| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Thomas Heger" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2008 03:21:33 AM |
| Object: |
Imaginary Space |
Hi NG
I have developed a modell thats philosphical hard stuff, but I think is
working well.
If you take GR than you would like to describe something four-dimensional.
It has properties like quaternions. I like to use three imaginary dimensions
and one real, that has the additional ability to spin and to wiggle.
This -well- points build a manyfold. They are joint to neighboring points
and propagate themselfs to their neighborhood. They have the property to
swing with a certain speed of propagation.
It builds sphaerical waves in an immaginary space. These points build an
overlay pattern in a direction that I call time. These patterns move within
a sheet, which is pacing away from an certain point. This (hyper-)sheet is
called space. Those wiggles overlap to a pattern that is stable in this
sheet and a residual part not stable. The first I call matter, the letter I
call light.
Matter in this picture has a strange property: its not a continuus entity.
It is pictured as in constant recreation. That make it wiggle a bit in
space, 'jumping' a bit. Particles are in this modell joint to an ensemble,
because they are regarded as an interference pattern of waves. If you
disturb this at one point, particles dont fit together in the future.
If you think of our real space as having three immaginary axis', you try to
avoid this picture. This is not how we think about the world. But what make
you think, those spatial axis are real?
First the stability of matter in our observation. Then the impression of
space as something to move within.
But this space has strange properties. It can be curved, it expands and
carry fields like em and gravity. There are particles created out of nowhere
and dark-energy.
You can have all this properties of observation with immaginary spatial
axis'. The 'trick' is within the term observation. As humans we are material
bodies and move within time. Our observation is what we receive from our
neighborhood. We have our space that is co-moving with us. Since we can
touch it, we call it real. By this observation we regard space as real and
time as imaginary.
Thomas Heger
.
|
|
| User: "aluode" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
26 Jan 2008 01:21:39 AM |
|
|
On Jan 24, 4:21 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi NG
I have developed a modell thats philosphical hard stuff, but I think is
working well.
If you take GR than you would like to describe something four-dimensional.
It has properties like quaternions. I like to use threeimaginarydimensions
and one real, that has the additional ability to spin and to wiggle.
This -well- points build a manyfold. They are joint to neighboring points
and propagate themselfs to their neighborhood. They have the property to
swing with a certain speed of propagation.
It builds sphaerical waves in an immaginary space. These points build an
overlay pattern in a direction that I call time. These patterns move within
a sheet, which is pacing away from an certain point. This (hyper-)sheet is
called space. Those wiggles overlap to a pattern that is stable in this
sheet and a residual part not stable. The first I call matter, the letter I
call light.
As a fool without a degree or even a good grasp of mathematics,
I was thinking about the universe along the same lines. That all of
the universe
would be just somekind of manifestation of waves on a aether.
The waves propagating from quantum particles bobbing on the
aether like.. Well. Bobber. That everything could be explained
as interaction of the waves.
It just feels right. Very poetic.
Which is why it probably is crap.
Matter in this picture has a strange property: its not a continuus entity.
It is pictured as in constant recreation. That make it wiggle a bit in
space, 'jumping' a bit. Particles are in this modell joint to an ensemble,
because they are regarded as an interference pattern of waves. If you
disturb this at one point, particles dont fit together in the future.
If you think of our real space as having three immaginary axis', you try to
avoid this picture. This is not how we think about the world. But what make
you think, those spatial axis are real?
What if it is all imaginary? Heck, we do not understand time.
We can define it by the growing entropy. But we really do not
understand it.
Just the other night, I could not sleep, thinking about the
consequences
of a completely imaginary universe. (A composite of all the different
possibilites) Heck. You could really have a infinite on such a
imaginary universe.
Maybe waves are kind of a manifestation of a infinite.
Like on a dual slit experiment, the photon stays as a wave until
we observe it. Why? I was thinking.. What if our minds are finite
beings in a infinite universe and when we observe some quantum
event (like in this case a photon taking every single possible route
(infinite amount of possibilities) , we bring that quantum event to
the
same finite space we are in. We collapse the wave particle duality
that is really not understood in this point in time.
But you know. I am full of *****. So.
First the stability of matter in our observation. Then the impression of
space as something to move within.
But this space has strange properties. It can be curved, it expands and
carry fields like em and gravity. There are particles created out of nowhere
and dark-energy.
You can have all this properties of observation with immaginary spatial
axis'. The 'trick' is within the term observation. As humans we are material
bodies and move within time. Our observation is what we receive from our
neighborhood. We have our space that is co-moving with us. Since we can
touch it, we call it real. By this observation we regard space as real and
time asimaginary.
Thomas Heger
We manufacture a fascimile of the reality inside our heads. A kind of
a
bioelectric matrix if you wish. Inside these bioelectric matrixes we
can all
live together yet far apart in the way we see this universe.
A mathematician would see it through mathematics. A religious person
through God. A party animal through beer and women.
I guess in the end of the day it is going to be a person like Uncle Al
who
is really going to explain how it works, but before that happens, as
Stephen
Hawkins said in his book. Universe could be made of turtles. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
Antti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Heger" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
26 Jan 2008 03:36:28 AM |
|
|
"aluode" <anttinorthwest@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:0d9997e6-c6bc-4d30-9abf-93f2dd2af06e@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 24, 4:21 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi NG
I have developed a modell thats philosphical hard stuff, but I think is
working well.
If you take GR than you would like to describe something
four-dimensional.
It has properties like quaternions. I like to use
threeimaginarydimensions
and one real, that has the additional ability to spin and to wiggle.
This -well- points build a manyfold. They are joint to neighboring points
and propagate themselfs to their neighborhood. They have the property to
swing with a certain speed of propagation.
It builds sphaerical waves in an immaginary space. These points build an
overlay pattern in a direction that I call time. These patterns move
within
a sheet, which is pacing away from an certain point. This (hyper-)sheet
is
called space. Those wiggles overlap to a pattern that is stable in this
sheet and a residual part not stable. The first I call matter, the letter
I
call light.
As a fool without a degree or even a good grasp of mathematics,
I was thinking about the universe along the same lines. That all of
the universe
would be just somekind of manifestation of waves on a aether.
The waves propagating from quantum particles bobbing on the
aether like.. Well. Bobber. That everything could be explained
as interaction of the waves.
It just feels right. Very poetic.
Which is why it probably is crap.
Matter in this picture has a strange property: its not a continuus
entity.
It is pictured as in constant recreation. That make it wiggle a bit in
space, 'jumping' a bit. Particles are in this modell joint to an
ensemble,
because they are regarded as an interference pattern of waves. If you
disturb this at one point, particles dont fit together in the future.
If you think of our real space as having three immaginary axis', you try
to
avoid this picture. This is not how we think about the world. But what
make
you think, those spatial axis are real?
What if it is all imaginary? Heck, we do not understand time.
We can define it by the growing entropy. But we really do not
understand it.
If (!) you make time a real axis, you can treat space as imaginary. If you
observe space, you move within and this makes time imaginary and space real.
You cant move within time, so you prefer the letter version. But those
models are equivalent. Thats why I think it could be possible to build a
model with real time and imaginary space.
Its not spacetime, but it has the properties of spacetime. Its a model of
the space we find in our neighborhood. It has some properties, that you do
not find in GR, mainly an em-Field.
Thomas Heger
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
24 Jan 2008 12:56:46 PM |
|
|
Thomas Heger wrote:
Hi NG
I have developed a modell thats philosphical hard stuff, but I think is
working well.
There goes another ***** meter, its needle cranked right past the
high end stop and dislocated.
If you take GR than you would like to describe something four-dimensional.
It has properties like quaternions. I like to use three imaginary dimensions
and one real, that has the additional ability to spin and to wiggle.
Your two weeks in a Liberal Arts community college have served you
well.
This -well- points build a manyfold. They are joint to neighboring points
and propagate themselfs to their neighborhood. They have the property to
swing with a certain speed of propagation.
[snip crap]
Did Mileva Maric' know Albert was a swinger, or did she draw him into
her own web of tensor genital cross products?
By this observation we regard space as real and
time as imaginary.
1) Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
2) Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
3) Affine and teleparallel gravitation theories wholly containing
GR.
4) Idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
24 Jan 2008 01:14:02 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4798DF6E.DB0AE5B5@hate.spam.net...
crap snipped.
Nothing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Heger" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
24 Jan 2008 01:34:11 PM |
|
|
4) Idiot
--
Uncle Al
Quite rude.
But maybe you can help me.
My question is how to put spacetime and space into a plausible relation. It
works fine if you regard space as the immaginary part of a quaternion. I was
speculating about this possibility and found it not too crazy. A bit, well,
yes.
Thomas Heger
.
|
|
|
| User: "wugi" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
24 Jan 2008 03:33:23 PM |
|
|
"Thomas Heger" :
My question is how to put spacetime and space into a plausible relation.
It
works fine if you regard space as the immaginary part of a quaternion. I
was
speculating about this possibility and found it not too crazy. A bit,
well,
yes.
About the competition between but eventual equivalence of quaternions and
vector notation see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion (#10.1
Use_controversy)
Space-time for SRT works fine in conventional geometric description.
Some graphic demonstrations :
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/qbRelaty.html
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
guido
.
|
|
|
| User: "wugi" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
24 Jan 2008 03:52:19 PM |
|
|
"wugi" :
About the competition between but eventual equivalence of quaternions and
vector notation see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion (#10.1
Use_controversy)
Space-time for SRT works fine in conventional geometric description.
Some graphic demonstrations :
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/qbRelaty.html
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
And about going beyond the Reals:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/hypereal.htm
guido
same
.
|
|
|
| User: "wugi" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
24 Jan 2008 04:03:11 PM |
|
|
"wugi" :
And about going beyond the Reals:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/hypereal.htm
While we're at it, about graphic rendering of complex space C^2 ~ R^4:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/qbComplex.html
guido
same
ditto
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Heger" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
24 Jan 2008 04:09:57 PM |
|
|
"wugi" <brol@scarlet.be> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:47991107$0$832$5f6aeac3@news.scarlet.nl...
"Thomas Heger" :
My question is how to put spacetime and space into a plausible relation.
It
works fine if you regard space as the immaginary part of a quaternion. I
was
speculating about this possibility and found it not too crazy. A bit,
well,
yes.
About the competition between but eventual equivalence of quaternions and
vector notation see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion (#10.1
Use_controversy)
Space-time for SRT works fine in conventional geometric description.
Some graphic demonstrations :
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/qbRelaty.html
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
guido
Thanks for the links. My knowledge of dutch is limited so the letter links
are of limited use to me.
Do you understand my idea??
It is very simple. I like to look at GR in the perspective of time
evolution. Time is in this picture a real and space an imaginary axis. In
the euclidean view you have three real dimensions and a imaginary time.
Thats the view of a local observer and quite the same, but of different
signatur. The quaternion is 'flipped'.
Since quaternions are good in describing rotations I like to use them in the
sense of feynmans rotating vectors. Those elements rotate with different
speed (frequency) but same speed of propagation (c). And they propagate in
all directions, that are directions of time. If you follow at some point,
you are co-moving, what makes time imaginary and space real.
Thomas Heger
.
|
|
|
| User: "wugi" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
25 Jan 2008 09:02:16 AM |
|
|
"Thomas Heger" :
"wugi" <brol@scarlet.be>:
About the competition between but eventual equivalence of quaternions
and
vector notation see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion (#10.1
Use_controversy)
guido
Thanks for the links. My knowledge of dutch is limited so the letter links
are of limited use to me.
? Those links I gave are English pages.
Do you understand my idea??
It is very simple. I like to look at GR in the perspective of time
evolution. Time is in this picture a real and space an imaginary axis.
(...)
Yes I think. It is argued in the above link that Hamilton had already that
idea back in 1843 or so. But that in the end vector notation is equivalent
(there is no 'metaphysical' difference, only argument, and perhaps
calculatory advantage of quaternions where you'd be calculating 4 elements
instead of 9).
BTW I see someone altered the text in the wikipedia link since I've
mentioned it above :-)))
guido
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Heger" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
26 Jan 2008 06:23:59 AM |
|
|
"wugi" <brol@scarlet.be> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:479a06d9$0$834$5f6aeac3@news.scarlet.nl...
"Thomas Heger" :
"wugi" <brol@scarlet.be>:
About the competition between but eventual equivalence of quaternions
and
vector notation see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion (#10.1
Use_controversy)
guido
Thanks for the links. My knowledge of dutch is limited so the letter
links
are of limited use to me.
? Those links I gave are English pages.
True, but some links on this site ended on dutch pages. But the point is,
that I like to use quaternions more as method to show, that this way of
thinking is possible and plausible. To much math would disturb this.
Do you understand my idea??
It is very simple. I like to look at GR in the perspective of time
evolution. Time is in this picture a real and space an imaginary axis.
(...)
Yes I think. It is argued in the above link that Hamilton had already that
idea back in 1843 or so.
what happend in the meantime to that idea?
The use of this model is, that you can build an other model of gravity.
Gravity is something like the direction of time. Any single point of a
certain manyfold has a direction. Its the direction of its own motion. So
space is what you observe if you follow your worldline. There you are at
rest - by definition! Not everything is at rest, only free-falling bodies
are, but thats the majority of celestial bodies.
At rest in respect to their own local frame of reference. Moving in respect
to an other.
So gravity is geometry of time-evolution. Space is what you observe
perpendicular to that.
Since every single text about galaxy-formation I have found is using
newton-like space and low gravitational fields acting on moving bodies. but
thats all wrong! you can treat stars like they are at rest, gravitation as
time dependent, and space as imaginary (obviously different view than
Newtons).
Thomas Heger
guido
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
24 Jan 2008 08:06:36 PM |
|
|
On Jan 24, 5:09 pm, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"wugi" <b...@scarlet.be> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:47991107$0$832$5f6aeac3@news.scarlet.nl...
"Thomas Heger" :
My question is how to put spacetime and space into a plausible relation.
It
works fine if you regard space as the immaginary part of a quaternion. I
was
speculating about this possibility and found it not too crazy. A bit,
well,
yes.
About the competition between but eventual equivalence of quaternions and
vector notation seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion(#10.1
Use_controversy)
Space-time for SRT works fine in conventional geometric description.
Some graphic demonstrations :
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/qbRelaty.html
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
guido
Thanks for the links. My knowledge of dutch is limited so the letter links
are of limited use to me.
Do you understand my idea??
It is very simple. I like to look at GR in the perspective of time
evolution. Time is in this picture a real and space an imaginary axis. In
the euclidean view you have three real dimensions and a imaginary time.
Thats the view of a local observer and quite the same, but of different
signatur. The quaternion is 'flipped'.
Since quaternions are good in describing rotations I like to use them in the
sense of feynmans rotating vectors. Those elements rotate with different
speed (frequency) but same speed of propagation (c). And they propagate in
all directions, that are directions of time. If you follow at some point,
you are co-moving, what makes time imaginary and space real.
Thomas Heger
The unidirectional nature of time goes ignored by your model and by
existing physics.
When we represent space with real values we are inherently using a
bidirectional basis.
This usage of a real valued coordinate does not have correspondence
with time. If we get rid of one side of the real line then we've
gotten closer to time. There is a dimensional consequence to this
since it is no longer a one dimensional system. By the polysign method
this unidirectional ray is zero dimensional. Hence the importance of
the word 'now' coincides with the unidirectional behavior. Algebra can
be performed yet the rendering of that algebra graphically will be
zero dimensional.
http://www.BandTechnology.com/PolySigned
-Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Heger" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
25 Jan 2008 01:11:53 AM |
|
|
The unidirectional nature of time goes ignored by your model and by
existing physics.
When we represent space with real values we are inherently using a
bidirectional basis.
This usage of a real valued coordinate does not have correspondence
with time. If we get rid of one side of the real line then we've
gotten closer to time. There is a dimensional consequence to this
since it is no longer a one dimensional system. By the polysign method
this unidirectional ray is zero dimensional. Hence the importance of
the word 'now' coincides with the unidirectional behavior. Algebra can
be performed yet the rendering of that algebra graphically will be
zero dimensional.
http://www.BandTechnology.com/PolySigned
-Tim
I have heard about polysigned numbers. But as far as I can see, they are
equivalent to complex numbers, so I'm happy with complex numbers. The
difference is of interest for some mathmaticians.
The direction of time is not a problem, since you cannot move in that
direction as you like. In time direction you are moved, together with
anything else.
In space you can move, but pretty slow (compared to lightspeed in time
direction).
Thomas Heger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
25 Jan 2008 09:58:10 AM |
|
|
On Jan 25, 2:11 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The unidirectional nature of time goes ignored by your model and by
existing physics.
When we represent space with real values we are inherently using a
bidirectional basis.
This usage of a real valued coordinate does not have correspondence
with time. If we get rid of one side of the real line then we've
gotten closer to time. There is a dimensional consequence to this
since it is no longer a one dimensional system. By the polysign method
this unidirectional ray is zero dimensional. Hence the importance of
the word 'now' coincides with the unidirectional behavior. Algebra can
be performed yet the rendering of that algebra graphically will be
zero dimensional.
http://www.BandTechnology.com/PolySigned
-Tim
I have heard about polysigned numbers. But as far as I can see, they are
equivalent to complex numbers, so I'm happy with complex numbers. The
Err... P3 (the three-signed numbers) are the complex numbers but P1 is
much more like time.
The complex numbers are two dimensional so we are going in different
directions away from the real numbers which are P2 and are one-
dimensional. Each of these number systems P1,P2, and P3 are members of
a family called polysign numbers. P1 represents an intuitive conundrum
that has been overlooked by traditional mathematics. It happens that
the one-signed numbers exactly match the paradoxes time presents to
the human who exists in spacetime.
Under a polysign spacetime interpretation the structure
P1 P2 P3
proposes that physical space does contain complex mathematics built in
and I suppose that electromagnetic behaviors are supportive of this
idea. Your thread title is somewhat inline with this interpretation.
difference is of interest for some mathmaticians.
The direction of time is not a problem, since you cannot move in that
direction as you like. In time direction you are moved, together with
anything else.
I guess here is a good point to challenge your process. How does the
two dimensional nature of complex math allow for this time description
above? Shouldn't the math which represents time be inherently
unidirectional? At best the complex numbers are three directional(P3)
while according to traditional Cartesian math they are four
directional.
Also your statement beneath here is somewhat a 4D relativistic
interpretation. To what degree are you proposing a 5D system? I think
Klein spent some time on that didn't he? I don't mean to discourage
your endeavor; there are lots of theories flying about including
attempts at 2D gravity theories and I do seem to remember some others
who like 2D time but I can't recall any names to point you to.
Certainly you are not alone. In that time is merely one portion of the
problem it may be that the adoption of spacetime alleviates some of
the specific concern over time. So I think a complete discussion
should address the 3D space portion of the problem (assuming that you
do adopt spacetime as a valid conglomeration).
- Tim
In space you can move, but pretty slow (compared to lightspeed in time
direction).
Thomas Heger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Heger" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
26 Jan 2008 05:55:28 AM |
|
|
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttpppggg@yahoo.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag
news:1e598201-6ae4-4dea-81c9-e5d2db83c2b4@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 25, 2:11 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The unidirectional nature of time goes ignored by your model and by
existing physics.
When we represent space with real values we are inherently using a
bidirectional basis.
This usage of a real valued coordinate does not have correspondence
with time. If we get rid of one side of the real line then we've
gotten closer to time. There is a dimensional consequence to this
since it is no longer a one dimensional system. By the polysign method
this unidirectional ray is zero dimensional. Hence the importance of
the word 'now' coincides with the unidirectional behavior. Algebra can
be performed yet the rendering of that algebra graphically will be
zero dimensional.
http://www.BandTechnology.com/PolySigned
-Tim
I have heard about polysigned numbers. But as far as I can see, they are
equivalent to complex numbers, so I'm happy with complex numbers. The
Err... P3 (the three-signed numbers) are the complex numbers but P1 is
much more like time.
The complex numbers are two dimensional so we are going in different
directions away from the real numbers which are P2 and are one-
dimensional. Each of these number systems P1,P2, and P3 are members of
a family called polysign numbers. P1 represents an intuitive conundrum
that has been overlooked by traditional mathematics. It happens that
the one-signed numbers exactly match the paradoxes time presents to
the human who exists in spacetime.
Under a polysign spacetime interpretation the structure
P1 P2 P3
proposes that physical space does contain complex mathematics built in
and I suppose that electromagnetic behaviors are supportive of this
idea. Your thread title is somewhat inline with this interpretation.
difference is of interest for some mathmaticians.
The direction of time is not a problem, since you cannot move in that
direction as you like. In time direction you are moved, together with
anything else.
I guess here is a good point to challenge your process. How does the
two dimensional nature of complex math allow for this time description
above? Shouldn't the math which represents time be inherently
unidirectional? At best the complex numbers are three directional(P3)
while according to traditional Cartesian math they are four
directional.
Quaternions are four-dimensional. They have the wanted properties, a real
and three imaginary dimensions. Those quaternions are not the whole story
but a good start.
Also your statement beneath here is somewhat a 4D relativistic
interpretation. To what degree are you proposing a 5D system?
I think about spacetime as fourdimensional. But what does dimension mean? If
you treat any point as having some degrees of freedom and the number of
'some' as dimensions, then there might be a few more. But they are not
spatial, cause space is treated as imaginary anyhow.
Thomas Heger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
26 Jan 2008 08:15:08 AM |
|
|
On Jan 26, 6:55 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitragnews:1e598201-6ae4-4dea-81c9-e5d2db83c2b4@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 25, 2:11 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The unidirectional nature of time goes ignored by your model and by
existing physics.
When we represent space with real values we are inherently using a
bidirectional basis.
This usage of a real valued coordinate does not have correspondence
with time. If we get rid of one side of the real line then we've
gotten closer to time. There is a dimensional consequence to this
since it is no longer a one dimensional system. By the polysign method
this unidirectional ray is zero dimensional. Hence the importance of
the word 'now' coincides with the unidirectional behavior. Algebra can
be performed yet the rendering of that algebra graphically will be
zero dimensional.
http://www.BandTechnology.com/PolySigned
-Tim
I have heard about polysigned numbers. But as far as I can see, they are
equivalent to complex numbers, so I'm happy with complex numbers. The
Err... P3 (the three-signed numbers) are the complex numbers but P1 is
much more like time.
The complex numbers are two dimensional so we are going in different
directions away from the real numbers which are P2 and are one-
dimensional. Each of these number systems P1,P2, and P3 are members of
a family called polysign numbers. P1 represents an intuitive conundrum
that has been overlooked by traditional mathematics. It happens that
the one-signed numbers exactly match the paradoxes time presents to
the human who exists in spacetime.
Under a polysign spacetime interpretation the structure
P1 P2 P3
proposes that physical space does contain complex mathematics built in
and I suppose that electromagnetic behaviors are supportive of this
idea. Your thread title is somewhat inline with this interpretation.
difference is of interest for some mathmaticians.
The direction of time is not a problem, since you cannot move in that
direction as you like. In time direction you are moved, together with
anything else.
I guess here is a good point to challenge your process. How does the
two dimensional nature of complex math allow for this time description
above? Shouldn't the math which represents time be inherently
unidirectional? At best the complex numbers are three directional(P3)
while according to traditional Cartesian math they are four
directional.
Quaternions are four-dimensional. They have the wanted properties, a real
and three imaginary dimensions. Those quaternions are not the whole story
but a good start.
Yes. I've not mastered the quaternions but have studied them in
comparison to the polysign system whose 4D system is P5. These two
systems have interesting inversions. For instance
| A || B | = | A B |
is valid in the quaternions but is not valid on P5.
The commutative behavior
A B = B A
is preserved on P5 but is broken in the quaternions.
Some claim that the quaternions are a 3D system and I think it is
important to keep that in mind since some people's statements will
come from this perspective whereas others treat them as a full 4D
system. The 3Ders tend to be doing rotation algorithms for 3D systems.
Whether that atucally makes them 5Ders I am not quite sure.
- Tim
Also your statement beneath here is somewhat a 4D relativistic
interpretation. To what degree are you proposing a 5D system?
I think about spacetime as fourdimensional. But what does dimension mean? If
you treat any point as having some degrees of freedom and the number of
'some' as dimensions, then there might be a few more. But they are not
spatial, cause space is treated as imaginary anyhow.
Thomas Heger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Heger" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
26 Jan 2008 07:00:02 PM |
|
|
Quaternions are four-dimensional. They have the wanted properties, a real
and three imaginary dimensions. Those quaternions are not the whole story
but a good start.
Yes. I've not mastered the quaternions but have studied them in
comparison to the polysign system whose 4D system is P5. These two
systems have interesting inversions. For instance
| A || B | = | A B |
is valid in the quaternions but is not valid on P5.
The commutative behavior
A B = B A
is preserved on P5 but is broken in the quaternions.
Some claim that the quaternions are a 3D system and I think it is
important to keep that in mind since some people's statements will
come from this perspective whereas others treat them as a full 4D
system. The 3Ders tend to be doing rotation algorithms for 3D systems.
Whether that atucally makes them 5Ders I am not quite sure.
- Tim
When I think about physics, I guess its correct to think of non commutativ
relations and of three rotation axis. This is more like quaternions are. I
think of a point in that manyfold as spinning and moving on a time path.
(Its a bit 'poetic' and more or less methaphysics. )
Those ponts are related to a space constructed out of worldlines of
free-falling bodies. Its direction is the direction of proper time. The
property of spinning points is a kind of mechanism to propagate an event
into its future. Its propagating in twisting neighboring points. Matter in
this picture is a pattern that you can find in a certain plane that you can
call space.
This manyfold is very much like spacetime of GR but has more features. It is
interesting, that this space has dimensions of type lightyear and complex
time.
Thomas Heger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
28 Jan 2008 01:08:55 PM |
|
|
On Jan 26, 8:00 pm, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quaternions are four-dimensional. They have the wanted properties, a real
and three imaginary dimensions. Those quaternions are not the whole story
but a good start.
Yes. I've not mastered the quaternions but have studied them in
comparison to the polysign system whose 4D system is P5. These two
systems have interesting inversions. For instance
| A || B | = | A B |
is valid in the quaternions but is not valid on P5.
The commutative behavior
A B = B A
is preserved on P5 but is broken in the quaternions.
Some claim that the quaternions are a 3D system and I think it is
important to keep that in mind since some people's statements will
come from this perspective whereas others treat them as a full 4D
system. The 3Ders tend to be doing rotation algorithms for 3D systems.
Whether that atucally makes them 5Ders I am not quite sure.
- Tim
When I think about physics, I guess its correct to think of non commutativ
relations and of three rotation axis. This is more like quaternions are. I
think of a point in that manyfold as spinning and moving on a time path.
(Its a bit 'poetic' and more or less methaphysics. )
Those ponts are related to a space constructed out of worldlines of
free-falling bodies. Its direction is the direction of proper time. The
property of spinning points is a kind of mechanism to propagate an event
into its future. Its propagating in twisting neighboring points. Matter in
this picture is a pattern that you can find in a certain plane that you can
call space.
This manyfold is very much like spacetime of GR but has more features. It is
interesting, that this space has dimensions of type lightyear and complex
time.
Thomas Heger
The polysign formation of spacetime does suggest that an arithmetic
product is at work and this is somewhat consistent with classical
force equations. It's a bit too abstract to declare that a
noncommutative product would disobey conservation principles but that
is where I go when I try to think in terms of particle interactions
via such a product.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Heger" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
28 Jan 2008 10:58:14 PM |
|
|
The polysign formation of spacetime does suggest that an arithmetic
product is at work and this is somewhat consistent with classical
force equations. It's a bit too abstract to declare that a
noncommutative product would disobey conservation principles but that
is where I go when I try to think in terms of particle interactions
via such a product.
Whats bad about that ('...would disobey conservation principles '). My
model is based only on energy and time. Those items are related by Noethers
theorem.
In my picture there are no particles and they do not interact. Particles are
described as moving 'patterns'. They are moving in space driven by the force
of a field. But: Space, force and field are the residuals of the dynamics of
energy in time.
Thomas Heger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
31 Jan 2008 07:39:37 AM |
|
|
On Jan 28, 11:58 pm, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The polysign formation of spacetime does suggest that an arithmetic
product is at work and this is somewhat consistent with classical
force equations. It's a bit too abstract to declare that a
noncommutative product would disobey conservation principles but that
is where I go when I try to think in terms of particle interactions
via such a product.
Whats bad about that ('...would disobey conservation principles '). My
model is based only on energy and time. Those items are related by Noethers
theorem.
In my picture there are no particles and they do not interact. Particles are
described as moving 'patterns'. They are moving in space driven by the force
of a field. But: Space, force and field are the residuals of the dynamics of
energy in time.
Thomas Heger
Weyl wrote a book that he titled "Space-Time-Matter". Maybe in German
it all works into one word. The usage of the word field as a
generalization of magnetic field or electric field seems already to
incorporate classical spacetime. I have seen lots of use of it as an
abstraction but I don't really understand the abstract usage. I've
studied the LaGrange formalism a bit but have yet to really get it.
Unfortunately the mathematicians also use the word field to satisfy
the behaviors of the real numbers and complex numbers. These two
meanings(math/physiscs) are independent yet aren't they connected
indirectly?
Indirection as an informational concept suggests that where we see an
indirect connection that there may well be an actual connection that
is merely shaded or jaded by the lense(context) we look through. If I
expose an indirect means then the direct form should have also been
exposed. That direct form will then expose errors in thinking(context)
which have propagated as knowledge. So it is important to treat the
knowledge that has already been accumulated as flexible and breakable,
but without just calling it wrong and dismissing it altogether. I have
some instances for you that might not be convincing to you but I have
spent a fair amount of time getting to them.
1. Is spacetime isotropic? If so then why the special treatment of
time and why is time a unidirectional phenomenon? The tensor treatment
of spacetime is questionable under this context. If we step back and
claim that space is isotropic and time is another component combined
with that space then we have entered a structured spacetime which
again raises trouble with the tensor 4D treatment. While the
assymetrical Minkowski metric alleviates this issue where is this
discussion?
2. Is electromagnetism a unified concept? If so then why do we still
need the two words electricity and magnetism? If one comes from the
other and the other comes from the one then shouldn't we need only one
elementary constituent? As I see it charge was this, the B field being
causated by charge. Yet now the electron model builds a spin concept
atop the naked charge, that spin being a raw magnetic property. I
suggest that if the concepts were unified via structured spacetime
rather than isotropic spacetime that such a collaged electron
construction may not be necessary. By raising the complexity with
structured spacetime the complexity of Maxwell's equations could be
alleviated.
3. Is thermodynamics actually atoms jiggling about in mechanical
fashion? Why then is the propagation of heat through a body so
stupendously slow in comparison to the propagation of sound through
that same body? I do not find this discussion in reputable books such
as Kittell's Introduction to Solid State Physics. While the phonon is
claimed to entertain both properties I have yet to find the
resolution.
Your possible usage of complex time is an instance of structured
spacetime and to what degree that denies isotropic spacetime deserves
consideration.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Heger" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
01 Feb 2008 04:06:10 AM |
|
|
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttpppggg@yahoo.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag
news:eb09b213-5dc9-4645-a6b7-1e7f2867f9d0@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
1. Is spacetime isotropic? If so then why the special treatment of
time and why is time a unidirectional phenomenon? The tensor treatment
of spacetime is questionable under this context. If we step back and
claim that space is isotropic and time is another component combined
with that space then we have entered a structured spacetime which
again raises trouble with the tensor 4D treatment. While the
assymetrical Minkowski metric alleviates this issue where is this
discussion?
It is not. It is 'curved'. The meaning of this is, that you cannot apply
space geometry to spacetime. Imagin a circular wave and stretch it in time
direction. It is building a cone. Now generalize this light cone to: an
event influencing its future. Now apply 'propabilities of random walks' from
all events to all future. So future depends on its past. Spacetime is the
geometric part of reallity. That means, the position of future events depend
on the type and position of events happening in the past. The sum of all
past gives time a new direction. This is why spacetime can be curved.
2. Is electromagnetism a unified concept? If so then why do we still
need the two words electricity and magnetism? If one comes from the
other and the other comes from the one then shouldn't we need only one
elementary constituent? As I see it charge was this, the B field being
causated by charge. Yet now the electron model builds a spin concept
atop the naked charge, that spin being a raw magnetic property. I
suggest that if the concepts were unified via structured spacetime
rather than isotropic spacetime that such a collaged electron
construction may not be necessary. By raising the complexity with
structured spacetime the complexity of Maxwell's equations could be
alleviated.
It has the same type of complex description as spacetime. It is a phenomenon
that you can 'explain' somehow geometric and describe it with quaternions.
So if spacetime is unified, em-field should be as well.
3. Is thermodynamics actually atoms jiggling about in mechanical
fashion? Why then is the propagation of heat through a body so
stupendously slow in comparison to the propagation of sound through
that same body? I do not find this discussion in reputable books such
as Kittell's Introduction to Solid State Physics. While the phonon is
claimed to entertain both properties I have yet to find the
resolution.
This is a VERY interesting question. I have absolutly no idea, but since
heat transfer is depending on material properties it should be more electric
than mechanic.
Thomas Heger
Your possible usage of complex time is an instance of structured
spacetime and to what degree that denies isotropic spacetime deserves
consideration.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
03 Feb 2008 07:33:13 AM |
|
|
On Feb 1, 5:06 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitragnews:eb09b213-5dc9-4645-a6b7-1e7f2867f9d0@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
1. Is spacetime isotropic? If so then why the special treatment of
time and why is time a unidirectional phenomenon? The tensor treatment
of spacetime is questionable under this context. If we step back and
claim that space is isotropic and time is another component combined
with that space then we have entered a structured spacetime which
again raises trouble with the tensor 4D treatment. While the
assymetrical Minkowski metric alleviates this issue where is this
discussion?
It is not. It is 'curved'. The meaning of this is, that you cannot apply
space geometry to spacetime. Imagin a circular wave and stretch it in time
direction. It is building a cone. Now generalize this light cone to: an
event influencing its future. Now apply 'propabilities of random walks' from
all events to all future. So future depends on its past. Spacetime is the
geometric part of reallity. That means, the position of future events depend
on the type and position of events happening in the past. The sum of all
past gives time a new direction. This is why spacetime can be curved.
According to Einstein:
"However, the most careful observations have never revealed such
anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical
non-equivalence of different directions. This is a very powerful
argument in favour of the principle of relativity."
- http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html
I think that the word isotropic is flawed but especially when we adopt
spacetime as fundamental (and I do) then why the time portion sticks
out differently will require a structured system. Is this is conflict
with an isotropic system? I think it is and
so the usage of a tensor construction is questionable. Spacetime is
structured and the Minkowski metric demonstrates this even while being
squeezed into a tensor form. There is little discussion of this within
G/SR.
2. Is electromagnetism a unified concept? If so then why do we still
need the two words electricity and magnetism? If one comes from the
other and the other comes from the one then shouldn't we need only one
elementary constituent? As I see it charge was this, the B field being
causated by charge. Yet now the electron model builds a spin concept
atop the naked charge, that spin being a raw magnetic property. I
suggest that if the concepts were unified via structured spacetime
rather than isotropic spacetime that such a collaged electron
construction may not be necessary. By raising the complexity with
structured spacetime the complexity of Maxwell's equations could be
alleviated.
It has the same type of complex description as spacetime. It is a phenomenon
that you can 'explain' somehow geometric and describe it with quaternions.
So if spacetime is unified, em-field should be as well.
Yes, and here the polysign description of spacetime suggests that
space itself is structured in this way since
P1 P2 P3
has P1 as time the three dimensions of space are a real line(P2)
combined with a complex plane(P3). These two features resemble a
portion of electromagnetic theory (the cross product) but shift the
structure into spacetime itself rather than impose it as an equation
on isotropic space. Accepting this feature leaves the puzzle of
recovering our sense of isotropic space but relativity already admits
that in terms of reference frames being locally defined.
A similar interpretation on the quaternions may be possible since they
are inherently rotational, but the natural correspondence to
spacetime(emergent spacetime) will not be gotten by imposing the
quaternion.
3. Is thermodynamics actually atoms jiggling about in mechanical
fashion? Why then is the propagation of heat through a body so
stupendously slow in comparison to the propagation of sound through
that same body? I do not find this discussion in reputable books such
as Kittell's Introduction to Solid State Physics. While the phonon is
claimed to entertain both properties I have yet to find the
resolution.
This is a VERY interesting question. I have absolutly no idea, but since
heat transfer is depending on material properties it should be more electric
than mechanic.
Maybe so, and yet if we were to enter the electromagnetic realm which
seems to go along with electricity then we have only raised the
discrepancy higher since the speed of light through a material will
exceed the speed of sound. It is comforting to go back down to mass in
motion since it is slower but it is still not slow enough. But we can
try some of that rotational energy. If thermo was rotating mass then
we would be dealing with a type that can remain local. This then puts
atoms spinning with a moment of inertia which would be related to
thermal mass and some form of torque interaction which should be
pretty weak. This would upset an awful lot of physics including the
standard atomic model (which should have an extremely small moment of
inertia). Atomic bonding and phases of matter would have to be
resolved but possibly could be resolved better. Lots of data in these
regions is empirical, not theoretical. It's a bit too large of a
topic.
- Tim
Thomas Heger
Your possible usage of complex time is an instance of structured
spacetime and to what degree that denies isotropic spacetime deserves
consideration.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "brad" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
03 Feb 2008 01:08:37 PM |
|
|
On Jan 24, 5:09=A0pm, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"wugi" <b...@scarlet.be> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:47991107$0$832$5f6aeac=
3@news.scarlet.nl...
"Thomas Heger" :
My question is how to put spacetime and space into a plausible relation=
..
It
works fine if you regard space as the immaginary part of a quaternion. =
I
was
speculating about this possibility and found it not too crazy. A bit,
well,
yes.
About the competition between but eventual equivalence of quaternions an=
d
vector notation seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion(#10.1
Use_controversy)
Space-time for SRT works fine in conventional geometric description.
Some graphic demonstrations :
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/qbRelaty.html
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
guido
Thanks for the links. My knowledge of dutch is limited so the letter links=
are of limited use to me.
Do you understand my idea??
It is very simple. I like to look at GR in the perspective of time
evolution. Time is in this picture a real and space an imaginary axis. In
the euclidean view you have three real dimensions and a imaginary time.
Thats the view of a local observer and quite the same, but of different
signatur. The quaternion is 'flipped'.
Since quaternions are good in describing rotations I like to use them in t=
he
sense of feynmans rotating vectors. Those elements rotate with different
speed (frequency) but same speed of propagation (c). And they propagate in=
all directions, that are directions of time. If you follow at some point,
you are co-moving, what makes time imaginary and space real.
Thomas Heger- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
aren't you just describing something with no spacelike vector ?
something that cannot move except timelike?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Imaginary Space |
03 Feb 2008 01:54:16 PM |
|
|
On Feb 3, 11:08=A0am, brad <lbjohnson1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09=A0pm, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"wugi" <b...@scarlet.be> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:47991107$0$832$5f6ae=
ac3@news.scarlet.nl...
"Thomas Heger" :
My question is how to put spacetime and space into a plausible relati=
on.
It
works fine if you regard space as the immaginary part of a quaternion=
.. I
was
speculating about this possibility and found it not too crazy. A bit,=
well,
yes.
About the competition between but eventual equivalence of quaternions =
and
vector notation seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion(#10.1
Use_controversy)
Space-time for SRT works fine in conventional geometric description.
Some graphic demonstrations :
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/qbRelaty.html
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
guido
Thanks for the links. My knowledge of dutch is limited so the letter lin=
ks
are of limited use to me.
Do you understand my idea??
It is very simple. I like to look at GR in the perspective of time
evolution. Time is in this picture a real and space an imaginary axis. I=
n
the euclidean view you have three real dimensions and a imaginary time.
Thats the view of a local observer and quite the same, but of different
signatur. The quaternion is 'flipped'.
Since quaternions are good in describing rotations I like to use them in=
the
sense of feynmans rotating vectors. Those elements rotate with different=
speed (frequency) but same speed of propagation (c). And they propagate =
in
all directions, that are directions of time. If you follow at some point=
,
you are co-moving, what makes time imaginary and space real.
Thomas Heger- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
aren't you just describing something with no spacelike vector ?
something that cannot move except timelike?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
There should be a clock to measure Stephen Hawking's Imaginary time.
Otherwise it can't be proven to exist.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
