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 22 Jul 2010 18:57 On Jul 22, 11:35 pm, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > Spaceandtimeare two sides to the same coin. Einstein merged them. Only because he refused to accept / he rejected the law of identity. MG
From: John Stafford on 22 Jul 2010 19:55 In article <4a067370-2f31-4aa8-9c73-0b41271b76e7(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Huang <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In mathematics things are proved. Or they are not proved. > The reason you can do this is > because everything exists very nicely and the whole stupid thing fits > together like Lego building blocks, and ever piece fits perfect. That > is mathematics. Accepted for the moment - mathematical proofs build upon each other, and that is why proofs are so important - so that later posits do not collapse into a pile of.. well, legos as you put it. > Conjecture is diferent. You begin by saying not "what exists", but > "what might exist". Conjectures are NEVER proved to be true because > they are and must remain conjectural. No. Some conjectures have been proven. Your logic tumbles into the dumpster with that. > But you CAN show that > conjectures are consistent, and so all of these conjectures fit > together like Lego building blocks as well. In fact, for every > mathematical statement there is a corresponding conjectural statement > and vice versa. IOW, for every conjecture there is an infinite supply of poorly informed guesswork and wholly impressionistic objection which has nothing to do with the mathematics. I suspect you are exercising the same. > There is no mathematical way to transform back and > forth between the two, such operations are currently under study but > to be sure - I do know what math is and what it is not. I also believe > that there are tools other than math which can accomplish the same > things that math does. Exactly what is this 'back and forth' you write of? [...] > Ok - there are many ways to do this depending on how precise you want > to make it. If you want an exact derivation you'll never get it > because it's not calculable, would require too much computing power > which does not exist at this time and probably never will. You must tell us WHY this is so. A declaration is not sufficient. > However, if we allow (for brevity) to model objects more coarsely we > can come up with some decent models. Instead of considering every > individual atom, just consider a planet as a whole and skip all of the > fine structure. So you are presuming our planet, earth, without considering what you posited above which suggests differences among other planets. (In other words, speculative impressionistic ideas about distant systems which might not have the same physics humans experience. That's a panthromorpic view.) > A planet may then be regarded (in my model) as a gradient. The > gradient is comprised of a potential, and to each point in space we > assign a potential that the point exists. That gives rise to this > gradient. Consider that the nucleus of the planet is enriched, and the > areas in it's outer shells are rarified. A planet (or atom) is nothing > more than an imbalance as described. [...] I suggest that you would find some helpful views if you consider time as information in the the classic sense, and then move on. Keywords: holographic view of the universe, which is really an entirely impoverished view, but the best that humankind like you can fathom. Approximation might lead you to a failure of your philosophy that will lead you to a deeper concept.
From: Huang on 22 Jul 2010 21:05 On Jul 22, 6:55 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <4a067370-2f31-4aa8-9c73-0b41271b7...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > In mathematics things are proved. > > Or they are not proved. > > > The reason you can do this is > > because everything exists very nicely and the whole stupid thing fits > > together like Lego building blocks, and ever piece fits perfect. That > > is mathematics. > > Accepted for the moment - mathematical proofs build upon each other, and > that is why proofs are so important - so that later posits do not > collapse into a pile of.. well, legos as you put it. > > > Conjecture is diferent. You begin by saying not "what exists", but > > "what might exist". Conjectures are NEVER proved to be true because > > they are and must remain conjectural. > > No. Some conjectures have been proven. Your logic tumbles into the > dumpster with that. I use the word "conjecture" slightly differently than a mathematician would. I use this word because it is the best word to describe the tentattive kinds of relationsships I seek to manipulate. Yet at the same time, a conjecture can never be proven or disproven. My usage of the word conjecture is not the same as the common usage. A conjectural statement, in my scheme, is a statement which is based on existential indeterminacy which would form a valid mathematical statement under the assumption of either existence or nonexistence. Such objects are different from the standard conjectures that are common in math, science and elsewhere. Conjecture, in my usage, cannot be proved. All you can do is demonstrate consistency with mathematics. If a conjecture forms a valid mathematical statement under the assumption of existence, then it's a valid conjecture in the sense that it will be consistent with every other conjecture in this construction.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 22 Jul 2010 21:40 On Jul 20, 1:03 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. OK Huang. I will have to make my own interpretation of your nonexistent length, but here is my next criticism: here you state that space may be bent by mixing your enlength (new word: quip of existent nonexistent length), yet the meaning of bending space via the construction is completely ignored here. To take this level of freedom there is a large gap you will have to fill in, and the level of interpretation that you surmise does not seem so straightforward as you propose. I can't buy this as a serious analysis, particularly not atop granting existence to nonexistent length. Still, I accept that you are a complex thinker and have formed a thought process that you are sticking with. To me the trouble is that the steps are too large. I encourage you keep taking the freedoms you do, but also encourage you to take a more critical view of your own work. - Tim > 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: Huang on 22 Jul 2010 22:14
On Jul 22, 8:40 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 1:03 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > OK Huang. I will have to make my own interpretation of your > nonexistent length, but here is my next criticism: here you state that > space may be bent by mixing your enlength (new word: quip of existent > nonexistent length), yet the meaning of bending space via the > construction is completely ignored here. To take this level of freedom > there is a large gap you will have to fill in, and the level of > interpretation that you surmise does not seem so straightforward as > you propose. I can't buy this as a serious analysis, particularly not > atop granting existence to nonexistent length. Still, I accept that > you are a complex thinker and have formed a thought process that you > are sticking with. To me the trouble is that the steps are too large. > I encourage you keep taking the freedoms you do, but also encourage > you to take a more critical view of your own work. > > - Tim A fair criticism and you probably gave me more than most would dare. Just to elaborate a bit on the space bending might be in order... If you have model one of these gradients using conjectural methods, the whole thing should be easily convertible back into standard mathematics. However, we know what bent space looks like in the context of relativity. It is not so simple a thing, it is a bit tricky. Standard GR does not just hand you some bend space like a warped piece of plastic. You have to proceed like Einstein to say that acceleration is equivalent to a gravity field, and so whether space is bent or not can depend on your frame of reference. When you convert form conjecture back to mathematics, it must map to that same exact siatuation in GR somehow. I think that when you take the nonexistent and mix with the existent, you have infinitely many possible ways to partition such a conglomerate and they are all "equivalent" - THIS is critical to understand how to do that. Critical to understand how to map to that peculiar situation which we find in GR. Now for the mind blower - Modelling with Existential Indeterminacy is "equivalent" to modelling with mathematics. So - any space bending which you do by making conjectural models is essentially nullified when you convert back to mathematics. So - we have something very similar to the case we discussed in GR. The space bending can be made to "go away" due to an equivalence relation, just like in GR. Mind bending !! |