|
|
Re: Physics from logic?(Check my math)
Posted:
May 19, 2012 10:26 AM
|
|
On May 18, 10:36 am, Mike <maj...@charter.net> wrote:
> On May 18, 9:09 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
>
> > Will we now split the issue up into three parts: the space, the
> > material, and the laws of physics?
> > I admit that this is roughly the current position, but there are some
> > inconvenient truths which do go ignored.
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > The divorce between matter, space, and the laws of physics is fairly
> > arbitrary, and the possibility of new constructions that are cleaner
> > than the past constructions will need to take advantage of fundamental
> > challenges to the existing nomenclature. This is how deep we should
> > go.
>
> Actually from general relativity it seems spacetime and material have
> an effect on each other. "Matter tells space how to curve, and space
> tells matter how to move." So, there is an underlying relationship of
> cause and effect between matter and spacetime. And I think this means
> that there is an underlying cause for both spacetime and matter;
> ultimately they are made of the same thing. At least at the initial
> singularity, before the big bang spacetime and matter were all the
> same thing.
Yes, Mike, I appreciate your position. I still have difficulties with
some of relativity theory, but as far as the basics of coordinate
systems and their transforms go I feel pretty comfortable. The main
issue to me is the treatment of time. I do not believe that it is
reasonable to place time in the metric with so little structure as the
4D tensor method portrays. I do believe in the unification of
spacetime, but time does carry unique behaviors from space which have
been blurred too far in the 4D form. It seems that the only way to
recover time is to impose the light cone and so forth upon an overly
abstracted format. For instance when we take Einstein's measuring rod
as a baton we may freely rotate it about in the three dimensions of
space, even flipping it end on end so that we freely invert its
orientation should we mark one end of it as unique to the other. Now,
with time just another dimension then we should take the freedom to
extend this behavior into time since it takes its place in the tensor
symmetrically with the spatial dimensions. This will then generate
nonsense and even break the atomic structure of the baton and leave us
wondering about all sorts of wild problems. So you see I criticize
relativity theory as a pseudotensor theory, for the tensor has been
abused in the construction, only corrected by imposition of the
lightcone.
When we witness time as unidirectional and the real line as
bidirectional then this is enough to puzzle us toward the proper form
of unified spacetime. Then the issuance of three dimensions of space
is still a huge mystery. This is even more fundamental than the
puzzling over gravity which has become mainstream. Every theory which
posits three dimensional space without any support is taking an
empirical step in what was supposed to be a theory. Well, we are
humans who start from a blank slate and so we must start somewhere.
But now we believe that we are really on top of it all and we are just
nailing down the final details... Hah, OK, I speak too broadly. When
we give up on the mimicry principle; we realize that the problems
remain open; then perhaps some authentic constructions can come
about.
I came to puzzle over the 3D space concern after reading Elegant
Universe and seeing how little attention the string theorists are
giving this fundamental puzzle. But the criticism propagates
throughout all of physics and it helps position our actual state of
knowledge. More recently I came upon the concept of 'emergent
spacetime' chaining off of NKS's concept of emergent properties and
searching for this term.
Wow, there's a bunch of new stuff to look over:
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+EXACT+emergent_spacetime/0/1/0/all/0/1
Still I look at stuff like Emergent Spacetime from Modular Motives
from this list and am disappointed in how complicated their theories
are. All that was needed was to generalize the sign of the real
number. To hell with Galois theory and Lie algebras. It's like reading
Newton's Principia versus a modern classical physics text. His stuff
was very complicated. The same went on in electromagnetics and there
is no guarantee that we are done with it yet. When emergent spacetime
marries electromagnetics into its fold then we will have something. It
is very close. It cannot be a tensor form. It must be structured, and
polysign provides a sound basis with physical correspondence. It may
be merely a stepping stone on the path, but I do believe that it will
be a necessary step.
Polysign numbers provide the arithmetic basis for spacetime with
unidirectional time and three dimensions of space. The inklings of
electromagnetic phenomenon are there within the geometry, but this is
not an isotropic geometry. It is a structured geometry. It has a
natural form that would well match that title
Emergent Spacetime from Modular Motives
but it is as if the answer is too simple. Polysign breaks the back of
the real number which has been burned into our brains from an early
age. It puts the cartesian construction of multidimensional space on
the garbage heap. These are early steps which are so low as to go
unchallenged by today's wizards. Yet some small changes way back here
should have consequences which ripple throughout, and it is a
consistent position always to take:
We have made some fundamental mistake(s).
If this position is accurate then in hindsight (say a couple hundred
years) the modern accumulation will be taken as blather. Well, this
may be a bit too harsh, but authenticity is only granted by the
censors in today's academic environment, who must keep their
publications running, and this means accumulation.
Sorry if this comes across as just more blather, but relative
reference frames can still be imposed upon a structured basis. In
considering this detail the isotropic stance comes across as poor
nomenclature. The word 'dimension' suffers similarly under polysign
principles. Our language is suffering from accumulation.
- Tim http://bandtechnology.com/polysigned
|
|
