What are space and time?
in [Math]
|
Prev: andre@moorelife.nl
Next: get cancer and die, musacunt
From: John Stafford on 23 Jul 2010 10:59 In article <b0365dc2-ab55-422a-8931-53bcbdc15132(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Huang <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 7:42�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > In article > > <1ae1057e-028b-4792-8fb2-e06f27a8b...(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > > > > �Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Conjectures have been proven. Once proven, the definition of conjecture > > no longer applies. > > > > But you may use the word, but never say never. > > > > > 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. > > > > Show the math, please. > > > > > 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. > > > > Show the math. > > > OK - will try to find an illustrative example and post it shortly. > > But just to clarify and contrast a bit further: > > A mathematical statement is a "truth". It is a certainty. A proven mathematical statement is a truth. > In my scheme a conjecture is a statement which is in a permanent state > of indeterminacy. It's permanently a "possibility", a permanent state > of uncertainty. It cannot be proven or disproven, it's impossible. I'm good with that. I have to leave for the day job now and will try to coin a word to replace 'conjecture'. > And > amidst the whole collection of such conjectures there is no way to > prove anything, all one can do is demonstrate consistency. I made a > little progress toward that end. So far it reads like most quantum assertions. > I cant think of a better word to describe such a statement other than > conjecture. It incorporates existential indeterminacy and so at it's > most fundamental level it is a statement which is permanently and > inherently indeterminate. But this usage is certainly different than > the common usage of the word conjecture in math and elsewhere, it's > the only word that seems to make sense. Yes. We need a new word. Or an old one that has not been corrupted. XYZZY? PLUGH! (A free beer to whomever first gives the source of those two words.)
From: Huang on 23 Jul 2010 15:44 On Jul 23, 11:46 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > I cant think of a better word to describe such a statement other than > > conjecture. It incorporates existential indeterminacy and so at it's > > most fundamental level it is a statement which is permanently and > > inherently indeterminate. > > Super-Supposition > > Simuvalence It's challenging to even come up with an appropriate word to describe what Im doing. I dont like borrowing terminology from mathematics because that only leads to alot of confusion. Mathematics was very successful in harnessing indeterminacy in a form which was consistent with the rest of mathematics. Random variables and probability theory accomplish this very well. But I want to make statements which are themself indeterminate, and do not rely on random variables. The indeterminacy is shifted from the random variable to the more fundamental presumption of existence. It's a very subtle shift but the result is a statement which is itself in a permanent state of indeterminacy, just like a random variable would be. It is very bad to use nomenclature which causes confusion. I like the word "conjecture" because it seems appropriate, despite the fact that it's a dirty word in mathematics because conjectures are sometimes seen as being tantamount to speculations.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 23 Jul 2010 20:12 On Jul 22, 10:14 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Well, I have a consideration: that a new correct theory may not have a clean translation into ordinary language, so that even the person carrying the theory may not have a clean expression for their theory. So I am willing to consider that you could be that person, and am just helping by challenging your translation. Still, we have to admit that not everybodies theory can be this good, and likely most of us have theories much less than perfect. Anyway, by the translation problem it puts most of us in the same boat. This also has a causative side effect on ordinary theories: they tend to develop in small incremental steps, or else they may be declared invalid. This can be regarded as a handicap of existing physics. It is a valid concern, and we all should attempt to work from some basis that is shared, otherwise you are out on your own, and attempts to communicate will yield poor feedback. So you can either be handicapped, or a complete freak. Then too, there are the monkeys in the tree, who live a comfortable life and still find new fruit. Whatever way you look at it, the subject is pretty interesting. > > 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. Hmmm... It has troubled me that the measuring rod in a bent space will read straight and perfect to a likewise bent observer, with light waves travelling their straight as an arrow path in the bent space... really it's quite disgusting. Then, too, to define such a bent space we will be needing a straight space to declare the bent space in. Still, there is experimenatl agreement. But that doesn't mean that it is the final theory. - Tim > > Mind bending !!
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 24 Jul 2010 08:59 On Jul 21, 11:29 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > In article > <f7e45f47-5c7d-41b4-83c8-b989e8cb0...(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>, > "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 16, 10:07 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > > > In article > > > <60daa7bc-b684-4ed6-a0b5-6e0439abe...(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > :) I think that intelligence can be gaseous, light-years wide, > > > completely different than skin and bones. > > > Hmmm... Yes, I've considered this too, especially in those regions of > > space with rich gas. It is easy to ponder within those beautiful > > photographs. Anyhow, the thermal processes there may be important, and > > if something special condenses for a moment or two, well, in an energy > > rich environment the processes will be quite energetic. Still, I think > > the life within the gas low gravity environment could be flying about > > through the gas, taking a semi solid form with great freedom. This > > would again be at a weird sort of triple point, where exchanges take > > place and the same thing as crystal formation can happen. There can > > only be so much chaos in those places, especially at a small scale. > > Geeze, is that a paradigm? The quantity of chaos is limited by its > > volume. In other words if your throw enough small eddies into a fluid > > they will quell each other. Yeah. > > We should not rule out non-local sources of organization. > > > - Tim > > > > Diamonds and crystals are fodder for cellular automata simulations. Love > > > the idea. > > I've seen little three dimensional automata. I've tried it myself, but > not very hard. > > 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
From: Vladimir Kirov on 24 Jul 2010 09:31
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! |