What are space and time?
in [Math]
|
Prev: andre@moorelife.nl
Next: get cancer and die, musacunt
From: Huang on 21 Jul 2010 14:24 On Jul 21, 8:44 am, "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. > > I am still processing your thoughts and do take interest in this > construction. Still, I think that your choice of words here is poor. > You have just brought nonexistent segments into existence, and so are > providing a self contradictory basis. I suggest simply choosing > another term other than 'existence', for within the approach of > building a basis we are providing fundamentally existent qualities. > That there would be two such qualities is believable, but not that one > of those qualities would be existence and that the other would be > nonexistence. The quantity of things which are nonexistent within the > basis of your own theory is quite large and there is no need to add > formally to these. > > - Tim > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Actually, we are not treating nonexistent lengths as if they exist. There's a very subtle distinction here. What we are doing is assigning magnitude to a nonexistent length. That's all we did. You have a length which is nonexistent, and we simply say that it has magnitude. The ratio of existence to nonexistence is preserved regardless of whatever manipulations you are doing, and that is how I understand conservation. But to manipulate nonexistent lengths like this....it is not mathematics. It is something else altogether. It can be made consistent with math with conservation. But these basic models are most easily understood as bearing strong semblance to random variables and most easily converted back and forth that way.
From: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:41 On Jul 8, 7:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/8/10 12:26 AM, Michael C wrote: > > > Also, if a moment in time is a configuration of the universe, then it > > seems that traveling "back to" a certain moment in time is a little > > more possible in theory. > > We are part of the universe--we can't step outside of it and go > where we choose as if we where "above it all". That is what the imagination is for! And if you believe Lewis Carroll, then it is actually "below it all." Eric
From: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:46 On Jul 9, 6:06 am, Errol <vs.er...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 7:00 am, Michael C <michaelcochr...(a)gmail.com> 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? > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I think that each configuration of the universe along the space-time > continuum is an act of observation by the universe of itself (whether > by human observation or interactions of particles). This particle > interaction helps explain the explicable state of twinned particles at > a distance as well. Eternity might separate observations, but it is > unnoticed by sentient consciousnesses such as humans. But for you to notice that it goes unnoticed, isn't that a paradox? Unless you're not human that is...
From: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:50 On Jul 8, 4:42 am, Giga2 <justho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 8 July, 03:40, 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/ > > I think one fundamental aspect of Einstein's idea of spacetime is that > it is a single 'thing'. In four dimemsions. When is 1 = 4? A family? When the things on each side of the equation aren't of the same type. Sometimes philosophies that fit in a nutshell, belong there.
From: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:51
On Jul 11, 7:08 pm, Wordsmith <wordsm...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 2:42 am, Giga2 <justho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 8 July, 03:40, 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/ > > > I think one fundamental aspect of Einstein's idea of spacetime is that > > it is a single 'thing'.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > As an organic totality, yes, but scientists and > philosophers love to pick 'em apart. > > W : ) Please define "organic totality". |