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: Vladimir Kirov on 26 Jul 2010 10:09 jmfbahciv: > Vladimir Kirov wrote: > > > > jmfbahciv: > >> [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 > > > > If space to separate of time that this will already non space, but > > statistical ensemble, to which possible add time. > > > > > Euclidean geometry adds as in c^2=a^2+b^2 > > The geometry used in space-time subtracts. Lorentz geometry. > Read the first 5 sections of _Space-time Physics_ by > Taylor and Wheeler. > > /BAH If in Euclidean space there is no time is a set. But time is present, but it not formal in definition, and is shown at operations on set. We take, for example, space of names. In definition space time is absent, but at operations on set it is quite defined in force determinations spaces. So if we speak the space-time, that imply that beside this space 2 time.
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Jul 2010 08:37 Vladimir Kirov wrote: > > jmfbahciv: >> Vladimir Kirov wrote: >> > >> > jmfbahciv: >> >> [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 >> > >> > If space to separate of time that this will already non space, but >> > statistical ensemble, to which possible add time. >> > >> > >> Euclidean geometry adds as in c^2=a^2+b^2 >> >> The geometry used in space-time subtracts. Lorentz geometry. >> Read the first 5 sections of _Space-time Physics_ by >> Taylor and Wheeler. >> >> /BAH > > If in Euclidean space there is no time is a set. > But time is present, but it not formal in definition, and is shown at > operations on set. > We take, for example, space of names. In definition space time is > absent, but at operations on set it is quite defined in force > determinations spaces. > > So if we speak the space-time, that imply that beside this space 2 > time. > I'm having trouble understanding what you wrote. Geometries have a set of axioms and are built based on those axioms. Space-time uses a geometry which has an axiom which is different from Euclidean geometory. The reason Lorentz geometry was created is because it's more useful than Euclidean geometry to do certain things, e.g. relativity calculations and predictions. Are you interested in reading the first 5 sections of _Space-time Physics_ to see how that geometry is used? /BAH
From: Day Brown on 27 Jul 2010 19:12 On 07/26/2010 08:05 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > If you want to get a taste of awareness, watch _The Mechanical > Universe_ TV series. It spends some time on explaining this > stuff and tries to make pictures so you can "see" how space-time > is used. If you want a taste of awareness, you could experiment with your own mind with compounds like LSD also.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 28 Jul 2010 06:50 On Jul 24, 9:31 am, Vladimir Kirov <vldmr....(a)gmail.com> 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! What about isotropic behavior Vladimir?
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 28 Jul 2010 12:46
On Jul 25, 2:49 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/23/2010 05:42 PM, Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote:> Correspondence to observed behavior is the crux. We really do observe > > three dimensional space, from within a cartesian mathematical system > > of real valued coordinates. Somehow within these higher theories they > > need to yield this. Most string theory as I understand it only does > > this manually, rather than deriving it. Some quantum gravity folks > > want an emergent spacetime. > > > Ordinary theory does not pose the problem > > Why spacetime? > > and instead manually doles it out. The idea that there should be a > > reason why has gone unaddressed within most analyses. Standard (x,y,z) > > physics is not arbitrarily chosen. The addition to time- well, it is > > not symmetrical to x,y,and z so the 4D tensor representation is > > slightly wrong. > > That certainly makes sense to my mind. But I dunno that it will apply to > minds, intelligence networks, or whatever, whose powers are greater. > > I've also seen reports of minds that simply cannot entertain certain > ideas; most obvious with the neurotically delusional, but also in group > think such as partisan politics. Well, this realization frames the human situation perfectly. What are we overlooking?... this is the conundrum. When we do not come up with an answer to this puzzle we simply are going along on the existent assumptions. When we do find something that we've been overlooking then one of the most natural things to do is to return to the question again and ask what else we are overlooking. This path has led me to my current position. That said I do seek falsification. Another curious aspect in terms of theoretical construction is that fairly parallel theories may exist. This is not unlike thinking in analogies, which Hume argues is an inherent feature of the human learning process, and I pretty well agree with that. Within that context we know that an analogy is imperfect, yet can still be appropriate to discussing some quality that lays in parallel. Likewise in parallel theories the slight discrepancies or inversion of priorities as to what is fundamental sometimes have deep significance. The word parallel is a bit strict for these congruences, so I do wish to loosen that strict geometrical parallel to a rougher case, where more difference can be found. This in terms of construction can occur by shuffling the axioms. > I cant preclude the Hand of Fate from > manipulating the string theory in my mind, pulling some to bring certain > ideas up from the depths, or breaking some to let others sink into oblivion. > > Just cause I cant deal with more than 3 dimensions dont mean there is > not an integrative power which could, and when it does, Murphy's laws is > one of the results as is de Jevu. I spoze there may be other effects I > am not aware of. I think that the humans give themselves too much credit when they claim that they can think in 3D. If we could then when we looked at a tree we would likewise see the trees beyond the tree, and stars beyond those trees, and the stars beyond those stars. But this is not the ordinary human perception. Instead we receive a two dimensional projection with occlusion, and so our '3D' perception is in fact occluded and what we really have is a pair of 2D projections to work with. All the rest, and even some at that level, is image processing. Yes, our image processors do a fair job, but still the raw input prevents any true 3D observations. As to whether this all can be used to provide an argument for actual higher dimension than 3D space... I don't think so. When we do the math and have the freedom to set up solids within a region we truly are able to yield the 3D representation. It is also true that these solids have another two degrees of freedom so that a 6D representation can be claimed. Whether we grant the point position the six degrees, well, Euclidean geometry says no, but particle theory says yes, especially when spin is included. There have been numerous 6D theories presented, and it happens that polysign provides a 6D level just before the 10D level, and just after the 3D level: T1 : 0D : P1 T2 : 1D : P1 P2 T3 : 3D : P1 P2 P3 T4 : 6D : P1 P2 P3 P4 T5 : 10D : P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 ... : ... This is the polysign progression. The above information is redundant per line and are three representation, the most fundamental being on the RHS. Travelling downwards this is merely a progression, and there is no reason yet known to end on T5. Regardless of how long the progression grows spacetime support will remain due to a behavioral breakpoint in P4+, where multiplication behaviors yield dimensionally degenerate cases, lacking in distance conservation, and preventing division. Best of all the polysign progression yields unidirectional time along with time's seeming paradoxes(from a real valued perspective). Time is zero dimensional, and until this flaw in the definition of dimension is addressed the human race is a bit of a farce. Still, I go on reusing the word dimension because it can sit right where it has been, yet the existinece of a zero dimensional entity challenges the cartesian notion of zero dimensional. Dimension is off by one. We are off by one. The notion of duality as fundamental requires breakage. The duality of the real number denies its fundamental nature. This duality problem is one I think you may have some valuable contribution on so I bring it up. Almost certainly what you read historically will affirm duality, yet the existence of universality is a primary challenge to duality, followed by triality, whose practical usage seems to go unovserved in human language. The construction of a triality is a challenge. A balance will be present when a triality is taken in. Extending the mathematics I can even claim that this triality will have a semblance to two dualities which are orthogonal to one another. The triality will then be a simplification, and be more accurate, though obviously by the stance on human behavior we will fail to appreciate the new form. This is a new language that is not necessarily spoken yet. - Tim |