Science > Physics > Quantum Gravity 24: The Sphere At Infinity ("Antisphere") vs The Sphere at 0
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
18 Mar 2006 12:30:54 AM |
| Object: |
Quantum Gravity 24: The Sphere At Infinity ("Antisphere") vs The Sphere at 0 |
From Osher Doctorow
The unit sphere in spherical coordinates is:
1) rho = 1
Let's convert this to Probable Influence/Causation by subtracting rho
from both sides:
2) 0 = 1 - rho
Now comes the strangest part. Add 0 to both sides, which although it
doesn't change anything numerically, has the following familiar form:
3) 0 = 1 + 0 - rho = P(rho --> 0) = 1 + y - x (y = P(AB) = 0, x = P(A)
= rho)
Equation (3) says that the probability of the radius rho of the sphere
influencing the center 0 of the sphere is 0, which by (1) occurs when
the radius of the sphere equals 1.
A Probable Influence/Causation of 0 means that 1 and 0 have "lost
contact causally". This is what we expect at infinity, but not at
radius 1 if radius 1 just is another numerical value.
Readers who followed my postings at geometry.research in previous
years, and to my recollection some postings here as well, may recall
that Probable Influence/Causation (PI) is a one-sided partial inverse
of the Euclidean distance-function/metric. Define the "Proximity"
p(x, y) between x and y from the viewpoint of x as:
4) p(x, y) = 1 + y - x, 0 < = y < = x < = 1
The smallest distance between x and y occurs when x = y, in which case
the Euclidean distance is 0, but the quantity p(x, y) = 1. The
biggest distance between x and y for y < = x occurs when y = 0 and x =
1, precisely the case of (3) above, but equally important, for these
values p(x, y) = 1 + 0 - 1 = 0 whereas the Euclidean distance is 1.
Therefore, for the one-sided case y < = x specified by (4), the
proximity function and the Euclidean distance function are "inverses"
at 0 and 1 (one is 0 when the other is 1, and vice versa). It turns
out that p(x, y) can be generalized to vectors x = (x1, x2, ..., xn), y
= (y1, y2, ..., yn) with x and y in (4) replaced by the arithmetic mean
of the coordinates of x and of y respectively, and everything still
goes through the same with the new expression pn(x, y) or p_n(x, y) = 1
+ y-bar - x-bar where y-bar is the arithmetic mean of y coordinates and
x-bar is the arithmetic mean of x coordinates.
Although the geometry.research readers reacted almost entirely with
silence since they didn't recognize novelty any more than physics
people, the unit sphere/ball in Euclidean distance equals the
"infinite" proximity/Probable Influence/Causation sphere/ball (coded as
1) in proximity representation.
There may well be "something" beyond the unit sphere/ball in Euclidean
distance, but whatever it is, it's arguably in a different phase. 1
represents "infinity" in our phase.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "Jumby" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity 24: The Sphere At Infinity ("Antisphere") vs The Sphere at 0 |
18 Mar 2006 08:41:12 AM |
|
|
"OsherD" <> wrote in message
news:1142663454.494357.99860@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
From Osher Doctorow
The unit sphere in spherical coordinates is:
1) rho = 1
Let's convert this to Probable Influence/Causation by subtracting rho
from both sides:
2) 0 = 1 - rho
Now comes the strangest part. Add 0 to both sides, which although it
doesn't change anything numerically, has the following familiar form:
3) 0 = 1 + 0 - rho = P(rho --> 0) = 1 + y - x (y = P(AB) = 0, x = P(A)
= rho)
Equation (3) says that the probability of the radius rho of the sphere
influencing the center 0 of the sphere is 0, which by (1) occurs when
the radius of the sphere equals 1.
but, you started with a unit sphere
A Probable Influence/Causation of 0 means that 1 and 0 have "lost
contact causally". This is what we expect at infinity, but not at
radius 1 if radius 1 just is another numerical value.
but you are using a unit sphere
Readers who followed my postings at geometry.research in previous
years, and to my recollection some postings here as well, may recall
that Probable Influence/Causation (PI) is a one-sided partial inverse
of the Euclidean distance-function/metric.
so PI is inverse distance like "per foot" ?
Define the "Proximity"
p(x, y) between x and y from the viewpoint of x as:
4) p(x, y) = 1 + y - x, 0 < = y < = x < = 1
The smallest distance between x and y occurs when x = y, in which case
the Euclidean distance is 0, but the quantity p(x, y) = 1. The
biggest distance between x and y for y < = x occurs when y = 0 and x =
1, precisely the case of (3) above, but equally important, for these
values p(x, y) = 1 + 0 - 1 = 0 whereas the Euclidean distance is 1.
Therefore, for the one-sided case y < = x specified by (4), the
proximity function and the Euclidean distance function are "inverses"
at 0 and 1 (one is 0 when the other is 1, and vice versa). It turns
out that p(x, y) can be generalized to vectors x = (x1, x2, ..., xn), y
= (y1, y2, ..., yn) with x and y in (4) replaced by the arithmetic mean
of the coordinates of x and of y respectively, and everything still
goes through the same with the new expression pn(x, y) or p_n(x, y) = 1
+ y-bar - x-bar where y-bar is the arithmetic mean of y coordinates and
x-bar is the arithmetic mean of x coordinates.
Although the geometry.research readers reacted almost entirely with
silence since they didn't recognize novelty any more than physics
people,
google "novelty"
http://www.rinovelty.com/Products.asp?cat=novelties&sub=NOJK
the unit sphere/ball
(note the unit ball bounces, the unit sphere does not)
in Euclidean distance equals the
"infinite" proximity/Probable Influence/Causation sphere/ball (coded as
1) in proximity representation.
There may well be "something" beyond the unit sphere/ball in Euclidean
distance, but whatever it is, it's
there it is;
arguably
in a different phase. 1
represents "infinity" in our phase.
Osher Doctorow
"Happy Phase" reruns are still on TV
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity 24: The Sphere At Infinity ("Antisphere") vs The Sphere at 0 |
18 Mar 2006 12:46:49 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
This doesn't mean that you have to normalize/standardize Euclidean
distance or even Non-Euclidean distance for practical purposes. It
does mean that when you interpret "infinite" distance or "closed
Euclidean or Non-
Euclidean space", as having some meaning, you had better make sure that
you are not violating the results from the unit sphere representation.
In the unit sphere representation with the proximity function, there is
no such thing as a "finite closed universe". For the proximity
function to approach 1 (which is equivalent to 0 distance or "direct
tangency") or to approach 0 (which is equivalent to infinite distance)
involves no "finite closedness", no barrier.
In the previous section on "Baez vs Doctorow", I pointed out that
functional analysis can lead to Baez' viewpoint or to alternative
viewpoints depending on such things as the unit sphere in functional
analysis. Here in probability and "proximity-geometry", I think that
you can see why rather directly. It is not only physics that is
plagued with paradoxes and the undesirable type of anomalies, but also
mathematics including geometry and topology. A small change in axioms,
not just in the parallel postulate of Euclidean geometry, and there is
a "different physics", whether we call it a Non-Euclidean or a
Nonconformist physics (I prefer the latter name).
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|