| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jack Martinelli" |
| Date: |
19 Mar 2005 09:03:34 PM |
| Object: |
Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
I prefer discrete space over Minkowski's 4-D space-time.
Discrete space pros:
1. Time emerges naturally as an observable (as does mass). (I.e., neither
are meta-physical)
2. There is a natural 1:1 correspondence of "frame" / "space-object" and
quantum. (Particles are compact topologies.)
3. The laws of physics (Newton's anyway & conservation of Boson #) are
easily derived from an n-frame theory and include discrete phenomena as well
as continuous.
4. There are not two kinds of fundamental existents (space & particles).
There is only one. The unbounded frame. But there are n of them.
5. It is clearly "background" free. (see Loop Quantum Gravity. Lee
Smolin's "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" will help.)
6. Its simplicity leads to some very elegant Math.
7. Gravity is simple to derive.
8. Special relativity is simple to explain -- especially the twin paradox.
9. Explaining the accelerating expansion of the universe is trivial.
10. The natural unit of a frame is identical to Compton's wavelength and or
a unit of proper length.
11. No hand waving.
12. No point clocks.
13. No singularities. (there are black holes though -- they just don't have
singularities.)
Discrete space cons:
1. Its a new idea. People resist change.
2. The mathematical topology of n-frame-space is under-developed (a point is
not unique in n-frame space).
3. It is counter to one of the main ideas of Einstein. That of a space-time
continuum. (Einstein reversed his opinion on this one though. See his intro
to Max Jammer's "Concepts of Space". But too many don't get what Einstein
said. -- "There is no space without field.".
4. It is counter intuitive. We see space as a container for particles. We
see them as two fundamentally different existents.
6. It just sounds weird -- Its heresy to some.
7. Its poorly developed compared to QM or String Theory.
8. Cosmologists don't like it. (The big bang goes away. Is that a con or a
pro? )
9. Nobody will talk to you if you discuss it.
10. Its hard to think of more cons.
11. Imagine how arrogant you'll sound trying to tackle such a problem!
Can anyone add other pro's or con's? Or how about pros & cons for
Minkowski's space-time?
Regards,
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
.
|
|
| User: "Alex" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
21 Mar 2005 09:08:33 AM |
|
|
I took a look at your web site. You always use the SR formula for
INTERVALS. This ignores the effect of relativistic phase (vx/c^2) (the
way that clocks go out of sync with distance when two observers are in
relative motion). This seems to undermine the way you describe
expansion etc. because there is an added small interval due to phase.
Phase also means that your implicit 3 dimensionalism might be
undermined - who is making the simultaneous measurements that set up a
length scale?
Unless you incorporate phase (or equivalently use the full Lorentz
transformations) none of what you write is easy to interpret.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Martinelli" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
22 Mar 2005 04:30:37 PM |
|
|
"Alex" <dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1111417713.100452.279890@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I took a look at your web site. You always use the SR formula for
INTERVALS. This ignores the effect of relativistic phase (vx/c^2) (the
way that clocks go out of sync with distance when two observers are in
relative motion). This seems to undermine the way you describe
expansion etc. because there is an added small interval due to phase.
Phase also means that your implicit 3 dimensionalism might be
undermined - who is making the simultaneous measurements that set up a
length scale?
Unless you incorporate phase (or equivalently use the full Lorentz
transformations) none of what you write is easy to interpret.
Thanks for taking the time Alex. Your's is actually one of the best
comments I've received on my paper.
If I set the origin of my "observer" to that of my particle in question I
don't need the phase term, since x=0. For example, say the electron I'm
interested in is on the end of my nose. It has no motion with respect to my
clock & ruler & its origin is at zero.
Regards,
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
23 Mar 2005 03:43:28 AM |
|
|
I had a problem with relative expansion. If a stick expands
continuously the rest frame of the ends of the stick has a different
plane of simultaneity to that of the observer at the centre. This means
that the use of intervals is fine for an electron (if presumed to be
point like) but runs into trouble with extended objects. If you had a
metre stick in your hand the only way you could tell it was still a
metre stick would be to transfer information from the ends and in an
expanding universe this would be problematic without considering
simultaneity.
The variation in planes of simultaneity between observers has led some
philosophers of time to propose that each observer on earth is in a
different 'here and now' because we all live on a rotating sphere. Even
100 metres away from my nose things that a colleague might consider to
be simultaneous are not simultaneous for me ie:according to
'presentism' the entire world experienced by someone 100 metres away
cannot exist.
http://www.umkc.edu/scistud/psa98/papers/savitt.pdf
http://www.nd.edu/~mrea/Online%20Papers/Four%20Dimensionalism.pdf
http://www.phil.uga.edu/faculty/balashov/papers/polenbarn.pdf
Best Wishes
Alex Green
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Martinelli" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
24 Mar 2005 11:33:04 PM |
|
|
"Alex" <dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1111571008.079113.152010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I had a problem with relative expansion. If a stick expands
continuously the rest frame of the ends of the stick has a different
plane of simultaneity to that of the observer at the centre. This means
that the use of intervals is fine for an electron (if presumed to be
point like) but runs into trouble with extended objects. If you had a
metre stick in your hand the only way you could tell it was still a
metre stick would be to transfer information from the ends and in an
expanding universe this would be problematic without considering
simultaneity.
Not when the case of interest is symmetrical as it is in the cases I
discuss. I also stick to spatial lengths & not material lengths which is
what is needed in order to discuss the geometry of space rather than matter.
I separate the dimensions of space & time much like you would separate
certain problems into parametric equations. It just makes it simpler. When
discussing measured length, you have no need to discuss time. And when
discussing dynamical lengths you have no need to discuss static lengths. Of
course when you get into relativistic situations, you do need to incorporate
velocity. But velocities are the same for both observers.
The variation in planes of simultaneity between observers has led some
philosophers of time to propose that each observer on earth is in a
different 'here and now' because we all live on a rotating sphere.
I read the posts you've given me. The problem they discuss lacks input from
cognitive scientists. They discuss the subject of time like a blind person
might discuss how colorful tonight's sunset was. Using a metaphysical
foundation isn't a foundation. Time (as well as length) needs to be
semantically grounded. (some linguistic input might also be usful.)
ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Harnad/HTML/harnad90.sgproblem.html
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/chineser.htm
By choosing abstract rulers to measure length and time, both length and time
are measured by reference lengths. One is static & the other is dynamic,
both are observable -- not metaphysical. And that is as close to objective
as you can get.
Also see: http://www.martinelli.org/rexpansion/index.htm
Even
100 metres away from my nose things that a colleague might consider to
be simultaneous are not simultaneous for me ie:according to
'presentism' the entire world experienced by someone 100 metres away
cannot exist.
If you put both hands over your eyes, does the universe cease to exist?
As far as I'm concerned presentism doesn't exist.
Egocentric philosophy isn't physics. The universe doesn't need to be
observed to be or do what it does.
http://www.umkc.edu/scistud/psa98/papers/savitt.pdf
I'd give this paper a "c" for scientific content.
http://www.nd.edu/~mrea/Online%20Papers/Four%20Dimensionalism.pdf
same here.
Though I wish I could write as well as both of these guys do.
http://www.phil.uga.edu/faculty/balashov/papers/polenbarn.pdf
He begins with:
"The argument builds on the fact that four-dimensional entities extended in
space as well as time are relativistically invariant in a way
three-dimensional entities are not."
This isn't physics. You can't verify time-like extensions. Have you ever
seen a length of time? To do so you need to see _two_ distinguishable
points with a time-like separation. No can do. But, if you take his
statement a little less rigorously, he is right. But, so what, 4d objects
are quite obviously different that 3d objects (hint: 3d objects don't have a
4th dimension.) You don't need to worry about invariance.
Remember, modeling in physics is about representing observables. There are
lots of methods of representation to choose from. I assign the label "time"
to an observable displacement in a 3d space and to measure it, I choose an
observable reference displacement. All of the dynamics of displacement are
constrained by the speed limit of the universe just as in STR.
Clocks are not exempt from the laws of physics. Our earliest clocks were
calibrated by watching the inertial motions of the sun, planets & stars.
Why go to a clock (complex machine - but operates on the same principles as
the stars) for time when you can go to the stars? (Occam's Razor!).
BTW, its been a while since I wrote that paper. I was just reading pieces
of it & am a little embarrassed at how poorly it is written. One of these
days I'll have to re-write it. I've had time to digest some of the details
and can see some things more clearly now. Though I hate how I write.
Regards
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
25 Mar 2005 10:54:13 AM |
|
|
Jack Martinelli wrote: "This isn't physics. You can't verify time-like
extensions. Have you ever seen a length of time? To do so you need to
see _two_ distinguishable points with a time-like separation. No can
do."
It is interesting that instruments cannot see a length of space. All
they contain is a number, usually in binary nowdays. Space has the
same problem as time.
No one knows how you simultaneously see the space occupied by an object
or a silouette. Certainly there is an image on both retinas but how the
electrical activity from the retinas becomes a unified 'view' is a
mystery. Intriguingly James, Kant and others who have pondered long on
the issue of mental time would maintain that we hear whole words and
appreciate movements rather than frozen instants so they would declare
that everyone sees lengths of time. The time extension of conscious
observation is probably what makes it peculiarly 'conscious'.
Are you sure that you are not applying direct realism to your analysis?
The problem with direct realism, in which it is held that we perceive
events directly, is that it is not a physical theory. Direct realists
must admit that photons, photochemicals, impulses etc intervene between
objects and perception so must posit a magical, non-physical,
transparent connection through this chain of cause and effect.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Martinelli" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
25 Mar 2005 02:46:43 PM |
|
|
"Alex" <dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1111769653.072111.9340@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Jack Martinelli wrote: "This isn't physics. You can't verify time-like
extensions. Have you ever seen a length of time? To do so you need to
see _two_ distinguishable points with a time-like separation. No can
do."
It is interesting that instruments cannot see a length of space. All
they contain is a number, usually in binary nowdays. Space has the
same problem as time.
No one knows how you simultaneously see the space occupied by an object
or a silouette. Certainly there is an image on both retinas but how the
electrical activity from the retinas becomes a unified 'view' is a
mystery.
The _exact_ biological/psychological/cognitive mechanism is a mystery.
However, machine vision in 3d is fairly commonplace now.
Intriguingly James, Kant and others who have pondered long on
the issue of mental time would maintain that we hear whole words and
appreciate movements rather than frozen instants so they would declare
that everyone sees lengths of time. The time extension of conscious
observation is probably what makes it peculiarly 'conscious'.
I wouldn't worry about the role of consciousness. Its eliminated
heuristically.
Are you sure that you are not applying direct realism to your analysis?
Why would you think that?
The problem with direct realism, in which it is held that we perceive
events directly, is that it is not a physical theory. Direct realists
must admit that photons, photochemicals, impulses etc intervene between
objects and perception so must posit a magical, non-physical,
transparent connection through this chain of cause and effect.
I certainly don't do that. I don't, however, worry about the physical
details of perception. I accept that I perceive phenomena and I assume that
others do too. I'm not too worried about the issue.
My model is based on the semantics of verification. You could say it models
verification via measurement theory (less the set formalisms). The idea is
to be able to construct statements that are based solely on verifiable
phenomena (not nomena). I don't know if I actually need to consider
anything deeper -- but I seriously doubt it. I simply proceed heuristically
knowing that I will need to do some backtracking & step-wise refinements.
I explicitly avoid any discussion of cause & effect.
BTW, I read the links you gave me. Did you read the ones I gave you?
(Don't be rude. Read them.)
Regards,
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
19 Mar 2005 09:42:44 PM |
|
|
If the smallest length of space is the infinitesimal
you can retain the continuum.
Quantize space by the infinitesimal and retain
the space-time continuum.
Mitch -- Gravity is a Continuum --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Martinelli" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
20 Mar 2005 12:00:28 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111290164.643039.15840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the smallest length of space is the infinitesimal
you can retain the continuum.
The "smallest length" idea is different from a discrete space-time. Imagine
a single three dimensional solid -- say a sphere. Imagine that it's made
only of space & extended out to infinity (boundless to be exact.) then
imagine that it intersects n other such objects. That's a universe of
n-frames. You don't have to assume that there is a natural unit of length
(e.g., Planck length) that they somehow all magically know about. You leave
it as an abstraction & solve for it. It turns out that there are lots of
natural units of length -- static & dynamic. And dynamic in at least two
more dimensions beyond our three. I've only explored five dimensions (our
three conventional + two more dynamic). But the natural unit I've found
corresponds exactly to Einstein's proper unit of length & Compton's
wavelength.
Regards,
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
20 Mar 2005 07:00:21 PM |
|
|
Jack Martinelli wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111290164.643039.15840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the smallest length of space is the infinitesimal
you can retain the continuum.
The "smallest length" idea is different from a discrete space-time.
Imagine
a single three dimensional solid -- say a sphere. Imagine that it's
made
only of space & extended out to infinity (boundless to be exact.)
then
imagine that it intersects n other such objects. That's a universe
of
n-frames. You don't have to assume that there is a natural unit of
length
(e.g., Planck length) that they somehow all magically know about.
You leave
it as an abstraction & solve for it. It turns out that there are
lots of
natural units of length -- static & dynamic. And dynamic in at least
two
more dimensions beyond our three. I've only explored five dimensions
(our
three conventional + two more dynamic). But the natural unit I've
found
corresponds exactly to Einstein's proper unit of length & Compton's
wavelength.
Regards,
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
Smallest length isn't discrete space-time jack?
What is?
Well excuse me -- The smallest volume.
It had to be 3 dimensional space.
Mitch -- Gravity is a Continuum --
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
20 Mar 2005 01:29:05 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
If the smallest length of space is the infinitesimal
you can retain the continuum.
Quantize space by the infinitesimal and retain
the space-time continuum.
Mitch -- Gravity is a Continuum --
Fucking imbecile. Spacetime falls apart at the Planck length.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
19 Mar 2005 11:40:44 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
If the smallest length of space is the infinitesimal
you can retain the continuum.
Quantize space by the infinitesimal and retain
the space-time continuum.
No, since there would be no separation axioms allowing Hausdorff
space-time topology.
Mitch -- Gravity is a Continuum --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
20 Mar 2005 12:41:41 AM |
|
|
No topology for quantizing with the infinitesimal?
Show me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
20 Mar 2005 01:20:28 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
No topology for quantizing with the infinitesimal?
Show me.
No. Your quantization doesn't quantize, since infinitessimally
quantized space-time fails to provide at least two disjoint
neighbourhoods for at least one set of events.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
20 Mar 2005 01:40:48 AM |
|
|
You have trouble seperating the infinitesimals?
I'll tell you.
The point next to the point.
Mitch -- Gravity is a Continuum --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
20 Mar 2005 01:44:51 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
You have trouble seperating the infinitesimals?
I'll tell you.
The point next to the point.
Mitch -- Gravity is a Continuum --
Between those two points exists another.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
20 Mar 2005 01:55:37 AM |
|
|
No. But If so where's your problem?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
20 Mar 2005 02:18:23 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
No. But If so where's your problem?
My problem is that google groups doesn't have a kill-file feature.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
19 Mar 2005 11:38:36 PM |
|
|
Jack Martinelli wrote:
I prefer discrete space over Minkowski's 4-D space-time.
Discrete space pros:
1. Time emerges naturally as an observable (as does mass). (I.e.,
neither
are meta-physical)
2. There is a natural 1:1 correspondence of "frame" / "space-object"
and
quantum. (Particles are compact topologies.)
3. The laws of physics (Newton's anyway & conservation of Boson #)
are
easily derived from an n-frame theory and include discrete phenomena
as well
as continuous.
4. There are not two kinds of fundamental existents (space &
particles).
There is only one. The unbounded frame. But there are n of them.
5. It is clearly "background" free. (see Loop Quantum Gravity. Lee
Smolin's "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" will help.)
6. Its simplicity leads to some very elegant Math.
7. Gravity is simple to derive.
8. Special relativity is simple to explain -- especially the twin
paradox.
9. Explaining the accelerating expansion of the universe is trivial.
10. The natural unit of a frame is identical to Compton's wavelength
and or
a unit of proper length.
11. No hand waving.
12. No point clocks.
13. No singularities. (there are black holes though -- they just
don't have
singularities.)
Discrete space cons:
1. Its a new idea. People resist change.
2. The mathematical topology of n-frame-space is under-developed (a
point is
not unique in n-frame space).
3. It is counter to one of the main ideas of Einstein. That of a
space-time
continuum. (Einstein reversed his opinion on this one though. See
his intro
to Max Jammer's "Concepts of Space". But too many don't get what
Einstein
said. -- "There is no space without field.".
4. It is counter intuitive. We see space as a container for
particles. We
see them as two fundamentally different existents.
6. It just sounds weird -- Its heresy to some.
7. Its poorly developed compared to QM or String Theory.
8. Cosmologists don't like it. (The big bang goes away. Is that a
con or a
pro? )
9. Nobody will talk to you if you discuss it.
10. Its hard to think of more cons.
11. Imagine how arrogant you'll sound trying to tackle such a
problem!
Can anyone add other pro's or con's? Or how about pros & cons for
Minkowski's space-time?
Con: For every space X in mathematics,
discrete(X) implies X is a
suck-up theory to Goedel's Theorem,
just like the Internet is.
Pro: Minskowski space-time is not only wrong,
it's dead wrong.
Regards,
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GR_GR" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
21 Mar 2005 06:01:55 AM |
|
|
Jack Martinelli wrote:
I prefer discrete space over Minkowski's 4-D space-time.
So what?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
19 Mar 2005 09:20:58 PM |
|
|
Jack Martinelli wrote:
[snip]
3. The laws of physics (Newton's anyway & conservation of Boson #) are
easily derived from an n-frame theory and include discrete phenomena as well
as continuous.
[snip]
Newton was wrong. e.g., precession of Mercury's perihelion and
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
7. Gravity is simple to derive.
[snip]
*****, by empirical example,
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
11. No hand waving.
[snip]
Yeah, right.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Martinelli" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
19 Mar 2005 11:18:48 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:423CEC1A.A3DDB52D@hate.spam.net...
Jack Martinelli wrote:
[snip]
3. The laws of physics (Newton's anyway & conservation of Boson #) are
easily derived from an n-frame theory and include discrete phenomena as
well
as continuous.
[snip]
Newton was wrong. e.g., precession of Mercury's perihelion and
Yoda, That's kind of like saying "QM is wrong. See GTR."
And besides, like QM is correct within its domain, as is GTR, so are
Newton's law's. BTW, I'm quite aware that Newton's laws fail in the
relativistic domain. So what?
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
I like Steve's writing. He is very careful, his writing is clear & he is
always right. I take it this link has something to do with supporting an
argument against a universe of discrete space . But I fail to see how. (I
completely agree with Steve. Besides, his paper says nothing about whether
or not the universe is discrete. Was it suposed to?)
7. Gravity is simple to derive.
[snip]
*****, by empirical example,
Umm... I'm not sure what you mean here. Derivations aren't empirical. They
are, however, based on empirical facts. But, again, I don't see how this
relates to an argument against a universe that is fundamentally discrete.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
Just a guess, but I'd say that there are several ways of doing the Math of
GR. But if they don't say - at least - the same thing that Einstein's math
said, then I'd say they are wrong. And if they say that and more then good
for them!
You don't think I believe GTR is wrong do you? Where or how you'd draw such
a conclusion is beyond me. Was is something I said? Or are you assuming
something?
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
I'm familiar with these tests -- and others. I don't have a problem with
any of them. Do you think I do?
11. No hand waving.
[snip]
Yeah, right.
Ok. But I only wave my left hand. But that's just me. I can't seem to
nail down charge or anything nuclear (well almost anything. I've found
something stable that has a three-way symmetry, but I'm not sure what to
think of it or even if it has anything to do with quarks.). But I haven't
been working on it lately.
OTOH, Ashtekar, Baez, Smolin, et.al., have some pretty good arguments for a
quantum gravity using spatially extended particles. I almost completely
agree with them -- especially their methods. They do say, however that with
respect to length & time, particle space is finite. I disagree. How about
you?
You don't accept that metaphysical Minkowski space-time do you? Its useful,
but you can't get quanta from it. I've tried. Hand waving is required.
Regards,
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
19 Mar 2005 11:38:40 PM |
|
|
"Jack Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote in message
news:YI7%d.312$H06.181@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[...]
| You don't accept that metaphysical Minkowski space-time do you? Its
useful,
| but you can't get quanta from it. I've tried. Hand waving is
required.
You are going the wrong way. Use quanta to define Minkowski space-time.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Martinelli" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
20 Mar 2005 12:09:43 AM |
|
|
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a4g9dF63djqbU1@individual.net...
"Jack Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote in message
news:YI7%d.312$H06.181@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[...]
| You don't accept that metaphysical Minkowski space-time do you? Its
useful,
| but you can't get quanta from it. I've tried. Hand waving is
required.
You are going the wrong way. Use quanta to define Minkowski space-time.
That's right. Its a construction & it is useful. But it isn't fundamental.
Quanta are fundamental & are unbounded & spatially extended. Its easy to
see how to construct a Minkowski spacetime from these properties. But even
better, you can construct fields, and mass, and time, and matter -- well, I
think you can construct matter.
Regards,
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
20 Mar 2005 01:01:28 AM |
|
|
"Jack Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote in message
news:Hs8%d.15232$cN6.5207@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
|
| "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:3a4g9dF63djqbU1@individual.net...
| > "Jack Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote in message
| > news:YI7%d.312$H06.181@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| >
| > [...]
| > | You don't accept that metaphysical Minkowski space-time do you?
Its
| > useful,
| > | but you can't get quanta from it. I've tried. Hand waving is
| > required.
| >
| > You are going the wrong way. Use quanta to define Minkowski
space-time.
|
| That's right. Its a construction & it is useful. But it isn't
fundamental.
| Quanta are fundamental & are unbounded & spatially extended. Its easy
to
| see how to construct a Minkowski spacetime from these properties. But
even
| better, you can construct fields, and mass, and time, and matter --
well, I
| think you can construct matter.
Huh? If quanta are fundamental and you are defining M. space-time using
them, then how can it not be fundamental? Take a whole bunch of hbar's
and let them go. You will get the rest of the whole enchilada; c,
gravity, mass, time, matter. I suppose you might need some kind of
absolute space but since it is totally featureless, it doesn't really
count for anything.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Martinelli" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
20 Mar 2005 06:24:33 PM |
|
|
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a4l4lF658ua4U1@individual.net...
"Jack Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote in message
news:Hs8%d.15232$cN6.5207@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
|
| "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:3a4g9dF63djqbU1@individual.net...
| > "Jack Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote in message
| > news:YI7%d.312$H06.181@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| >
| > [...]
| > | You don't accept that metaphysical Minkowski space-time do you?
Its
| > useful,
| > | but you can't get quanta from it. I've tried. Hand waving is
| > required.
| >
| > You are going the wrong way. Use quanta to define Minkowski
space-time.
|
| That's right. Its a construction & it is useful. But it isn't
fundamental.
| Quanta are fundamental & are unbounded & spatially extended. Its easy
to
| see how to construct a Minkowski spacetime from these properties. But
even
| better, you can construct fields, and mass, and time, and matter --
well, I
| think you can construct matter.
Huh? If quanta are fundamental and you are defining M. space-time using
them, then how can it not be fundamental?
You can also use cows and cannons to define M. space-time. That M.
space-time is fundamental doesn't follow from how it is characterized.
Take a whole bunch of hbar's
and let them go.
Yes, but how do you come up with one hbar in the first place? Its existence
depends on kilograms, meters and seconds. Of course you can just accept
hbar without prying any deeper. But then you won't really understand energy
beyond today's physics.
You will get the rest of the whole enchilada; c,
gravity, mass, time, matter.
Almost. Without characterizing hbar in a more abstract way, you can't say
if there are multiple hbar's or not. You end up ignoring possibilities for
exotic matter. You only end up with a 1/10 of an enchilada.
I suppose you might need some kind of
absolute space but since it is totally featureless, it doesn't really
count for anything.
Yep. You don't need an absolute space.
Regards
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Discrete Space vs. Minkowsk's Spacetime |
20 Mar 2005 09:34:39 AM |
|
|
Jack Martinelli wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:423CEC1A.A3DDB52D@hate.spam.net...
Jack Martinelli wrote:
[snip]
3. The laws of physics (Newton's anyway & conservation of Boson #)
are
easily derived from an n-frame theory and include discrete
phenomena as
well
as continuous.
Finally! A light in the wilderness!
[snip]
Newton was wrong. e.g., precession of Mercury's perihelion and
Yoda, That's kind of like saying "QM is wrong. See GTR."
Exactly.
And besides, like QM is correct within its domain, as is GTR, so are
Newton's law's. BTW, I'm quite aware that Newton's laws fail in the
relativistic domain. So what?
That's his std argument which is claimed to overthrow all of classical
physics.
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
I like Steve's writing. He is very careful, his writing is clear &
he is
always right. I take it this link has something to do with
supporting an
argument against a universe of discrete space . But I fail to see
how. (I
completely agree with Steve. Besides, his paper says nothing about
whether
or not the universe is discrete. Was it suposed to?)
Std tactic to obfuscate the issue or subject: Refer to the library (by
the time he reads the entire library, he will find nothing and we'll be
long dead by then). Trolls like AL cannot defend their beliefs with
prose so they resort to making their points with references to websites
which hardly ever support their points.
7. Gravity is simple to derive.
[snip]
*****, by empirical example,
Umm... I'm not sure what you mean here. Derivations aren't
empirical. They
are, however, based on empirical facts. But, again, I don't see how
this
relates to an argument against a universe that is fundamentally
discrete.
If he had an emperical example, he cannot relate it here or he would
have. He truly believes there exists a physical s-t continuum and that
it is ours.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
Just a guess, but I'd say that there are several ways of doing the
Math of
GR. But if they don't say - at least - the same thing that
Einstein's math
said, then I'd say they are wrong. And if they say that and more
then good
for them!
Yes, I would not waste my time with those either, since they can only
prove that math is not simple, and you did not say it was.
You don't think I believe GTR is wrong do you? Where or how you'd
draw such
a conclusion is beyond me. Was is something I said? Or are you
assuming
something?
Great comeback! Couldn't have said it better myself.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
I'm familiar with these tests -- and others. I don't have a problem
with
any of them. Do you think I do?
He seems to think the whole library will at the end prove all his
arguments. He takes all libraries as the depository of Truth and none
but.
11. No hand waving.
[snip]
Yeah, right.
Ok. But I only wave my left hand. But that's just me. I can't seem
to
nail down charge or anything nuclear (well almost anything. I've
found
something stable that has a three-way symmetry, but I'm not sure what
to
think of it or even if it has anything to do with quarks.). But I
haven't
been working on it lately.
Nevertheless, you should always keep it in mind for comparison to new
discoveries and experiments.
OTOH, Ashtekar, Baez, Smolin, et.al., have some pretty good
arguments for a
quantum gravity using spatially extended particles. I almost
completely
agree with them -- especially their methods. They do say, however
that with
respect to length & time, particle space is finite. I disagree.
How about
you?
I know you weren't asking me, but I agree with them that space is
finite. I contend that empty space exists and our space was filled
with the contents of the BB, or whatever, thus defining the extent of
our physical universe. I had a hard time at first explaining how it is
that space appears to expand and if so, it must have come out with the
BB. Of course, it is not space that has to expand, in my model, but
the BB contents which are mostly Dark Matter. That would give the
effect of expanding space.
You don't accept that metaphysical Minkowski space-time do you? Its
useful,
but you can't get quanta from it. I've tried. Hand waving is
required.
Regards,
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
Oh, he accepts it heart and soul as a real place, refusing to believe
it is only a math construct and thus only a useful but fictional tool.
I have shown him and others how to separate space and time, but they
refuse to believe it possible. GTR requires the interdependency of
space and time, but that relationship does not exist if my model's
claim that absolute space exists. Thus, space is not dependent on
anything that our universe has in it or has produced. Space should
survive our universe. Time, on the other hand, is dependent on matter
which itself exists, obviously, in the medium of space.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
