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: OwlHoot on 14 Jul 2010 10:15 On Jul 8, 3:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > What sort of things are they if they are things? > > One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional > in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; 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. > > 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. > > Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the > objects and events that they contain? > > 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? > > Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/ When discussing the nature of time, in particular the arrow of time, people often raise the "grandfather paradox", namely that if travel back in time were possible you could go back and kill your own grandfather. Well it struck me the other day (and forgive me if this is old hat to physicists, although I haven't seen it mentioned in the many popular books and blogs I read) that maybe grandfathers _are_ killed all the time, almost all of them. But they must be extremely small, and they and their grandchildren are conventionally called virtual particles. If one works on that assumption (and I fully concede it may be kooky) then broadly speaking studying particle physics amounts to eludating the conditions and symmetries under which particles don't or somehow can't, or are least likely to, or are slowest to, go back and murder their ancestors. Cheers John Ramsden
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 14 Jul 2010 10:41 On Jul 9, 10:50 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Michael C wrote: > > On Jul 7, 10:40 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> What sort of things are they if they are things? > > >> One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional > >> in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; 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. > > >> 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. > > >> Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the > >> objects and events that they contain? This question of Immortalist's is really important to me. We admit that c, the velocity of light is attributed to spacetime itself. In particular it is broken down as c = e0 / u0 which are electric and magnetic permeabilities of space itself. Already this admits that the behaviors of electromagnetism are built into spacetime. Maxwell's equations have been built upon an isotropic space assumption, yet they expose that structural qualities exist in that magnetic phenomena form closed loops, whereas electrical phenomena are more radiant in nature. The two are related as when we consider F = q V x B, or the right hand rule of solenoids, and so forth. But at Maxwell's time the charge was allowed to be a raw charge, with no inherent magnetic moment. Then along came electron spin, in some ways a very Maxwellian behavior, yet one which denies the fundamental simplicity of q, the electron's charge. The fact that an individual particle does have its own little reference axis denies the isotropic assumption. There are even simpler ways to falsify the isotropic assumption. What is the meaning of isotropic? 'The same in all directions' is generally accepted as the simplest wording, meaning that there is no preferred direction. If at the particulate level this is falsified, we might still recover some semblance of 'isotropism' since we are conglomerates of these tiny particles, and so we have sort of a greyed out version, particularly at high ambient temperature. One can still ask: "Is space the same in all directions?" To me the answer is clearly negative, for if I look left and see a chair, then look right and see a door, I have already a simple falsication of the isotropic stance. The mathematician may insist on emptying the space of all material, but this then is not physics. If I were to look about and see absolutely nothing, or absolutely the same thing in all directions then I would be in an isotropic space. Since this is not what I observe then I am not in an isotropic space. This is such a fundamental flaw within physics that I fear there is little hope in overturning the status quo. It may be true that this perspective relies upon a unification of spacetime with the materials in spacetime, but even just the spacetime construction itself contains a structure that the tensor is not actually capable of accomodating. And so even before we unite the material to spacetime we have a break in the theory which unites space with time. Time after all is unidirectional, unlike space. Relativity theory relies upon an assymetrical metric that denies the tensor's stance of isotropic behavior, for one of the coordinates stands out like a sore thumb. Now we see time being discussed as an open problem. Well, I have the answer, but it doesn't seem to be very convincing to many people. What can I do but keep puttimg up the mimicry problem? Humans are capable of practicing false belief systems, even mathematicians and physicists. It is particularly the requirement of mimicry atop mimicry's inherent existence within the social human which may be closing off fundamental openings to the mind. To break free at the lowest levels of assumption is a challenge to the accomplished; the straight A's who fought their way to the top as top mimics. They will not be strong enough to break out of the box, and so it is for someone like me to point the way. The problems must be approached as open problems from the most fundamental of levels, for down in the fundamentals is where we are missing something. This puts us back in time, and the credit which we give ourselves and the great contributors is invalid. Without giving yourself enough credit to falsify you cannot give yourself any credit to procede. This is the mimic's trap. The human struggle is worth contemplating at this level. It is a trap for all, including myself, for if I stray too far then my language becomes my own, which no other will understand. I cannot then seek out falsification except from myself, which is critical under the paradigm that I work from. We are prisoners of spacetime. The prison is outfitted nicely. Still, we will procede to seek out its walls, test their strength, and adventure on. The tension between construction and destruction will become deeper for the future human. It is already deep enough in our generation. Tolerance is on the rise. It is time to take deeper risks. Why? Because the existent system is flawed. We should always seek improvement, and so the conservative paradigm falls flat on its face. Progressionally, there are branchings that will compete for truth status, and I present one such basis in the polysign numbers. The only criterion for a pure math as truth is a physical correspondence. Emergent spacetime is at hand and it requires a rewrite of existing theory, both mathematics and physics. - Tim > > >> 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? > > >> Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/ > > > Immortalist, > > > I think a moment in time is a certain configuration of the > > universe. Now, it's not enough to just know where the atoms in the > > universe are located in that "moment in time". You'd have to include > > things like momentum and the directions they are "currently" moving. > > Now, does this definition still allow time to be the fourth > > dimension? Well, if a moment in time is a configuration of the > > universe, then it seems that knowing what moment in time the universe > > is currently at would be enough to describe everything, length, width > > and height and then some of all the objects in it. Is time an all > > inclusive dimension - does dimension simply mean piece of information > > about an object? If you know what time it is, would you know the > > length, width, height and locatons (and anything else) of all the > > universe's objects? > > > Michael C > > Nice perspective Michael. I work on an alternative theory built around > polysign numbers: > http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned > which do provide arithmetic support for spacetime, with unidirectional > time. What I like about your perspective is that the configuration > should be a fundamental perspective. In that it claims to isolate time > and space, then what should we make of including an objects velocity > within the configuration? If it was to be fundamental, then it should > not have values containing references to itself. Here is an opening that > could prove to be useful. Most of physics makes use of position, first > derivative, and second derivative. Why stop there? > > Space and time comprise four dimensions in modern theory. Well, I can > falsify that. More important is the progression itself, and if there > were an overlap with the calculus that makes modern physics tick then > all the better. Why? Because polysign are capable of providing that > breakpoint, which is most clearly exposed via product behavior. Still, > the idea that the higher dimensions (and higher derivatives) could still > play a part is present. This is nearby to conservation theory and the > law that is in play is very much about conservation of distance, and > breaking with that conservation principle under some operation; the > arithmetic product. > > Weyl titled one of his books Space-Time-Matter though he never did open > up to a new possible philosophy at this level of unification. Instead he > built support for relativity theory by building up dizzying accounts of > the math, and attempting to cripple criticism of relativity, which we > may come back to see as a weak perspective, for the hope of a new > opening is going to be via careful criticism of the existing theories. > > Relativity is actually a first instance of a structured spacetime. The > metric itself exposes this, all the while claiming to fit the tensor > structure. Well, this is a lie. The isotropic stance must take in time > on the same footing as space if the tensor is to hold. This is not the > case, therefor the math is not actually tensor math. It is a > pseudotensor form. What we should take as truth is that spacetime is > structured. The polysign progression I believe is the next form that > humans will work with. It even provides room within the progression for > 10D (plus 0D time) at T5 > P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 > out a few places beyond the T3 spacetime support > P1 P2 P3 . > Though I have not found a natural breakpoint at T5 in terms of > arithmetic behavior, the T3 breakpoint is loud and clear. > > This approach may be quite a grandiose shuffle, yet there are numerous > overlaps with existing theory, including electromagnetic behavior within > spacetime itself. The antisymmetric tensor happens to share the same > format as the polysign progression, though the new form has the > redundancy removed, and has added structure to the geometry itself, > which is as it should be if electromagnetic behaviors are truly built > into spacetime itself. > > The polysign numbers provide a new construction of the real number, and > much more, for within the same rule set we can have unidirectional zero > dimensional time, the complex numbers, and the higher dimensional forms > as well, all algebraically well behaved. If we have gotten the real > number wrong then what else could we have misconstrued along the way? > The human mind, no matter how strong, is caught within the mimicry > effect that allows the propagation of information, and so to break free > and find a better answer is challenging for us. I have only half of an > answer, but it is quite a pretty half. I hope someone else can fill in > the rest, but I still try myself. > > - Tim
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 14 Jul 2010 11:18 On Jul 14, 10:15 am, OwlHoot <ravensd...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 3:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > What sort of things are they if they are things? > > > One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional > > in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; 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. > > > 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. > > > Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the > > objects and events that they contain? > > > 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? > > > Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/ > > When discussing the nature of time, in particular the arrow of time, > people often raise the "grandfather paradox", namely that if travel > back in time were possible you could go back and kill your own > grandfather. > > Well it struck me the other day (and forgive me if this is old hat to > physicists, although I haven't seen it mentioned in the many popular > books and blogs I read) that maybe grandfathers _are_ killed all the > time, almost all of them. But they must be extremely small, and they > and their grandchildren are conventionally called virtual particles. > > If one works on that assumption (and I fully concede it may be kooky) > then broadly speaking studying particle physics amounts to eludating > the conditions and symmetries under which particles don't or somehow > can't, or are least likely to, or are slowest to, go back and murder > their ancestors. > > Cheers > > John Ramsden The existence we lead seems to be more stable than your construction allows. To me this is a part of the fundamental puzzle that we should try to address. It would be excellent if we could derive this level of stability rather than grant it as an axiom. It is not permanent stability, but is impressive within the window of human life. There are less stable positions in the solar system, like in the sun, so that thermodynamics does seem critical. We are at the triple point; making our existence colloidal, though at a finite scale. I remember reading about some old reference weights (in France?) losing some weight over time. This is a fine study, and we might suppose that if they were kept at a colder temperature they might have kept more stably. Could they be made to gain weight? Well, I like this as an open problem. I haven't read much about it recently. I have some heavier posts that are not in sci.math or sci.space.history groups of this thread you might like to read; they are in alt.philosophy and sci.physics and sci.logic. - Tim
From: spudnik on 14 Jul 2010 14:15 <deletives impleted> just don't leave a time-tunnel in the vicinity of your grandfather, if he is still alive, because he might configure what you "were about" to do, and hi to the future to prevent you, or the past to give a condom to your dad. "Granpa, it was going to be an accident ... I mean...." "But, Dad, we're Catholic!" > Scientific concensus today isn't your great grandaddy's scientific thus&so: grammar is just a part of the three Rs, the minimum you have to know, to be a literate slave -- and what some so-called Republicans call, "the basics," to impart learning-disorders amongst the rabble's youth. thus&so: first of all, bloodletting has some current back-up ... or, at least, leeches are pretty useful in surgery. secondly, someone "above" made some statement about graphs (that is, quantification) in the harder sciences (although it seems that the soft ones use tons of statistical algorithms), and I'd like to cite the NYTimes weatherpage as a source of subliminal justification for the algorithms of the GCMers. the more qualitative aspect of that page, is the daliy vignettes on various things about weather -- n'est, mesoclimate. my random reading of this shows that cold records are at least as common as hot records, whereby goes my primary (nonquant) take on the phrase, global warming. just say, the climate, she a-changin', and rest easy! > errors as blood letting "scientists" is ridiculous. --Rep. Waxman's "new" cap&trade, same as his circa '91?... Is the House Banking Bill, before Senate, cap&trade?... les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net
From: Day Brown on 14 Jul 2010 15:52
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. |