicists who would propose string theory. On paper and fact string theory is based on the same centrist two dimensionally dependent paradigm, yet innovatively conjectural, dependant on unwieldy unfounded dimensions and premises as removed from empirical reality as to be a physics cult.
All the same we don’t need to be stubbornly empirical and irradiate and poison ourselves in a box with Schrödinger’s cat.
We do need to stay with what we have in front of us.
Before a paradigm changes it must be recognised as a paradigm. Although we are trying to be objective, that objectivity is a paradigm. The necessity to remain objective and aver the results of repeated experiments equal physical reality is a paradigm, a paradigm that is limited by the fact that the universe does not revolve solely around us – or our physical perspective shared by the entire planet. It revolves around each and every aspect of the universe.
Physicists’ definition of space-time/physical reality/physics, is that it is an expression of mathematics supported by empirical consistency. When renowned mathematician Kurt Gödel, a contemporary and acquaintance of Albert Einstein, completed his set of Incompleteness Theories the implications were acknowledged as mathematically universal. It would incorporate physics. The theory states that for any set (or theory) a proof cannot be found within that set to prove the set itself.
So much for objectivity in physics. But this then could be the key.
Yet if we discount empirical reality for even a moment, is it still science.
If there is a relative limitation of measuring capacity at the extremities of our empirical space-time vantage point, then obviously it happens at the reaches of every empirical reality perspective.
Therefore each and every space-time perspective in our empirical reality field is an event horizon, the edge of a universe of which has its central focal point at a different spatial size to ours; yet from that perspective the event horizon – the edge of that universe - can be right in front of our nose. As there is no empirical record of a gaping universe or black hole opening up in front of our nose then we can safely assume that it will not happen anywhere.
The implications suggest that the universe as we know it is an open-ended ‘entity’/set. There is no objectivity per se. There is nothing outside of it per se. It also suggests there would be no point that is a definitive stop, or event horizon, or space-time singularity.
Is this also suggesting the universe is infinite out there (or in there)?
It is not in our empirical practicality to suggest this. It is in our interest to concern ourselves with the logic of what is empirically valid or not and how it applies to our empirical locale – even having to refine the meaning of empirical to do so.
Would this suggest the universe is all one, i.e. all connected? There is no such evidence. The ideas that it is all one are best left to the long distance unities that are the playgrounds of string theorists. It is implying the universe is a closed set; i.e. that the 'set' of space-time is all one. Empirical Relativity – and Gödel’s Incompleteness Proof applied to physics concurs - says it is not. Long distance unities cannot exist per se.
If there is no one objectivity per se in physical reality, would this change the way we begin the mathematical approach in physics? What would be the nature of an equation that culminates in objectivity to begin a physics theory?
To recapitulate: The first premise of empirical relativity is that there is a relative limitation of measuring capacity at the extremities of each set of space-time points, but space-time goes beyond each set of space-time points’ measuring capacity (just that that space-time vantage point cannot measure that far).
There is no objective per se starting point of measurement that is not itself already physically biased. Mathematical measurements of physical reality cannot be objective to us and be universal at the same time. It can only be universally objective from a self referential mathematical basis – a dynamic no less.
Where does that basis begin?
To be universally objective from a self referential dynamic means physical objectivity can only begin as a division of itself – preceding and a part of each equation of reality. But then, what are we measuring? Space-time is more than linear visual dimensions, no?
There is a reason though, as we shall now see.
Masses at greater distances from each other have less gravitational force than those closer together. The drop-off of force with distance happens in a specific way – as the inverse square of distance. Why?
From a purely mathematical perspective of physical reality - as we have so far gathered – the self referential process begins with division of itself.
Because there is nothing outside the division the split is exactly even. Their physical properties would be the same to each other - equivalence.
This mathematical description thus far has equivalence between split particles. (The relevance of energy input etc. for the particles to split in two is explained soon). No properties of difference to itself though.
We have a dilemma straight away. If an initial division can only be a perfect split of itself, and thus have exact mirror entities/properties on either side, where is the differentiation? If anyone has noticed, reality is not an amorphous homogenous blob of equivalence. There is the richness of diversity in even the smallest aspect of matter.
All that is missing is difference. They can only split again.
After splitting again they would be four particles, with physical properties the same. No properties of difference as far as the four entities are concerned.
This visually dependant depiction can be split countless times, it will still be limited to two dimensions. Does this then derail this train of logic?
No. Because there is nothing outside these particles, and because this is not limited to a two dimensional linear visual depiction, the four particles only outcome available, to be in a state of difference from themselves, is the state of: - two particles, linearly with properties of length/distance, on one side of the equation – and on the other, two particles with properties of weight - of two, but, visually as one. One ‘side’ is two particles lighter in part (the two linearly being length/distance) relative to the other ‘side’ which is two particles massed (appearing like one).
We thus maintain the underlying equivalence of two particles with two particles. We have differentiation also that has its basis not limited to two dimensions. It becomes the foundation for three/four dimensional dynamics. The conclusion of this summary is mass equivalent to distance – as a dynamic.
There is nothing outside of this mass distance dynamic of difference. It can only be an underlying dynamic. This equation does not occur in a cause and effect manner in empirical reality. It can’t. It instils cause and effect. It instils time. This equation implies a common denominator difference. By its very nature of equivalence underlying, there can be no physical cause and effect representation of mass’s conversion to distance per se and vice versa.
Although the definition of physics requires the presence of both distance and mass for space-time to exist, research into their relationship has not been specifically scrutinised.
Matter cannot be equivalent to energy per se because, surprise surprise, as per the first law of thermodynamics – the law of conservation, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy does not exist in itself separate to space-time and its common denominators – mass and distance.
The equivalence of matter and energy, as is implied by Albert Einstein’s Special Relativity, is not only no different in principle than the equivalence of matter to distance, it is derivative.
Matter/mass is equivalent to distance. There is mass and distance and their difference; the difference is the energy relation between the two. Within matter there is energy dormant because mass is distance (volume etc) amassed in on itself.
Einstein was a visionary. His theories would spell the end to centuries of Isaac Newton’s (and the world’s) theory of absolute space and absolute time as separate entities. On the overall implications of General Relativity he said:
The only way that Einstein’s field descriptions have validity – which seem to have in general relativity descriptions of macro gravity – would be from localised space-time equivalences.
Each entity in each space-time field is subject to a relationship to the outside space-time surrounds, to an underlying equivalence, within that set relationship.
Having hopefully dispelled bigger picture unities etc. we can still see that reality is the stuff of romantics! Each individual aspect of space-time can only have its independently different existence dependent upon an underlying equivalence of two space-time common denominator attributes .. that are simultaneously different to each other. Set theory applied to physics cannot accommodate this dichotomy. Can it?
By what we have reasoned, it does – via mass equivalent to distance. We would not see the macro build up (or down) of distance’s transmogrification into mass, and vice versa. How it gets to the difference of mass and distance in empirical reality is not a cause and effect process, as mentioned, just as the difference of matter and energy is not necessarily in the macro details of E=mc². Nevertheless an underlying dynamic of mass and distance, a fundamental difference, is the common denominator difference of physical space-time, of every spatial entity.
By the mathematics applied to physics, space-time encapsulates an underlying equivalence between two fundamental common denominator differences. To cover all bases, could that equivalence be found in the subatomic - a particle/field yet to be discovered, a ‘building block’ of the universe?
According to the first premise of empirical relativity, quantum mechanics would be valid for our perspective of physical reality but as far as physical reality itself is concerned the quantum probability calculations are secondary. It would have no primary relevance when empirical evidence is relative. Despite the phenomenal amount of work into the subatomic realm and all the intelligentsia and intelligent theories exacted into a beautiful summation of empirical findings microscopic, our micro extremities behave in a certain way to us, but in their own way may behave as cause and effect as our physical reality. Albert Einstein denounced quantum mechanics, saying God doesn’t play dice with the universe. It would seem he believed in the subordinate relevance of quantum mechanics per se, but could not formulate an overall cause and effect theory that would ratify such without jeopardising the very foundations of his own physics theories.
It is so easy to imply the building blocks of the universe will be discovered in the realm of the subatomic, as if the ‘God particle’ - as physicists call it – will be found. It’s as if the answers to the universe are there. We would not have invested twelve billion dollars plus into a particle accelerator (Hadron Collider, CERN Switzerland) if we thought otherwise.
If we are not going to find the equivalence of two fundamentally different particles/phenomena in the microscopic, then we can only find it in everyday macroscopic reality. What is our everyday definition of space-time?
It is ironic that a discipline with the name of physics has a generalised description devoid of substance. It would seem it has been pertinent for us to define reality dependent on what we see, not substantial reality. The geometrical construct that we call three dimensions is a valid description of space-time, for itself as a description.
It is not proven that one spatial dimension is devoid of mass relatively, let alone three (or four) – except as a concept. (There are particles defined as mass-less - photons, bosons and gluons – yet are relative enough in nature such that it is speculative whether their subatomic mass-less attribute is not a variant of their energy definition).
It is not practical enough to isolate mass and distance from themselves. Sure it is absolutely necessary when defining relations within reality, but not in defining reality ‘itself’. The mass of two objects would give as much an indication of their interaction, impact etc. as distance/volume etc. No space-time interaction has any relevance but for the mass (relative weight) and distance properties, i.e. spatial distances between objects, and volumes etc.
Currently, even in quantum physics, there is no conclusive origin for mass. Such a fundamental aspect of space-time, yet no theory has sourced it. They have the number of proton/neutrons making up the mass of an atom (and to a far lesser extent, electrons) but the source of their subatomic mass is a mystery. There is the suggestion that all that solidity is energy. But no solution as to the origin of energy (especially considering it can’t be created or destroyed – first law of thermodynamics). There is the Higgs Boson particle/field, the holy grail of particle physicists, hypothesised as the source of all mass. One of the forefronts of physics today is a goose chase hunting that particle. We have spent twelve billion dollars and counting on the largest particle smasher (Hadron in CERN,
If we were to look at our nose in the mirror, touch it, there is the length/distance dimensions and there is the weight/mass. If we were to scientifically cordon off a snort of carbon dioxide and measure its gaseous makeup, its length/distance dimensions needs to come into play, and its mass (or relative lack thereof). No line of distance, not even empty space, is absolutely devoid of some form of relative mass; and no density of mass, not even a gas or block of lead, is absolutely devoid of distance.
The nature of atoms clinging together in mass is so strong that if there is not enough relative distance between two material objects then those objects will be drawn to the other. There is no mysterious force called gravity. As Einstein surmised, it is why gravity is equivalent to inertia, because mass and distance are, in an underlying manner, the same thing. It is only natural that two masses attract the other, within basic non-linear geometric properties. They are no different to each other and the field they are in.
All entities will gravitate to a greater mass, even atoms of emptiness (as general relativity theory explains). All masses will release themselves into entities, of which form distances (as the laws of thermodynamics explain).
The mass distance equivalence is so much a dynamic, i.e. an empirical unprovable impossibility, such that it is impossible for it to have an isolated exact equivalence. If it did then the universe wouldn’t exist. The universe exists courtesy of its difference. This is where time comes in. For the universe can only be an ever unfolding of itself.
According to distance’s equivalence to mass, time is not a geometric dimension tacked onto three dimensional geometry, as is surmised by Relativity Theory. Yet we do not need to devolve to the absolute time of
We could know distance and mass are inherently the same, yet there is a difference, fundamental to every aspect of manifest reality, empty or solid.
For all measurement purposes etc. we are dealing with mechanical physics – the dynamics between objects etc., we obscure their sameness for we cannot measure sameness - there is nothing outside of it.
Just how fundamental is the equivalence of distance to mass? Reductio ad absurdum: If I throw a ball of x mass with y force through the air it will land z distance away. If I throw a heavier ball with the same force it will land an exact distance not as far as the first. The equivalence of distance and mass is explicit. Because there is nothing outside these two entities there is no entity that is common denominator.
Light/electromagnetic energy has a ‘limitation’ of speed (obviously light cannot have infinite speed) because the space-time continuum it travels through is relative to the mass of the solar system. Why?
Once upon a time physicists felt safely ensconced in the everyday clockwork world of cause and effect. In fact, as the ticking of the twentieth century clocked over, physicists thought the universe was on the verge of being completely discovered and catalogued. All laws of cause and effect based on empirical evidence were nearly sewn up; only a couple of loose ends to tie.
Those couple of loose ends became cans of worms that upturned our fundamental clockwork universe.
One of the conundrums led to the universe of quantum mechanics, with all the interpretations - from dry to far fetched mystical - that that engendered.
In the other conundrum Einstein took both the constancy of the speed of light and that there is no preferred inertial reference frame to cornerstone his special relativity theory, upturning basic assumptions of the universe.
This profound paradigm change was hardly understood, let alone appreciated. In that stroke of genius he opened the door to a whole new vista of the universe, breathtaking. Absolute space and absolute time collapsed. Einstein’s special relativity had taken the emperor’s clothes away, namely, time, becoming a property of space, or, as it is termed, space-time.
Thus light-speed as a constant for the universe became etched in our psyche like an epitaph. Other theories since have been accepted as reality based upon this premise. Why?
Einstein, like many other scientists, considered that there must be a reason light’s speed did not vary. Its constancy defied rationality. Yet in the interim Einstein theorised, just is, empirical evidence says so, and used it as a core premises for relativity theory, with the profound upshot conclusion E=mc²: Energy equivalent to mass times the constant speed of light squared. The equivalence of matter and energy – practical, and premature, leading to nuclear bombs for instance.
Ten years later, with a spattering of non-linear mathematics, the emperor was denuded again, gravity redefined this time, by general relativity. Even though these new theories suited scientific logic they were not acknowledged as reality until empirical evidence of the curvature of space-time confirmed them in 1919.
Is it possible light measures the same speed not because it is a constant for the universe? If not a constant then what? What physical property would give us the exact speed of light when we measure it in different circumstances?
What is the biggest mass in our experience? Our planet? Jupiter? It is, of course, our explosive sun. Our sun is 99.8% the mass of our solar system. Forget the speck that is our planet; forget Jupiter and all the other planets, they’re nothing compared to our sun. Wherever you go in our solar system the sheer immensity of our sun’s mass dominates the vast emptiness.
With the overwhelming effect of the sun’s mass (99.8%) on our solar system, our ratio of mass and distance does not change, relatively. For this reason light-speed measures indiscernible variations in our solar system locale - at least half way to our closest solar system Alpha Centauri. We could do as many experiments here as we want, we would still be getting the same speed of light.
Is it too easy to make the proposition that light is a constant speed for the universe just because it measures the same in our vicinity?
Yet we might as well leave it there because we cannot prove otherwise empirically unless we take a long ride out of the solar system. Empirical evidence is, has, and always will be, the director of what is or isn’t reality.
But this is the old paradigm.
Empirical evidence is relative, contextual. Ours is not the only empirical point of view.
Fundamental particles like the ‘God’ particle will never be found. Electrons and quarks and beyond ‘particles’ have been hypothesised as fundamental, yet will be relative to particles beyond our empirical measurement. Gravitons will not be discovered. Particles confused as gravitons will possibly emerge, but will later be realised as not gravitons. Because of the equivalence of distance and mass, gravity is not an entity in itself and cannot be an objective particle as such.
A naked emperor walks the catwalk oblivious. Energy and gravity do not originate from individual aspects themselves - only from the relationship of mass and distance’s difference.
Ipso facto .. Black holes will retire without ever actually existing – except in science fiction. Our gross misinterpretation of macro space-time and the redundancy of the speed of light’s universal constancy will need to be understood before black holes retire into folklore, myths that never really existed. No-one’s ever seen or experienced one and no-one ever will; not even the centre of our milky way, or any galaxy. The hard thing to realise is that our astronomical data – the red light shifts of galaxies etc. are reviewed through limited theories, and literally limited perception of macro distance and mass. There is no space-time singularity out there. Period. Light would follow the homogenous actions of distance, because light is not a separate entity to distance and mass and their effects.
The universe is also not expanding. In time we will look back and laugh at the idea of the universe expanding like two dots on a balloon being blown up. Bit like how we chuckle about how people took it for granted the earth was flat only a few centuries ago.
There is also no such thing as a Big Bang; or any beginning whatsoever. We will have to expand our minds to appreciate this. This is not mythic, not maybe, this is literal. We probably cannot imagine a universe without a beginning – and we are not talking of universal beginnings from black holes connected to another universe; or quantum beginnings from ‘singularities’ etc. – Just, no beginning. And there will be no end. This is ‘endless’ non-linear unfolding.
This may all be a bit much to take in in one go. It’s okay, we have all the time in the world.
The fallacy that enabled such erroneous ideas to proliferate in this last century – black holes, expanding universe and big bang – is because the speed of light has been a rigid dogma in our scientific psyche limiting cosmology. No doubt it had its valuable phase in the evolution of scientific understanding, but the sooner we realise it doesn’t exist the better. These erroneous ideas come from the belief that our measurements are the centre of the universe. We graduated from thinking the Earth was the centre of the universe to thinking our measurements are the centre of the universe.
Our next revolution in physics will be about how we ratify empirical proof. The next revolution will be bigger than the last two. The next revolution will require us to extricate ourselves from the stranglehold empirical evidence has on our minds so that we actually use our minds first instead of following empirical observation blindly.
Empirical evidence can in no way be undermined or negated. It will still hold sway with the masses - a very much valid and everyday necessity. Yet will be placed no emphasis on as the only basis for physical reality. It will be directly indicative of our physical reality – not all physical reality. When ideas of measurements etc are calculated in the future, mass and distance’s equivalence will be politely but definitively forgotten. We will waive all notion they are related else our measurements would become impossible. They have to have their definitions as entities separate because it is only by difference that they become scientifically measurable and relevant.
But we will know absolutely, and it will be recorded accordingly: Space-time distance and mass are different aspects of each other. They are Energy’s expression, their movement and dance creates space-time itself – all of it.
Eventually multi-billion dollar particle accelerators will become dinosaurs. A more relativistic approach to our physical world will ensue, with an absolute integrity.
When empirical relativity becomes common knowledge it will make the universe and physics easier to teach at school.
What if our fundamental hypotheses of the universe are askew? They would, as a matter of fact, promulgate vastly erroneous perceptions of the universe down the line.
One of the beauties of science is that if theories came along tomorrow with more empirical evidence than current theories, science would give the crown of reality over. Yet science won’t budge if its co-dependant relationship with empirical evidence is threatened.
It begs the question. Do we define physical reality by what is relative to us, only us? Or do we define it by what is altruistically relative to each and every/any aspect of physical reality? To be completely objective what would the true scientist do?
Naturally the scientist would say it is impossible to take into account the perspective of any and all physical reality, so he/she remains completely impartial, objective .. to experiment, to empirical proof in front of us, and state that that is how it is from every perspective in the universe. Authorities say that that is what science is, that if we cannot depend on empirical proof we may as well scrap science altogether.
Even though experiments (within specific parameters) seem to validate quantum mechanics, Newtonian cause and effect mechanics, Einstein’s special and general relativity as recipes for reality, all validating experiments are .. relative .. to us!
If we were the size of the sun the Earth would be a spit of dust miles away. We humans inside the globule of dirt spit are microscopic to the sun, let alone the vastness of the rest of the galaxies in sight. If our theories on cosmology are out then all our starry observations are erroneously interpreted. Same goes for the microscopic. We can’t help but rely on logic when we interpret and theorise macro and micro reality.
There are big discrepancies and mysteries in today’s physics. The disparity between classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, relativity theories couldn’t be incongruent enough - despite elaborate attempts to unify them. We cannot account for dark matter throughout the universe, like, anything up to ninety five percent of the universe missing mass. That’s a bit of a discrepancy. There are many more ‘mysteries’ in physics we cannot account for.
So if we do not depend directly on our empirical evidence, what paradigm is there? How do we derive scientific fact from every aspect’s perspective of empirical reality?
By what we have reasoned, the universe has an inbuilt limitation of measurement at its extremities as soon as there is .. form – space-time.
Does space-time stop at the extremities of our measuring capacity? - as is implied by the current paradigm.
What we are sure of is that we cannot take into account the world beyond ours empirically. We can but hypothesise the existence of physical reality beyond - based on it being an extension of ours (just we can’t measure that far).
Gravity is defined as all masses in the universe attracted to all other masses. If we consider two masses, the amount of gravitational ‘force’ depends directly on the amount of mass. Why this happens? No-one knows. Just .. happens. It is an unexplainable ‘force’.
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ...
Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... Since the theory of general relatively implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, ... and can only appear as a limited region in space where the field strength / energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, 1950)
Our contemporary definition of physical reality/space-time is that it is made up of four dimensions: length, width, depth, and one of time. Time was tacked on to the geometrical construct of three dimensions in the last century, courtesy of the genius of Einstein.
The same can be said for energy. As mentioned and detailed in laws of thermodynamics, energy does not exist in itself. How does this affect our most famous equation: Energy equivalent to mass times constant speed of light squared. E=mc².
E=mc²?