| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"gsax" |
| Date: |
30 Jul 2005 06:08:16 AM |
| Object: |
number theory as a Physical theory? |
Hi
I read in Penrose's "Emperor's new Mind ", that Euclidean geometry is
actually a Physical theory derived from our sense-experiences of the
world around us.
That is why its axioms seemed so obviously true..
Hence Non-Euclidean geometries took time to be accepted as vaild.
Is it possible that even our concept of numbers is similarly inspired.
And so Number theory is as much a Physical theory as Euclidean
geometry.
If this is true , then what would be the analog of Non-euclidiean
geometries, to out 'conventional' number theory..
thanks
Gsax
.
|
|
| User: "Jaime Gaspar @" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
30 Jul 2005 06:32:44 AM |
|
|
"gsax" <gaurav_iitg@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:1122721696.261590.253570@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And so Number theory is as much a Physical theory as
Euclidean geometry.
If this is true , then what would be the analog of
Non-euclidiean geometries, to out 'conventional' number theory..
I think that non-euclidean geometry is obtained "dropping" one of the
Euclide's axioms. So, I would guess that the analog of non-euclidean
geometries, to out "conventional" number theory, would be obtained by
"dropping" one axiom.
Regards,
Jaime Gaspar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
30 Jul 2005 08:41:57 AM |
|
|
Jaime Gaspar wrote:
I think that non-euclidean geometry is obtained "dropping" one of the
Euclide's axioms. So, I would guess that the analog of non-euclidean
geometries, to out "conventional" number theory, would be obtained by
"dropping" one axiom.
There are several non-euclidean geometries. In one such, there are no
parallel lines. In another (hyperbolic) one can draw more that one line
parallel to a given line through a point external to the given line.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quasi" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
30 Jul 2005 02:11:47 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jul 2005 04:08:16 -0700, "gsax" <gaurav_iitg@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi
I read in Penrose's "Emperor's new Mind ", that Euclidean geometry is
actually a Physical theory derived from our sense-experiences of the
world around us.
That is why its axioms seemed so obviously true..
Hence Non-Euclidean geometries took time to be accepted as vaild.
Is it possible that even our concept of numbers is similarly inspired.
And so Number theory is as much a Physical theory as Euclidean
geometry.
If this is true , then what would be the analog of Non-euclidiean
geometries, to out 'conventional' number theory..
thanks
Gsax
The integers can be interpreted geometrically as points on the number
line, each equally spaced from the previous and from the next. Number
theory can then be viewed as the study of the relationships of signed
(directed) distances between these points, thus giving it a kind of
physical reality.
Now take the integers mod m. We can interpret these as m points,
equally spaced on a circle. So in a sense, the integers mod m provide
a kind of "non-euclidean" number theory.
quasi
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
30 Jul 2005 12:33:03 PM |
|
|
The integers can be interpreted geometrically as points on the number
line, each equally spaced from the previous and from the next. Number
theory can then be viewed as the study of the relationships of signed
(directed) distances between these points, thus giving it a kind of
physical reality.
Now take the integers mod m. We can interpret these as m points,
equally spaced on a circle. So in a sense, the integers mod m provide
a kind of "non-euclidean" number theory.
quasi
Einstein's Relativity is interesting because it uses independent frames of
reference w/respect to motion. How can you do this with numbers ? How to
think of a space which has no geometric origin, but still has all the nice
properties of R(n) ?
Maybe each point in the universe thinks that it is the center of the
universe? Clueless & mystified.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
30 Jul 2005 01:46:44 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
Einstein's Relativity is interesting because it uses independent frames of
reference w/respect to motion. How can you do this with numbers ? How to
think of a space which has no geometric origin, but still has all the nice
properties of R(n) ?
Euclidean space?
Unless I am mistaken, Euclidean space has no preferred origin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lee Rudolph" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
30 Jul 2005 02:51:18 PM |
|
|
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:
Lefty wrote:
Einstein's Relativity is interesting because it uses independent frames of
reference w/respect to motion. How can you do this with numbers ? How to
think of a space which has no geometric origin, but still has all the nice
properties of R(n) ?
Euclidean space?
Unless I am mistaken, Euclidean space has no preferred origin.
You are not mistaken, but many people are, and persistently make
the error of taste and judgment of identifying the vectorspace
R^n (or R(n) as Lefty writes it) with the affine space E_n, which
they then call Euclidean space. Of course Euclid's lines, planes,
and space only become affine spaces (of dimensions 1, 2, and 3,
respectively) upon interpretation--but they can only become
vectorspaces upon *mis*interpretation.
Followups removed from sci.physics.
Lee Rudolph
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
30 Jul 2005 02:44:00 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
Einstein's Relativity is interesting because it uses independent frames
of
reference w/respect to motion. How can you do this with numbers ? How to
think of a space which has no geometric origin, but still has all the
nice
properties of R(n) ?
Euclidean space?
Unless I am mistaken, Euclidean space has no preferred origin.
All Euclidean spaces have a unique geometric origin (0,0,0). Yes, there are
all kinds of transformations, rotations, etc etc, but all Euclidean spaces
must have a center (0,0,0......n).
Spacetime has no such geometric origin. It is originless. This could be
important to ScR (Laurent Nottale's scale relativity), but I cant imagine
how.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
31 Jul 2005 01:35:44 AM |
|
|
In article <XN2dnYc8FN3GRnbfRVn-rA@comcast.com>, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> writes:
Lefty wrote:
Einstein's Relativity is interesting because it uses independent frames
of
reference w/respect to motion. How can you do this with numbers ? How to
think of a space which has no geometric origin, but still has all the
nice
properties of R(n) ?
Euclidean space?
Unless I am mistaken, Euclidean space has no preferred origin.
All Euclidean spaces have a unique geometric origin (0,0,0). Yes, there are
all kinds of transformations, rotations, etc etc, but all Euclidean spaces
must have a center (0,0,0......n).
Not at all.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
31 Jul 2005 09:15:33 AM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
Einstein's Relativity is interesting because it uses independent
frames
of
reference w/respect to motion. How can you do this with numbers ? How
to
think of a space which has no geometric origin, but still has all the
nice
properties of R(n) ?
Euclidean space?
Unless I am mistaken, Euclidean space has no preferred origin.
All Euclidean spaces have a unique geometric origin (0,0,0). Yes, there
are
all kinds of transformations, rotations, etc etc, but all Euclidean
spaces
must have a center (0,0,0......n).
Not at all.
OK OK - guilty as charged already. Now, since I've conceded the point, lets
address the original subject of superimposing the abstract process of
counting upon a physical world where no two objects are identical.
You also have the problem of subjective vs. objective.
Counting "appears" to work rather well, but does not exactly match reality.
Now, since you guys are clever enough to make hay out of a simple confusing
of E_n with R_n, I'd like to hear a rigorous resolution to the question
regarding counting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Shobe" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
31 Jul 2005 10:34:17 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:15:33 -0500, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote:
OK OK - guilty as charged already. Now, since I've conceded the point, lets
address the original subject of superimposing the abstract process of
counting upon a physical world where no two objects are identical.
You also have the problem of subjective vs. objective.
Counting "appears" to work rather well, but does not exactly match reality.
Now, since you guys are clever enough to make hay out of a simple confusing
of E_n with R_n, I'd like to hear a rigorous resolution to the question
regarding counting.
Counting doesn't require the objects to be identical. Just that they
be distinct.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
31 Jul 2005 12:04:25 PM |
|
|
In article <eqrpe1tkurjb3qfa8h5h48mr59ibbfdko5@4ax.com>,
Martin Shobe <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:15:33 -0500, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote:
OK OK - guilty as charged already. Now, since I've conceded the point, lets
address the original subject of superimposing the abstract process of
counting upon a physical world where no two objects are identical.
You also have the problem of subjective vs. objective.
Counting "appears" to work rather well, but does not exactly match reality.
Now, since you guys are clever enough to make hay out of a simple confusing
of E_n with R_n, I'd like to hear a rigorous resolution to the question
regarding counting.
Counting doesn't require the objects to be identical. Just that they
be distinct.
Counting depends on what the counter wants to count. From an anecdote
that Asimov wrote about, if you break a peice of chalk in half, do you get
two peices of chalk, or do you consider both halves together as one peice
of chalk? Do you count chalk dust as peices? The answer comes from the
person counting the chalk, not from natural law.
Kronecker said "God gave us the integers; the rest is the work of Man."
Greg says "Are you really sure about that?"
--
"Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level and win
by experience."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Shobe" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
31 Jul 2005 03:27:34 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:04:25 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <eqrpe1tkurjb3qfa8h5h48mr59ibbfdko5@4ax.com>,
Martin Shobe <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:15:33 -0500, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote:
OK OK - guilty as charged already. Now, since I've conceded the point, lets
address the original subject of superimposing the abstract process of
counting upon a physical world where no two objects are identical.
You also have the problem of subjective vs. objective.
Counting "appears" to work rather well, but does not exactly match reality.
Now, since you guys are clever enough to make hay out of a simple confusing
of E_n with R_n, I'd like to hear a rigorous resolution to the question
regarding counting.
Counting doesn't require the objects to be identical. Just that they
be distinct.
Counting depends on what the counter wants to count. From an anecdote
that Asimov wrote about, if you break a peice of chalk in half, do you get
two peices of chalk, or do you consider both halves together as one peice
of chalk? Do you count chalk dust as peices? The answer comes from the
person counting the chalk, not from natural law.
Take a good look at the questions you've raised. None of them
question counting. They are all questions about what is meant by "a
piece of chalk." Once you've pinned that down, counting works like
expected.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
31 Jul 2005 05:11:16 PM |
|
|
"Martin Shobe" <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2hcqe15efrcf14nhk71hs61f2jmplu5gjp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:04:25 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <eqrpe1tkurjb3qfa8h5h48mr59ibbfdko5@4ax.com>,
Martin Shobe <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:15:33 -0500, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote:
OK OK - guilty as charged already. Now, since I've conceded the point,
lets
address the original subject of superimposing the abstract process of
counting upon a physical world where no two objects are identical.
You also have the problem of subjective vs. objective.
Counting "appears" to work rather well, but does not exactly match
reality.
Now, since you guys are clever enough to make hay out of a simple
confusing
of E_n with R_n, I'd like to hear a rigorous resolution to the question
regarding counting.
Counting doesn't require the objects to be identical. Just that they
be distinct.
Counting depends on what the counter wants to count. From an anecdote
that Asimov wrote about, if you break a peice of chalk in half, do you
get
two peices of chalk, or do you consider both halves together as one peice
of chalk? Do you count chalk dust as peices? The answer comes from the
person counting the chalk, not from natural law.
Take a good look at the questions you've raised. None of them
question counting. They are all questions about what is meant by "a
piece of chalk." Once you've pinned that down, counting works like
expected.
Martin
I agree completely. And it's very easy to define a piece of abstract chalk,
but not so easy to create a definition for real pieces of chalk.
It's probably easier to talk about waves than objects which are wave
aggregates.
I think that you have made a good point though - that you can create a set
by selecting things, and the resulting set must have a certain number of
elements. But you have to make choices.
A water molecule can be thought of as a single object, or a set of 3 atoms.
You are always stuck with these choices.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
31 Jul 2005 09:43:42 PM |
|
|
In article <2hcqe15efrcf14nhk71hs61f2jmplu5gjp@4ax.com>,
Martin Shobe <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:04:25 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <eqrpe1tkurjb3qfa8h5h48mr59ibbfdko5@4ax.com>,
Martin Shobe <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:15:33 -0500, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote:
OK OK - guilty as charged already. Now, since I've conceded the point, lets
address the original subject of superimposing the abstract process of
counting upon a physical world where no two objects are identical.
You also have the problem of subjective vs. objective.
Counting "appears" to work rather well, but does not exactly match reality.
Now, since you guys are clever enough to make hay out of a simple confusing
of E_n with R_n, I'd like to hear a rigorous resolution to the question
regarding counting.
Counting doesn't require the objects to be identical. Just that they
be distinct.
Counting depends on what the counter wants to count. From an anecdote
that Asimov wrote about, if you break a peice of chalk in half, do you get
two peices of chalk, or do you consider both halves together as one peice
of chalk? Do you count chalk dust as peices? The answer comes from the
person counting the chalk, not from natural law.
Take a good look at the questions you've raised. None of them
question counting. They are all questions about what is meant by "a
piece of chalk." Once you've pinned that down, counting works like
expected.
It starts, first of all, by deciding that something should be counted! It
starts with a human decision, then progresses through human criteria
concerning what to associate integers with. It's another form of model
building, not really different, e.g., than deciding a rectangle is a
sufficient approximation to determining the surface area of a wall.
Mathematics still exists independently of the physical universe, and it is
up to humans to put some order to the universe if they want to apply math
to it.
--
"The polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the
invariable plane." -- Goldstein, Classical Mechanics 2nd. ed., p207.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
31 Jul 2005 10:58:42 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:dck28u$tc0$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <2hcqe15efrcf14nhk71hs61f2jmplu5gjp@4ax.com>,
Martin Shobe <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:04:25 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <eqrpe1tkurjb3qfa8h5h48mr59ibbfdko5@4ax.com>,
Martin Shobe <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:15:33 -0500, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote:
OK OK - guilty as charged already. Now, since I've conceded the point,
lets
address the original subject of superimposing the abstract process of
counting upon a physical world where no two objects are identical.
You also have the problem of subjective vs. objective.
Counting "appears" to work rather well, but does not exactly match
reality.
Now, since you guys are clever enough to make hay out of a simple
confusing
of E_n with R_n, I'd like to hear a rigorous resolution to the
question
regarding counting.
Counting doesn't require the objects to be identical. Just that they
be distinct.
Counting depends on what the counter wants to count. From an anecdote
that Asimov wrote about, if you break a peice of chalk in half, do you
get
two peices of chalk, or do you consider both halves together as one
peice
of chalk? Do you count chalk dust as peices? The answer comes from the
person counting the chalk, not from natural law.
Take a good look at the questions you've raised. None of them
question counting. They are all questions about what is meant by "a
piece of chalk." Once you've pinned that down, counting works like
expected.
It starts, first of all, by deciding that something should be counted! It
starts with a human decision, then progresses through human criteria
concerning what to associate integers with. It's another form of model
building, not really different, e.g., than deciding a rectangle is a
sufficient approximation to determining the surface area of a wall.
Mathematics still exists independently of the physical universe, and it is
up to humans to put some order to the universe if they want to apply math
to it.
Quite true. But is there such a thing as a genuine sphere in the universe ?
Maybe, maybe not. Certainly there are abstract spheres which are perfectly
spherical. But real one's ? Even if the physical sphere is nothing more than
carefully defined a region of spacetime, you have these weird Planck issues
which seem to plague the existence of a perfectly spherical manifold (in the
limit as resolution becomes infinitely fine). Starting to sound like scalar
relativity already.
There's nothing wrong with using math because it works. But there's also
nothing wrong with trying to make physics more rigorous.
On the very largest scale you have the universe. There is 1 universe, it
is unique.Chop it in half and you have multiple pieces which are similar,
but each piece is still unique. Keep on chopping it up into smaller and
smaller pieces, and every chunk is still unique. Keep on going until you hit
the Planck length. All these little chunks are unique.
Does'nt that start to sound like a fractal ? Maybe the opposite of
self-similarity. The self-similarity is an property of uniqueness on all
scales ? Just thinking at random, woke up this morning and decided to say
something weird, so there it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
01 Aug 2005 12:42:00 AM |
|
|
In article <H4ydncGbr4hMPXDfRVn-tw@comcast.com>, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> writes:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:dck28u$tc0$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <2hcqe15efrcf14nhk71hs61f2jmplu5gjp@4ax.com>,
Martin Shobe <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:04:25 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <eqrpe1tkurjb3qfa8h5h48mr59ibbfdko5@4ax.com>,
Martin Shobe <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:15:33 -0500, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote:
OK OK - guilty as charged already. Now, since I've conceded the point,
lets
address the original subject of superimposing the abstract process of
counting upon a physical world where no two objects are identical.
You also have the problem of subjective vs. objective.
Counting "appears" to work rather well, but does not exactly match
reality.
Now, since you guys are clever enough to make hay out of a simple
confusing
of E_n with R_n, I'd like to hear a rigorous resolution to the
question
regarding counting.
Counting doesn't require the objects to be identical. Just that they
be distinct.
Counting depends on what the counter wants to count. From an anecdote
that Asimov wrote about, if you break a peice of chalk in half, do you
get
two peices of chalk, or do you consider both halves together as one
peice
of chalk? Do you count chalk dust as peices? The answer comes from the
person counting the chalk, not from natural law.
Take a good look at the questions you've raised. None of them
question counting. They are all questions about what is meant by "a
piece of chalk." Once you've pinned that down, counting works like
expected.
It starts, first of all, by deciding that something should be counted! It
starts with a human decision, then progresses through human criteria
concerning what to associate integers with. It's another form of model
building, not really different, e.g., than deciding a rectangle is a
sufficient approximation to determining the surface area of a wall.
Mathematics still exists independently of the physical universe, and it is
up to humans to put some order to the universe if they want to apply math
to it.
Quite true. But is there such a thing as a genuine sphere in the universe ?
You mean, "a genuinely spherical material object?" If there is one,
how would you know?
Maybe, maybe not. Certainly there are abstract spheres which are perfectly
spherical. But real one's ? Even if the physical sphere is nothing more than
carefully defined a region of spacetime, you have these weird Planck issues
You may have, I don't:-) Contrary to whatever you might've picked
from poularization, at present there is exactly zero evidence to the
effect that Planck length, time, mass are of any real physical
significance.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
01 Aug 2005 08:47:35 AM |
|
|
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:ICiHe.4$25.745@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <H4ydncGbr4hMPXDfRVn-tw@comcast.com>, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right>
writes:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:dck28u$tc0$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <2hcqe15efrcf14nhk71hs61f2jmplu5gjp@4ax.com>,
Martin Shobe <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:04:25 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <eqrpe1tkurjb3qfa8h5h48mr59ibbfdko5@4ax.com>,
Martin Shobe <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:15:33 -0500, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote:
OK OK - guilty as charged already. Now, since I've conceded the
point,
lets
address the original subject of superimposing the abstract process
of
counting upon a physical world where no two objects are identical.
You also have the problem of subjective vs. objective.
Counting "appears" to work rather well, but does not exactly match
reality.
Now, since you guys are clever enough to make hay out of a simple
confusing
of E_n with R_n, I'd like to hear a rigorous resolution to the
question
regarding counting.
Counting doesn't require the objects to be identical. Just that
they
be distinct.
Counting depends on what the counter wants to count. From an
anecdote
that Asimov wrote about, if you break a peice of chalk in half, do
you
get
two peices of chalk, or do you consider both halves together as one
peice
of chalk? Do you count chalk dust as peices? The answer comes from
the
person counting the chalk, not from natural law.
Take a good look at the questions you've raised. None of them
question counting. They are all questions about what is meant by "a
piece of chalk." Once you've pinned that down, counting works like
expected.
It starts, first of all, by deciding that something should be counted!
It
starts with a human decision, then progresses through human criteria
concerning what to associate integers with. It's another form of model
building, not really different, e.g., than deciding a rectangle is a
sufficient approximation to determining the surface area of a wall.
Mathematics still exists independently of the physical universe, and it
is
up to humans to put some order to the universe if they want to apply
math
to it.
Quite true. But is there such a thing as a genuine sphere in the universe
?
You mean, "a genuinely spherical material object?" If there is one,
how would you know?
Maybe, maybe not. Certainly there are abstract spheres which are
perfectly
spherical. But real one's ? Even if the physical sphere is nothing more
than
carefully defined a region of spacetime, you have these weird Planck
issues
You may have, I don't:-) Contrary to whatever you might've picked
from poularization, at present there is exactly zero evidence to the
effect that Planck length, time, mass are of any real physical
significance.
Greetings Mati : )
Lets just define a sphere in space. You will never be able to make a perfect
sphere out of wood, or metal, or anything else, so we'll just define one. It
is invisible, composed of points in spacetime.
Can we really claim that it satisfies x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = r^2 if we dont even
know that spacetime is continuous ?
If Planck is wrong, then it might be possible I suppose. But if Planck is
right, or if Planck length is relativistic, then the situation is very
different from abstract mathematics.
In defense of Planck - well, you already know what I'd say, Planck length is
relativistic as supported by QM weirdness. I dont think that it's possible
that Planck length could be absolute (i.e. nonrelativistic), it's
practically ridiculous. But I was doing some reading about Laurent Nottale's
ScR - interesting stuff, but I'm not sure how he arrives at a fractalized
fine structure. I guess I'll have to read the book. From what I've read, his
ideas and mine are similar - but he has taken a completely different route.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
01 Aug 2005 07:42:39 PM |
|
|
In article <pr6dnb8uaolGt3PfRVn-og@comcast.com>, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:ICiHe.4$25.745@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <H4ydncGbr4hMPXDfRVn-tw@comcast.com>, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right>
writes:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:dck28u$tc0$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <2hcqe15efrcf14nhk71hs61f2jmplu5gjp@4ax.com>,
Martin Shobe <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:04:25 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <eqrpe1tkurjb3qfa8h5h48mr59ibbfdko5@4ax.com>,
Martin Shobe <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:15:33 -0500, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote:
OK OK - guilty as charged already. Now, since I've conceded the
point,
lets
address the original subject of superimposing the abstract process
of
counting upon a physical world where no two objects are identical.
You also have the problem of subjective vs. objective.
Counting "appears" to work rather well, but does not exactly match
reality.
Now, since you guys are clever enough to make hay out of a simple
confusing
of E_n with R_n, I'd like to hear a rigorous resolution to the
question
regarding counting.
Counting doesn't require the objects to be identical. Just that
they
be distinct.
Counting depends on what the counter wants to count. From an
anecdote
that Asimov wrote about, if you break a peice of chalk in half, do
you
get
two peices of chalk, or do you consider both halves together as one
peice
of chalk? Do you count chalk dust as peices? The answer comes from
the
person counting the chalk, not from natural law.
Take a good look at the questions you've raised. None of them
question counting. They are all questions about what is meant by "a
piece of chalk." Once you've pinned that down, counting works like
expected.
It starts, first of all, by deciding that something should be counted!
It
starts with a human decision, then progresses through human criteria
concerning what to associate integers with. It's another form of model
building, not really different, e.g., than deciding a rectangle is a
sufficient approximation to determining the surface area of a wall.
Mathematics still exists independently of the physical universe, and it
is
up to humans to put some order to the universe if they want to apply
math
to it.
Quite true. But is there such a thing as a genuine sphere in the universe
?
You mean, "a genuinely spherical material object?" If there is one,
how would you know?
Maybe, maybe not. Certainly there are abstract spheres which are
perfectly
spherical. But real one's ? Even if the physical sphere is nothing more
than
carefully defined a region of spacetime, you have these weird Planck
issues
You may have, I don't:-) Contrary to whatever you might've picked
from poularization, at present there is exactly zero evidence to the
effect that Planck length, time, mass are of any real physical
significance.
Greetings Mati : )
Lets just define a sphere in space. You will never be able to make a perfect
sphere out of wood, or metal, or anything else, so we'll just define one. It
is invisible, composed of points in spacetime.
My comment is strictly on the issue of Planck length. Don't change
the topic.
Can we really claim that it satisfies x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = r^2 if we dont even
know that spacetime is continuous ?
If Planck is wrong, then it might be possible I suppose. But if Planck is
right, or if Planck length is relativistic, then the situation is very
different from abstract mathematics.
In defense of Planck - well, you already know what I'd say, Planck length is
relativistic as supported by QM weirdness.
I'll repeat what I wrote above: At present there is exactly zero
evidence to the effect that Planck length, time, mass are of any real
physical significance.
You may try to read before you respond.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
01 Aug 2005 09:14:09 PM |
|
|
My comment is strictly on the issue of Planck length. Don't change
the topic.
Can we really claim that it satisfies x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = r^2 if we dont
even
know that spacetime is continuous ?
If Planck is wrong, then it might be possible I suppose. But if Planck is
right, or if Planck length is relativistic, then the situation is very
different from abstract mathematics.
In defense of Planck - well, you already know what I'd say, Planck length
is
relativistic as supported by QM weirdness.
I'll repeat what I wrote above: At present there is exactly zero
evidence to the effect that Planck length, time, mass are of any real
physical significance.
You may try to read before you respond.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
OK Mati - we've been here before. I think that you may already know what I'm
gonna say, but if you want to force me to write things I will - hopefully
you choose to read it.
Planck length arises from Plancks equations of blackbody radiation.
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/quant/node2.html
I'm no expert on that - but hell, people believed in black holes for a long
time before they had ever been observed too. Whether that counts as evidence
or not, I guess that's open to interpretation. Apparently you're not
convinced, neither am I really, things need to be proved. Fine.
The problem with Planck time is that if it not relativistic, then the
universe cannot exist. If you cant have points, then you cant have a
manifold, and it dose'nt matter what dimension you're working in.
Evidence of a relativistic Plancktime follows:
1) Explanation of superluminality
2) Explanation of eraser and double eraser experiments
3) Explanation of attosecond interference experiment
4) Explanation of nonlocality
5) Aronov-Bohm
6) yada yada yada
If you modify Planck time, making it a relativistic phenomena caused by
extreme differences in scale, then all the quantum weirdness is explained
and you have your proof.
If Planck were alive today and claimed that the Planck time was a
non-relativistic phenomena , I'd call him crazy because it's absurd. But for
this thing to occur like a mirage, causing 4D to "appear" to become 3D, then
evrything makes sense and it does not violate differential geometry
"Invariance of Domain theorem" either.
If half a dozen explanations of quantum weirdeness dont qualify as nonzero
evidence to you, then I dont know what would.
You think I got to this planet on a conventional rocket ship ? Hah. You'll
never get out of the galaxy without a quantum teleporter, good luck.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
02 Aug 2005 12:09:10 AM |
|
|
In article <8NydnX8aFtpDfXPfRVn-og@comcast.com>, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> writes:
My comment is strictly on the issue of Planck length. Don't change
the topic.
Can we really claim that it satisfies x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = r^2 if we dont
even
know that spacetime is continuous ?
If Planck is wrong, then it might be possible I suppose. But if Planck is
right, or if Planck length is relativistic, then the situation is very
different from abstract mathematics.
In defense of Planck - well, you already know what I'd say, Planck length
is
relativistic as supported by QM weirdness.
I'll repeat what I wrote above: At present there is exactly zero
evidence to the effect that Planck length, time, mass are of any real
physical significance.
You may try to read before you respond.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
OK Mati - we've been here before. I think that you may already know what I'm
gonna say, but if you want to force me to write things I will - hopefully
you choose to read it.
Planck length arises from Plancks equations of blackbody radiation.
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/quant/node2.html
Nope, wrong already. Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass,
arise from Plancks blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant
does. If you want to talk sensibly about physics, you should know
something about it first. Picking phrases from popularizations and
hoping they'll stick somehow, doesn't work.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
02 Aug 2005 08:49:21 AM |
|
|
My comment is strictly on the issue of Planck length. Don't change
the topic.
Can we really claim that it satisfies x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = r^2 if we dont
even
know that spacetime is continuous ?
If Planck is wrong, then it might be possible I suppose. But if Planck
is
right, or if Planck length is relativistic, then the situation is very
different from abstract mathematics.
In defense of Planck - well, you already know what I'd say, Planck
length
is
relativistic as supported by QM weirdness.
I'll repeat what I wrote above: At present there is exactly zero
evidence to the effect that Planck length, time, mass are of any real
physical significance.
You may try to read before you respond.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
OK Mati - we've been here before. I think that you may already know what
I'm
gonna say, but if you want to force me to write things I will - hopefully
you choose to read it.
Planck length arises from Plancks equations of blackbody radiation.
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/quant/node2.html
Nope, wrong already. Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass,
arise from Plancks blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant
does. If you want to talk sensibly about physics, you should know
something about it first. Picking phrases from popularizations and
hoping they'll stick somehow, doesn't work.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Allllright-then. I cant answer this right now - but I'll have a reply for
you as soon as possible, and if I cant convince you then I'll eat a sh*t
sandwich.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
02 Aug 2005 07:58:42 PM |
|
|
Nope, wrong already. Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass,
arise from Plancks blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant
does. If you want to talk sensibly about physics, you should know
something about it first. Picking phrases from popularizations and
hoping they'll stick somehow, doesn't work.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Allllright-then. I cant answer this right now - but I'll have a reply for
you as soon as possible, and if I cant convince you then I'll eat a sh*t
sandwich.
Physical Review Online Archive (PROLA)
http://prola.aps.org/search
search "superluminal" 184 hits
search "faster than light" 40 hits
-----------------------
Apparent superluminal behavior in wave propagation
A. D. Jackson, A. Lande, and B. Lautrup
Abstract:
....Although the wave front of a signal passing through a classically
forbidden region can never move faster than light, an attenuated replica of
the signal is reproduced "instantaneously" on the other side of the
barrier...
....The reconstructed signal, causally connected to the forerunner rather
than the bulk of the input signal, appears to move through the barrier
faster than light....
Phys. Rev. A 64, 044101 (2001)
-----------------------
Now, Mati, there is only one way that you can have yoru cake and eat it too.
Either einstein is wrong, (which he's not), or things can really happen
instantaneously as hs been observed in the above paper.
There is only one way that something can be instantaneous across any
distance - and that's the existence of a 3rd dimension where time is not
defined. Or, you can make distance undefined, but there is definately
something happening to dimensionality here.
That proves it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
03 Aug 2005 01:44:11 AM |
|
|
In article <K6Odncxe4sU6hG3fRVn-gg@comcast.com>, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> writes:
Nope, wrong already. Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass,
arise from Plancks blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant
does. If you want to talk sensibly about physics, you should know
something about it first. Picking phrases from popularizations and
hoping they'll stick somehow, doesn't work.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Allllright-then. I cant answer this right now - but I'll have a reply for
you as soon as possible, and if I cant convince you then I'll eat a sh*t
sandwich.
Physical Review Online Archive (PROLA)
http://prola.aps.org/search
search "superluminal" 184 hits
search "faster than light" 40 hits
-----------------------
Apparent superluminal behavior in wave propagation
A. D. Jackson, A. Lande, and B. Lautrup
Abstract:
...Although the wave front of a signal passing through a classically
forbidden region can never move faster than light, an attenuated replica of
the signal is reproduced "instantaneously" on the other side of the
barrier...
...The reconstructed signal, causally connected to the forerunner rather
than the bulk of the input signal, appears to move through the barrier
faster than light....
Phys. Rev. A 64, 044101 (2001)
-----------------------
Aha. Did you notice the word "Apparent" in the title? And did you,
actually, read the paper?
Now, Mati, there is only one way that you can have yoru cake and eat it too.
Either einstein is wrong, (which he's not), or things can really happen
instantaneously as hs been observed in the above paper.
Repeat, did you actually read the paper?
There is only one way that something can be instantaneous across any
distance - and that's the existence of a 3rd dimension where time is not
defined. Or, you can make distance undefined, but there is definately
something happening to dimensionality here.
That proves it.
In short, you've nothing to say, so you're attempting misdirection.
I'll repeat what I wrote above:
"Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass, arise from Plancks
blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant does."
Your misdirections above have nothing to do with this and only serve
to further indicate that you pick phrases not comprehending what they
mean. I think that I'm nearly ready to give up on you.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
03 Aug 2005 08:13:35 AM |
|
|
In short, you've nothing to say, so you're attempting misdirection.
I'll repeat what I wrote above:
"Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass, arise from Plancks
blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant does."
Your misdirections above have nothing to do with this and only serve
to further indicate that you pick phrases not comprehending what they
mean. I think that I'm nearly ready to give up on you.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Are you saying that Planck was just blathering BS ? He had no reason
whatsoever to say the things he said ? He was just an old storyteller ?
Maybe Planck did'nt even exist at all - like Santa ?
C'mon now - who's making up what! His reasons may have been "weak" - but
there must have been a reason.
How else can you explain nonlocality ? A particle can be in two separate
places at once ? That is ridiculous. The explanation is quite simply the
existence of a 3rd dimension, or appearance thereof. How much proof do you
need ? Even if it does not qualify as a definitive absolute irrefutable
proof, so what. It's a better explanation than anything else.
In fact, you know that it makes perfect sense, but you just refuse to admit
it. Why do you guys refuse to talk about this stuff ? I'm beginning to think
that there's an ulterior motive.
Einstein assumed a continuous spacetime. What "proof" did he have to make
that assumption ? I've already showed how spacetime can be continuous and
discrete simultaneously as a result of "appearing" to degenerate into 3D. Of
course it cant do that via an absolute Planck Time, but it can appear to do
so like a mirage if you have Planck Time being a relativistic effect. No
problem.
So go on being mystified by simplistic boundary conditions caused by extreme
differences in scale, go on being stumped by nonlocality and QM "weirdness"
which aint so weird, and keep on denying the obvious.
If a particle can be in two separate locations at once, then you have
violated uniqueness, and this is clearly impossible. You would rather accept
the impossible than entertain a potential explanation ? Go ahead and "give
up on me" if you must - but you have'nt shown me the error of my ways - and
I say there is none.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
03 Aug 2005 01:18:08 PM |
|
|
In article <-Z-dnZ2dnZ18qgbBnZ2dnXhYbd-dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com>,
Lefty <Ye@h.Right> wrote:
In short, you've nothing to say, so you're attempting misdirection.
I'll repeat what I wrote above:
"Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass, arise from Plancks
blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant does."
Your misdirections above have nothing to do with this and only serve
to further indicate that you pick phrases not comprehending what they
mean. I think that I'm nearly ready to give up on you.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Are you saying that Planck was just blathering BS ? He had no reason
whatsoever to say the things he said ? He was just an old storyteller ?
Maybe Planck did'nt even exist at all - like Santa ?
C'mon now - who's making up what! His reasons may have been "weak" - but
there must have been a reason.
Fundamental constants give us some idea of the scale of things. c tells
us where relativistic effects are important, the ratio of G/alpha gives
the relative magnitudes of gravity and electromagnetism, and so on.
Multiply some constants together so that you get units of length. That's
pretty much it. There's no compelling theoretical reason to multiply
those constants together, and the interpretation of the result is an
exercise for the philosopher.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
03 Aug 2005 05:47:08 PM |
|
|
In article <-Z-dnZ2dnZ18qgbBnZ2dnXhYbd-dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com>, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> writes:
In short, you've nothing to say, so you're attempting misdirection.
I'll repeat what I wrote above:
"Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass, arise from Plancks
blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant does."
Your misdirections above have nothing to do with this and only serve
to further indicate that you pick phrases not comprehending what they
mean. I think that I'm nearly ready to give up on you.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Are you saying that Planck was just blathering BS
No, I'm just saying that
"Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass, arise from Plancks
blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant does."
What's not clear here?
... snip further attempts at misdirection ...
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
03 Aug 2005 10:02:18 PM |
|
|
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:MPbIe.21$25.3262@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <-Z-dnZ2dnZ18qgbBnZ2dnXhYbd-dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com>,
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> writes:
In short, you've nothing to say, so you're attempting misdirection.
I'll repeat what I wrote above:
"Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass, arise from Plancks
blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant does."
Your misdirections above have nothing to do with this and only serve
to further indicate that you pick phrases not comprehending what they
mean. I think that I'm nearly ready to give up on you.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Are you saying that Planck was just blathering BS
No, I'm just saying that
"Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass, arise from Plancks
blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant does."
What's not clear here?
... snip further attempts at misdirection ...
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Einstein said that dl/dt was relative. You can never tell if your dl/dt is
nonzero, or if your dl/dt = 0 and the dl/dt of other things around you is
nonzero.
So. If dl/dt has this property of relativism, then so does l, and so does t.
I wrote something about this below somewhere in response to G Hansen. I
cannot tell how big I am - except by comparing my size to other things near
me. I cannot tell how long I've been sitting in front of computer, except
in comparison to other intervals of time which are easily observable to me.
It's all the same.
So - Einstein says that he cant tell if he is in motion or not. Of course he
cant ! Motion is dl/dt, and l and t are both relativistic as well !!
That should keep you busy for a while - heh heh -
Yeah, Planck missed the point a little, but I'm not ready to plonk Planck,
if he had said that it was all relative he'd be right up there with
Einstein.
I doubt that there are any other major forms of relativity. These things are
based on the dimensionality of spacetime. This leads me to believe that
relativity is incomplete. Planck length and Planck time should be natural
consequences of relativity, but all we got was c.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
04 Aug 2005 02:14:35 AM |
|
|
In article <Ee6dnb6Tdue-FWzfRVn-3w@comcast.com>, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:MPbIe.21$25.3262@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <-Z-dnZ2dnZ18qgbBnZ2dnXhYbd-dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com>,
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> writes:
In short, you've nothing to say, so you're attempting misdirection.
I'll repeat what I wrote above:
"Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass, arise from Plancks
blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant does."
Your misdirections above have nothing to do with this and only serve
to further indicate that you pick phrases not comprehending what they
mean. I think that I'm nearly ready to give up on you.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Are you saying that Planck was just blathering BS
No, I'm just saying that
"Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass, arise from Plancks
blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant does."
What's not clear here?
... snip further attempts at misdirection ...
... snip yet further attempts at misdirection ...
You really should work on your reading comprehension skills. Or,
perhaps, just plain comprehensions skills. By now it should be clear
to you that I'm going to ignore anything you say that's not relevant
to the point raised above.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
04 Aug 2005 08:20:08 AM |
|
|
In short, you've nothing to say, so you're attempting misdirection.
I'll repeat what I wrote above:
"Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass, arise from Plancks
blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant does."
Your misdirections above have nothing to do with this and only serve
to further indicate that you pick phrases not comprehending what
they
mean. I think that I'm nearly ready to give up on you.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Are you saying that Planck was just blathering BS
No, I'm just saying that
"Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass, arise from Plancks
blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant does."
What's not clear here?
... snip further attempts at misdirection ...
... snip yet further attempts at misdirection ...
You really should work on your reading comprehension skills. Or,
perhaps, just plain comprehensions skills. By now it should be clear
to you that I'm going to ignore anything you say that's not relevant
to the point raised above.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
First, here's your proof- also restated below.
What's velocity made of ? It's just dL/dT. Length and time are dimensions of
spacetime. If dL/dT has a cosmic speed limit of c, then either L has
physical constraints, or T has physical constraints, or both. And there,
Mati, is your proof. Or - will you argue that c is not really a cosmic speed
limit ? I dare you to do so.
OK Mati - I will agree that Planck was going out on a philosophical limb
with planck Length and Planck Time. But it does'nt mean he was wrong.
Everybody does that in physics. Just look at String Theory. Is there any
physical evidence that it's correct either ? Not really.
And, as I explained before, there is plenty of physical evidence of a
relativistic Planck Time. It's called quantum weirdness. How much proof do
you need ?
The reason you dont like Planck Length is because Relativity assumes a
continuous spacetime, and Planck Length causes spacetime to be discrete. And
this has been resolved, Mati, because spacetime can be both continuous and
discrete simultaneously if Planck Time is relativsitic. I dont really care
if mathematicians can visualize it or not, it is continuous AND discrete
simultaneously. The reason is very obvious.
The infinitely small may exist in an absolute sense, but not relative to
you. You will never see it under any microscope, no matter how powerful.
Even if you had a microscope with infinite magnification, you still would
not see the infinitely small. It may well be there, but all you will ever
see is a mirage which looks like the 3rd dimension, and the physical
evidence of that is quantum weirdness.
Scale can be infinitely big, or infinitely small. You can never know how big
or how small you are in an absolute sense, all you can do is compare your
size to other objects. It's just like Einstein's eleavtor. But there are
limits, because there has to be. There is a cosmic speed limit, c, and
velocity is just dl/dt. If you dont impose a limit on either scale, or time,
then Einstein was wrong about c. It's just that simple. So there's your
math. What else you want ?
What's velocity made of ? It's just dL/dT. Length and time are dimensions of
spacetime. If dL/dT has a cosmic speed limit of c, then either L has
physical constraints, or T has physical constraints, or both. And there,
Mati, is your proof.
If Einstein were alive today, he would agree with me.
L You cannot tell how big you are.
T You cannot tell how much time has elapsed.
dL/dT You cannot tell if you are moving or not. (Einstein's elevator)
Spacetime is 3L+T
I'm not even a physicist. I'm a garbage collector, and even "I" can see
these things. Must I do your work for you ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: number theory as a Physical theory? |
04 Aug 2005 03:41:45 PM |
|
|
In article <L7idndPrRPNqhW_fRVn-ug@comcast.com>, "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> writes:
In short, you've nothing to say, so you're attempting misdirection.
I'll repeat what I wrote above:
"Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass, arise from Plancks
blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant does."
Your misdirections above have nothing to do with this and only serve
to further indicate that you pick phrases not comprehending what
they
mean. I think that I'm nearly ready to give up on you.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Are you saying that Planck was just blathering BS
No, I'm just saying that
"Neither Planck length, nor Planck time or mass, arise from Plancks
blackbody radiation theory. Only Planck constant does."
What's not clear here?
... snip further attempts at misdirection ...
... snip yet further attempts at misdirection ...
You really should work on your reading comprehension skills. Or,
perhaps, just plain comprehensions skills. By now it should be clear
to you that I'm going to ignore anything you say that's not relevant
to the point raised above.
... and snip yet more of the same. third strike ...
That's it. No point in wasting time any further. Bye bye.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
