|
|
Re: What are space and time?
Posted:
Jul 22, 2010 9:40 PM
|
|
On Jul 20, 1:03 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 9:07 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 10:40 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 18, 5:05 pm, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
>
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <7d088226-4fba-40b8-9336-70e962292...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:05 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <28e13431-8e49-4b89-bef7-d7a5af5ed...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 9:10 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > <82f51801-6ce2-41d7-a3a1-f42ad2624...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...@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
> 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.
|
|
