| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Rushtown" |
| Date: |
22 Nov 2004 09:00:27 PM |
| Object: |
What is a dimension? |
Curled up dimensions determine sub atomic particles and the forces of nature.
Uncoupled dimensions determine the "big bang". Dimensions also create time and
space.
So if I figure out what a dimension is, and why it exists, I will have a theory
of everything.
I cannot start with any laws, or mathematical formulas because these are
created by the form the curled up dimensions take. Seeing that math is not
involved I am on a par with Penny and Uncle Al in figuring out this problem.
(in fact I am ahead because math does not get in the way.)
So here's the solution. There are no rules and laws therefore there are no
restrictions on what can exist. Hence everything exists somewhere and
somewhen. (more latter in Part II)
.
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a dimension? |
23 Nov 2004 11:48:01 AM |
|
|
(Rushtown) wrote in message news:<20041122220027.06349.00000621@mb-m27.aol.com>...
Curled up dimensions determine sub atomic particles and the forces of nature.
Uncoupled dimensions determine the "big bang". Dimensions also create time and
space.
So if I figure out what a dimension is, and why it exists, I will have a theory
of everything.
Some say the concept of the dimension is exactly the problem with a
theory of everything.
Phill Gibbs suggests getting rid of space-time as a medium, which
eliminates its chances of being comprised of real dimensions:
"Just as Einstein banished the ether as a medium for electromagnetism
we must now complete his work by banishing space-time as a medium for
string theory. The result will be a model in which space-time is
recovered as a result of the relationship between interacting
strings."
http://adela.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~motl/Gibbs/metaphys.htm
And of course there is the discussion of background free physics:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/background.html
Of course there is dispute as to how far a background free theory must
go.
So here's the solution. There are no rules and laws therefore there are no
restrictions on what can exist. Hence everything exists somewhere and
somewhen. (more latter in Part II)
While I'm not sure its a wise idea to say there are no rules or laws,
I will agree that everything that exists must exist somewhere at
sometime as something.
In fact, building on this idea, and the idea that there are no
dimensions for space or time, we arrive at the following:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Enjoy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a dimension? |
23 Nov 2004 04:45:01 PM |
|
|
(Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<11990c07.0411230948.5177dc94@posting.google.com>...
<...>
In fact, building on this idea, and the idea that there are no
dimensions for space or time, we arrive at the following:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
In here you write:
"This conjecture defines time not as a prerequisite of things changing
in nature, but instead as a result of things changing in nature".
I agree with you completely. If you google sci.physics for "logically
prior to space and time" or "stuff happens",green (include my name on
the latter, as the phrase is much more common) you will find some of
my maunderings in this vein going back to '97, which include related
thoughts related to the second law.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a dimension? |
23 Nov 2004 12:07:31 PM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
Some say the concept of the dimension is exactly the problem with a
theory of everything.
There is no theory of everything, Helland.
Dimension is well defined
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dimension.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a dimension? |
23 Nov 2004 01:43:57 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Mike Helland wrote:
Some say the concept of the dimension is exactly the problem with a
theory of everything.
There is no theory of everything, Helland.
In one of my cites John Baez said this "I often argue that a good
theory of quantum gravity should be background-free."
When I say "theory of everything" I mean a hypothetical model of
quantum gravity. You are right that it doesn't exist, but I think we
all knew what was meant.
--
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a dimension? |
23 Nov 2004 01:48:17 PM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Mike Helland wrote:
Some say the concept of the dimension is exactly the problem with a
theory of everything.
There is no theory of everything, Helland.
In one of my cites John Baez said this "I often argue that a good
theory of quantum gravity should be background-free."
When I say "theory of everything" I mean a hypothetical model of
quantum gravity. You are right that it doesn't exist, but I think we
all knew what was meant.
Fair enought.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Golden" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a dimension? |
23 Nov 2004 09:42:09 AM |
|
|
(Rushtown) wrote in message news:<20041122220027.06349.00000621@mb-m27.aol.com>...
Curled up dimensions determine sub atomic particles and the forces of nature.
Uncoupled dimensions determine the "big bang". Dimensions also create time and
space.
So if I figure out what a dimension is, and why it exists, I will have a theory
of everything.
Well it may not be quite that simple but suppose your theory yielded
three extended dimensions as a natural consequence? I think people
would look very seriously at it. Using this as a principle to get to a
unified theory is a matter of philosophy more than anything. If you
seek unification under this principle what do you call yourself? I
would propose the word "triality" or "trialist". Reality is built on a
three (real numbered) dimensional basis. Triality derives these three
dimensions out of a more primitive basis.
I believe that a trialist would reject a string theory that assumes
three extended dimensions. A trialist can prove that there are three
spatial dimensions and asks why that is so, with the hope that the
answer points to a lot of other answers too.
Curled up dimensions are a fine concept but not as long as they sit
side by side with three predefined spatial dimensions. That's not
unification.
-Tim
I cannot start with any laws, or mathematical formulas because these are
created by the form the curled up dimensions take. Seeing that math is not
involved I am on a par with Penny and Uncle Al in figuring out this problem.
(in fact I am ahead because math does not get in the way.)
So here's the solution. There are no rules and laws therefore there are no
restrictions on what can exist. Hence everything exists somewhere and
somewhen. (more latter in Part II)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Guy Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a dimension? |
23 Nov 2004 12:58:31 AM |
|
|
(Rushtown) wrote:
I cannot start with any laws, or mathematical formulas because these are
created by the form the curled up dimensions take.
Wait a minute. Is that a rule? How do you know that?
So here's the solution. There are no rules and laws therefore there are no
restrictions on what can exist. Hence everything exists somewhere and
somewhen. (more latter in Part II)
Try eastern mysticism.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a dimension? |
22 Nov 2004 10:28:07 PM |
|
|
Dimension
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dimension.html
Time
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Time.html
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Garbi" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a dimension? |
23 Nov 2004 01:14:40 PM |
|
|
Like Mr. Helland, I would tend to agree that time is not a medium that
allows for change. As Sam's link points out, for all practical purposes
(and to summarize what that whole big mess about math and dimensions is
saying) a dimension is a property that can be measured. Its order is
determined by the minimum number of coordinates necessary to identify a
specific "location".
In the broader sense, a dimension seems to have been construed into meaning
"a medium in which something can exist."
According to the specific definition (above), technically, space is simply
one dimension but of the third order. Time is one dimension of the first
order. The second definition seems to be where disagreements arise. I
think I can put the final nail in that coffin. . .
Space and time expressed in terms of the second definition would state:
Space: The medium in which (that allows) matter and energy (to) exist.
Time: The medium in which (that allows) matter and energy (to) change.
The problem with this is that we know both space and time are relative.
Some may find (or claim to find) faults in Special Relativity and General
Relativity, but the experimental data shows the concept to hold up very
definitely. A true medium in which things exist could NOT be relative.
(Are you following me?) So what exactly are space and time relative to?
The concensus in science: Spacetime. The term spacetime was not coined to
mean the combination of space and time. Einstein made a clear distinction
and so do any credible scientists and cosmologists. Rather, spacetime
refers to the background which gives rise to both space and time. Without
spacetime, there could be no space and there could be no time.
In other words, spacetime is the medium. Space and Time are measurements
made relative to this medium. It is clear that space and time should not be
thought of as entities. It is spacetime that we are searching to define.
Space and time are both dependent on a something - this "spacetime".
Now let me just pose these questions for thought: 1) What are the
measurements of space dependent on? 2) What is the measure of time
dependent on?
1) Space typically measures distance between two bodies of matter. It
doesn't HAVE to be matter, they can be arbitrary points, but the points in
space are always relative to matter for the purposes of physics. With math,
you can just use numbers to represent coordinates in 3D space, and you might
argue that there is no matter in the equations. But these coordinates are
always relative to the origin (0,0,0) which implies a "something" to measure
relative to. And what is matter dependent on? What constitutes matter at
the most basic level? Energy.
2) Time measures change - usually motion. It doesn't have to be the motion
of matter, though. Light, heat, and other electromagnetic waves move
through space in the absense of matter . So by what is motion defined?
Energy.
Without energy, there can be no matter. Without energy, there can be no
fluxuations to define one point from another. Without energy, there can be
no movement or motion. Without energy, there is no change. Without energy,
there could be no space and there could be no time.
Jeremy
"Rushtown" <rushtown@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041122220027.06349.00000621@mb-m27.aol.com...
Curled up dimensions determine sub atomic particles and the forces of
nature.
Uncoupled dimensions determine the "big bang". Dimensions also create time
and
space.
So if I figure out what a dimension is, and why it exists, I will have a
theory
of everything.
I cannot start with any laws, or mathematical formulas because these are
created by the form the curled up dimensions take. Seeing that math is
not
involved I am on a par with Penny and Uncle Al in figuring out this
problem.
(in fact I am ahead because math does not get in the way.)
So here's the solution. There are no rules and laws therefore there are no
restrictions on what can exist. Hence everything exists somewhere and
somewhen. (more latter in Part II)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a dimension? |
23 Nov 2004 02:04:40 PM |
|
|
Garbi wrote:
Like Mr. Helland, I would tend to agree that time is not a medium
that
allows for change.
I'm glad to hear that. This mindset seems to be growing, though the
full implications of it are still fairly unknown.
Without energy, there can be no matter. Without energy, there can be
no
fluxuations to define one point from another. Without energy, there
can be
no movement or motion. Without energy, there is no change. Without
energy,
there could be no space and there could be no time.
I think that one of those implications is how energy actually fits into
the Universe. I don't think it is a fundamental entity. I'll expain:
"Lets start out with a mass of ten grams in space. Space itself doesn't
require coordinates, but for the sake of our description of this mass
in space we will place it at the three-dimensional coordinate 0,0,0.
Next we will add to our description the state of the ten gram mass one
second after the original state.
If the mass has changed position to coordinates 0,0,4, then using the
formula v = dx/dt we could say that between the two states the change
in the position is 4 and the change in time is one second so the
velocity of the described object is 4 coordinates per second.
We see that describing a phenomenon in the terms of matter, space, and
time allows us to derive another term in physics, velocity. As another
example, acceleration emerges from a change in velocity, therefore
adding a third state to our description where the object is at 0,0,12
two seconds after the initial state we can say that there is
acceleration because of the change in velocity. Combine the mass of the
object with its acceleration and you can create force. And of course,
force makes power and energy attainable"
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
So I think that speaking about nature we only need to assume that
matter, space, and time are fundamental, and the rest, including
energy, are secondary.
It seems to be consistent anyways.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Garbi" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a dimension? |
23 Nov 2004 02:48:07 PM |
|
|
Well put. But without energy, mass (and matter) cannot exist. Nor can
matter move or change position without energy being applied. Matter is
simply one of the many forms of energy. I doubt I need to explain the
concept of the atomic bomb.
As far as the math is concerned, you are right. The three spatial
dimensions and time allow us to model motion independently of energy.
However, in order to apply these functions physically, we must add energy to
the equation (usually in the form of mass). So equations can be written in
terms of x, y, z, and t. But they hold no physical meaning until applied to
some form of energy.
We don't state energy in terms of a coordinate system. (At least, I haven't
figured out how yet.) But energy is the entity which gives meaning to the
x,y,z,t coordinate system. Think of space and time as the axes drawn on the
paper. Energy (or spacetime, if you prefer) is the paper on which they are
drawn.
"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1101240280.819487.254140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Garbi wrote:
Like Mr. Helland, I would tend to agree that time is not a medium
that
allows for change.
I'm glad to hear that. This mindset seems to be growing, though the
full implications of it are still fairly unknown.
Without energy, there can be no matter. Without energy, there can be
no
fluxuations to define one point from another. Without energy, there
can be
no movement or motion. Without energy, there is no change. Without
energy,
there could be no space and there could be no time.
I think that one of those implications is how energy actually fits into
the Universe. I don't think it is a fundamental entity. I'll expain:
"Lets start out with a mass of ten grams in space. Space itself doesn't
require coordinates, but for the sake of our description of this mass
in space we will place it at the three-dimensional coordinate 0,0,0.
Next we will add to our description the state of the ten gram mass one
second after the original state.
If the mass has changed position to coordinates 0,0,4, then using the
formula v = dx/dt we could say that between the two states the change
in the position is 4 and the change in time is one second so the
velocity of the described object is 4 coordinates per second.
We see that describing a phenomenon in the terms of matter, space, and
time allows us to derive another term in physics, velocity. As another
example, acceleration emerges from a change in velocity, therefore
adding a third state to our description where the object is at 0,0,12
two seconds after the initial state we can say that there is
acceleration because of the change in velocity. Combine the mass of the
object with its acceleration and you can create force. And of course,
force makes power and energy attainable"
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
So I think that speaking about nature we only need to assume that
matter, space, and time are fundamental, and the rest, including
energy, are secondary.
It seems to be consistent anyways.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a dimension? |
24 Nov 2004 12:43:03 PM |
|
|
"Garbi" <jeremyh@bdssc.com> wrote in message news:<41a3c7ac$1_2@127.0.0.1>...
Well put. But without energy, mass (and matter) cannot exist. Nor can
matter move or change position without energy being applied.
Yes, but is energy a prerequisite for these things, or a consequence
of these things?
From the math, and even from your words, it is not unambiguous, thouhg
the word "applied" does suggest that it is prerequisite.
Personally, I would say "nor can matter move or change position
without energy being present in the system" eliminating the need for
energy as a prerequisite.
I know that this view of energy is even harder to adjust to than the
similar views on time, but I think its worth some strong
consideration.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Golden" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a dimension? |
12 Dec 2004 01:13:45 PM |
|
|
Suppose that the higher dimensions were 'fuzzy' as opposed to closed
curls.
This would make them hard to measure.
This is exactly what polysigned numbers are demonstrating beyond sign
3.
When a product of two numbers is taken the magnitudes don't come out as
the product of the magnitudes. This I am calling 'fuzzy'.
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/MagnitudeAnalysis.html
-Tim
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
What's beyond the edge of universe ? Another dimension. Question that should be ask is...
What is a dimension II
Re: Please excuse my ignorance, but what is a smart model?
Off center perpendicular force acting on a free uniform rod in space.What happens?
What's New -- Friday, February 20, 2004
Account of what is concretely, physically (and not abstractly, mathematically) the universe, and of what we have to do in :
What a kook! was Re: Crop Circles are Schematics
The conspiracy is real. But to what degree?
| Re: Is it warm in MN or what? Brad must be busy raking leaves and mowing lawns!
What if the Nazis had kindness?
To know at last, what is not mathematically but really, concretely, simply the universe, and what we have to do in it :
what FTL characteristics don't violate Relativity?
What limis the coefficient of performance of a heat pump?
What are the vibrational speeds of atoms/molecules in a solid?
What's involved in lights creation?
|
|
|
