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: John Stafford on 24 Jul 2010 10:18 In article <f1aa9214-a7ca-4553-a7fb-db1c437b172e(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttpppggg(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 11:29 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > > > > There is a strange outlier in crystal formation. Perhaps it is best to > > call it a quasi-crystalline structure that has a tiling pattern that > > cannot possibly be built in the traditional atom-to-atom, linear manner > > (symmetric translation). See the work of Dany Shechtman, 1984. > > > > The point illustrated by this quasi-crystal is that in order to form its > > five-fold symmetry, all the atoms in the solution would have to > > simultaneously organize. It's a non-local action. Spooky stuff, as the > > man said. > > I found a SIAM article covering Shechtman's discovery. Pretty neat. > I've got a copy of Kittel's solid state physics which specifically > rules out the 5-fold symmetry. I do have a hard time with the Bravais > breakdown because it seems so cartesian based. I do have an > alternative lattice style in polysign: > http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Lattice/Lattice.html . > > How much of a space can we actually have? Some work that I've done > exposes that we can have more or less than tradition will allow: > http://bandtechnology.com/ConicalStudy/conic.html > Perhaps there is a way around the simultaneous organization > requirement here. > > I've never fully followed the crystallographic X-ray patterning, which > is supposed to be the boon of analysis, even under the Shechtman > discovery, but am happy to consider that there could be some > electromagnetics in diffraction that is being overlooked too > conveniently. We don't see any photograph of the aluminum and > manganese alloy, which I suppose does not look very impressive. Should > there be some attempt to grow one of these and see if there is some > growth pattern? I couldn't find any photos of the material, or even a > name for it. Didn't work too hard at it though. > > - Tim I found a photo in Roger Penrose's _ Emperor's New Mind_, page 564 in our library copy. It is early, and different from the later representations. If you surf for "penrose aluminum-manganese alloy" (sans quotes), you should come up with some good information. I struggle to follow Penrose, but that's my shortcoming. He's a very good instructor and writer.
From: spudnik on 24 Jul 2010 15:28 ain't that the truth; Minkowski's slogans about space & time are just a commonplace of phase-space, which can be graphed on paper as "1+1 dimensions;" but, hey, we get fourier analysis to look at! "measuerment taketh time" --Are Bucky Fullofit "and so does travel" --me,myself&brian > Nonpossible to visualize space without time and time without space. thus: think you'll find, in reports of Franklin's original experiment -- even if he didn't actually do it -- that the set-up is a fail-safe to ground, like his lightening rod. thus: the voluntary market in carbon credits is huge in the USA, mostly via the Chicago Board of Trade -- and the reform does not do anything to control derivatives til much later. thus: haven't got to the "last sentence before the supplement," but the first footnote shows the problem with Newton's "theory" of emmission. > You have this:http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf > Null in MMX is obvious. But in 1925 Michelson > detected the Earth rotation. So the exact result of MMX is 0.5 km/s. thus: sorry, Gauss said, the Queen of sciences, which has been supposed to imply that there was a King, to be physical economy -- at least as important as numbertheory (big chunk of _Cranks_). thus: I like Dudley's books, not particularly _Cranks_, but he misses the boat in the second paragraph, because he emphasizes mere arithmetic *and* the subjects that are not quite *mathematica*, or *quadrivium*, and this is the self-same problem of all primary or "elementary" ed. in math, a sort of glorification of Euclid's encyclopedia, addended to the trivium (or, the three Rs .-) http://www.ams.org/notices/201005/rtx100500608p.pdf thus: maybe, if they stopped listening to alt.deism, they'd start funding you, instead; either way, definitely a New Age soundtrack a.k.a. Muzak TM. > "Listening"?... http://en.wookiepoopya.org/wiki/Synesthesia thus: Hawking's got a new set of fairy tales?... well, he's a part of the Trinity on STreKtheNGeneratioN, so, He can do that! thus: Liebniz's *vis viva* is half of mvv; compare to Galileo's linear ideal, but don't try to disprove his relativity, til you've gotten off of the boat! --les ducs d'oil! http://wlym.com --BP's next bailout of Wall St. and "the City" (of London, gated community & financial district), or the last, if nothing is left of the USA. http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/ http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/ http://tarpley.net/world-crisis-radio/
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Jul 2010 09:49 [spit a newsgroup] Vladimir Kirov wrote: > > > > I consider that space - nonconstant ensemble. > Term a space-time is error since space bound with time and time is > part of space. Nonpossible to visualize the space without time and > time without space. > > With respekt! > Oh, good grief. The term space-time implies a geometry which is not Euclidean. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Jul 2010 09:49 [spit a newsgroup] John Stafford wrote: <snip> > I found a photo in Roger Penrose's _ Emperor's New Mind_, page 564 in > our library copy. It is early, and different from the later > representations. If you surf for "penrose aluminum-manganese alloy" > (sans quotes), you should come up with some good information. > > I struggle to follow Penrose, but that's my shortcoming. He's a very > good instructor and writer. I never made it through the third chapter of that book; it always ended up being thrown against the wall. Some day I'll try to read it again. /BAH
From: Vladimir Kirov on 25 Jul 2010 10:11
jmfbahciv: > wrote: > The term space-time implies a geometry which is > not Euclidean. > > /BAH This well all known. But this nothing non changes. |