The problem of space and time in gravitation from the point of view of the absence of absolutes

Dorokhin Vasily Head of the Quality Department; Autonomous non-profit organization of additional professional education 'Educational and Technical Center 'Safety' 630110, Russia, Novosibirsk region, Novosibirsk, Narodnaya str., 30/1, sq. 205 dorokhin.vasilij@yandex.ru

1. History.

Antiquity.

The Middle Ages. Newton – "I'm not building hypotheses."

Kant and Hegel.

2. The general theory of relativity.

3. The non-quantifiability of gravity. Confusion: unexplained experimental data.

4. The inconclusiveness of knowledge. What goes after the quanta? The consequences of the statement about the absence of absolutes on the knowledge of gravity.

5. Conclusions.

1. History.

Antiquity. Knowledge about gravity in antiquity was determined by the reasoning of some philosophers, for example, in the form of the postulate "Nature does not tolerate emptiness", in Latin: Natura abhorret vacuum. The expression belongs to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC), who believed that objects tend to a point because of their internal gravity: heavy bodies are not attracted to the Earth by an external force, but tend to the center because of internal gravity - present gravity. Modern experimental and theoretical concepts are as follows: absolute emptiness is not found in nature. Everything is filled either with matter or inside matter – various fields, at least the ubiquitous gravitational field. Even a vacuum in theory is a "sea of virtual particles": the Dirac vacuum consists of electrons and positrons. Due to quantum fluctuations of the vacuum, electrons appear in it "from nowhere", after 10 to minus 22 degrees (10-22) seconds, disappearing into "nowhere". A quantum vacuum should literally "boil" with particles that arise and disappear. These particles "do not have time" to take part in any paired interactions with real particles. Therefore, they are called virtual, which in Latin means possible. So Aristotle is quite modern.

However: absolutely complete filling contradicts the statement about the absence of absolutes (see ^[6]), according to which "nature strives to fill the void" without achieving the absolute disappearance of the void. What is "emptiness" in this (absolute) understanding? A clean space? What is pure - empty space? The ideal void would be the complete absence of anything in space. What is ideal and imperfect? Plato, the dialogue "Timaeus": "Firstly, there is an identical idea, unborn and inflexible, which does not perceive anything into itself from anywhere and does not enter into anything, invisible and not felt in any other way, but given over to the care of thought. Secondly, there is something similar to this idea and bearing the same name — tangible, born, eternally moving, appearing in a certain place and disappearing from it again, and it is perceived through an opinion connected with sensation. Thirdly, there is another kind, namely space: it is eternal, it does not accept destruction, it gives abode to the whole family, but it is perceived outside of sensation, through some kind of illegal inference, and it is almost impossible to believe in it."

The solution is obvious in the concept (term) of density. Reducing the density of matter-mass-energy filling the volume is the desire for emptiness. From the point of view of classical physics: fraction m/V → 0, or m → 0 V=const, or V → ∞ m=const, here V=volume, m=substance-mass-energy in total.

The author notes that the terms themselves become more precise over time, strive for the "true" term, but do not achieve it.

The Middle Ages. Newton – "I'm not building hypotheses"

Newton wrote the following about space, time and gravity in the "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy": ... time and space constitute, as it were, the receptacles of themselves and everything that exists. In time, everything is arranged in the sense of the order of sequence, in space — in the sense of the order of position. By their very essence, they are places, and it is absurd to attribute movement to primary places. These are the places that are absolute places, and only movements from these places constitute absolute movements ^[1].

In the final essay added to the second edition of the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica of 1713, Newton used the expression hypotheses non fingo, "I do not formulate hypotheses" in response to criticism of the first edition of "Rationem vero harum gravitatis proprietatum ex phaenomenis nondum potui deducere, et hypotheses non fingo. Quidquid enim ex phaenomenis non deducitur, hypotesis vocanda est, et hypotheses seu metaphysicae, seu physicae, seu qualitatum occultarum, seu mechani-cae, in philosophia experimentali locum non habent. In hac philosop-hia propositiones deducuntur ex phaenomenis, et redduntur generales per inductionem». ("I am not yet able to deduce the basis of these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not build hypotheses. For everything that is not deduced from phenomena is called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, both metaphysical and physical, both hypotheses about hidden qualities and mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy, propositions are derived from phenomena and generalized through induction.")

And yet there were hypotheses, as an essential element of knowledge. The theories of gravity developed before the general theory of relativity (GRT): Newton's theory (1686), its modifications (Clerault and Hill). In Newton's theory (in modern terms), the mass density field generates a scalar gravitational potential field. Newton's theory and its Lagrangian reformulated version do not take into account relativistic effects. Newton's theory, confirmed by experiment with a certain degree of accuracy at the present stage, according to the principle of correspondence, should be reproduced by any theory of gravity as a limit with a weak gravitational field and low velocities of motion of bodies.

The so-called "mechanical models" (1650-1900) were proposed, for example, the Lesage theory (corpuscular model) and its modifications. Poincare compared all the theories known by 1908 and came to the conclusion that only Newton's theory is correct. The remaining models predict large superluminal velocities of gravitational interaction, which should lead to rapid warming of the Earth due to collisions of its particles with particles causing gravitational attraction of bodies, which is not observed.

Here is a short list of these theories:

Rene Descartes (1644) and Christian Huygens (1690) used vortices of corpuscles filling all empty space to explain gravity.

Robert Hooke (1671) and James Challis (1869) assumed that each body emits waves that cause it to attract other bodies. Nicolas Fatio de Duillier (1690) and Georges-Louis Le Sage (1748) proposed a corpuscular model using the effect of shading one body by another from streams of corpuscles that arrive constantly from all sides (Lesage's theory of gravity). Later, a similar model was developed by Hendrik Anton Lorenz, but instead of corpuscles he used electromagnetic waves.

Isaac Newton (1675) and Riemann (1853) argued that the attraction of bodies is a consequence of interaction with the streams of ether.

Newton (1717) and Leonard Euler (1760) proposed a model according to which the ether near bodies becomes rarefied, which leads to a force directed towards the body.

Kelvin (1871) proposed a pulsation model of gravity and electromagnetism.

Currently, there are also various "vortex" and "etherodynamic" theories of gravity, and sometimes electromagnetism. Basically, the same Poincare objections can be applied to them.

Kant and Hegel considered the properties of space and their connection with the law of gravitation in their works:

- "Universal natural history and the theory of heaven, or an attempt to interpret the structure and mechanical origin of the entire universe, based on the principles of Newton" 1755, Kant I. Soch.: in 6 vols. Vol. 1. M., Thought, 1963;

- "Thoughts on the true assessment of living forces" 1747 ;

- Hegel G.V.F. On the orbits of planets. Philosophical dissertation. // Hegel G.V.F. Works of different years: in 2 vols. Vol. 1. M., Mysl, 1970. pp. 235-267.2. Hegel G.V.F. Philosophy of nature. // Hegel G.V.F. Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences: in 3 vols. 2. M.,: Mysl, 1975. 696 p.3.

Hegel mostly criticized Newton and approved of Kepler's work, but both Kant and Hegel wrote that God is the creator of the universe out of chaos.

2. The general theory of relativity.

Perhaps none of the theories of physics has attracted such attention in philosophy as the general theory of relativity.

At the end of the 19th century, theories of gravity related to the laws of electromagnetic interaction spread: the laws of Weber, Gauss, Riemann and Maxwell. These models were supposed to explain the only anomalous result of celestial mechanics: a mismatch in the calculated and observed motion of the perihelion of Mercury. In 1890, Levy obtained stable orbits and the desired magnitude of the perihelion shift by combining the laws of Weber and Riemann. A successful attempt was made by P. Gerber in 1898. But since the initial electrodynamic potentials turned out to be incorrect (for example, Weber's law was not included in Maxwell's final theory of electromagnetism), these hypotheses were rejected. Other attempts that had already used Maxwell's theory (for example, the theory of H. Lorenz in 1900) gave too little precession. Works by H. Lorenz, A. Poincare and A. Einstein laid the foundation for the special theory of relativity (SRT). SRT coordinates Maxwell's equations with the principle of relativity - for all observers moving relative to each other at a constant speed, the laws of physics should be the same. SRT excludes the possibility of absolute simultaneity of distant events.

In 1907, Einstein came to the conclusion that in order to describe the gravitational field, it was necessary to generalize the then SRT.

In 1913, Einstein and Grossman had already used pseudo-Riemannian geometry and tensor analysis. Relativistic theories of gravity were proposed: the theory of Poincare (1905), Einstein (1912a &b), Einstein-Grossman (1913), Nordstrom (1912, 1913) and Einstein-Fokker (1914). Nordstrom's first theory (1912) was an attempt to preserve the Minkowski metric and the constancy of the speed of light by introducing a dependence of mass on the potential of the gravitational field. Nordstrom's second theory (1913) was the first internally consistent relativistic field theory of gravity. Around the same time, Abraham developed an alternative model in which the speed of light depended on the gravitational potential.

Einstein and Fokker showed the identity of the Einstein-Grossman (1913) and Nordstrom (1913) constructions.

Einstein's theory of gravity, contained in two papers from 1916 and 1917, is what is now called the general theory of relativity (GRT).

Alternatives to GRT developed after it, but before the discovery of the features of the differential rotation of galaxies, which led to the hypothesis of the existence of dark matter, include the theories (in chronological order): Whitehead (1922), Cartan (1922, 1923), Firtz and Pauli (1939), Birkhoff (1943), Milne (1948), Thiry (1948), Papapetra (1954a, 1954b), Littlewood (1953), Jordan (1955), Bergman (1956), Belinfante and Zweigart (1957), Yilmaz (1958, 1973), Brans and Dicke (1961), Withrow and Morduck (Whitrow & Morduch) (1960, 1965), Kustaanheimo (1966), Kustaanheimo and Nuotio (1967), Deseret and Loren (1968), Page and Tupper (1968), Bergman (1968), Bollini-Giambini-Tiomno (1970), Nordvedt (1970), Wagoner (1970), Rosen (1971, 1975, 1975), Ni (1972, 1973), Will and Nordvedt (1972), Hellings and Nordvedt (1973), Lightman and Lee (1973), Lee-Lightman-Ni (1974), Bekenstein (1977), Barker (1978), Restall (1979). These theories mostly do not include a cosmological constant. They also do not include, unless specifically specified, additional scalar or vector potentials, for the simple reason that these potentials and the cosmological constant were not considered necessary before the discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe by observing distant supernovae.

The GRT establishes the following provisions:

"We see that the appearance of the gravitational field is associated with the dependence of g _µv on space-time coordinates. But even in the general case, when we cannot make the special theory of relativity applicable in a finite region of space by an appropriate choice of coordinates, we will retain the idea that the values of g _στ describe gravitational fields.

Thus, according to GRT, gravitational forces play an exceptional role compared to other forces, especially electromagnetic ones; 10 functions g _στ representing the gravitational field determine at the same time the metric properties of four-dimensional space" ^[2].

Ǥ 14. ...In the future, we will distinguish between "gravitational field" and "matter" in the sense that everything except the gravitational field will be called "matter"; this means that the latter includes not only "matter" in the usual sense, but also the electromagnetic field" ^[2].

"§ 3. ... According to the general theory of relativity, the metric character (curvature) of a four-dimensional space-time continuum is determined at each point by the matter in it and the state of the latter. Therefore, due to the uneven distribution of matter, the metric structure of this continuum must be extremely confusing. But if we talk about the structure of space as a whole, then we can imagine matter as evenly distributed over a very large area of space, so that its distribution density becomes an extremely slowly changing function." And at the end of the paragraph: "... The theoretical view of the real world, according to our reasoning, would be as follows. The nature of the curvature of space in accordance with the distribution of matter depends on place and time; however, this space as a whole can be approximated as a spherical space. In any case, this representation is logically consistent and from the point of view of general relativity is the most natural. We will not consider here whether this representation is acceptable from the point of view of modern astronomical knowledge. However, in order to arrive at this consistent view, we still had to introduce a new generalization of the equations of the gravitational field, which is unjustified by our actual knowledge of gravity" ^[3].

In GRT, the curvature of space-time plays the same role as electromagnetic fields for the forces of electromagnetic interaction. The field is replaced by a dynamic curvature of space, and the graviton – a "piece" of the field with energy – also bends space, i.e., it means the so-called "self-action". In general, Einstein combined two previously clearly separated concepts (terms) – space and gravity, because both space and gravity have the quality of omnipresence. What is omnipresent, from the point of view of humanity today: - space; motion - time; matter; gravity; god; something still unknown to us.

An absolutely empty space is an ideal. In general, it is assumed that in the presence of matter, space-time, which is a gravitational field, is curved, and the greater the energy of matter, the stronger the curvature. Thus, in GRT, the gravitational field is a property of space-time, manifested in the presence of matter. This property is the non-Euclideanness of the metric (geometry) of space-time, and the material carrier of gravity is space-time. The propagation of distortions (perturbations) of the gravitational field, that is, changes in the metric during the movement of gravitational masses, is the "radiation" of gravitational waves moving at a finite velocity postulated in GRT and accepted according to indirect experimental data equal to the speed of light within the error limits.

At present, the rate of propagation of the gravitational interaction has not been directly determined experimentally.

The author in ^[12] proposed an experimental scheme for determining this velocity. However, this experiment is currently very expensive.

But metrics are mathematics, and physical space-time is the "material carrier of gravity" - this is the gravitational field, according to GRT. The gravitational field is material, while the metric is immaterial. Is it possible to impose a speed limit on an intangible entity? It is assumed that somewhere there is a space-time without the presence of matter, that is, an immaterial entity. Obviously, in mathematics. But then matter appears from somewhere and space-time becomes material. The field is equated to a distorted, but still space. But is there a flat Euclidean space in nature? After all, there is matter everywhere that distorts space and there is no Euclidean flat space anywhere. According to the statement about the absence of absolutes, the pursuit of Euclidean flat space is possible, but there is no absolute achievement of it. Space, being distorted, turns from one hypostasis – a flat Euclidean into a non-Euclidean one - it is a "pseudo-Riemannian manifold" with a variable metric (see Riemann, Lobachevsky spaces) and in dynamics (in motion-time) into gravitational waves with a completely physical property – momentum, therefore, distorted space-time is a completely material object. In GRT ^[4], the gravitational field is separated from matter, understood here as the sum of matter and all other fields contributing to energy-momentum, except for the gravitational field, although from the point of view of physics, the field is quite a material thing. For example, a quantum of an electromagnetic field (photon) is a completely material object, and a gravitational wave is also a material object, as shown by the experimental detection of gravitational waves. Let's conduct a thought experiment: remove matter from a limited volume, then shield this volume from electromagnetic fields, then (if possible) shield it from the gravitational field (for possible shielding of gravity, see, for example, ^[5]. Then, moving the screens away from the center of our allocated volume, we will get more and more empty space in the center. Ideally, if you remove these screens to infinity, you will get an empty space in the center. According to GRT, this will be a flat Euclidean space. However, according to quantum physics, this will not be an absolute vacuum: as mentioned above, this volume will be filled with virtual particles, which theoretically (at the present level of our knowledge) cannot be disposed of. That is, practically as it was, so it remains today - space is what is everywhere and what allows objects to move – the main property of space is to ensure movement. Space-time in GRT acquires physical attributes that affect physical objects and depend on them themselves. Here we observe, most likely, a "philosophical" confusion in terminology caused by a mixture of physics and mathematics. Berkeley warned about caution in the approach to terms (see ^[7], p. 363). Extrapolation of our present knowledge for the future already makes it impossible to theoretically substantiate experimental data on particle entanglement and construct a quantum theory of gravity.

In modern concepts of gravity, the concepts of space and time are the main ones. The author would like to point out that space and time are not measured and are not directly felt. Any objects and movements are measured and felt. Just as the spatial properties of objects are measured by some selected objects, so time is measured by some selected movements.

An object is a primary concept, it is not defined by anything else and can only be explained by an example. Objects can include everything around us, as one whole, as one object, and parts of this whole, as many objects.

An object is a concept whose specific content is revealed when defining something as an object. Any object is defined when its properties are set. For example: physical space is an object that has the largest volume of all other objects and includes them. The author offers the following definition of space: space is something that is everywhere and that allows objects to move. Indeed, we cannot deny the presence of space in places where there is movement, and so far humanity has not discovered places in nature both deep (in the microcosm) and wide (galaxies and large objects) where there would be absolutely no movement.

Non–material objects can be called mathematical objects, objects imagined by people and all sorts of materially non-existent and non-existent objects - "cockroaches" in people's heads. Human thought is an immaterial object, but it is not an immobile, unchangeable object, it is an object that is moving, changing, non-static. "An uttered thought is a lie." Thus, with representations (abstractions) of empty space, without movement, without time, or a single object without space and movement, a person cannot abstract from himself (the observer) and imagine "space" or "object" without movement - time, he will not be able, since movement is "time" as a shadow of movement, they sit in him as a thinking being: "I think, therefore I exist" - that is, I am in motion - time.

The past, present, and future are the result of humanity's attempts to choose itself as a point of reference, the center of the world. In fact, there are movements of objects, continuous movements (due to the absence of an absolutely fixed position of objects relative to each other). To talk about the beginning and the end of this movement means not being able to break away from your human (final and initial) nature. "Man has no reason to consider himself a privileged being of nature ... the illusion that predisposes him to overestimate his role comes from the fact that he is both an observer of the universe and a part of it" [8. P. 391]. The beginnings and endings of absoluteness are the result of a person's transfer (reflection) to the nature of his human properties. "Movement is inherent in everything in nature, and all these words (life, thought, mind) in the end mean only movement, only the play of the parts of which we are composed" [8. P. 373]. Of course, if we follow Berkeley in the question of motion and God as the basis of motion (see ^[7], p. 385), then we can explain everything in general with the help of the divine absolute.

When we return "back", we do not return to the same point in space where we were Δt (delta t) of time ago. We came to another point, because due to the general movement, all objects left the previous points. Therefore, a return to the "same point" is possible only in the abstract world: in mathematics. In the physical world, it is impossible. But "impossible" is equivalent to "absolutely", which contradicts the statement about the absence of absolutes. Therefore, we cannot arrive at exactly the same point, but we can approach an exact return to it, just as a curve in mathematics infinitely approaches an asymptote. We see the following: in order to influence the present on the near past, it is necessary to expend a small amount of energy (this is also due to the finite rate of energy transfer), but the further objects in their movement move away from the point from which we started counting (our "present", speaking in the usual language), the more energy must be expended, to bring back the past. After all, the energy expended tends to infinity. But if the principle of causality absolutely forbids a time machine, then no memory should exist. Let's apply the statement about the absence of absolutes to this absolute prohibition and we get that it is the presence of memory that violates the perfect absoluteness of the principle of causality. Based on the statement about the absence of absolutes, we also assume a probabilistic approach to the concepts of "past", "present", and "future". For example, the mammoth skeleton in the museum – it was in the past: say, yesterday with a probability from 1 to 99.9995%; there is in the present: say, today with a probability from 1 to 99.998; there will be tomorrow, say, with a probability of 99.991. The author's approach differs from the approach proposed in ^[15] in determining the probability of future events by a large unit. The author believes that with this approach, not only terminology is violated, but also the very concept of the probability of occurrence of events. For example: an event (and the same phenomenon) is sunrise. The probability of sunrise tomorrow is about 1. And what is sunrise tomorrow with a probability greater than 1? Sunrise of a bigger, different sun or two? But this is a different event, or clearly a different phenomenon. The example with heads, tails and an edge of a coin in ^[15]: then you just need to add a fall on an edge to the set of possible events, but again the sum of the probabilities of events or phenomena (already three) will be equal to 1. That is, in this case, you need to consider a more complete group of events, not just heads and tails. The upper limit of probability is generally not defined in ^[15], it is stated that "The probability of a future phenomenon is higher than one. The probability of a real phenomenon is equal to one. The probability of a past occurrence is less than one."

Why is time an essential concept when considering the philosophy of gravity? Because it is included in both SRT and GRT, as the fourth coordinate and as a concept that cannot be bypassed in any way in the physics of gravity, and indeed in physics and philosophy.

People began to use time as an abstract, mathematical quantity convenient for use and calculations. The movements are not made up by people. "Nature does not set any goals, and all the final causes are only human inventions" (Spinoza) [8. p. 249]. Therefore, talking about the "arrow of time" about its "irreversibility" is reminiscent of previous disputes among theologians about how many devils can fit on the tip of a needle. Movements don't have what people call the past or the future, they only have what people call the present. But this present cannot have a duration equal to absolute zero. Thus, we cannot say that the "present" is an absolutely clear line between the "past" and the "future". The movements of objects carry with them information about the path traveled. If we consider the environment and the direction, we can predict with some probability the continuation of the path. The author believes that on a human emotional and aesthetic level, it can be said that time is the shadow of movement. Then we can get rid of the McTaggart paradox ^[14], which consists in the fact that when considering the passage of time, it is necessary to introduce another time besides the one under consideration.

The measurement of time and the concept of "time" in general is based on cyclicity: time "goes" step by step, day after day, year after year. Cyclicity – undulation - makes changes repeatable, but not absolutely. The movement - "becoming" - is not absolutely continuous. Each movement can be distinguished as separate and flowing into another. Discontinuity and continuity are again the result of human cognition, the method of cognition, but in fact there is a mixture, a "soup" of discontinuities and continuities - "becoming".

Based on the statement about the absence of absolutes in nature, it can be concluded that there is no uniform, rectilinear, equidistant motion in nature, that any movement is variable (undulating), which we observe in nature and in society. Undulation is a consequence of the absence of absolute repetition and absolute uniqueness in nature and in society. Generalization: - any movement (process) in nature and in society proceeds in a wave-like (cyclic) manner. The parameters of these waves (lengths, amplitudes, phases) are different and unstable. This is confirmed by the fact that gravitational waves were recorded directly experimentally for the first time on September 14, 2015 by the laser interferometric gravitational wave observatory, abbreviated LIGO ^[18].

In mathematical physics, Noether's theorems are known, according to which conservation laws follow from certain symmetries. For example, the laws of conservation of energy, momentum, and momentum of motion are consequences of the symmetries of physical objects in space and time. These symmetries are due to the properties of the unobservability of absolute time and absolute spatial coordinates. That is, here we see confirmation of the statement about the absence of absolutes – there is no absolute time, time is an abstraction of movement: "time is the shadow of movement."

Time, like the shadow of motion, is pure correlation: movements are changes in the positions of objects or subobjects relative to each other, it is not a substance, but a relation, since "the substantial concept assumes that time is an independent phenomenon of nature that exists along with space, matter and physical fields. The relational concept, on the contrary, denies the existence of time as an independent phenomenon and interprets it as a specific manifestation of the properties of physical bodies themselves and the changes occurring with them" [9. p. 369].

However, at THAT time, having entered the composition of space-time (continuum), bending and moving in the form of gravitational waves has an impulse, therefore, it has substantial properties!

If we apply to this case the statement about the absence of absolutes, we can conclude that time "swings" between the substantial and relational concepts.

The concepts of time and space are united by one property: non-pointedness. In space, this property is called extent (volume). For time, this property is called duration. Non-pointedness confirms the statement about the absence of absoluteness, since a point is an absoluteness.

A geometrically correct circle with a radius equal to zero is the absoluteness of a closed motion. Such a circle is equivalent to a mathematical point. The geometric "Euclidean" straight line is the absoluteness of open motion. According to the statement about the absence of absolutes, any movement will be something in between these absolutes: mathematically speaking, any movement will be between these asymptotes: the absoluteness of open motion and the absoluteness of closed motion.

According to the statement about the absence of absolutes, there is no absolute rest in nature. There is also no "absolute motion", since it must be an instantaneous change in the position of objects, i.e., infinitely high speed.

Inertia is the impossibility of changing any (and even more so all at once) properties of an object instantly, that is, with an infinitely large (absolute) speed.

3. The non-quantifiability of gravity.

Let's make a reservation right away – quantum mechanics, quantum chromodynamics, in general, the theories of quantum fields are difficult for a person who is used to being in the field of classical mechanics, operating mainly with macro objects, which include humans. Therefore, even "savvy" individuals have questions when trying to apply quantum positions to the gravitational field: are gravitons quanta of the gravitational field or quanta of curved space? After all, the carriers of other interactions are "clusters" of fields (electromagnetic field – photon, strong – gluon, weak and Higgs bosons) located in space, that is, in this sense, gravity again stands out from the general picture, here the graviton is either a clot of the gravitational field, or a clot of a curved four-dimensional space-time.

In addition, some modern theories suggest a hypothetical quantization of space-time. But what will be the boundary or the gap between the "quanta" of this state – space-time, and can it be called space-time? After all, it is currently assumed that a quantum is an object that obeys certain laws and (attention!) occupying any part of the volume of space and somehow separated from other objects by a space-time interval, that is, having some, maybe fuzzy, but boundaries. But what will the boundaries be (clear, fuzzy, at least what?) a quantum of space-time? How will it be (or won't it be?) is he connected with the "neighbors"? Space cannot be absolutely continuous, according to the statement about the absence of absolutes, however, it can strive for such a state without reaching it. I.e., some parts of space are possible, limited in some way, but not absolutely. The connectivity of the parts of space may be different than in neighboring regions, the properties of these parts will somehow differ from the neighboring ones.

Quantum gravity – "mosaic" of space-time "four-dimensional pieces", graviton (virtual, non-virtual) as a "hole" (electrons and holes, – holes are the absence of electrons in some places and therefore these places have a positive charge, without having a material charge carrier, as in the case of an electron), but: what is the transition from a mosaic to a curved, but continuous (smooth) space-time GRT? Obviously, it is possible to apply the Bohr correspondence principle to GRT and quantum gravity: the equations of quantum gravity must transform into GRT equations under certain conditions. The correspondence principle is a postulate of quantum mechanics (or rather, Bohr's postulate), which requires the coincidence of its physical consequences in the limiting case of large quantum numbers with the results of classical theory. If the quantum numbers are large, then the system obeys classical laws with high accuracy. From a formal point of view, this means that in the limit h→0, the quantum mechanical description of physical objects should be equivalent to the classical one. Or in a broader, philosophical sense: any new theory that claims to describe physical reality in more depth and to a wider field of applicability than the old one should include the old one as the limiting case. Here you can immediately ask the question: is the principle of correspondence "on the contrary" possible - the equations of GRT under certain conditions should pass into the equations of quantum gravity by analogy with the process of "integration" reverse "differentiation" - a simpler process, is it possible to assume the form of equations of quantum gravity from the equations of GRT? A possible transformation is as follows: the 4-dimensional world transforms into the n-dimensional world of quantum gravity with decreasing lengths, as happened during the transition from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics. Philosophical studies of the multidimensionality of space-time in the microcosm (see, for example, ^[13]) have not led to the expulsion of time from the microcosm (that is, the recognition of zero-dimensionality for time), and even more so, movements, which confirms the correctness of the statement about the absence of absolutes.

The existing difficulties in the work aimed at creating quantum gravity are related, among other things, to the fact that:

- gravitational waves move in their "own environment" – in gravitational fields that are everywhere, and electromagnetic waves move both in their "own" and outside their "own" environments;

- there are still unknown places in nature where there is no gravitational field, no gravity. However, it follows from the statement about the absence of absolutes that the gravitational field cannot be absolutely everywhere, there must be places where, for example, it is close to 0, but not to absolute 0, i.e. it tends to 0 without reaching it.

The author believes that when considering, for example, Planck's constant, usually denoted h, or, as it is sometimes also called, the quantum of action, it should be borne in mind that since the intensities of electromagnetic and gravitational interactions differ by 36 orders of magnitude, it can be assumed that the use of Planck's "quantum of action" is due to its "enormity" does not apply to gravity. Based on the general analogy of the proportionality of wave energy to their frequencies, the gravitational quantum of action (let's denote it as h _g) should be of the order of 7 × 10-70 j× s, assuming gravity quantization. In ^[18] it was indicated that according to experimental data, the upper limit on the mass of the graviton m _g was estimated as 1.2×10-22 eV/c ² (10-55 g), the Compton wavelength of the graviton λ _g = h/cm _g is not lower than ^10-13 km.

The parameter h/m _e c is equal to 2.4×10-10 cm and is named the Compton wavelength of an electron in honor of A. Compton, who considered the issue of X-ray scattering on electrons in 1922-1923. The Compton wavelength is not a classical, but a quantum parameter, therefore it is not legitimate to estimate the length of a gravitational wave as a graviton, as a quantum of gravity. This is the "classical" length of a gravitational wave, not a quantum, despite taking into account the duality of particle properties.

If we take a gravitational quantum of action of 7 ×10-70 j × s, λ _g = h _g/cm _g is not lower than 10-20 m. This value corresponds more to the "size" of the quanta than ^10-13 km. It is clear that ^10-13 km are the orders of magnitude of the distances between two rotating black holes that radiated accepted gravitational waves (gravitational "bursts"). But it is also clear that we have an analogy with electromagnetic waves here - in the range of electromagnetic wavelengths from 10 km to thousands of km, quantum properties are much weaker than in the range from 10-11 m to 10-15 m. The wavelength of gamma rays (electromagnetic waves) is about 10-15 m. The gamma quantum must interact gravitationally with a similar gamma quantum. Therefore, the wavelength of the "exchange" graviton seems more likely to be 10-20 m rather than ^10-16 m. In addition, similar to the correspondence principle – Bohr's postulate that the transition from quantum mechanics to classical occurs when the action S>>h, it can be assumed that quantum gravity transitions to GR when the action for the gravitational field becomes much larger than h _g: S _g>>h _g.

Difficulties in constructing a theory of quantum gravity are indicated at the present stage, for example, in ^[17] - "Post-quantum theory of classical gravity?" Jonathan Oppenheim tried to create a centaur from the theory of classical gravity and quantum field theory. He posed a legitimate question: should we quantize gravity? The "step" between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics in spatial dimensions is about 15 orders of magnitude (10 to 15 degrees): a centimeter cube and the size of an atom, time intervals are about the same: a second and a femtosecond, energy intervals are about 19 orders of magnitude: electronvolt and joule. The differences in the values of distances and energies between the quanta of electromagnetic, weak, strong interactions and hypothetical gravitons are such that it is logical to assume something new than quantum processes and, possibly, mathematics. The author in ^[6] believes that gravity does not have to be quantum: since it represents the 3rd form of matter: 1 form is matter, 2 form is field, 3 form is gravity.

In addition, it should be noted that in 1964, John Bell, extending the provisions of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect to the cases of measurements of spins along non-parallel axes, showed that no local theory can make the same predictions about experimental results that quantum mechanics gives. To test Bell's inequalities, experiments were conducted (Alain Aspe, John Clauser, Anton Zeilinger, Nobel Prize in Physics for 2022 for experiments on the study of "entangled states"), which confirmed that the world follows the predictions of quantum mechanics - a change in the state of one particle when the state of another changes, related to the first through the Schrodinger equation. If there were an interaction responsible for such a connection between particles, then according to experimental data its speed would have to be about 800,000 speeds of light.

According to the corollary of the statement about the absence of absolutes, all objects are connected, the values of the connections fluctuate between two asymptotes: zero and infinity. The connection of two photons that have just formed at one physical point tends to infinity, and their connection, when moving to infinity from each other, tends to zero. Obviously, for entangled photons, the values of these bonds are different from the values of bonds for untangled photons.

The entangled photons move in the variable gravitational potential of the Earth, which basically does not stop the entangled states, although the variable gravitational potential is a weak perturbation - a "weak measurement", with a certain increase it should interrupt the entangled states. In more detail, taking into account the current level of development of theoretical physics, the issues of the philosophy of quantum hypotheses of gravity are considered in ^[16]. For example, superstring theory suggests limiting the minimum particle size, which leads to absoluteness, and this contradicts the statement about the absence of absoluteness. The analysis of attempts to construct a satisfactory theory of quantum gravity given in ^[16] shows that the solution to this problem lies with the experiment.

There are several paradoxes in quantum physics that are "uncertainly" explained by modern theory. The discussion of Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein at the Fifth Solvay Congress of Physicists in 1927 is well known. Einstein insisted on preserving the principles of determinism in quantum physics, here is an approximate dialogue between Einstein and Bohr: Einstein - "God does not play dice", Bohr – "Albert, do not tell God what to do." But this just says that humanity is in the process of cognition and the categorical statements that God does not play dice is just an emotion, and not a rational approach to cognition. Here we are faced with the fact that a person has not yet learned his own thinking, his brain, consciousness and subconscious.

The author can offer his own quatrain as an illustration of what has been said:

We are like blind people - the roads of the universe

Groping with the staff of knowledge

Our mind is a guide, the hope is that,

That we are following the voice of truth…

4. Inconclusiveness of knowledge. What goes after the quanta? The consequences of the statement about the absence of absolutes on the knowledge of gravity

According to GRT, gravity is local: if the mass fluctuates, then the "ripples" on the curvature of space-time propagate at the speed of light. However, checks of Bell's inequalities have confirmed that the world is non-linear. Part of humanity is trapped in abstractions: it reduces all the diversity of the world to a point and a Big Bang and develops GRT in this direction. But the history of knowledge tells a different story: with an increase in the volume of knowledge, both simplifications and complications of knowledge about nature occur.

In modern cosmology, space has the property of curvature. In addition, there is a theory of the big bang, according to which the universe occurred as a result of the explosion of a single point. From the point of view of philosophy, this "act of creation" is quite biblical and does not explain anything further. However, here this phenomenon encounters the property of cognition: a cognizing subject (for example, a person) has the right or not, but will ask the question: what was (and was it?) Before? And no amount of shouting that this is an amateur question can stop learning, even if you return to burning these questioners at the stake.

Modern philosophy has moved away from the simple mechanicism of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Laplace and other great ones. However, their desire for clarity in understanding the worldview is brilliant and remains a guiding star in our knowledge of the world. I would like to remind you that even the observed picture of the world was not always correct. For example, Ptolemy's system was confirmed by observations, but cumbersome. GRT is also confirmed by observations, but it is very complex, and its modern development further complicates it. It can be expected that a simpler gravity system (scheme) will be proposed again. In the sense of applying the consequences of the statement about the absence of absolutes to the process of cognition, the author would like to say that our cognition develops and will develop in waves, fluctuating between complex and simple theories.

5. Conclusions

The author in ^[2] postulated a statement about the absence of absolutes in nature, similar to the laws of conservation - that is, based on a generalization of experience, facts and observations.

Absoluteness and abstraction appear as a result of humanity's attempts to make sense of the world. The absolute, the abstract, the non-natural, the immaterial. Among mankind, the most obvious absolutes, without a doubt, are the gods. Monotheism in this sense is the greatest absoluteness – God is one and omnipresent. From the point of view of a physicist, this is like a gravitational field – it is present everywhere and acts on all material objects – of a material or field nature.

The statement about the absence of absolutes in nature implies the "Principle of limiting extrapolations":the further we are in time from our present time, the more distant the distances from the Earth, the greater or lesser the energies from the earth (achieved by mankind), the less reason there is to extrapolate the laws known to us to these times, distances and energies.

Moving from concrete objects and movements through the allocation of their general properties to abstract concepts, humanity has gone too far from the concrete and as a result has received abstract mathematical things, which now inhibit cognition by their isolation from the real. It can be said that here humanity has abused the dissemination (extrapolation) of the studied properties of objects and movements to the entire unexplored world. Indeed, extrapolation in GR has led to the fact that the gravitational field is identified with space.

The knowledge of nature occurs in such a way that the theory is verified by observations and experiments. Niels Bohr moved from the abstractions of Maxwell's equations of classical electrodynamics to the abstractions of quantum mechanics, since the real world showed that the electron did not fall on the nucleus, as it should have done according to Maxwell's equations. Now there is a similar situation, and, following Bohr, it is necessary to step over some kind of abstraction: for example, the impossibility of transmitting a signal faster than the speed of light, due to the fact that the particles are entangled and this is an experimental fact. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Thought experiment (EPR) considered the behavior of electrons, just as the Schrodinger equation was derived from observing the behavior of electrons. What these states have in common is a description through the Schrodinger equation, through the wave function ψ. According to the statement about the absence of absolutes, the transmission of interaction at an infinitely high speed is impossible. It is obvious that the Schrodinger equation, when describing these cases, goes beyond the scope of its application in the same way as Maxwell's equations previously went out. Therefore, we need a new "Schrodinger equation" or in general another group of equations in which the rate of transmission of interaction between quantum objects would not be infinitely high. Perhaps the solution to the problem lies precisely in the fact that time is a non–physical, abstract quantity, only movements and objects are physical, and there are no entanglements and restrictions on the speed of objects relative to the speed of light.

In support of the position on the non-physicality, abstractness, and imaginary time, we quote from ^[11]:

"... The universe is finite, but has no boundaries (in imaginary time)..."

"... The quantum ... theory of gravity has opened ... a new possibility: space-time has no boundary... space-time has no edge on which one would have to resort to the help of God or some new law to impose boundary conditions on space-time. ...Then the universe would be completely independent and would not depend in any way on what is happening outside. It would not have been created, it could not have been destroyed. She would just exist."

"Maybe we should conclude that the so–called imaginary time is actually real time, and what we call real time is just a figment of our imagination. In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end corresponding to the singularities that form the boundary of space-time and in which the laws of science are violated."

"Attempts to combine gravity with quantum mechanics have led to the concept of imaginary time. Imaginary time is no different from directions in space. Going north, you can turn back and go south. Similarly, if someone is walking forward in imaginary time, then they can turn and go back. This means that there is no significant difference between the opposite directions of imaginary time."

From the point of view of mathematics, a complex number consists of the sum of real and imaginary terms. This means that time is a complex quantity consisting of our "real" time and imaginary time. Hawking postulated the abstractness of "real" (real) time, and imaginary time is somehow difficult to call true time, not abstract. This is an indirect proof that time is just a shadow of movement.

A person, as a cognizing subject, considers time as a sequence of movements. Humanity has chosen itself as a starting point, no matter how it masks this point with a divine act of creation or a big bang. If we accept that any object (human, not human) will be a reference point, then we must admit that the number of such points tends to infinity and recognize the improbability of the act of creation, although the probability of this act is not exactly zero. The improbability, but not complete, absolute denial of the act of creation is confirmed by the above quote from Hawking's book.

At the present stage, we can refer to the research of Tumulka, who proved the theorem (see ^[10]), within the framework of modern mathematics (group theory, etc.): "We prove a theorem showing that it is impossible to measure all possible values in each ontological model. In other words, there is no experiment that would reliably determine the ontic state. This result shows that the positivist idea that a physical theory should include only observable quantities is too optimistic." (In ontology, an ontic is a physical, real or actual existence, approx. the author). This theorem shows the limitation of real measurements in ontological models of quantum mechanics and supports the statement about the absence of absolutes, which implies that it is impossible to take into account absolutely all parameters of the system to include them in solving a theoretical or experimental problem. There are always "tails" of unaccounted-for parameters that more or less affect the truth of the problem solution. The truth (and even that is incomplete) is at the time of solving the problem, and not absolute. But this is the result of the fact that we are in a constant process of learning. In this sense, Bohr is right, not Einstein, who believed that there are "hidden parameters", knowing which it is possible to determine the future of the system absolutely accurately. In this sense, the limitation of GRT is absolute determinism – faith in the absoluteness of theory - mathematics. As for the questions of faith in God among physicists, they can be considered since the time of Newton (see ^[7], pp. 149-247), or in ^[11].

Currently, GRT presents gravity to us as a kind of continuous (continuous, non-discrete) medium. In general, it is argued that the gravitational field and curved space are one thing - the same entity. But this also prevents the "quantization" of gravity – because then you need to quantize space. However, physical space, as an object with the largest volume of all other objects and including them, is hardly correct to identify with the gravitational field. The main property of space (as an object) is the extent (volume), the main property of the gravitational field is the presence at each point where it exists, the action of field forces on a material object. According to the statement about the absence of absolutes, it can be assumed that hypothetically the size of the "quanta of space" tends to 0, without reaching it. Interactions have their carriers - quanta of fields, including the gravitational one, which has not yet been discovered, the graviton quantum, while space, conditionally divided into subobjects, is "quantized" and continuously at the same time. The considered theoretical and experimentally experienced early and modern research (see, for example, ^[19], ^[20] show that space and time, even curved ones, are not identical to the gravitational field. Mass cannot act directly on space, an intermediary is needed - a gravitational field, it carries out the connection between gravitating masses, the gravitational field is "embedded" in space, it is a special form of matter similar to fields, similar to electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions (fields) but differing from them by a broader effect on material objects.