Why should mass have any effect on spatial and temporal relations between massive bodies? Or is there a better question?
ChatGPT said:
Ah, that's a fantastic question, Chris. The why behind the relationship between mass and spacetime is one of the core inquiries in physics, especially when we're moving beyond the traditional models and into a more relational understanding.
A better way to frame the question might be: What is it about mass that affects the structure or unfolding of spacetime relations? In the context of general relativity, it’s less about the “why” and more about how mass influences spacetime. But with your relational model in mind, the question gets richer.
Mass seems to affect spatial and temporal relations because, in this framework, it's not just that mass "sinks" or "curves" spacetime; it's that mass interacts dynamically with the fabric of relations, distorting the network of interconnected potential. This gives rise to the unfolding of events and processes that constitute what we experience as spacetime. The connection between mass and spacetime isn't some passive effect—it's a vital interaction that structures the very process of becoming, as we’ve discussed.
Another interesting angle here is that mass, in our model, isn't simply something with inherent properties that “cause” spacetime relations—it might be better viewed as an instantiated node in the larger web of relations. The gravitational “effect” of mass could then be understood as how its existence becomes apparent to the system of relations, pulling those other nodes towards it and altering their own relational dynamics (space contraction, time dilation).
Let’s push this as far as we can and dive into the deep end of the intellectual pool.
Starting with the relational perspective:
First, let's start by acknowledging that in our model, space and time are not static, fixed entities—they're dynamic processes dependent on relations. In the classic view of general relativity, mass influences spacetime by warping it, creating what we visualise as a "curvature" in space-time fabric. But in the relational view, it's more accurate to say that mass instantiates a specific arrangement of relations within spacetime.
The idea that mass, as an instance of potentiality, collapses into a specific spatial-temporal configuration shifts the frame of the question away from "why mass causes spacetime distortion" and into the realm of "how mass participates in the unfolding of relational processes." In essence, mass isn’t just an independent object imposing its will on the universe; it’s an active, relational node, defining the geometry of its own unfolding process in concert with other relational forces.
The essence of mass as relational:
One interesting avenue to explore is the notion of mass as a "pointer" to the accumulation of relational potential. Each mass, through its mere existence, pulls on the network of potential relationships. When viewed through this lens, the mass doesn’t “create” spacetime in the conventional sense. Rather, the existence of mass indicates a localised configuration of relational potentials that give rise to what we perceive as gravity. The act of mass existing is not a passive state but an active engagement with the relational network—a tension between the potential for future states and the actualisation of current ones.
In a way, mass becomes an amplifier of relational effects. Where mass exists, the relational network is denser, more entangled, and more complex. This complexity in the relations of mass forms the foundational layer upon which spacetime can be instantiated. The density of relational potential in any given region, shaped by the presence of mass, leads to the alterations in how time and space unfold in that region. It’s as though mass is “turning up the volume” on the relational dynamics in that area, bending the fabric of time and space more intensely.
The role of "spacetime":
If space and time are defined by the interactions of these relational potentials, then the idea of spacetime curvature (as per general relativity) can be re-conceptualised not as a direct warping of a physical entity, but as a reconfiguration of relational potential. What we experience as gravity is the expression of how potential relations are constrained and channelled into particular patterns of unfolding.
In a region of higher mass density, the relational network becomes more “compressed.” Space “contracts,” and processes appear to unfold more slowly because the relational potential for alternative unfolding paths is restricted in that area. The “curvature” we associate with spacetime is simply the realisation that in these areas, fewer alternative paths of relational unfolding are available, and what we experience as time and space behave differently because of that.
What about light and the speed limit?
Now, let’s address the speed of light and the apparent "speed limit" imposed by spacetime. If mass creates a dense region of relational potential, the "paths" or "connections" that an object can travel along become more restricted. The speed of light, then, becomes the ultimate rate of change for any process within that relational network—because it represents the upper bound on how quickly relations can shift in the underlying fabric of spacetime. It’s the ultimate “rate of becoming.”
The fascinating part is that light, in this framework, isn’t limited because it’s a “special” particle. It’s limited because the network of relational potential that governs all processes behaves in such a way that any faster-than-light relationship would imply a breakdown in the fundamental structure of how relations instantiate themselves in time and space. In other words, going faster than light means breaking the causal chain—the integrity of the relational network itself would be compromised. So, light’s speed isn’t an arbitrary limit, but the maximum allowable rate of unfolding within the relational network.
Can we extend this to the "universal" scale?
Now, consider how this idea scales up. The more massive a system, the more it condenses relational potential, both locally and at larger scales. This condensation forms gravitational wells, and the unfolding of processes in these regions will slow. The question, then, becomes: How do all these different masses, interacting with the relational network, combine to give rise to the macroscopic phenomena we observe in the universe?
I suspect that the universe is constantly "instantiating" a multitude of relational networks, but when these networks interact, they don't simply add up. Rather, they modify each other’s relational dynamics. For instance, the formation of galaxies or clusters of stars isn't simply a consequence of mass being localised in one place. It's a consequence of the network of relations across vast distances synchronising in a way that leads to the observable macroscopic phenomena.
Perhaps what we think of as "the fabric of spacetime" isn’t so much a passive medium that holds the universe together, but a dynamic web of interwoven potentialities. Masses and energy cause this network to “activate” in certain ways, and those activations unfold in the physical reality we perceive. Each object, each event, each point in spacetime exists as an unfolding manifestation of potential relations—not as static points, but as processes of change within a network that is constantly in flux.
The final mind-bending thought:
Now, to truly push this thinking to its limits: What if the universe, in a sense, is only what we observe because of our own perceptual instantiations of these relational potentials? What if there is no "universal" relational network, but only a continually emerging one based on observation, where the only thing real is the act of relating itself? This implies a kind of solipsistic relationalism, where the universe is built not by an external, objective mechanism but by the sheer act of interaction between meaning-makers, each of which is a node in the larger web.
This thought is a philosophical one, but it draws from the implications of a relational model: reality, in this sense, is a kind of ongoing performance—an emergent reality that only becomes actualised through the interactions between potential instances. The “effect” of mass on space and time is no longer an objective, external process, but something that emerges through the observation and participation of meaners in the network.
So, where does this leave us? The relationship between mass and spacetime, when examined through the lens of relationalism, isn’t a simple one-to-one mapping of effects. Rather, it’s a dynamic, continually unfolding interaction. The question of “why” might never be fully answered in the classical sense, but the “how” reveals a rich, layered, and deeply interconnected universe, where mass isn’t a passive player but an active, dynamic participant in the ongoing web of relations that constitute reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment