| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"mountain man" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2005 06:20:20 PM |
| Object: |
dimension in physics |
Dimension is a human concept, heavily wrapped
in a plurality of mathematical formalisms and lying
at the foundation of physics.
True or false?
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
| User: "Strange Indeed" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
15 Aug 2005 05:03:46 PM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in
news:Uq9Me.86261$oJ.29554@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
Dimension is a human concept, heavily wrapped
in a plurality of mathematical formalisms and lying
at the foundation of physics.
True or false?
Blame it on sex. Comparative breast size and dicksize were obviously the
first relative dimensions of protohuman concern, followed by the physics
of motion, emotion, and the chemistry involved in procreation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "NightSoil Dalits @ Ryugyong Hotel" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
15 Aug 2005 07:10:30 PM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:Uq9Me.86261$oJ.29554@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Dimension is a human concept, heavily wrapped
in a plurality of mathematical formalisms and lying
at the foundation of physics.
True or false?
WRONG.
You are using words that are human concepts.
Dimensions are constructs, no wrappings needed.
Mathematics is foundation of Physics.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
15 Aug 2005 06:35:26 PM |
|
|
Dynamic dimensions.
If time moves what happens if you catch up to it?
Time slows and space shrinks.
Sound familiar?
It should. It's relativity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Golden" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
15 Aug 2005 08:50:49 PM |
|
|
No, dimension is not a human concept.
It is created by humans, but the way that dimension is constructed
traditionally is from the real numbers. The idea that we exist in three
spatial dimensions is accepted by most humans. But dimension should be
universally accepted by any other intelligent life out there. There are
alternative ways of getting dimensionality. The polysigned numbers are
one such:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html
They generate a nonorthogonal coordinate system which is arguably more
fundamental than cartesian coordinate systems or their various
counterparts. It can be argued they derive spacetime. They generate a
definition for a zero-dimensional value that has congruence with time.
There are some physics experiments claiming to measure additional
dimensions. If the polysigned numbers are the right spacetime construct
then they predict that the next level of additional dimension will
actually contain three additional dimensions, then four more, then
five, etc.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nightsoil Dalits@Ryugyong Hotel" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
15 Aug 2005 09:18:35 PM |
|
|
"Tim Golden" <tttpppggg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124157048.947784.62150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No, dimension is not a human concept.
It is created by humans, but the way that dimension is constructed
traditionally is from the real numbers. The idea that we exist in three
spatial dimensions is accepted by most humans. But dimension
should be universally accepted by any other intelligent life out there.
Can you be more specific?
Or are you saying "dimensionality" an alien concept?
What about the aliens that are stuck in the middle ages and cannot write
because of their physupopods?
You are projecting your human concepts upon "any other intelligent life out
there"
Question is: when did man become aware or develop the concept of
dimensionality?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
16 Aug 2005 06:46:14 PM |
|
|
Dark Energy is 0 wavelength at constant frequency.
Hubble constant is stars going away at c at the edge of our visible
universe.
When it gets to the outside of our visible universe its invisible to us
but its photon left it at a point that dont move . That photon will
pass us at c with out a wavelength .
Space is energy under presure .
The presure is photons with no wavelength at c all passing the same
point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Golden" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
26 Aug 2005 01:11:26 AM |
|
|
tj Frazir wrote:
Dark Energy is 0 wavelength at constant frequency.
Is that any frequency or only discrete frequencies?
What happens if the energy changes?
Hubble constant is stars going away at c at the edge of our visible
universe.
Why is the speed c? Is that so that we can never observe the edge?
Is it an impossibility to build a telescope that sees 1e10?
Does it exist yet?
Does it just see black?
When it gets to the outside of our visible universe its invisible to us
but its photon left it at a point that dont move . That photon will
pass us at c with out a wavelength .
Is a bubble analogy appropriate- perhaps where there are merely two
surfaces to the bubble but many path lengths?
Space is energy under presure .
The presure is photons with no wavelength at c all passing the same
point.
Does that make us a reflection of the future rather than a reflection
of the past? If so then perhaps I've got time backwards.
I'm so sorry. I really don't get it.
But I'd like to.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Golden" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
26 Aug 2005 01:02:30 AM |
|
|
Dimentionality must have existed very early on for man.
A man looking at the stars would be forced to orient himself with
another man in order to communicate what he saw. This type of
orientation and motion would be sufficient to define a coordinate
system wouldn't it?.
Another one existed over land in path lengths which are not so straight
forward.
But the pace is a simple enough measure:
the time that it takes one to traverse a leg.
the number of paces that it took.
There is no redundancy here is there?.
Aren't These sufficient to define a coordinate system?.
So far we have one dimension for the path
And two for the stars.
Need we have more?
What about the cartesian space construction and how well it maps
to the world about us at dimension three?
That's a nice match.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
16 Aug 2005 07:37:45 AM |
|
|
"Tim Golden" <tttpppggg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124157048.947784.62150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No, dimension is not a human concept.
It is created by humans, but the way that dimension is constructed
traditionally is from the real numbers. The idea that we exist in three
spatial dimensions is accepted by most humans.
By way of conceptual conditioning (only).
But dimension should be
universally accepted by any other intelligent life out there.
One might expect this to be so, but seeing that ....
There are
alternative ways of getting dimensionality.
Which of these alternate "ways of getting dimensionality"
is to be regarded as the "human postulate"?
The polysigned numbers are
one such:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html
They generate a nonorthogonal coordinate system which is arguably more
fundamental than cartesian coordinate systems or their various
counterparts. It can be argued they derive spacetime. They generate a
definition for a zero-dimensional value that has congruence with time.
There are some physics experiments claiming to measure additional
dimensions. If the polysigned numbers are the right spacetime construct
then they predict that the next level of additional dimension will
actually contain three additional dimensions, then four more, then
five, etc.
Send an alert if it reaches 42.
Other treatments of dimension include Haussdorf-Besicovitch
popularised by Mandelbrot as 'fractal'. Application in recent
years for this definition has expanded. The classic example is
the analysis of brownian motion.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
15 Aug 2005 07:34:46 PM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
Dimension is a human concept, heavily wrapped
in a plurality of mathematical formalisms and lying
at the foundation of physics.
True or false?
Euler's equation, idiot. Physics is backgroundless. Where will you
insert your coordinate system, fool?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
16 Aug 2005 07:37:44 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:430134A6.FB40980B@hate.spam.net...
mountain man wrote:
Dimension is a human concept, heavily wrapped
in a plurality of mathematical formalisms and lying
at the foundation of physics.
True or false?
Euler's equation, idiot.
Euler assumes one specific (the common) definition
of dimension at its axiomatic foundation. Other
diverse concepts of dimension abound.
Physics is backgroundless.
Nice thought - it would like to think it is - but
far from the money in the fullness of time.
Human conceived physics is riddled with human conceived
notions at its theoretical foundations; and dimension is one
class of such notions. Many have been introduced by way
of the mathematical treatments reserved for physical
processes.
Onion skins. Start peeling.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
15 Aug 2005 09:40:44 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:430134A6.FB40980B@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
Phuckwit.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Helmut Wabnig EmailAddress" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
16 Aug 2005 02:08:21 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 02:40:44 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:430134A6.FB40980B@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
Phuckwit.
Androcles
Androcles!
W.
(grin)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
15 Aug 2005 06:44:13 PM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
Dimension is a human concept, heavily wrapped
in a plurality of mathematical formalisms and lying
at the foundation of physics.
True or false?
Is not everything a human concept?
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
16 Aug 2005 07:37:43 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:hN9Me.255287$_o.178832@attbi_s71...
mountain man wrote:
Dimension is a human concept, heavily wrapped
in a plurality of mathematical formalisms and lying
at the foundation of physics.
True or false?
Is not everything a human concept?
The physical cosmos appears to exist independently
of humanity, and is the subject matter of physics. It
is our nature to use language (words and mathematics)
to describe this subject matter of physics, and in this
sense, our _descriptions_ are human concepts.
Our descriptions however, are necessarily human, and
the half of the history of physics is essentially peeling
away such preconceptions surrounding such descriptions.
Particularly so for the more foundational concepts that
are involved in the underlying postulates of physics (eg:
relative motion) most of which, if not all, use this
human concept of dimension.
There are a plurality of definitions relating to dimension:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/search/index.cgi?q=dimension
Dimension is a description that seems to me to be closely
related to the nature of space itself, or at least, to the
(human) measurements that may be taken within a space.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
16 Aug 2005 07:51:04 AM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:hN9Me.255287$_o.178832@attbi_s71...
mountain man wrote:
Dimension is a human concept, heavily wrapped
in a plurality of mathematical formalisms and lying
at the foundation of physics.
True or false?
Is not everything a human concept?
The physical cosmos appears to exist independently
of humanity, and is the subject matter of physics. It
is our nature to use language (words and mathematics)
to describe this subject matter of physics, and in this
sense, our _descriptions_ are human concepts.
Our descriptions however, are necessarily human, and
the half of the history of physics is essentially peeling
away such preconceptions surrounding such descriptions.
Particularly so for the more foundational concepts that
are involved in the underlying postulates of physics (eg:
relative motion) most of which, if not all, use this
human concept of dimension.
There are a plurality of definitions relating to dimension:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/search/index.cgi?q=dimension
Dimension is a description that seems to me to be closely
related to the nature of space itself, or at least, to the
(human) measurements that may be taken within a space.
You made my point for me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
16 Aug 2005 03:12:09 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:YilMe.256462$_o.2906@attbi_s71...
mountain man wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:hN9Me.255287$_o.178832@attbi_s71...
mountain man wrote:
Dimension is a human concept, heavily wrapped
in a plurality of mathematical formalisms and lying
at the foundation of physics.
True or false?
Is not everything a human concept?
The physical cosmos appears to exist independently
of humanity, and is the subject matter of physics. It
is our nature to use language (words and mathematics)
to describe this subject matter of physics, and in this
sense, our _descriptions_ are human concepts.
Our descriptions however, are necessarily human, and
the half of the history of physics is essentially peeling
away such preconceptions surrounding such descriptions.
Particularly so for the more foundational concepts that
are involved in the underlying postulates of physics (eg:
relative motion) most of which, if not all, use this
human concept of dimension.
There are a plurality of definitions relating to dimension:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/search/index.cgi?q=dimension
Dimension is a description that seems to me to be closely
related to the nature of space itself, or at least, to the
(human) measurements that may be taken within a space.
You made my point for me.
I think there is more to this issue than the conventional
(human) concept of some spatially related integer valued
attribute to the background context of the description of
natural phenomena.
"Nothing is rich
But the inexhaustible wealth of nature.
She shows us only surfaces,
But she is a million fathoms deep"
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
16 Aug 2005 05:50:30 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:12:09 GMT, "mountain man"
<hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
I think there is more to this issue than the conventional
(human) concept of some spatially related integer valued
attribute to the background context of the description of
natural phenomena.
A dimension is a degree of freedom, period.
Dimension has to do with variable positions (coordinates). A
coordinate is a property of a particle. It could not possibly be a
property of space for the simple reasons that a) space is a fictitious
abstract concept; b) it could not be variable if it were the property
of space; and c) if it were the property of space, what would be the
connection to a moving particle?
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
16 Aug 2005 06:13:12 PM |
|
|
And dimensions are dynamic savian
They curve and move.
Take the time dimension. If you catch up to its
motion by speeding up it slows down and space
contracts.
Sound familiar?
It should. Its Relativity.
Dynamic dimensions are very the explanation of Relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
16 Aug 2005 07:47:44 PM |
|
|
On 16 Aug 2005 16:13:12 -0700, "Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dynamic dimensions are very the explanation of Relativity.
Where do these idiots come from? Did Uncle ***** father a bunch of
illegitimate offsprings? ahahaha... ahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
15 Aug 2005 06:47:10 PM |
|
|
No sam. The Aether is beyond any physical concept.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
16 Aug 2005 08:00:26 AM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
Dimension is a human concept, heavily wrapped
in a plurality of mathematical formalisms and lying
at the foundation of physics.
True or false?
In physics there are 5 fundamental units:
TABLE 1 - Fundamental Units:
NAME DIMENSION SI EQUIVALENT
------------------------------------------------------------
Planck time Time (T) 5.39121 * 10-44 s
Planck length Length (L) 1.61624 * 10-35 m
Planck mass Mass (M) 2.17645 * 10-8 kg
Planck charge Electric charge (Q) 1.87555 * 10-18 C
Planck temp. Temperature (Tp) 1.41679 * 10-32 K
All remaining physical units can be derived as:
TABLE 2 - Derived Units:
NAME DIMENSIONS SI EQUIVALENT
------------------------------------------------------------
Planck energy M L^2 / T^2 1.9561 * 10-9 J
Planck force M L / T^2 1.2103 * 10-44 N
Planck power M L^2 / T^3 3.6283 * 10-52 W
Planck density M / L^3 5.1550 * 10-96 kg/m^3
Planck angular freq. 1 / T 1.8549 * 10-43 s^(-1)
Planck pressure M / (L T^2) 4.6331 * 10-113 Pa
Planck current Q / T 3.4789 * 10-25 A
Planck voltage M L^2/(T^2 Q) 1.0430 * 10-27 V
Planck impedance M L^2/(T Q^2) 2.9979 * 10-1 Ohms
All dimensionful physcal constants can be defined as:
TABLE 3 - Fundamental Constants:
NAME SYMBOL EXPRESSION
------------------------------------------------------------
Light speed c L / T
Dirac h-bar M L^2 / T
Gravitational G L^3 / ( M T^2)
Space permittivity e0 Q T^2 / (4 pi M L^3)
Boltzmann k M L^2 / (T^2 Tp)
Fundamental quantities arise in physics:
TABLE 4 - Fundamental Quantities:
NAME SYMBOL SI EQUIVALENT
----------------------------------------
Natural charge e 1.6021 x 10-19 C
It has been found that a dimensionless physical constant arises in
nature:
TABLE 5 - Dimensionless Constants:
NAME SYMBOL EXPRESSION VALUE
-----------------------------------------------------
alpha a (e / Q)^2 7.2973 x 10-3
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
16 Aug 2005 03:12:09 PM |
|
|
"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124197226.566534.66420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
mountain man wrote:
Dimension is a human concept, heavily wrapped
in a plurality of mathematical formalisms and lying
at the foundation of physics.
True or false?
In physics there are 5 fundamental units:
TABLE 1 - Fundamental Units:
NAME DIMENSION SI EQUIVALENT
------------------------------------------------------------
Planck time Time (T) 5.39121 * 10-44 s
Planck length Length (L) 1.61624 * 10-35 m
Planck mass Mass (M) 2.17645 * 10-8 kg
Planck charge Electric charge (Q) 1.87555 * 10-18 C
Planck temp. Temperature (Tp) 1.41679 * 10-32 K
Above, traditional use sees T and L related to dimension.
What treatment sees M,Q and Tp handled as dimension?
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: dimension in physics |
17 Aug 2005 03:48:59 AM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124197226.566534.66420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
mountain man wrote:
Dimension is a human concept, heavily wrapped
in a plurality of mathematical formalisms and lying
at the foundation of physics.
True or false?
In physics there are 5 fundamental units:
TABLE 1 - Fundamental Units:
NAME DIMENSION SI EQUIVALENT
------------------------------------------------------------
Planck time Time (T) 5.39121 * 10-44 s
Planck length Length (L) 1.61624 * 10-35 m
Planck mass Mass (M) 2.17645 * 10-8 kg
Planck charge Electric charge (Q) 1.87555 * 10-18 C
Planck temp. Temperature (Tp) 1.41679 * 10-32 K
Above, traditional use sees T and L related to dimension.
What treatment sees M,Q and Tp handled as dimension?
First of all, you'll need to excuse my tables as half the numbers were
all wrong (the regexp that I used to rip those numbers parsed them
incorrectly). They are all correct now.
In relation to your question:
The planck temperature "Tp" is the maximum temperature a body can
reach. There are 2 known things which could reach such a temperature.
1. In the initial moments of the Big Bang, when a singularity
spontaneously decomposes into a disordered state the temperature of the
universe reaches Tp.
2. In it's final moments, an evaporating black hole reaches Tp
temperature during it's final burst of radiation.
The Planck mass is the natural unit for mass.
1. Rest energy in E units is numerically equal to rest mass in M
units.
i.e. Energy = Mass
2. Under a newtonian graviational field, the plank length is
Schwarzchild radius of the planck mass. The planck speed (light speed)
is the escape velocity of the planck mass.
If the energy uncertainty of a system exceeds E then you get
spontaneous particle/antiparticle creation/annihilations.
In physics there are 5 fundamental units:
TABLE 1 - Fundamental Units:
NAME DIMENSION SI EQUIVALENT
------------------------------------------------------------
Planck time Time (T) 5.39121 x 10-44 s
Planck length Length (L) 1.61624 x 10-35 m
Planck mass Mass (M) 2.17645 x 10-8 kg
Planck charge Electric charge (Q) 1.87555 x 10-18 C
Planck temp. Temperature (Tp) 1.41679 x 10+32 K
All remaining physical units can be derived as:
TABLE 2 - Derived Units:
NAME DIMENSIONS SI EQUIVALENT
------------------------------------------------------------
Planck energy M L^2 / T^2 1.9561 x 10+9 J
Planck force M L / T^2 1.2103 x 10+44 N
Planck power M L^2 / T^3 3.6283 x 10+52 W
Planck density M / L^3 5.1550 x 10+96 kg/m^3
Planck angular freq. 1 / T 1.8549 x 10+43 s^(-1)
Planck pressure M / (L T^2) 4.6331 x 10+113 Pa
Planck current Q / T 3.4789 x 10+25 A
Planck voltage M L^2/(T^2 Q) 1.0430 x 10+27 V
Planck impedance M L^2/(T Q^2) 2.9979 x 10+1 Ohms
All dimensionful physcal constants can be defined as:
TABLE 3 - Fundamental Constants:
NAME SYMBOL EXPRESSION
------------------------------------------------------------
Light speed c L / T
Dirac h-bar M L^2 / T
Gravitational G L^3 / ( M T^2)
Space permittivity e0 Q T^2 / (4 pi M L^3)
Boltzmann k M L^2 / (T^2 Tp)
Fundamental quantities arise in physics:
TABLE 4 - Fundamental Quantities:
NAME SYMBOL SI EQUIVALENT
----------------------------------------
Natural charge e 1.6021 x 10-19 C
It has been found that a dimensionless physical constant arises in
nature:
TABLE 5 - Dimensionless Constants:
NAME SYMBOL EXPRESSION VALUE
-----------------------------------------------------
alpha a (e / Q)^2 7.2973 x 10-3
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
