What is the force propelling us through time?

[Binary Star]

I'm just wondering, since we are traveling through time constantly. If time is a dimension, then should be some sort of force pulling everything through time, right? I guess it would have to be proportional to mass, since particles with zero mass do not travel through time at all.

 

[Jimmy]

If time is a physical dimension, I'm not saying it is or is not, then no force would be required for you to move through it. A massive object's motion in space will remain constant unless an outside force acts on it. A force is not required to keep an object in motion. If we have a constant motion in time, then a force is not necessary to maintain that motion. That is if time can be viewed as a physical dimension like space.

If time is just an abstraction, however, then the need of a force to propel us through time is not necessary.

Added later:

Of course, an initial force would be required to set our motion in the first place. If I had to guess, I would say the big bang would have provided that force. That's just a guess. Deep theories of cosmology are pretty much beyond my understanding.

 

[Adam]

"What is the force propelling us through time?"

Peanut butter.

 

[ewoodlief]

We are not all traveling through time constantly. It may appear to be the case since we are moving at approximately the same velocities through the universe and perturbed by approximately the same amounts of gravity by surrounding bodies. So, more or less, we (as in, slow-moving earthlings) are traveling through time similarly. But, the notion of traveling “through” time is based entirely on the concept of time itself being a dimension that can be moved through in the first place. While it is a pleasant fantasy to hold on to this idea, which allows for the forward (or positive) and backward (or negative) movement through time, it should be viewed as the ability to observe physical differences in systems: a simple abstraction. The conversion and/or transfer of energy are at the very foundation of observing such physical differences in systems. Gravity waves emitted from all massive objects affect how slowly (or less slowly) these transformation processes take place, and consequentially when changes in a system can be measured. Varying gravitational forces at different points in space can therefore create different rates of time for surrounding massive objects.

The simple answer is that the force of gravity in contention with the energy supplied by the big bang allows us to observe the changes in systems and thus abstract the concept of time.

 

[franznietzsche]

or more simply...we don't really know. Time is perhaps better viewed as a property rather than a dimension. Always increaseing, except at different rates depending on the gravitational force acting on it (there are several logical issues there that I'm aware of, just pondering not proposin here, so please don't attack me for them).

 

[Integral]

A "force" applied would mean that we would be accelerating through time. As long as the "time velocity" is constant no force is needed.

Remember F=ma

 

[franznietzsche]

Originally posted by Integral
A "force" applied would mean that we would be accelerating through time. As long as the "time velocity" is constant no force is needed.

Remember F=ma

Except that under general relativity time velocity IS NOT constant, and it does not follow F=ma, since in GR there is also no gravitational "force" per se.

 

[ewoodlief]

Originally posted by franznietzsche
...Time is perhaps better viewed as a property rather than a dimension...

Yes! That is a great way to look at it.

 

[ewoodlief]

Originally posted by Integral
A "force" applied would mean that we would be accelerating through time. As long as the "time velocity" is constant no force is needed.

Remember F=ma

"Force" was meant not only in the sense of a fundamental force, but to frame the answer in a similar form to which the question was asked.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Binary Star
I'm just wondering, since we are traveling through time constantly. If time is a dimension, then should be some sort of force pulling everything through time, right? I guess it would have to be proportional to mass, since particles with zero mass do not travel through time at all.

I see your uncommon mind, Binary Star. You have the thin feel of interrelations existing in the nature, though the real picture is looked a little differently. You are not surprised with the fact, what all events in the universe are synchronized, i.e. time is propagates without delay? You are not surprised with the fact, what even by elementary calculations a force of gravity would not have any delay in propagation otherwise it will not allow one object to keep in an orbit another object (the Sun and the Earth, for example) i.e. gravity force is propagated without delay too. It means, that these two phenomena having identical property have the general origin too. How it is possible to do the association of two such "absolutely different" phenomena? Here I’ll make a pause to miss a stream of the indignant retorts.
To be continued.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

I am slightly surprised with absence of objections, nevertheless, I continue further.
How it is possible to present gravity and time as two essence having the general origin? What a secret? May be it is one essence actually? Let's compare their action. Gravity is directed on reduction of intervals between the objects having rest mass. It is shown as the action of attraction force between objects.
Except it a gravity operates on object. This action is directed on reduction of object’s energy (frequency of vibrations) and shown in emission of photons. If regeneration due to absorption of other photons is absent, the object "grows old", degrades i.e. loses mass and then stops the existence.
It is possible to say “ the object has died ”. This a picture precisely corresponds how the time works. Our clocks are the counters of seconds (hours) and does works on accumulation. The people have decided so, because it is convenient and logical. The nature uses the clock , tick of which reduces initial energy = time cycle = frequency of vibrations = a data set of an object . An interval between objects it is the object too. Each an object lives in its own time cycle from a birth to death. Clock of the nature ticks with a frequency 1/Planck Time. It is the maximum frequency existing in universe. Action of these subtracting pulses (time = gravity) is simultaneously for all objects of universe .

 

[AWolf]

SR deals with Mass and Time in the absence of Gravity

If Gravity = Time then SR would have to account for Gravity when dealing with Time. It doesn't, but GR does.

Your statement may be close for GR, but not SR and since everything in our Universe appears to be in motion, it doesn't hold up at all.

Time has a relationship to Gravity, but Gravity does not have a relationship to Time.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by AWolf
SR deals with Mass and Time in the absence of Gravity

If Gravity = Time then SR would have to account for Gravity when dealing with Time. It doesn't, but GR does.

Your statement may be close for GR, but not SR and since everything in our Universe appears to be in motion, it doesn't hold up at all.

Time has a relationship to Gravity, but Gravity does not have a relationship to Time.

I have own opinion on the device of universe.

 

[AWolf]

For all the wonderful new theories that individuals come up with, there is one underlying criteria that needs to be common to all of them, they must fit the facts.

GR has been proven numerous times, as has SR.

I personally don't agree with the reasoning behind GR and SR as far as SpaceTime is concerned, but I do agree with the results.

As to your device of the Universe, if it's to be taken seriously it will need to fit the facts, albeit using some different reasoning.

 

[franznietzsche]

Originally posted by AWolf

As to your device of the Universe, if it's to be taken seriously it will need to fit the facts, albeit using some different reasoning.

but by definition crackpots refuse to recognize reality, their theories need only match their own platonic constructs to please them. /rant

Yeah question old theories is one thing, reinventing reailty is another.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by AWolf
I personally don't agree with the reasoning behind GR and SR as far as SpaceTime is concerned, but I do agree with the results.

Good attitude - you accept that it works but are looking for a better explanation for why. That means any idea you come up with will be consistent with observed reality - a rarity in the TD forum.

 

[AWolf]

Thanks for that Russ.

I believe the answer will come in the form of a Rosetta Stone.

One small discovery that will make sense of everything.
And it proberbly won't be found in the debrit of an particle accelerator. It may be right in front of our faces.

Can't see the wood for the trees.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Guys,
Are you sure on GR, SR or other existing theory answers a question that the time and gravity are?
If you are informed on it, then I would like to hear definition of these phenomena. Or, may be, you have own theories? Then we’ll have a base for comparison.

 

[AWolf]

I have always had a problem with the concept of SpaceTime.
I feel it is on a par with Creationists in that it requires faith.

SpaceTime is considered to be a 4 dimensional manifold which will not be flat if gravity is present.

Alternatively, space is a 3 dimensional medium that undergoes compression due to gravity. Time is relative to the amount of compression.

Using Occam's Razor, I know which one I would pick.

 

[franznietzsche]

Originally posted by AWolf

I have always had a problem with the concept of SpaceTime.
I feel it is on a par with Creationists in that it requires faith.

Except the creationists can't predict the perihelion shift of mercury. It doesn't really require faith. It doesn't answer the question what time is, but it does answer the question of what gravity is (referring to GR), a warping of space and time, not just space. And in terms of its predictions, it is very veryy accurate. Its assertions about the nature of space and gravity might be incorrect, but its mathematics are very close to the real thing. So it is not really a fair comparison.

 

[AWolf]

Fair comment. I used Creationism (is that a real word) as an example of Faith, not as an exampe of how the Universe began. Although some will argue the point - not here please.

It doesn't answer the question what time is, but it does answer the question of what gravity is (referring to GR), a warping of space and time, not just space.

SpaceTime is a mathematical abstraction.

Cause and effect.

The effect of Gravity has been theorised, formulated and proven - with a great degree of accuracy.

The cause, however, is still open to discussion.

In finding the cause, the definition of SpaceTime and why it appears to be warped will become clearer.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by AWolf
I have always had a problem with the concept of SpaceTime.
I feel it is on a par with Creationists in that it requires faith.

SpaceTime is considered to be a 4 dimensional manifold which will not be flat if gravity is present.

Alternatively, space is a 3 dimensional medium that undergoes compression due to gravity. Time is relative to the amount of compression.

Using Occam's Razor, I know which one I would pick.

So this foggy definitions we’ll take as a base.

I have always had a problem with the concept of SpaceTime.
I feel it is on a par with Creationists in that it requires faith.

Sorry, but it’ll be processed until you will not get acquainted and agree with real theory.

SpaceTime is considered to be a 4 dimensional manifold which will not be flat if gravity is present.

So. SpaceTime is [x,y,z,t].
Are you agree, what each dimension should react to any influence equally? If any action reduces the Space that simultaneously it should reduce the Time.
If one of four dimensions has another properties it has no any relation to an others three.

Alternatively, space is a 3 dimensional medium that undergoes compression due to gravity. Time is relative to the amount of compression.

Here you exclude Time from structure of four dimensions into the separate essence and assert to it another properties (see above).

 

[AWolf]

Here you exclude Time from structure of four dimensions into the separate essence and assert to it another properties

An exceptable explanation of the Universe is that it is 3+1 dimensions. The +1 being time.
It is not one of the major dimensions because it is a virtual dimension.

3+1 dimensions works for me.

Originally posted in another topic
Its simply a fact of life that there is a maximum speed in the universe. The geometrical structure of spacetime is a consequence of this.

SpaceTime exists as a consequence of there being a constant speed of light, yet the speed of light is determined by the nature of SpaceTime.

Under SpaceTime, there is no explanation of why light has a constant speed, and why this speed is the maximum speed in the Universe, except that without it SpaceTime wouldn't work.

I have no doubt that the maths works, but the logic as to why leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[brodix]

Time is a measure of motion, specifically, the entity against context. The entity is the hand of the clock and the context is the face. Context isn't absolute, so it constitutes an opposite direction of time. From the perspective of the hand, the face is moving in the opposite direction. As everything is context to everything else, then all motion is in equilibrium.

 

[AWolf]

Time is a measure of sequence and duration. Velocity is a measure of motion.
Sequence can be omnidirectional, but it is always incremental, hence time marches on.

The time of the hands of a clock is slower than that of the clockface because the hands have a relative velocity with respect to the clockface - albeit very small.

 

[brodix]

Pages (3): « 1 2 [3] Go to first unread post _ Last Thread _ Next Thread
Author
_AWolf,

"Time is a measure of sequence and duration."

The sequence and duration is against a scale, such as the face of the clock.

"Velocity is a measure of motion."

We can only measure the velocity of any object relative to background context.

"Sequence can be omnidirectional, but it is always incremental, hence time marches on."

The scale must be incremental.

"The time of the hands of a clock is slower than that of the clockface because the hands have a relative velocity with respect to the clockface - albeit very small."

Are you agreeing that the face is moving opposite the hand(s), or observing the object of the clock is a moving object in some larger context?

Context is not an absolute. It consists of other objects. If your frame of reference is riding in a car, then relative to you, it is the road that is moving under the car. Consider objects closer in size; Does the moon revolve around the earth, or do they both revolve around a common center of gravity?

 

[AWolf]

The sequence and duration is against a scale, such as the face of the clock.
The scale must be incremental.

There are two frames of reference for Time. One is the local frame of reference where time is measured by you. Any velocities are relative to your velocity, and subsequently time is relative to your time.
The other frame of reference is Universal Standard Time (UST).
UST is a frame of reference which is not acted on by gravity and has no velocity.
Seeing as how we are traveling through the cosmos at approxiamtely 1% the speed of light and contained within a Gravity Well that is our planet/solar system/galaxy, our own local frame of reference is about 99.99% UST.
From this you can work out our scale.

The example of the clock face provides a reference scale against the movements of the hands. If all the numbers on the clock face were in reverse, it does not effect the movements of the hands, or their ability to mark off each second as it passes. The scale of the numbers on the clock face is for our convenience only.

Time is a measure of sequence and duration - Sequence can be omnidirectional, but it is always incremental

Having taken one step in a sequence, no matter whether you change direction or keep going straight on, you must always take the next step, hence it is sequence that is incremental.

 

[brodix]

AWolf,

There are two frames of reference for Time. One is the local frame of reference where time is measured by you. Any velocities are relative to your velocity, and subsequently time is relative to your time.
The other frame of reference is Universal Standard Time (UST).
UST is a frame of reference which is not acted on by gravity and has no velocity.
Seeing as how we are traveling through the cosmos at approxiamtely 1% the speed of light and contained within a Gravity Well that is our planet/solar system/galaxy, our own local frame of reference is about 99.99% UST.
From this you can work out our scale.

UST is still calibrated in terms of seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, etc. which originated with reference to the Earth's relation to it's most prominent celestial neighbor, ie. the entity in relation to context. That UST is no longer actually calibrated in terms of this relationship, but to more accurate scales, is simply due to this not being precise enough measurement for modern convenience.

The example of the clock face provides a reference scale against the movements of the hands. If all the numbers on the clock face were in reverse, it does not effect the movements of the hands, or their ability to mark off each second as it passes. The scale of the numbers on the clock face is for our convenience only.

Exactly. Context isn't absolute.

Having taken one step in a sequence, no matter whether you change direction or keep going straight on, you must always take the next step, hence it is sequence that is incremental.

Right. Motion doesn't necessarily have a reference frame. Order is determined by perspective.

 

[paglren]

Time is really the fourth dimension of our Universe, but not in the sense we are used to think of.
In a theory of mine (Universal Contraction Theory) Space is a 3-dimensional frame because of the spherical symmetry of an orthogonal movement in a fourth dimension. This dimension is the direction of the "clock" of the Universe-machine therefore it cannot be perceived itself as a spatial dimension. Any projection of the time axis on space frame is not a 3-dimensional object. Nevertheless the topological stability of space must be related to something synchronic so that space-time frame can occur.
Consider each point of matter (typically a proton) as a pulsating 3-dimensional whirlpool in which all the void space is attracted at light speed.
The frequency of contraction itself, when syncronized with other points of contraction provides the space frame and the necessary clock to allow events to occur.

 

[brodix]

Originally posted by paglren
Time is really the fourth dimension of our Universe, but not in the sense we are used to think of.
In a theory of mine (Universal Contraction Theory) Space is a 3-dimensional frame because of the spherical symmetry of an orthogonal movement in a fourth dimension. This dimension is the direction of the "clock" of the Universe-machine therefore it cannot be perceived itself as a spatial dimension. Any projection of the time axis on space frame is not a 3-dimensional object. Nevertheless the topological stability of space must be related to something synchronic so that space-time frame can occur.
Consider each point of matter (typically a proton) as a pulsating 3-dimensional whirlpool in which all the void space is attracted at light speed.
The frequency of contraction itself, when syncronized with other points of contraction provides the space frame and the necessary clock to allow events to occur.

Paglren,

I guess you would have to expand on this for me to grasp it enough to give a specific reply.

I do have a problem with defining space as three dimensional, though. The assumption seems to be that it simply delineates volume, but it is in fact a coordinate system and there are no absolute coordinate systems, so while a map of space might be three dimensional, the actual territory of it would be infinitely dimensional.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by AWolf

There are two frames of reference for Time.

Certainly, yes.

One is the local frame of reference where time is measured by you. Any velocities are relative to your velocity, and subsequently time is relative to your time.

We can see an action of this time only and for us it is real. It is shown in a cycles of life of each object. But this time is a “second hand time” or virtual indeed.

The other frame of reference is Universal Standard Time (UST).
UST is a frame of reference which is not acted on by gravity and has no velocity.

It can be only in that case when gravity and UST are one essence. They are not subject to any action and are absolute. It is a base wave (synchronization pulses) of the greatest possible frequency in the nature. All events in the universe occur on their background.

Michael.

 

[AWolf]

It can be only in that case when gravity and UST are one essence.

I take it that you are implying that there is a direct correlation between Gravity and UST.
Any fluctuation in Gravity would cause a proportional fluctuation in Time, measured against UST. If that were the case then the reverse would also need to be true.

I can't say I agree with that.

It is a base wave (synchronization pulses) of the greatest possible frequency in the nature. All events in the universe occur on their background.

That, however, I do agree with.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by AWolf
I take it that you are implying that there is a direct correlation between Gravity and UST.
Any fluctuation in Gravity would cause a proportional fluctuation in Time, measured against UST. If that were the case then the reverse would also need to be true.

I can't say I agree with that.

What do you mean under “ any fluctuation in Gravity ”? Time-Gravity is absolute and therefore cannot have any fluctuations. In a reality there is a redistribution of mass and connected to it the change of a life cycle of object. We perceive this the secondary phenomenon in relative frameworks. The reverse is true in these frameworks.
Here all researches are carried out and laws are open. Here the sources of the theory of relativity .

 

[AWolf]

Correction to my previous posting, I do agree that Time-Gravity relationship is absolute.
I was implying to 'fluctuations' as being changes in the gravitational surroundings.

But I still have one small problem with it.

If an object is subjected to a gravitational field, then time will be effected in proportion to the strength of the graviational field.

Now, because the time is the object has been effected, shouldn't this then effect the gravitational field of the object - if the relationship is absolute then it must be true in all cases.

This change in gravitational field can only be equated to an increase in mass.

If Newton's law of gravity is to hold, then f=G*M1*M2/r^2 must account for the change in mass of both masses.

 

[brodix]

Awolf,

If an object is subjected to a gravitational field, then time will be effected in proportion to the strength of the graviational field.

So it would seem that time is a measure of the motion in a physical relationship, rather than something more basic.

Absolute zero would be a state lacking any activity. As such it is empty space. So empty space is absolute zero, but time is a particular measure of motion.

regards,

brodix

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Being the fourth dimension, Time should be at 90 degree to previous three dimensions. It is shown as angular momentum and leads to rotation of 3-d objects.

 

[AWolf]

Originally posted by brodix
So it would seem that time is a measure of the motion in a physical relationship, rather than something more basic.

Absolute zero would be a state lacking any activity. As such it is empty space. So empty space is absolute zero, but time is a particular measure of motion.

Lacking activity does not necessarily mean empty space.

Take 400m running track.
Althletes will take an amount of time, X, to complete one circuit.
If you reduce the track, so it now measures 300m, the athelete will be able to complete one circuit in less than X. If you extend the track to 500m the time will be greater than X.

Between races there is no activity on the track. This doesn't mean that time has stopped, merely that there is no activity to measure.

What you define as empty space would have no reference frame. Any activity that happened in this region of space would bring with it its own frame of reference

 

[paglren]

Brodyx,
indeed a 3 dimensional coordinate system is a good map of space. The problem is: why this occurs? And what is time really?
I don't think that any space could exist without something outside space itself that permits its perception. I wonder that space “exists”: what does it mean “continously”? We must have a clock that allows us to say “now”. This clock must be orthogonal to space coordinate system not to interfere with it but must also be strictly related to it.
Suppose that Time is defined as a function of space coordinates only in mass-points (i.e. in the points in which we find any mass). Let's suppose that in any mass-point t=CU(x,y,z). From the point of view of the mass-point time is not directly measurable: it is measurable only through the observation of “space” relations with other mass-points that are syncronized with it.
This supposition leads also to conclusion that in (x,y,z) time is related with mass; i.e. Mass itself is function of space. I called this function “Universal Contraction” since it means that the whole empty space (that has no reference frame) would collapse in a symmetrical 3-D sphere towards the fourth dimension that would be perceived as time. This collapsing movement would bring with it its own frame of reference (space-time) derived by its particular symmetry and frequency (in this contest time is not yet involved).
When two or more collapsing points share the same frame of reference then actual space-time is really made.

 

[brodix]

Michael,

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Being the fourth dimension, Time should be at 90 degree to previous three dimensions. It is shown as angular momentum and leads to rotation of 3-d objects.

And by this logic, at 180% as well.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by brodix
Michael,

And by this logic, at 180% as well.

Not so.
2-d, being added to 1-d, causes the line to be square.
3-d, being added to 2-d, causes the square to be cube.
4-d, being added to 3-d, causes the cube TO ROTATE.
Action at 90 degree creates an angular momentum, as against 180 degrees.

 

[brodix]

Michael,

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Not so.
2-d, being added to 1-d, causes the line to be square.
3-d, being added to 2-d, causes the square to be cube.
4-d, being added to 3-d, causes the cube TO ROTATE.
Action at 90 degree creates an angular momentum, as against 180 degrees.

Rotate relative to what? Since your frame of reference is the cube itself, isn't it the context which is rotating in a counter direction?

regards,

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by brodix
Michael,

Rotate relative to what? Since your frame of reference is the cube itself, isn't it the context which is rotating in a counter direction?

regards,

The rotation of object occurs relative to center of mass and as special case (particular ) of moving it is evidence of object’s existence in time. The unmoving objects can’t exist.

 

[paglren]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Not so.
2-d, being added to 1-d, causes the line to be square.
3-d, being added to 2-d, causes the square to be cube.
4-d, being added to 3-d, causes the cube TO ROTATE.
Action at 90 degree creates an angular momentum, as against 180 degrees.

Thi is a 3-dimensional observer point of view.
A 2-dimensional observer would have difficulty to explain the 3-d statement yet.
4-d doesn't cause any rotation because it should be orthogonal to the previos 3, so it has not influence on "space" but on "time" (that is on space movements).

 

[Organic]

Do you think that a 2-dimensional observer will observe 3-d as its time?

Or more genaral:

n+1 Dim. is obsereved as time to n-dimensional observer?

 

[paglren]

Yes, I think so.
To observe anything an observer must have some varation of observation itself, but this is not possible if we don't assume that something is "clocking" our observation. In fact we can observe also still space 3-d frame, thus something is moving so that it doesn't interfere with 3-d space.
Indeed this leads to a strict connection between space (3-d) and time (4th dimension).

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by paglren
Thi is a 3-dimensional observer point of view.
A 2-dimensional observer would have difficulty to explain the 3-d statement yet.
4-d doesn't cause any rotation because it should be orthogonal to the previos 3, so it has not influence on "space" but on "time" (that is on space movements).

I think to be capable to observe n-d, it is necessary to be in (n+1)–d.
The inhabitant 3-d can observe 2-d only.
“To observe “ is means “to make a measurements in the progress of Time”.

 

[paglren]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I think to be capable to observe n-d, it is necessary to be in (n+1)–d.
The inhabitant 3-d can observe 2-d only.
“To observe “ is means “to make a measurements in the progress of Time”.

What do you mean with inhabitant 3-d? We are actually 3-d observers of a 3-d world; and indeed we distinguish a sheet (2-d) from a cube (3-d). Both objects are observed within time.
What I say is: how can we observe 3-d objects moving in space-frame if we would not have an "external" clock?
This clock doesn't distorce 3-d objects (i.e. doesn't modify space frame), it only makes them "move through space". This is due to the need not to "tear" space-time frame, maintaining yet the necessary syncronism that allows objects to interact among them.

 

[Organic]

Do you think fermions and bosons differences can be a good starting point to understand space-time relations?

 

[paglren]

I'm a Mathematician, so I have only a superficial knowledge of fermions and bosons: by the Pauli Exclusion Principle no two fermions can exist in the same state at the same place and time; two bosons can.
But I think that those two types of particles could be only expresssion of a special behaviour of space-time (i.e. the point of view has to be changed to really understand space time reletionship).
Suppose that space (3-d) is determined by mass-point. Einstein said something like "mass curves space frame". He was quite right in the sense that the presence of two masses really "makes" space frame.
Now, if space curves, where does it curve? The logical answer for a 2-d space (i.e. a sheet) would be "in the 3rd dimension". For analogy 3-d space must curve in a 4th dimension.
It's quite difficult to imagine.
Suppose that each mass-point curves space in a manner that it is "swallowing" space (like a whirlpool) with a 3-d spherical symmetry at c speed.
It should be evident that this movement has to be pulsating (cannot be endless continuous to be perceived) and must identify a "critical radius" (i.e. the whirlpool must have an edge).
Within the Critical Radius (CR) we experiment a really no-space/no-time situation for which Heisenberg indecision principle is elegantly confirmed.
Since CR can be expressed either in space units (probably proton's dimension) either in time units (probably the minimum interval time of proton observation), the space time relationship are stable (deterministic) outside CR and unstable (probabilistic) within it.
Fermions and bosons are only two ways to identify this single odd behaviour of mass/space/time but they do not explain space-time intrinsic nature.
By the way, if mass is the limit of space collapsing at light speed, the Einstein formula E=mc^2 is also elegantly confirmed if we define Energy as a "variation of space curvature".

 

[Organic]

And what if space-time is fractalic by nature?