Is spacetime real or abstract
What is time Is there time Really at all, or does it only exist as a category of the human mind? We involuntarily apply them to things; every event has its point in time, which relates to a parallel or shifted occurrence of other events. Finally, our time calculation is based on a scaled subdivision of planetary movements, i.e. the sequence of uniform events in the sky, observed from our (also already moving) reference system. So an hour has the real equivalent of a scale unit with appropriately subdivided macrocosmic processes related to our system. In the 20th century this was then brought into correspondence with the vibrations of a quartz crystal or atomic alignment processes. In accordance with the new findings that the timekeeper's own movement actually affects timekeeping, it was, so to speak, relocated to the interior of the matter.
If the proper movement of a system becomes too fast and thus changes the processes indicating the time, as in the well-known example of a clock in an airplane, you can, for. B. no longer clearly of one hour speak. And that has meanwhile become common knowledge: “There is no such thing the Time! ”We would have known this since the theory of relativity at the latest. Nevertheless, our concept of the hour is already objectified as soon as we only consider its system-relatedness. We do not yet gain from that the hour, but the absoluteness of a relationship: We are the ones who measure time and reflect on it. Time measurement brings you timeterm and such is per se relative to both the comprehending and the conceived. It is not time as a possible absolute that has wavered, only the absoluteness of any concept of time. To shed light on this relationship is actually less a field of physics than one of philosophy.
It is mostly lumped into one pot in terms of calculation: temporality, as it can be determined using measurable processes, and time, as it is to be defined according to its original being. This does not mean the 'original' experience patterns of time, of course, which are described by current time research and which end with subjective experience anyway. It is about the claim of physics to be able to define time objectively as relative. A mistaken claim.
Since the theory of relativity, the temporality of events has mostly been equated with the time 'contained' in them, i.e. a factor of their dynamics that can be calculated in principle. Time would be nothing more than part of the dynamic occurrence of things. In fact, they are reduced to a measurable entry in causal relationships. To put it simply: If, for example, speed is determined as distance per time, V = s / t, then time as distance multiplied by speed - the Time (!) This continues into the most complex calculations, you identify the factor t in the physical equations with time as such. But t, that is nothing more than continuation within an already related to something - which in turn must already be opened in time - time calculation. Our physical parameters are matched to this, from weight to electricity, everything is defined as a function of measured time sequences within reference systems. And even if Albert Einstein ingeniously broke up a fixed concept of energy and matter - let's say to a complementary original substance which, depending on the constitution of movement, is changeably more expansive or mass-centered in designs - his terms were positive but formula conversions that continue to be strictly related to world surveying concepts remained and therefore epistemologically limited.
Einstein modified the conceptual reference in the scientific approximation of existence, but in doing so he tended to exacerbate it rather than overcome it. He continued to operate with conventionally developed terms and abstractions, while challenging their empirical comparability, but incorporating this classic terminology all too boldly into his synthetic terms, to which someone, if he wants to follow Einstein, finds himself referred to with some vehemence. This is perhaps fundamentally human, but he did not uncover the connection between space and time, but rather homogenized those of mass, energy, movement and spatiality in a system-theoretical way.
Our space travel, like many other fields of work of the present, owes itself to the relativistic breaking up of a previously plasticized Euclidean space, but not to the new space-time theory. Space stations and satellites are placed in gravity fields on the basis of relativistically calculated mass behavior, without having to worry about whether this is due to a curvature of space or to some other definable long-range effect of masses. You work with received signals, extrapolated in sophisticated, RT-based algorithms, but not by means of spatial positions on a time axis, etc. Such explicit model-like is taught to high school students, but not drilled in the NASA data center, it is still reserved for theoretical physics.
Modern physics with / after Einstein made the ballistic calculations of our space agencies possible, but also paved the way for a system-immanent totalitarian understanding of being. A new - only practicable in the micro and macro range - determination of matter ~ energy was opened, but an adventurous hypothetical philosophy about space and time was founded. The categorical assignments and classifications of their terms - What says something - can often be called downright unontological. Accordingly, it is simply overlooked when something that is actually supposed to be proven is already packed into the basic concepts of the argument. “If the light rays are deflected by large masses,” we are told, “but the constancy of the speed of light remains guaranteed, there must be a curvature of space.” A clever idea in itself, but inherent in the concept and a circular argument in its thrust. It is already assumed that the rays of light pass through room hurry, so that the introduced concept of space represents a positive.
Using the natural constant of the speed of light to make absolute statements about time and space initially seems very obvious and not at all thought from a synthetic point of view. Experimentally confirmed, the light also has a mass character and interacts with (large) masses. And if the light is deflected by large masses, then its 300,000 kilometers per second will be on one crooked Line covered. Accordingly, the light shows us absolute paths, but not absolute distances. Einstein's well-known solution that the absolute constant light could very well communicate absolute distances, but no longer in a uniform three-dimensional space, gave us the curved space. This is as ingenious within physics as it is metaphysically doctrinal. To make a crooked light path 'straight' within a crooked room, and even if it points out that our imagination would be blown here, relocates this (the path as well as the room) back into our own three-dimensional, actually estimated as superordinate Approach. So what is present here is an epistemologically rejected, but practically executed, incorrect consideration of spatiality as such.
Popular science in particular cares little about this. The theories of relativity are constantly being confirmed anew, so you can safely ride on their terms. "The attraction is a geometric property of the curved space" is what Einstein says in the next step, and this is how his adepts proclaim it in the media without batting an eyelid. But in this way conceptuality is absolutized, reality - yes, the totality of being - coined on pure concepts and, as if conditionally, already considered in conceptuality. Geometry and mathematics are, however, theoretical sciences which, despite all the requirements to do justice to reality, necessarily translate them into their own ideality of description. Both disciplines only play their part in the applied sciences, and where this happens the other way round - through experiments, etc. - they immediately turn the observations into abstract figures again. And also such a scientific one room is still only an abstraction.
The fact that it sounds to us as an inevitable name for something, and first of all, that it motivates science to conquer it, perhaps to reinterpret it, at least to officially interpret it, is due to its synonymy with the deeply traditional basic concept of space, as it has been through the ages of mankind came upon us, endowed with a fundamentally mythical aspect. Become room has, and that also applies to the Time, has accordingly answered eternal questions of truth. There is a tremendous fascination in it. But the question arises whether physics can really claim this term. Already in the methodical approach it focuses on pure measurability, and its modeling on proportions that can somehow be represented. Does that traditional approach, from which contemporary natural science (albeit often in contrast) draw its aura as expressing truth, also do?
We will not pursue the question in detail, especially not in view of the most diverse metaphors that need to be explored here, but rather ask very dryly: Can one speak of a room? What do I see when I look into a landscape? Clouds, trees, stars, etc. That can be recorded empirically reliably and therefore generally accessible. But when I say, I see expanse, there is already a synthesis with purely subjective aspects, it is an abstraction that can no longer be reliably represented empirically. The abstracting person has to be there again and again, so to speak, in order to talk about this 'vastness'. And that is absolutely true, even if hardly anyone wants to admit that when I speak of the room. Demonstrable, i.e. representable in reliable empirical evidence, only exists what 'it' is filled with, of course also in properties such as expansion, movement, interrelated distances and positions, cross-ability of electromagnetic waves that do not need a carrier medium, and so on, that is Disposition in spatial existence. But these concrete 'room fillings' do not do the trick the room real. It it is real that we experience such relationships and qualities and can determine them in one way by comparing them.
(But if you now hold onto Kant again and turn the whole thing around - we could not speak of a space in itself at all, because every idea of it arises from the human experience category of spatiality -, you make an equally absolute statement about it the Room. For this it would have to be factually ascertainable and empirically comparable what people actually mean by 'space'; not how they would define it, but what goes on in them when they accomplish this abstraction. This in itself is impossible, and so the de-absolutization of space and time into parameters of perception is also inadmissible.)
In particular, too plastic positivity was discussed at a very early stage in a critical examination of the general theory of relativity. Space and time should not be viewed as distortable realities. Nevertheless, the old 'literal' was almost seamlessly replaced by a new one. The conventional idea of space could not be maintained, but the fact that space had to exist as such remained. We wanted to save our abstraction and to do this we modified it. But this curved space continues to exist as little or as much as ideal Euclidean space. There is demonstrably only one correlation of effects that were previously calculated and related to one another within a regular system, and now in the atomic age within a progressively conceived spatiality. In both cases a working definition was or is taken as a true identification of something. And especially with the negation, i.e. H. emphasizing that something cannot be identified as something here, carried out one (real soul) identification. "With the objects, the space would also disappear", that's how Einstein once explained the new space. This was not just a concession to the interviewer's limited horizon of understanding, it was an identification (even if it was negative, but at least met) of Spatial as a separate unit of being.
Space as an intrinsic quantity unaffected by physical effects was followed by space-time, which is exhausted within the physical context: just like time only with events becomesSo also the space only with the objects, or better said with eventful objectivity only the space-time. And it follows: Everything is always in space-time, and those becomes always with everything first. But this is not a higher paradox, but a short circuit of thinking, more precisely: a sequence of thoughts while maintaining the right to determinable Equivalence of the thought (space and time remain in principle calculable as space-time) turned unnoticed into a leap in thought, which should apply without said claim. The - huge - leap to the causal does not have any deductions from the spacetime concept; this must be assessed a priori as all-encompassing.
The fact that the progressive expansion of the universe is in turn understood as the expansion of space-time itself and not of the thing, i.e. can also take place at faster than light speed, as in the initial stage of the assumed Big Bang, is a meta-case that requires very explanation in an otherwise homogenized structure of references and One thinks: only a stringent 'extrapolation' of the structural nature of matter - to be temporarily more space-expansive or more mass-centered - to the entirety of the universe allows the idea of space-time to take hold. Only if she finds something thing everywhere that is owed to its internal structure according to space-time, from the subatomic variations in motion to the stretched light waves during redshift, this idea can be valid. Of course, this excludes the possibility that there could be a space-time for itself somewhere and at some point, or: one is already in the middle of hypothetical speculation with the simultaneous dissolution of the concept.
Such contradictions in the system are typically explained away by the fact that our mind cannot deal with such intangibles. Our thinking wanted to convert something dynamic into static observability, etc. “Everything is already in motion, from the electron to expanding space, and space and time are already included as constitutive parameters, as well as the further development of this space-time. The big bang did its part, now it goes on and on until the whole thing implodes at some point. "Such answers only show that they haven't found the question, namely the one about the dimensionally causal factor.
By including time as the fourth dimension in our world measurement, our view of being has also changed. The fact that time is also conditioned by space, i.e. relative to it (and both merge into dynamic spacetime), is a statement of the most profound meaning, and such relativity - which has become a permanent term in recognition processes - already conceptually immunizes against its own relativization. How we want to see the foundations of the world is encapsulated in an aporia of relativity that is self-sufficient. Defining the fourth dimension - the position of space on the time axis - in order to then dissolve every ontological stratification of beings in space-time as a superdimension of being simple, is actually doing away with the causal dimension. And fails to recognize any experience of a hierarchy of being.
Terms such as "curved space-time" or "space-time continuum" obscure the impulse of the temporal that mediates being. Every object is already on the way when we measure it, including the mountain that gravitation pulls to the center of the earth. However, time not only records the status of his being on the move and - as far as this is dependent on it - energetically ~ expansive, formative being, but also the fact of his being there, his belonging to the totality of all things, the now is. Of course, this cannot be demonstrated physically, but only perceived as an experience, for example from an enigmatic self-impression of being overblown with time, i.e. from an experienced relationship to the wholeness of things.
Various sciences have long taught us that such impressions are illusions or projections. B. served an evolutionary purpose; Here, too, however, the question must be asked which - subliminally dynamized - motifs are subject to those scientific ideas. And no science, let alone methodical, can encompass our impression of existence.At most, it can undermine it, in that people then no longer trust their deeper impressiveness.
Whatever is cryptically described as the relativity of time, is in any case a highly synthetic construct of thinking and specifically arises from an absolutizing setting of actuality and perceptibility of time. Relative temporality, determined from processes that are related to one another, in everyday life with a metaphorical note as 'time', became in the hands of science at the time as such. This, however, as it is given to our immediate intuition, denotes the duration of the whole context.
time : deep and immediate, it is the ever-new that of the universe, the parallel being of everything present, revealed by the basic human experience of something happening next to one another and within it Time with things exceeds the concept of time in classical physics by one Time without things, but also that of modern physics from one Time in things.
Classical physics viewed time as a medium that “flows slowly” (I. Newton), regardless of things, that is simply there ahead of time. In a way, however, it was even closer to the essence of the temporal than modern physics. Because for the latter, all time only exists in things, and both, in a common being, are simply there, suddenly. There is no room for depth of being, for example a distinction between evocative being and evoked being, not even for a time as a medium of occurrence. (Our time with things is specified here as time in the Things.) But that's how we experience them, originally.
Unfortunately, with the theory of relativity, the outwitting of our basic human perception has almost become a kind of proof that everything is completely different anyway. You can let it melt in your mouth with relish. Pseudophilosophical conclusions from these equations are disseminated on all popular scientific levels. One does not actually know what one is talking about, or has abolished the question of the essence of things as in principle unsolvable or even nonsensical. The schematic technical thinking consequently became independent, any metaphysics in the area almost eliminated.
The ontological confusion is also, as already briefly described, largely due to a misunderstanding of what light could tell us about the connection between time and space. To put it roughly: the light is equally fast everywhere because as an electromagnetic wave it does not need a carrier medium. But it also moves with the unsurpassed speed, because what should be faster than a photon (as a quantization of the excited state of atoms, a particle created by movement, so to speak), without having previously become light and thus dissolved again as `` matter '' because the photon is also a complementary wave. At this absolutely outermost and at the same time everywhere valid transition point of the 'substance from which everything is' - whether as matter, particle-like, or as energy, wave-like - space and time flowed. The light, so to speak, as the absolute of the connection between space and time. (And what flowers it has driven: light as a time carrier medium, time travel, if we were able to be faster than light ...)
From the 'borderline phenomenon' light one can consider spatiality ~ movement, but this light has nothing more to do with time than that, firstly, it exists in and with time, like everything thing, and secondly, it can serve as information about the past. This ranges from events in the immediate vicinity to the galactically distant shooting stars. I see the present - light waves / particles are just meeting me - and use this information to calculate into the past. And if the information could reach me faster than by means of light, that would not overcome the 'time barrier', but simply come to an end with the fact that the information about an event cannot take place earlier than the event itself. And even with the largest giant telescope, it would not be possible to look into the past, but only to grasp the present more finely. Everything else is arithmetic, inference, modeling. It is all over the cosmos: now. And this basic consciousness reached me everywhere, no matter in which galaxy I was traveling at what speed, my experience of the now is absolute, it stands above all physical timekeeping.
To explore time, we actually have to refer back to experience, but to something originally extensive, not already wrapped up in theories or strategies - motivated and euphoric, but motivated and euphoric by the (subliminal) prospect of identity superiority through the possession that science - that is, non-original and non-extensive. The original experience, on the other hand, cannot be caught or even conjured up, which often leads to erroneous sentences such as: “Only with the experience do we complete time” or the like, that would mean immediately plasticizing it conceptually and thus falsifying it again. We have a gift lying ahead of us to experience time as a dimension of that, but any evocations and understandings miss this per se. Here we would have, so to speak, the subjectivistic positive to the objectivistic negative. But the confiscation of space and time by our largely unphilosophical physics is perhaps the worse evil, it isolated time from the human primal impression of reaching into the absolute, diminishing it from the impulse of creation. There we only have to do with becoming, which will just as easily pass away again, a fatal short-circuit of emancipatedgrip.
Modern man lives without eternity and absoluteness, but a few pithy errors of thought have been planted in him, like this: “There is no simultaneity”. As one assumes, time would only be time within physical processes; it would have to be able to refer to an absolute observation point in order to be able to find a comparison of the respective system-internal points in time. But because every observation of 'simultaneity' is always system-related - and there is no preferred observation situation, also no synchronization of observation points in moving systems towards a superordinate metasystem - we could not speak of simultaneity, nor of an absoluteness of Time. There is an argumentative gap in these sentences. It is already assumed that time is time only in the processes, and the impossibility of absolute time - time is sufficient as proof of this in the all of things - to be determined empirically.
The fact that the age of the universe is also used scientifically, however, is in complete contradiction to what is otherwise said about a temporality that has always been system-bound. The postulated relativity of all times would be irrelevant here (the author now packs an active justification, which is usually only implicitly implicit in this question), because the measurement of time is not externally applied to anything, but one obtained from the material itself. Its shape follows constitutive laws on the structural appearance of matter - energy - postulated by theoretical physics and confirmed by practical applications - as they are valid in the whole universe. With this we could determine the age of our universe with sufficient validity. In practical terms, however, macrocosmic changes and microcosmic decay and transformation processes are used for the calculation, which do not represent timekeeping superior to the system. The relativity of all timekeeping and the models based on it is also given here. And no serious physicist would guarantee that a particle accelerator, even only on Jupiter, i.e. in close proximity to Earth, would provide sufficiently compatible results to confirm current statements about the subatomic area to such an extent that z. B. the big bang theory would be confirmed. The respective measurement remains, and the universalization of the results represents an unforeseeable task, especially in view of the inductive, i.e. highly hypothetical, character of current modeling, which would have to be questioned. And even if cosmological findings such as the existence of background radiation are of astonishing compatibility with existing formalisms of description - the longed-for unity theory often seems to be waiting for its lucky discoverer - questions of understanding are strangely neglected. One hardly has a vague idea of the extent to which individual aspects interact with one another from the outset in view of a preferred model formation and already based on a nomenclature of the approach.
The real point in time of something, i.e. its position on a holistic time axis, is not only not determinable, but must also not be made dependent on determinability. The former, taken as a practicable one, is oriented from the outset to relative time, obtained from a comparison of what has already existed. In this way no absolutes can 'arise', one is already moving with all measurements on an opened - related - level. Even inductive thinking, from this subordinate perspective, will not be able to lead to statements about what already determines it. We cannot infer the origin and absolute time from these measurement-based theories. Unfortunately, the relevant science is rarely found in that only you that - with their approach and their methodology - cannot, but teaches our intuitive common sense that it cannot do that either. Authentically experienced simultaneity is logically an illusion. Physics, by calculating 13.7 billion years back to the Big Bang, also assumes absolute points in time, but an absolute simultaneity of two concrete events must not be asserted.
If a shooting star goes out over my garden in Western Europe, it can still be in China at the same time a fireworks factory explode, and detectable. I can't find out at the same time, but I can communicate with a Chinese person about the time. Then we both refer to a time convention, which we can see through as a convention and compare it to our respective spontaneous impressions. And if an astronaut perceives the events offset from a speeding space capsule, we can also include him in our convention comparison. It doesn’t change the matter if the rays of light were observed from a competing reference system, one would like to take a spaceship almost as fast as light, and apparently traveled a greater distance in the same period of time. When an observation system approaches the speed of light, what is always so beautifully described as time expansion does not occur, but only a stretched measurement. The different aging in the famous twin paradox does not provide any information about time, but would be 'biometric' timekeeping. All of this only points to the relativity of all timetaking or any observation of the observed. But we know that intuitively.
The observation is not only to be taken into account as a blurring factor, but - much more fundamentally - to be placed as a separate event next to the observed! This is always omitted in the classic examples to demonstrate the relativity of time. There three events, namely one observed and two from observation, are discussed as if they could result in a uniform meta-reality. Expressed mathematically, a function with two variables should not only have a unique result, but should also be this one result: (F = x + y)> (F = result)> (result). So if someone stands on the platform - to dismantle one of these examples - and looks through the middle between two signal lights, whose flashing is then registered from the corner of their eye and experienced as a simultaneous event, the situation is, strictly speaking, the following: Light waves from two equally distant sources are emitted perceived by a system-related immobile person. This is what the speech refers to. Viewed from the train, there is now an additional factor: the passenger, as a comparison person, covers a distance while the flashing lights up. Correspondingly, there is a perception of overlapping events that is no longer compatible with the other perception. But that is not a contradiction, but a representation of two different processes, namely two concrete timekeeping. The source event is only the respective point of reference for it, it is primarily not discussed at all or, in fact, only supposedly discussed. In fact, two concrete subordinate events have been committed to an ideal situation, they have been drawn together to a timekeeping ideal that is supposed to lie ahead one Timekeeping from two systems, then all together to form a meta-reality without proportionality (as formalized above: a three-part function becomes a monolithic term.) But there cannot be such a situativity that one has constructed here - unconsciously, unrecognized. So it cannot serve as a proof of anything either. And if the example is drawn the other way around, namely that the train is perceived as a system at rest, and the observer moves with the platform accordingly, this does not change the event constellation: light comes from the signal lights, the passenger in the train absorbs the light beams in superimposition with its own movement, the viewer on the platform unimposed. And that cannot tell us anything about the possibility or impossibility of simultaneity. This 'effect' (that the difference between two timing situations causes two different timing) can only all too logically be confirmed in a clock comparison; Even for the atomic clock it is still true that it does not provide any extra-physical timekeeping, but is exposed to the system surrounding it.
In terms of time and simultaneity, there is certainly a preferred system, namely the more dormant one, which in principle can be viewed from a third system. Just think of a space station outside of our earth orbit that can record not only the train on earth but also the earth itself as moving. Of course, this system is also related and moving again, and therefore cannot be a basis for absolute timing, but as far as our question is concerned, it is enough to be able to consider the systems earth and train in their respective entirety. It is true that their constellation of forces - since the recognized equivalence of heavy and inert mass - must not simply be coined to the fact that on the one hand gravitation is given (on the part of the earth), on the other hand force effect (on the train). For the observer outside the systems it would also be conceivable that the train has a gigantic mass and that the earth rotates around it like a large balloon. So how should that observer decide? - If there is no possibility of physical determination, he would only have to acknowledge that he cannot determine a priority. But in principle the system with the greater mass action is the more at rest. And the relativity of the systems to other systems can (in principle) be continued up to the expansion movement of the cosmos, with the timekeeping from the different systems showing a hierarchy of validities.
An absolute observation point would of course have to break this hierarchy and be able to refer to the cosmos as a whole. Philosophically formulated perhaps as 'external as well as central internal as everywhere internal outside'. However, this would no longer be from a geographical point, but from an observationwise the speech. A corresponding extraterrestrial being - which of course also goes dimensionally beyond 'antimatter' and 'parallel universes' - there have been premonitions and approaches since time immemorial. From the point of view of Christian revelation, carried through the ages of scholasticism, mysticism and enlightenment, the following has come upon us: The cosmic universe is not actually that Allesbut creation. Their being refers to a preceding I-am-who-I-Am of God. And God did not create time as belonging to this universe, once given it into it, but it is his preservation of the universe. But our soul belongs to the timeless.
Your deepest (and actual) decision-making initiatives are always ahead of what is happening in time, they happen with time, i.e. into> the ever new manifestation and becoming present of the worldly now. This "basic event" is of course hardly empirically tangible, and certainly not at all representative. But if it were once let into the current, shielded 'factuality' of what can and may be, z. For example, the speed of light suddenly competes with telepathic transmission speeds that no one knows, perhaps no longer those at all as Speeds are determinable. But the temporal and the spatial would be brought into more authentic relativity, not to one another, but to one another: to the inexpressible. And only for God a thousand years are like a day, and a day like a thousand years.
Such sentences can only be accepted with belief. Even the opening of being through the Big Bang and space-time is not a proven fact, but at most an unprovable hypothesis, if not just an unphilosophically volatile speculation. In negative terms, it must not be believed that there is a time ahead, rather Time only arises with the events, just as space only arises with the objects. The measurable progress of time in physical processes is identified as such over time, i.e. a how of the individual with the that of the whole. Of course, this can only be sustained, otherwise there would be a category error in thinking in that the question of that that is abolished.
Our more original impression is a substantial experience of time: of a depth of the moment, of an ever-first becoming of the present - the believer: of a constant being-lifted into being of creation. This, of course, does not mean the neurologically caused delay of the now impression or the experience of a maturation of full awareness of various preconsciousnesses etc.
Johann Stahuber, as of May 20, 2009
- What are effective incentives to motivate employees?
- What is the name of Chinese traditional clothing
- What is my activity feed for Quora
- Why does my Xanax stop working
- What are geological waves
- Can children legally own something?
- Is my god a bad word
- How does Slack use Slack
- What Are Arizona's Firearms Bear Laws
- Why don't Christians call Jesus Lord Christ?
- Who is richer Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark
- What is the EPR Paradox
- How is Grofers com for grocery shopping
- Can Instagram have parental controls
- What is Christian Existentialism
- You can take ibuprofen with Benadryl
- The Ideal Protein Diet Is Safe
- Drug problems are still widespread in Punjab
- How friendly are the French
- What is the definition of modern day movies
- Why doesn't Congress elect the President?
- Why is it worth visiting Azerbaijan
- Is the data entry request true
- What is the maximum human muscle mass