AlphaNumeric
1st December 2006 - 08:44 PM
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 1 2006, 09:17 PM)
I told you this for 19 times...
IRONY ALERT!!! WARNING, EXTREMELY HIGH IRONY LEVELS
mott.carl
1st December 2006 - 10:51 PM
can there is space-time quanta,as lattices contiguos,then the atoms and quantas
are deformations of tissues of space-time,that generates the "holes" that are
encapsulated locally energies,that "cut" the space-time and two quantic subspaces,and so until the infinite.then have the motion in space-time intervals,each one contiguos at the others.then the the quantizations are generated
by the space-times curves then in that curvatures haves the events past and futures that already unified by nets of informations send to the future,and that twisted remit that information to the past,in circularity of the motions.then STR and
STG is linked to the quantas as supertimes and superspaces that are metrics of
space-time through of riemannian topology geometry,that are the geons that leads
to the communications amongs the events,distants of the universe,as principle of mach that turn the gravity as reactions of the inetial generated simultaneouly by all the mass of universe.then the gravity are reactions produced by the smallers particles of the bodies,as if lift a body in the gravitational fieldof earth the resistence is not due at the gravity of earth,but yes due the influences of all the
others particles that are the somatorium of all the masses of the universe.
then the curvatures of space-time are compremied,and therefore the curvatures
of space-time when suffer breakdown,it is,the space-time is twisted itself,and are
the quantum in space-times
AlphaNumeric
1st December 2006 - 11:09 PM
^ Looks like someone flicked through a page on supersymmetry during his travels through Google, with the mention of 'superspace' or perhaps he's just adding prefixes to things because he wants to sound fancy.
What's a quantic subspace? Why do space-time curves get generated by 'nets of information'? What's a 'geon'? What's a 'somatorium'? What does space-time suffering 'breakdown' mean?
Another jumble of gibberish from Mott.
Zephir
1st December 2006 - 11:48 PM
I can see a certain flaw in our understanding of emptiness as a zero energy field. The zero is the manifestation of some equilibrium state. But each the zero energy can be even lower, decreasing towards the negative values. Whereas the true emptiness should be formed by the negative infinity, which cannot be lower furthermore.
By such way, each the observed zero energy field, like the vacuum, is the state of infinite positive energy density, in fact. This gives some sense, because by the
AWT each the matter/energy is mediated by the environment formed by the even higher mass/energy density.
StevenA
2nd December 2006 - 01:36 AM
I agree, Nick, though it might not even be a uniform grid.
Field theories have a problem with handling discrete events - you might try to place discrete, point like, particles into an infinite field or continuum, but then you end up having a problem trying to describe the field through which they interact - at some point you have to be able to turn something into a 1 or 0, yes or no etc.
Instead if you quantize both space (time comes in discrete events and under relativity time = distance anyway, so distances would be quantized) and the particles within it, then you can simultaneous have what appear to be point like particles, but with spacial characteristics as well (as each "cell" of space occupies a finite time or volume and you're dealing with ratios of real integers without infinities or singularities).
So particles don't need to have a separate field - whatever "cell" of space they're in (which might not even be a uniform physical grid) becomes the field as interactions could occur at that cell. In this case there might appear to be a "particle" of space that appears to create fields of interaction and could inhabit a volume of space (possible variable volume, depending upon the density of other particles around it) and it could appear to be a catalyst for interactions between other particles, but doesn't exist as a physical particle detectable in isolation (much like quarks can only be found in pairs and appear to have some strong binding force that doesn't appear to be altered by distance).
You can generate what appear to be uniform fields by using massive recursion and iterating a small number of operations on a large scale. When you average results or look at diffusion over time, you get nice spherical shapes and the appearance of a Euclidean space, but you don't actually need that as an underlying "fabric" of space - statistics smooths out the rough edges, until you look close up at the details.
Nick
2nd December 2006 - 03:29 AM
QUOTE (StevenA+Dec 2 2006, 01:36 AM)
I agree, Nick, though it might not even be a uniform grid.
You can generate what appear to be uniform fields by using massive recursion and iterating a small number of operations on a large scale. When you average results or look at diffusion over time, you get nice spherical shapes and the appearance of a Euclidean space, but you don't actually need that as an underlying "fabric" of space - statistics smooths out the rough edges, until you look close up at the details.
The grid must be curved.
Nick
2nd December 2006 - 07:24 PM
It looks like matter can be in only certain "quantized" places along a space-time grid. This is Planck Space-Time. How long matter can be at any given point in the grid is a function of quatized time. Look at graph paper. That is the analogy of quantized space.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Fell --
StevenA
2nd December 2006 - 09:04 PM
QUOTE (Nick+Dec 2 2006, 07:24 PM)
It looks like matter can be in only certain "quantized" places along a space-time grid. This is Planck Space-Time. How long matter can be at any given point in the grid is a function of quatized time. Look at graph paper. That is the analogy of quantized space.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Fell --
I agree it can't be entirely uniform, or at least if everything in the universe was entirely uniform, you wouldn't be able to distinguish anything in this uniformity. Generally, the non-uniformities are assigned to particles, but you could possibly assign the non-uniformity to space itself, with the observation of particles being similar to a focal point of some spacial feature or a characteristic resonant pathway through space etc.
The uniform, spherical Euclidean characteristics we see to space could easily result from averaging observations on large scales. If you take a sponge, with many irregular features within it, and place a drop of water on it, the water, given enough time, appears to spread in a roughly spherical manner, though almost none of the individual motions of water molecules actually moved outward in this fashion, but statistically over the long haul, this uniform spherical pattern is seen. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion)
So uniformity can appear to dominate over large scales, but not necessarily exist in a similar fashion at extremely small scales.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.