What are space and time?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 400.5: Why is P(B) or P(AB) = 2P(A) - 1 Optimal Rather than nP(A) - 1, n > 2?
Next: Quantum Gravity 400.6: Mechanical Advantage in Terms of Force, Distances, Probabilities
From: Michael Gordge on 17 Jul 2010 19:05 On Jul 17, 11:35 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > What sort of things are they if they are things? > > Space and time are indeed things. They are not abstractions or merely > instruments neccessitated by physical laws, they are the substance of > which everything consists. > > Space and time are indeed tangible substance, no different than any > other substance. They are the most fundamental substance, everything > is composed of space and time and all of chemistry and physics should > be constructible based on the bending of these things. > > The strange thing about space and time is that it is very much like > fundamental particles in the sense that a particle, say an electron > may be regarded as being particle or wave. Space has some of these > same properties and that is why it is poorly understood IMO. Some > people argue it is continuous. Other argue it is discrete. It has > properties of both, and yet continuous and discrete seem incompatible > kind of like wave/particle aspects. > > The truth is that you can correctly model particles as being waves or > particles. And you can correctly model space as being continuous or > discrete. Both views are correct. The difficulty lies in resolving > that and making it rigorous with the tools that you have been given, > and unfortunately those tools are insufficient to model such a thing. > > If space is discretized - I ask - discretized BY WHAT ??? The only way > to chop or demark a chunk of space which exists, is to place cuts into > it which are nonexistent. That is the only way to chop up the > existent. You chop it up into segments by inserting segments which are > nonexistent - that is the only way. > > To do that you must be able to grasp triviality, order, disorder, and > conservation......all in a very new way. No scientist today has been > trained to think like that and most wold reject the approach. But it > does not matter whether someone likes it or not. If you can produce > accurate models which are consistent with observations in the lab then > you have a useful model. > > It is very straightforward to model this way, yes you have tools which > are not math, but are consistent with math, and equally as valid as > mathematics though they be not math. None of that Kantian garabge says anything about the meaning of space or time, i.e. how do you distinguish time from elephant, space from bottle. MG
From: Michael Gordge on 18 Jul 2010 00:40 On Jul 18, 10:14 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > What exactly do you want me to do .... Still waiting for you to give time its very own identity, the law of identity, each entity has its very own identity that seperates it from any other entity. You claiming that something can not exist without space or time, or that everything exists with space and time, says absolutely NOTHING about the meaning of space OR time. MG
From: Michael Gordge on 18 Jul 2010 00:52 On Jul 15, 8:49 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > There is no difference between space and time. Anyone who believes that probably eats his own snot. MG
From: Day Brown on 18 Jul 2010 01:35 On 07/15/2010 07:59 AM, Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote: > On Jul 14, 3:52 pm, Day Brown<dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> traits of a projected matrix. >> The speed of light is the frame rate. >> Planck's constant refers to the pixel size. >> Absolute zero is black. I dunno what the maximum intensity is, but >> prolly related to the maximum frequency of vibration. > > Hi Day. It seems you like discrete systems. It's a nice point that > intensity can go two ways: toward higher frequency and toward higher > density. I don't believe there is any theoretical maximum intensity of > light established yet. Nor is there a maxiumum frequency. I do feel > open to there being some surprises that we've overlooked. > > I was swimming the other day, and paddled up a vertical current with > my hand and found one distinct stationary wave of a very small height. > When I stopped paddling and the water slowed down the stationary wave > came in, and closed to a point. It is quite pretty and I tried it > again and again with success. It is a strikingly discrete process > occuring on what seems to be a continuum. I have no idea how to > explain it, but I suppose someone must have documented it before. Then > too, some discoveries like this may still be overlooked. There are > many pretty effects on still water that seem to have discrete > structure; Microripples and so forth. > > Just as math can transform some systems from one domain to another > there may be parallel theories. Still, depending on the transformation > side effects can be important, no different than they are in software. > This is information theory. If we shuffle the isotropic stance as I > suggest then I believe that the system can hold up. A structured > spacetime does not necessarily deny taking relative reference frames. > In this arena the problems are quite open, but it is easy to me to > falsify the isotropic assumption of relativity theory. The same > fundamental problem exists when people start discussing time reversal > physics. We observe no freedom to traverse time, either forward or > backward, and anyone who insists that they can place a coffee mug > cleanly within a 4D spacetime tensor is eating food that is unfit for > human consumption. We need only rotate the x axis of the existing > reference frame to the t axis to observe the incoherent construction. > The tensor is by definition consistent with such rotations, and if we > step back to 3D space we see that it does work coherently. Clearly > time is somehow different than the other spatial dimensions. Therefor > the tensor construction is not sensible. The Minkowski metric was sold > to us, and this does paint the level of human ability in the topic. > Does each of us truly assess the validity of this theory, or do we > simply attempt to gulp it down, because it is professed? Here the > human social condition does enter into science directly, and > unfortunately the human does not hold up under such scrutiny. So it is > that we are apes, and as righteous as it is for us to attempt > understanding, and as bright as some of the greats have been, they and > we are so limited. The practice of construction from an open place > will lead to a better generation of physicists and mathematicians. > This means declaring the problems open early, and studying the > weaknesses of the existing system as much as measuring a child's > ability to mimic it. The grade A mimics rule for now. > > - Tim FWIW, Planck's constant must be related to the minumum wavelength, and therefore the frequency. I experienced a de jevu this evening, so I know there's something fishy, but that dont tell me what the truth is.
From: Michael Gordge on 18 Jul 2010 04:47
On Jul 18, 1:47 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > My view of spacetime is more aligned with Einstein than Kant. You have yet to explain how to identify time from any other concept, why is that? Why have you used spacetime as if it has a meaning of its own? How does spacetime differ from time and space? MG |