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: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 20 Jul 2010 10:07 On Jul 18, 10:40 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 5:05 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > In article > > > <7d088226-4fba-40b8-9336-70e962292...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 11:05 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > > <28e13431-8e49-4b89-bef7-d7a5af5ed...(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 18, 9:10 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > <82f51801-6ce2-41d7-a3a1-f42ad2624...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > [1] Relativity > > > > > > > > > [2] HUP > > > > > > > > > [3] WP-Duality > > > > > > > > > [4] A correct understanding of causality > > > > > > > > > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime > > > > > > > > > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck > > > > > > > > > Length I'd like to query this one. I understand that all theoretical construction will require some level of grants in the form of axioms, and that the least quantity of axioms is generally preferable. Here I interpret your [6] as a Planck axiom, so I ask you for its description. I find lattice constructions unacceptable, for they will not yield the rotational stability that we observe; at least not the ones that I've tried to understand. This makes the discrete space attempts fall flat on their face, just as they try to get off the ground. These fail to provide observational correspondence. - Tim > > > > > > > > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder > > > > > > > > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in > > > > > > > > > physics > > > > > > > > > Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important > > > > > > > > > [9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've > > > > > > > > never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain > > > > > > > > conservation without resorting to a magic wand. > > > > > > > > > You guys do nonstandard physics like Jacpaints pictures, > > > > > > > > here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall. > > > > > > > > You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.- > > > > > > > Hide > > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > If you say so pal - those are your words, not mine. > > > > > > Consider the trap of pride, a lack of self-criticism and skepticism.- Hide > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Consider making a valid rebuttal, attacking the points of my claims > > > > instead of making failed attempts at psychoanalysis. One broken tool > > > > cannot fix another. > > > > > Where are the flaws in what I say ? And if you think that you can read > > > > my mind, then perhaps we can do a little experiment to confirm that > > > > you have the telepathic abilities which you seem to imply. > > > > IMHO, you are on the wrong track, which is to say the conventional > > > interpretation of space/time fails if one uses conventional language. > > > That is what Kant said almost verbatim. > > > > Consider time as information. Issues of dimensions are leveled. No > > > delusions of dimensions. No phantom of space. Just pure information that > > > humankind can only begin to understand as an abstraction. Time/Space has > > > no serious relationship to human perception. It is abstract, mathematic.- Hide quoted text - > > > That's nonsense that even Kant would laugh at. If space is just > > abstract then the whole universe is just one big fantasy in someone's > > head ?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Very surprised that you didnt press me to validate even a single claim > among the many I have made above. You are all really lousy scientists, > and probably havent been laid in years.
From: Huang on 20 Jul 2010 13:03 On Jul 20, 9:07 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 10:40 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 5:05 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > <7d088226-4fba-40b8-9336-70e962292...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:05 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > In article > > > > > > <28e13431-8e49-4b89-bef7-d7a5af5ed...(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 9:10 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > <82f51801-6ce2-41d7-a3a1-f42ad2624...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [1] Relativity > > > > > > > > > > [2] HUP > > > > > > > > > > [3] WP-Duality > > > > > > > > > > [4] A correct understanding of causality > > > > > > > > > > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime > > > > > > > > > > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck > > > > > > > > > > Length > > I'd like to query this one. I understand that all theoretical > construction will require some level of grants in the form of axioms, > and that the least quantity of axioms is generally preferable. Here I > interpret your [6] as a Planck axiom, so I ask you for its > description. > > I find lattice constructions unacceptable, for they will not yield the > rotational stability that we observe; at least not the ones that I've > tried to understand. This makes the discrete space attempts fall flat > on their face, just as they try to get off the ground. These fail to > provide observational correspondence. > > - Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder > > > > > > > > > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in > > > > > > > > > > physics > > > > > > > > > > Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important > > > > > > > > > > [9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've > > > > > > > > > never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain > > > > > > > > > conservation without resorting to a magic wand. > > > > > > > > > > You guys do nonstandard physics like Jacpaints pictures, > > > > > > > > > here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall. > > > > > > > > > You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.- > > > > > > > > Hide > > > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > If you say so pal - those are your words, not mine. > > > > > > > Consider the trap of pride, a lack of self-criticism and skepticism.- Hide > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Consider making a valid rebuttal, attacking the points of my claims > > > > > instead of making failed attempts at psychoanalysis. One broken tool > > > > > cannot fix another. > > > > > > Where are the flaws in what I say ? And if you think that you can read > > > > > my mind, then perhaps we can do a little experiment to confirm that > > > > > you have the telepathic abilities which you seem to imply. > > > > > IMHO, you are on the wrong track, which is to say the conventional > > > > interpretation of space/time fails if one uses conventional language. > > > > That is what Kant said almost verbatim. > > > > > Consider time as information. Issues of dimensions are leveled. No > > > > delusions of dimensions. No phantom of space. Just pure information that > > > > humankind can only begin to understand as an abstraction. Time/Space has > > > > no serious relationship to human perception. It is abstract, mathematic.- Hide quoted text - > > > > That's nonsense that even Kant would laugh at. If space is just > > > abstract then the whole universe is just one big fantasy in someone's > > > head ?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Very surprised that you didnt press me to validate even a single claim > > among the many I have made above. You are all really lousy scientists, > > and probably havent been laid in years.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Starting with some preliminaries: If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics. Futher, I dont want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out. So, to justify [6] above I would proceed as follows: Physical length may be modelled as a conglomerate of existent segments and nonexistent segments. Planck length is the smallest unit of length which can exist from the point of view of approaching physics with standard mathematics. My claim is that this property can also be understood using conjectural methods (in place of mathematics) and is a consequence of mixing the existent and the nonexistent length segments. At this point I will remind readers that I do not believe that this is the only correct view, but that there are several approaches which are correct and would be equivalent in the sense of Einstein's Equivalence Principle. Suppose you have a segment which is existent and write it as [eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee] and you also have a nonexistent segment and you write it as [nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn] If you combine these segments into a kind of conglomerate you can have uncountably many different configurations which are all equivalent. Some examples of would include an infinite number of different discrete partiions, and also an infinite number of continuous distributions which is modellable as a collection of gradients. I wont include a graphic for that, you'll have to visualize it. My claim is that there is a ratio of existent/nonexistent where nonexistence is more (a) "probable" than existence, and that is why we have Planck Length. For some proportional combinations existence is expected, and for others nonexistence would be expected. Planck Length represents a ratio of 50:50 potential for existence, any proportion less than this and nonexistence becomes the expected outcome if one were to attempt to make an observation. This approach is conjectural, but should have a mathematical couterpart which is based on existential dichotomy. Both approaches are equivalent IMO. The problem is that no-one has thought of the mathematical explanation yet because it is philosophically intractible. So, when we mix the existent with the nonexistent we obtain a conglomerate, and Planck Length is a limit on the extent to which space may be bent by performing such operations. If it were not for this limitation we would be able to bend space in ways which nature will not allow. This is similar to the speed of light being the cosmic speed limit. I do not have a more formal derivation at this time but believe that it may be easier to model this using conjecture than mathematics, and then convert the whole thing back into a mathematical argument. I should probably study some more QM and try to make some more formal derivations, but it does seem that gravity would be a pretty good place to start. (a) I used the word "probable" for illustrative purposes only. Formal probability theory technically cannot be used to make conjectures because PT is orthodox mathematics. Instead, existential potential must be used in place of probability theory. But to make the explanation as clear as possible I sometimes use the word "probable" as a means of conveying the broader idea.
From: Day Brown on 20 Jul 2010 13:16 On 07/18/2010 10:33 AM, Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote: >> 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. > > Hmmmm. I'm for positing the weakness of the human mind rather than its > strength. In this regard the dejavu should not be granted too much > credit. Still, if it is a mind opening experience that allows one to > break through the old programming then it could suffice as useful. > Perhaps it is a sort of sublingual processing. Even in a mentally weak > state, this may be all that we have and so we have to procede. This > explains why reality is such a puzzle to us, and has been since we > were capable of puzzling over it. Beyond this we are capable of > building false belief systems, and these are capable of propagating > through the mimicry response. It is as much our strength as our > downfall, and I think without the awareness of that factor the > idealization of the scientist or mathematician as independent of the > human form is only a Randian story. The truth is sadder than the > story. Still, it's OK. I read the instinct to try to create patterns out of what we think we know is powerful. And I remember, when I was in school, Plate Tectonics was a crank theory, and read reputable scientists mostly thot Einstein was nuts. Not that there are not lotsa whackos. Still, a whacko can have the right idea for the wrong reasons. > The bottom line is that we are constructivists. Those constructions > which propagate are the ones that we mimic. Upon forming our own > construction we are on our own, until that construction propagates, > which it may not, even though it is more truthful. How many truthful > renditions failed to propagate in the hands of organized power? Likely > many. I happily posit that someone did create the polysign number > before I did. It is too simple to have been overlooked. As with Einstein above. As another commonly considered nuts, I darent dismiss critics and try to avoid ad hominem. Still, I mite be right. > Back on Planck... There is alot to consider in terms of continuous > versus discrete. Geometry is inherently dimensional, and the ability > to transit from say a two dimensional form to a three dimensional form > is a sort of discrete problem. Whether it can actually be done- well, > here I think is a more convincing way into a Planck type constant. > Still, to date, dimension is considered a discrete concept. For > instance we are not free to ponder a 2.13 dimensional space. There are > a few ways to challenge this, but none will bridge the Euclidean gap > directly. Should this be a means of challenging Euclidean space? That > would be quite pretty. Then an old sector model I played with comes > up. I saw "IBM" spelled out by them in gold atoms that self arrange on a crystal surface. Each atom, because of Planck, egzactly the same distance from a neighbor. And in some cases, forming PERFECT right angles. What would the Greeks say? > > I have a gut reaction when the two words: > continuous > discrete > are juxtaposed, probably not unlike your own dejavu. It turns out that > there are deeper ways to reconstruct space, and that the idea of a > continuum distance that varies from zero to infinity, as the > traditional representation does, can be replaced. This implies going > beneath the real number rather than constructing from the real number. > The polysign format > s x > replaces the real number so long as s is one of two signs and x is a > zero to infinity type of magnitude, but there are other forms for x. > These other forms tweak the algebra though, so there is quite some > tension in playing variations down there. Still, can't we admit that > if something more fundamental than the real number exists, and all of > physics builds out from the real number, that physics will be cleanly > expressed? > > I cast this as an open problem and have only partial answers. The idea > that our present belief system is false is easy to accept. Where is > the false assumption? The answer locates critical openings. I am for > attempting this at fundamental levels, where the old assumption is > transparent, and so simple as to be overlooked. Partial answers are all we are allowed on this Matrix. Campbell & Gimbutas, you may recall, outline the original Aryan cosmology- that Chaos, not god, was first. But that eventually, what we'd call a self-replicating system, aka Gaia -evolved- out of Chaos, and continued to evolve to the point of sentience, differentiating Herself from Maya (the physical world). Well, OK. But Chaos is still with us, Gaia is still evolving, so there's no way to know more than partial answers. I forget who, but read an analysis of Peer Gynt saying he peels the layers of meaning away from what passes for Reality like an onion. And every time, can see the shades of meaning thru the top layer still laying below. So, he keeps on going all the way down to the core. Where there is nothing at all. I could never get my brain around the square root of minus one either. There seem to be some things that are not thinkable on the layer I seem to live on,
From: Arindam Banerjee on 20 Jul 2010 22:50 On Jul 8, 12:40 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > What sort of things are they if they are things? Space and time are measures of things, not things. > One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional > in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; One-dimensional time in a single given spatial reference. > that is to > say that they consist of continuous manifolds, positions in which can > be occupied by substances and events respectively, and which have an > existence in their own right. And measures given by time and space and also mass. > It is in virtue of the occupancy of such positions that events and > processes are to be seen as taking place after each other and > substances are to be seen in certain spatial relations. True, in a given spatial frame of reference. > Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the > objects and events that they contain? Had there been no objects, the concept of space would not arise. Had there been no events, the concept of time would not arise. > Did Einstein show, through his theory of relativity, that since space > and time can change in shape and duration that space and time are more > complex than just sustained perceptual constants? Einstein was the most brillantly wrong analyst in the entire field of science, and the sooner the world realises this fully, the better. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Jul 2010 08:54
[spit a newsgroup] Huang wrote: <snip > > Starting with some preliminaries: > > If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont > really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should > be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking > there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics. You don't have any idea what mathematics is. >Futher, I dont > want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be > seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out. This is just your high-falutin excuse to not do any work. All endeavors require a starting point, including pissing in the toilet and eating your breakfast. You still have not defined mass using only space and time nor shown how to measure it with a ruler. <snip> /BAH |