http://www.physorg.com/news72547607.html
the time being generated by two opposite directions imply that the non-linearity of instants that occur cann"t se measured with precision,but explain the strange questions of the quantic theory imply and is explicated by the bifuacations that generate in that space-time by two opposed directions,with multiples continuities of space-time that are bifurcations that occur,by particles and antiparticles be not completely symmetrics,and that others continuities
contigous that generate the our phenomenus.then the decayment double of K-meson,and the not existence of some antineutrinos with of differen oscillation,imply that there are multiples continuities of space-time with light speeds faster that the value known by us.then there are metrics differents to the space-time curvatures,but these subuniverse are coupleds.then non-local are possibles and are relationed with hidden variables that imply at first hand,that past and future aren"t symmetrics,but with coupled of two oppossite torsions in a supersymmetry,occur the symmetry between past and future depending of our referntial system.that imply that know the future as know the past and both if influence mutualment,generating the phenomenous in the unioverse.then the objects is not real,but generated by multiples fields of forces,that depending of its frequency,wavelenght,intensity,amplitud
are given the unity of mass of energy in motion the vibration only one in the space-time-thatis reversaltime-
in the consonance of symmetry of left-handed and right-handed.then these factors can to explain the properties exotics of some particles.
an example being M theory. Yeah Yeah. Though I haven't heard it applied to time asymetry. So you are saying interactions backwards in time also spin off alternate universes. From our perspective we will only see the time oriented result after most of the others have cancelled each other out. Does time travel backwards in the 11th dimension. anyway...
All this talk of consciousness gives me the shits. Surely all that is needed is any time oriented agent to trigger the choice of measuring a wave vs measuring a particle. Can't we consciously design a switch whose setting is governed by a chaotic field. Why not let schrodingers cat pick one at random.
Its the measurement aparatus that is important. All this talk of consciousness is exactly what is giving the mystics the justification for all their rationalisations.
All this talk of consciousness gives me the shits. Surely all that is needed is any time oriented agent to trigger the choice of measuring a wave vs measuring a particle. Can't we consciously design a switch whose setting is governed by a chaotic field. Why not let schrodingers cat pick one at random.
Its the measurement aparatus that is important. All this talk of consciousness is exactly what is giving the mystics the justification for all their rationalisations.
elementary particles move into space only and not into time
in the space time does not run on its own, it runs only as material change
material change itself is time that runs into a-temporal space
this concept resolves EPR expeiment in an elegant way
in the space time does not run on its own, it runs only as material change
material change itself is time that runs into a-temporal space
this concept resolves EPR expeiment in an elegant way
QUOTE (antonio pacobi+)
the time being generated by two opposite directions imply that the non-linearity of instants that occur cann"t be measured with precision
It could be a mistake to assume the fundamental unit is motion. It could be time instead and that we interprete things over time as creating a space.
There's physical evidence of time ... you can taste, touch, feel, see etc. events, but you can't taste, touch, see, smell etc. space. So if time and space don't always agree, which one is the mental construction of the other?
Of course this agrees with relativity in the sense that the universe is not the same for all observers, because not everyone shares the same perception of time. So the space and motion an observer perceives are fundamentally determined by a variable and subjective time.
We're limited in a way to measuring time as discrete events, and if we're going to equate time with space or distance, as in relativity, then distances should be discrete to.
So how can you work with discrete distances?
Well the non-integer, irrational values in distances come when you try to create a uniform Euclidean approximation of dimensions by saying that d^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + ...
When you calculate d (or for relativity, equivalently time), you have to take the square root of the sum of the squares. Why would time be the square root of anything? Time is fundamentally a physical chronology of discrete events instead. If you have to the take the square root and use an irrational value then it's obviously an approximation.
We also know energy comes in discrete units, and so does time physically, so why not motion? A single unit of motion in a single dimension would seem the fundamental unit of motion.
I believe the reason we don't see space as having preferred orientations along specific dimensional axises is because the motions are too complex and become obscured on small scales, so we instead use a Brownian interpretation of space and see matter as average diffusions.
When you square the distance in a dimension, small displacements become less significant in favor of weighting the larger motions more heavily and this comes at the expend of treating dimensions independently and equating them with each other approximate - so instead of seeing a grid with independent axises of energy, location and angle (or whatever fundamental units are used), these are warped into a circular space by our approximate physical interpretations so that the individual units become less distinguishable from each other.
(It's interesting that Einstein had also worked on Brownian motion and describing friction and flows in mediums)
A couple related subjects:
Brownian Motion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion
Gaussian Distribution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_distribution
It could be a mistake to assume the fundamental unit is motion. It could be time instead and that we interprete things over time as creating a space.
There's physical evidence of time ... you can taste, touch, feel, see etc. events, but you can't taste, touch, see, smell etc. space. So if time and space don't always agree, which one is the mental construction of the other?
Of course this agrees with relativity in the sense that the universe is not the same for all observers, because not everyone shares the same perception of time. So the space and motion an observer perceives are fundamentally determined by a variable and subjective time.
We're limited in a way to measuring time as discrete events, and if we're going to equate time with space or distance, as in relativity, then distances should be discrete to.
So how can you work with discrete distances?
Well the non-integer, irrational values in distances come when you try to create a uniform Euclidean approximation of dimensions by saying that d^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + ...
When you calculate d (or for relativity, equivalently time), you have to take the square root of the sum of the squares. Why would time be the square root of anything? Time is fundamentally a physical chronology of discrete events instead. If you have to the take the square root and use an irrational value then it's obviously an approximation.
We also know energy comes in discrete units, and so does time physically, so why not motion? A single unit of motion in a single dimension would seem the fundamental unit of motion.
I believe the reason we don't see space as having preferred orientations along specific dimensional axises is because the motions are too complex and become obscured on small scales, so we instead use a Brownian interpretation of space and see matter as average diffusions.
When you square the distance in a dimension, small displacements become less significant in favor of weighting the larger motions more heavily and this comes at the expend of treating dimensions independently and equating them with each other approximate - so instead of seeing a grid with independent axises of energy, location and angle (or whatever fundamental units are used), these are warped into a circular space by our approximate physical interpretations so that the individual units become less distinguishable from each other.
(It's interesting that Einstein had also worked on Brownian motion and describing friction and flows in mediums)
A couple related subjects:
Brownian Motion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion
Gaussian Distribution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_distribution
There's physical evidence of time ... you can taste, touch, feel, see etc. events, but you can't taste, touch, see, smell etc. space. So if time and space don't always agree, which one is the mental construction of the other?
space and time are not mental constructions
they are physical reality's
time is a material change into a-temporal space
time is physical, space is physical
space and time are not mental constructions
they are physical reality's
time is a material change into a-temporal space
time is physical, space is physical
QUOTE (amrit+Sep 2 2006, 09:14 AM)
QUOTE (StevenA+)
There's physical evidence of time ... you can taste, touch, feel, see etc. events, but you can't taste, touch, see, smell etc. space. So if time and space don't always agree, which one is the mental construction of the other?
space and time are not mental constructions
they are physical reality's
time is a material change into a-temporal space
time is physical, space is physical
Time is detectable physically, but space isn't. Space is a mental construction.
If all you had was a sense of smell, what would space "look" like? I have little idea but it would consist of various focal points of smells and equivalent distances would be warped by the wind.
In this case you still have time operating as information communicated between particles, but the space they exist in only has a meaning derived from these interactions.
If no time exists, space is a meaningless concept. Everything we know exists in time. The space that's constructed to describe things is entirely dependent upon time.
If no space existed and time was simply a chaotic jumbled of unorganized events without spacial relationships, it would still be possible to perceive something (assuming it was a finite experience), even if it made absolutely no spacial sense.
When you see something, you're interpreting electromagnetic signals being propagated between objects. The distance or path this information took in order to be detected is subjective and intangible. If a photon strikes an atom, the only relevant event in that moment of time is the specific information that photon conveyed. The distance through space that it travelled, what it interacted prior to this or path it took getting there don't exist in that moment as that space is a non existant history in that moment.
The universe exists because events occur within it. Space itself doesn't create these events. You need to process information to have anything happen and that's time, not space. Space is a description of the network of connections through which this information flow, but it need not have any specific form at all for time to exist.
In a virtual reality simulation, space could be warped and altered almost any way you wanted, but the one thing you couldn't get rid of would be perceptions of time.
So if there's a disagreement between what we detect as an event in time, and what we envision happens in space, then the space needs to be reinterpreted because you can't change the past. Space isn't physical, so we can change it. Ultimately space is created as a statistical tool to describe correlations between information over time.
space and time are not mental constructions
they are physical reality's
time is a material change into a-temporal space
time is physical, space is physical
Time is detectable physically, but space isn't. Space is a mental construction.
If all you had was a sense of smell, what would space "look" like? I have little idea but it would consist of various focal points of smells and equivalent distances would be warped by the wind.
In this case you still have time operating as information communicated between particles, but the space they exist in only has a meaning derived from these interactions.
If no time exists, space is a meaningless concept. Everything we know exists in time. The space that's constructed to describe things is entirely dependent upon time.
If no space existed and time was simply a chaotic jumbled of unorganized events without spacial relationships, it would still be possible to perceive something (assuming it was a finite experience), even if it made absolutely no spacial sense.
When you see something, you're interpreting electromagnetic signals being propagated between objects. The distance or path this information took in order to be detected is subjective and intangible. If a photon strikes an atom, the only relevant event in that moment of time is the specific information that photon conveyed. The distance through space that it travelled, what it interacted prior to this or path it took getting there don't exist in that moment as that space is a non existant history in that moment.
The universe exists because events occur within it. Space itself doesn't create these events. You need to process information to have anything happen and that's time, not space. Space is a description of the network of connections through which this information flow, but it need not have any specific form at all for time to exist.
In a virtual reality simulation, space could be warped and altered almost any way you wanted, but the one thing you couldn't get rid of would be perceptions of time.
So if there's a disagreement between what we detect as an event in time, and what we envision happens in space, then the space needs to be reinterpreted because you can't change the past. Space isn't physical, so we can change it. Ultimately space is created as a statistical tool to describe correlations between information over time.
QUOTE (StevenA+Sep 2 2006, 10:19 AM)
In a virtual reality simulation, space could be warped and altered almost any way you wanted, but the one thing you couldn't get rid of would be perceptions of time.
In a virtual reality (digitally computed!?) EVERYTHING must be VIRTUAL. "Time" in that reality strongly depends on C-like delay(). But "real dynamics" behind is hardware's time. On screen would be "motion is time", but behind it "dynamics is time".
Really, sometimes it is very hard to make a difference (at least lexically) between the domains ("inner" and "outer") even if someone is (or going to be) fully aware of "it".
0-D "Observer" cannot be virtual.
Only thoughts and hints: G, h, c - could they be virtual? Or e.g. h is a secure sign of an "outer, hardware's" reality!?
In a virtual reality (digitally computed!?) EVERYTHING must be VIRTUAL. "Time" in that reality strongly depends on C-like delay(). But "real dynamics" behind is hardware's time. On screen would be "motion is time", but behind it "dynamics is time".
Really, sometimes it is very hard to make a difference (at least lexically) between the domains ("inner" and "outer") even if someone is (or going to be) fully aware of "it".
0-D "Observer" cannot be virtual.
Only thoughts and hints: G, h, c - could they be virtual? Or e.g. h is a secure sign of an "outer, hardware's" reality!?
QUOTE (Turya+)
0-D "Observer" cannot be virtual.
That's the way I see it. All the information gets funneled to a point (or various points) and it's only by sharing interactions via a single object that relative comparisons of times and energies are possible.
When people talk about observers, I see it as ultimately being a single particulate object. That seems the only way any single "observer" could exist, whether it be a specific quark or photon etc. One object has to somehow interact with multiple pieces of information in order for the comparisons to truly be "local".
That's the way I see it. All the information gets funneled to a point (or various points) and it's only by sharing interactions via a single object that relative comparisons of times and energies are possible.
When people talk about observers, I see it as ultimately being a single particulate object. That seems the only way any single "observer" could exist, whether it be a specific quark or photon etc. One object has to somehow interact with multiple pieces of information in order for the comparisons to truly be "local".
QUOTE (Turya+)
Only thoughts and hints: G, h, c - could they be virtual? Or e.g. h is a secure sign of an "outer, hardware's" reality!?
I'd say the gravitational constant is empirical ... we simply measure a lot of things and average them, so it's a statistical value that could potentially be warped statistically (statistics is a mental concept ... the past doesn't physically exist, but we can understand that if we're already seen 50 apples fall at X meters/s^2, then the next one will likely do about the same thing
)
I think light speed is statistical in the same way and violations on small scales appear possible.
Plancks constant though ... I think that's likely a real fundamental. That's my guess at least. The statistical properties of it could be easily due to our statistical understanding of spacial distances on macroscales and not being able to directly witness the underlying dimensional construction of the universe.
At some point for time to appear as discrete events, there seems to truly need to be a fundamental unit of something. The infinite spaces and waves etc. don't really provide such an ability well (the wave characteristics of a photon are statistical constructions but physically photons end up acting like particles ... so given a doubt, I'd say the mentally imagined wavelike statistical approximations aren't giving the full picture ... of course the conflict is obvious to many, but specifically where the error stems from isn't as clear, though it seems the wave description is likely where the problem originates and this wave is also associated with light speeds and distances or space and inertia in general)
If photons were truly a wave, what part of that potentially infinite wave are we seeing when we get a "blip" for a photon? What if the characteristics of the detector and photon weren't identical? It seems you could have almost another entire branch of science develop simply to explain how two infinite and possibly not even identical objects see each other in quantized ways ... I won't say it's impossible, but it just seems overkill, especially when at small scales quantization appears to rule most things.
Consider that if two particles weren't exactly identical, how would you compare them to make any decisions regarding them? If you use another operation that supports infinite precision, like subtraction, you get another infinitely precise result. Of if you measure ratios, you get an infinitely long ratio, so these operations wouldn't create a discrete value. But you could use comparisons as in greater than or less than, or equality comparisions so that something is equal (or the same) or not. But in either of these cases the results are finite and the infinite scales rather irrelevant. You could replace such infinite values with a sequential ordering and get the same universe.
Like let's say three particles exist with energies of 1.372..., 2.7931... and 4.121...
Now if can only make discrete measurements of them in the form of <, = or > comparisons, well if they're infinite, then equality will likely never occur (the probability dies off to virutally nothing as the precision becomes longer).
So in the case if you were to simply make relative comparisons of energies then the values could easily be equated to 1, 2 and 3 and the universe would "look" the same.
Though if you add additional operations like division, subtraction and multiplication things become a bit different ...
If you could perform such operations while maintaining the original values, then some tricks could be done to quickly estimate a large number of digits for each particle ... but at least quantum mechanics doesn't seem to allow for such unobtrusive investigations ... so far. (I guess I'm not entirely certain of this. Back propogation has been claimed to allow a way to get over this partly and happens to also be seen as associated with consciousness ... I don't know. Just thinking ...)
Anyway, maybe it's a personal thing but to me it seems something is the same or it isn't and even magnitude comparisons between things that aren't the same result in a similar binary result of greater than or less than. If there are ways of physically circumventing this limitation to reveal more that discrete information about a particle, then maybe there are ways around it, so I might be assuming too much and am open to suggestions, but that's the way I see it for now.
But just as another example of what I believe is happening, consider two binary bit streams being sent through an "AND" operation that only transmits a one when both inputs are 1 simultaneously.
The output probability of a 1 is proportional to the input probabilities for 1s in each stream multiplied together. So is we two streams 100 units long and one stream has 40 of those randomly 1 and the has 70% 1s, then the average number of ones in the output would be 40% * 70% = 28%. So such an and operation on a small scales appears like multiplication. There are waves to use such simple operations to approximate squares, division, subtraction and addition (to an extent), exponential decay etc. So large numbers of very small operations can appear similar to a flat analog space, but that's only because we aren't seeing these individual bits but using large averages. I believe if we can untangle the 'bit operations' involved, many things that appear physical limits on large scales are only probabilistic limits and it's smiply a matter of "rigging" the dice to roll differently (But of course the Uncertainy Principle is an issue because you can't do this easily without getting lucky ... so you're stuck rolling dice to create something that biases die rolls ... that's a challenge).
I'd say the gravitational constant is empirical ... we simply measure a lot of things and average them, so it's a statistical value that could potentially be warped statistically (statistics is a mental concept ... the past doesn't physically exist, but we can understand that if we're already seen 50 apples fall at X meters/s^2, then the next one will likely do about the same thing
)I think light speed is statistical in the same way and violations on small scales appear possible.
Plancks constant though ... I think that's likely a real fundamental. That's my guess at least. The statistical properties of it could be easily due to our statistical understanding of spacial distances on macroscales and not being able to directly witness the underlying dimensional construction of the universe.
At some point for time to appear as discrete events, there seems to truly need to be a fundamental unit of something. The infinite spaces and waves etc. don't really provide such an ability well (the wave characteristics of a photon are statistical constructions but physically photons end up acting like particles ... so given a doubt, I'd say the mentally imagined wavelike statistical approximations aren't giving the full picture ... of course the conflict is obvious to many, but specifically where the error stems from isn't as clear, though it seems the wave description is likely where the problem originates and this wave is also associated with light speeds and distances or space and inertia in general)
If photons were truly a wave, what part of that potentially infinite wave are we seeing when we get a "blip" for a photon? What if the characteristics of the detector and photon weren't identical? It seems you could have almost another entire branch of science develop simply to explain how two infinite and possibly not even identical objects see each other in quantized ways ... I won't say it's impossible, but it just seems overkill, especially when at small scales quantization appears to rule most things.
Consider that if two particles weren't exactly identical, how would you compare them to make any decisions regarding them? If you use another operation that supports infinite precision, like subtraction, you get another infinitely precise result. Of if you measure ratios, you get an infinitely long ratio, so these operations wouldn't create a discrete value. But you could use comparisons as in greater than or less than, or equality comparisions so that something is equal (or the same) or not. But in either of these cases the results are finite and the infinite scales rather irrelevant. You could replace such infinite values with a sequential ordering and get the same universe.
Like let's say three particles exist with energies of 1.372..., 2.7931... and 4.121...
Now if can only make discrete measurements of them in the form of <, = or > comparisons, well if they're infinite, then equality will likely never occur (the probability dies off to virutally nothing as the precision becomes longer).
So in the case if you were to simply make relative comparisons of energies then the values could easily be equated to 1, 2 and 3 and the universe would "look" the same.
Though if you add additional operations like division, subtraction and multiplication things become a bit different ...
If you could perform such operations while maintaining the original values, then some tricks could be done to quickly estimate a large number of digits for each particle ... but at least quantum mechanics doesn't seem to allow for such unobtrusive investigations ... so far. (I guess I'm not entirely certain of this. Back propogation has been claimed to allow a way to get over this partly and happens to also be seen as associated with consciousness ... I don't know. Just thinking ...)
Anyway, maybe it's a personal thing but to me it seems something is the same or it isn't and even magnitude comparisons between things that aren't the same result in a similar binary result of greater than or less than. If there are ways of physically circumventing this limitation to reveal more that discrete information about a particle, then maybe there are ways around it, so I might be assuming too much and am open to suggestions, but that's the way I see it for now.
But just as another example of what I believe is happening, consider two binary bit streams being sent through an "AND" operation that only transmits a one when both inputs are 1 simultaneously.
The output probability of a 1 is proportional to the input probabilities for 1s in each stream multiplied together. So is we two streams 100 units long and one stream has 40 of those randomly 1 and the has 70% 1s, then the average number of ones in the output would be 40% * 70% = 28%. So such an and operation on a small scales appears like multiplication. There are waves to use such simple operations to approximate squares, division, subtraction and addition (to an extent), exponential decay etc. So large numbers of very small operations can appear similar to a flat analog space, but that's only because we aren't seeing these individual bits but using large averages. I believe if we can untangle the 'bit operations' involved, many things that appear physical limits on large scales are only probabilistic limits and it's smiply a matter of "rigging" the dice to roll differently
(But of course the Uncertainy Principle is an issue because you can't do this easily without getting lucky ... so you're stuck rolling dice to create something that biases die rolls ... that's a challenge).
steven a
If no time exists, space is a meaningless concept. Everything we know exists in time. The space that's constructed to describe things is entirely dependent upon time.
amrit
time exists, time is physical, time is material change into space
space itself is a-temporal
time does not run into space on its own
there is no time beyond material change
time = material change
If no time exists, space is a meaningless concept. Everything we know exists in time. The space that's constructed to describe things is entirely dependent upon time.
amrit
time exists, time is physical, time is material change into space
space itself is a-temporal
time does not run into space on its own
there is no time beyond material change
time = material change
QUOTE (amrit+Sep 3 2006, 08:22 AM)
steven a
If no time exists, space is a meaningless concept. Everything we know exists in time. The space that's constructed to describe things is entirely dependent upon time.
amrit
time exists, time is physical, time is material change into space
space itself is a-temporal
time does not run into space on its own
there is no time beyond material change
time = material change
Ok, I think I agree with that one (not that people have to agree on anything, but of course it's nice when it happens).
You could remove space and if you left the sequence of "material changes" intact the universe would look the same as it does now. I don't mean to say that space doesn't exist. In fact it's a valuable tool in understanding how things work and the more clear a view of it, the better our understanding is. The main point is just that we don't actually "see" or otherwise physically detect space directly. Space is indirectly understood by using memories of the past (or time) and finding patterns and relationships to these "material changes", as you say.
Then again, space may be just as real as memory (I'll admit I've said space acts like a memory before) and memories are real in the sense that they could be seen as processes in the brain or possibly as potential or kinetic energy stored in a particle (which interestingly enough would be associated with motions through space).
Ok, let's break this down to binary (I'm a digital guy so that's my natural reflex).
If you represented events over time as sequence of digits 01001101... etc., then what would space be? Space would be the separations or sequence between these digits so that they all don't happen at once. In the universe, space correlates with a delay - there's no space between things when they're interacting, but there is space between them when they aren't interacting (or even if they're envisioned as being in the same 3-D space, if two aren't interacting then they'd be seen isolated by some other property or 'dimension').
So in that sense, I'd have to agree that space is a part of time and integral to it, but beyond this, exactly how information is organized into various dimensions or relationships like distances and velocities etc. seems very subjective and depends on the specific information observed as well as how this information is interpreted ... so in other words, similar to relativity, local spaces are subjective or relative to the observer (though I don't see these "material changes" that create time itself as being subjective - they're what powers the whole thing)
If no time exists, space is a meaningless concept. Everything we know exists in time. The space that's constructed to describe things is entirely dependent upon time.
amrit
time exists, time is physical, time is material change into space
space itself is a-temporal
time does not run into space on its own
there is no time beyond material change
time = material change
Ok, I think I agree with that one (not that people have to agree on anything, but of course it's nice when it happens).
You could remove space and if you left the sequence of "material changes" intact the universe would look the same as it does now. I don't mean to say that space doesn't exist. In fact it's a valuable tool in understanding how things work and the more clear a view of it, the better our understanding is. The main point is just that we don't actually "see" or otherwise physically detect space directly. Space is indirectly understood by using memories of the past (or time) and finding patterns and relationships to these "material changes", as you say.
Then again, space may be just as real as memory (I'll admit I've said space acts like a memory before) and memories are real in the sense that they could be seen as processes in the brain or possibly as potential or kinetic energy stored in a particle (which interestingly enough would be associated with motions through space).
Ok, let's break this down to binary (I'm a digital guy so that's my natural reflex).
If you represented events over time as sequence of digits 01001101... etc., then what would space be? Space would be the separations or sequence between these digits so that they all don't happen at once. In the universe, space correlates with a delay - there's no space between things when they're interacting, but there is space between them when they aren't interacting (or even if they're envisioned as being in the same 3-D space, if two aren't interacting then they'd be seen isolated by some other property or 'dimension').
So in that sense, I'd have to agree that space is a part of time and integral to it, but beyond this, exactly how information is organized into various dimensions or relationships like distances and velocities etc. seems very subjective and depends on the specific information observed as well as how this information is interpreted ... so in other words, similar to relativity, local spaces are subjective or relative to the observer (though I don't see these "material changes" that create time itself as being subjective - they're what powers the whole thing)
QUOTE (StevenA+Sep 2 2006, 11:16 PM)
But of course the Uncertainy Principle is an issue because you can't do this easily without getting lucky ... so you're stuck rolling dice to create something that biases die rolls ... that's a challenge).
Main problem with QM (QFT etc.) in general is "interpretation". From the rooths, that is the question of real meaning of h. What h really is?
If h is "quantum of least action" you get this abstract kind of "theory" with a set of working, usefull but ptolemaic procedures.
h in my view (similary D. Deuch and P. Kanarev) is pseudovector of angular momentum. So,
h = mvr
There is no any Uncertainy Principle at all. Namely,
delta(p)*delta® ~ h
is pure expression of fundamental DYNAMIC angular momentun paradigm.
Where come from that first tiny vortex, Divine Vibration h!?
Main problem with QM (QFT etc.) in general is "interpretation". From the rooths, that is the question of real meaning of h. What h really is?
If h is "quantum of least action" you get this abstract kind of "theory" with a set of working, usefull but ptolemaic procedures.
h in my view (similary D. Deuch and P. Kanarev) is pseudovector of angular momentum. So,
h = mvr
There is no any Uncertainy Principle at all. Namely,
delta(p)*delta® ~ h
is pure expression of fundamental DYNAMIC angular momentun paradigm.
Where come from that first tiny vortex, Divine Vibration h!?
stevenA
So in that sense, I'd have to agree that space is a part of time and integral to it, but beyond this, exactly how information is organized into various dimensions or relationships like distances and velocities etc. seems very subjective and depends on the specific information observed as well as how this information is interpreted ... so in other words, similar to relativity, local spaces are subjective or relative to the observer (though I don't see these "material changes" that create time itself as being subjective - they're what powers the whole thing)
amrit why you complicate so much ?
there is no local spaces and are not subjective
there is only one space for the whole universe
its "density-curvature" changes
and with changing of "density-curvature" changes also the speed of material change (time)
So in that sense, I'd have to agree that space is a part of time and integral to it, but beyond this, exactly how information is organized into various dimensions or relationships like distances and velocities etc. seems very subjective and depends on the specific information observed as well as how this information is interpreted ... so in other words, similar to relativity, local spaces are subjective or relative to the observer (though I don't see these "material changes" that create time itself as being subjective - they're what powers the whole thing)
amrit why you complicate so much ?
there is no local spaces and are not subjective
there is only one space for the whole universe
its "density-curvature" changes
and with changing of "density-curvature" changes also the speed of material change (time)
QUOTE (amrit+)
there is no local spaces and are not subjective
Science tries to describe what the universe would look like from a shared (objective) perspective of the universe.
The problem is that this view of the universe doesn't physically exist for anyone.
There are only local spaces (and probably one for every single particle in the universe). Some events may have only occured once in the entire life of the universe for some "observers".
Science tries to describe what the universe would look like from a shared (objective) perspective of the universe.
The problem is that this view of the universe doesn't physically exist for anyone.
There are only local spaces (and probably one for every single particle in the universe). Some events may have only occured once in the entire life of the universe for some "observers".
QUOTE (amrit+)
there is only one space for the whole universe
This isn't necessarily true.
Consider some distant interactions between objects that eventually drift away faster than the speed of light by spacial expansion. That information is uniquely shared between them and not available to anything on Earth.
How can you know there's one space, if connections between points can change?
Sounds possible but this could still allow for space to become disconnected if densities were to change enough or over a large enough distance, continually approaching an extreme value. This of course depends on the specifics of how these densities change. I admit this specifically is unlikely for most models, but consider that extremely stable forms of matter must be explained and some mechnism to keep them from diffusing into space is necessary, so this same mechanisms provides a way to 'cut off' chunks of space (at least for a finite time but potentially infinite, depending on the details).
But anyway the main point is that even if a single space exists, it's perceived uniquely by different observers, which can each rationally interprete it in various ways, depending on the context within which they view it. So there isn't necessarily a single desciption available for the universe. We haven't even seen most of it yet anyway.
For example, if you see a photon travelling from a distant start, you aren't really seeing the star itself, nor do you have much of any information about what's happening inside it, though you can guess. But in the end all you got at that moment of time was that one photon and noone else saw the same one. That's reality, and it's subjective. You can repeat this with a trillion photons or measurements of various kinds, but it still amounts to the same thing, just repeated a lot. The idea that there's a single universe that exists that everyone could be able to agree upon what happens in it has become more remote of a possibility in science for the last 100 years. Instead it seems much more likely that much of it is shared, but part of it is unique for every object within it.
This isn't necessarily true.
Consider some distant interactions between objects that eventually drift away faster than the speed of light by spacial expansion. That information is uniquely shared between them and not available to anything on Earth.
How can you know there's one space, if connections between points can change?
QUOTE
its "density-curvature" changes
and with changing of "density-curvature" changes also the speed of material change (time)
and with changing of "density-curvature" changes also the speed of material change (time)
Sounds possible but this could still allow for space to become disconnected if densities were to change enough or over a large enough distance, continually approaching an extreme value. This of course depends on the specifics of how these densities change. I admit this specifically is unlikely for most models, but consider that extremely stable forms of matter must be explained and some mechnism to keep them from diffusing into space is necessary, so this same mechanisms provides a way to 'cut off' chunks of space (at least for a finite time but potentially infinite, depending on the details).
But anyway the main point is that even if a single space exists, it's perceived uniquely by different observers, which can each rationally interprete it in various ways, depending on the context within which they view it. So there isn't necessarily a single desciption available for the universe. We haven't even seen most of it yet anyway.
For example, if you see a photon travelling from a distant start, you aren't really seeing the star itself, nor do you have much of any information about what's happening inside it, though you can guess. But in the end all you got at that moment of time was that one photon and noone else saw the same one. That's reality, and it's subjective. You can repeat this with a trillion photons or measurements of various kinds, but it still amounts to the same thing, just repeated a lot. The idea that there's a single universe that exists that everyone could be able to agree upon what happens in it has become more remote of a possibility in science for the last 100 years. Instead it seems much more likely that much of it is shared, but part of it is unique for every object within it.
QUOTE (Turya+Sep 3 2006, 01:36 PM)
Main problem with QM (QFT etc.) in general is "interpretation". From the rooths, that is the question of real meaning of h. What h really is?
If h is "quantum of least action" you get this abstract kind of "theory" with a set of working, usefull but ptolemaic procedures.
h in my view (similary D. Deuch and P. Kanarev) is pseudovector of angular momentum. So,
h = mvr
There is no any Uncertainy Principle at all. Namely,
delta(p)*delta® ~ h
is pure expression of fundamental DYNAMIC angular momentun paradigm.
Where come from that first tiny vortex, Divine Vibration h!?
I'm going to toss out some musings here regarding this:
Something to consider is that the wavefront of a photon is seen as perpendicular to the path a photon follows.
Now where is a photon most likely to be found? In a pathway perpendicular to the envisioned direction of motion. A photon has a complex component of motion that can exhibit faster than light characteristic (Cherenkov radiation or group delay). A quantum unit of energy is associated with angular momentum. A photon can appear to pass through an object directly between the emittor and detector. Electrons - closely associated with a photon are seen in circular orbits around a neucleus. According to classical mechanical views an electron should be spiralling into a nucleus while emitting photons as the electromagnetic field surrounding the nucleus should act as a "drag" on the motion.
So what does this all imply about a photon?
They don't travel outward in straight lines, they move in a perpendicular spiral fashion.
Imagine a single universal field sweeping everying in spirals. You wouldn't actually see these spirals reflected in point to point photon exchanges because the two angles, to and from are 180 degs apart, a full cycle, as we typically use to measure light creates a 360 deg delay. So the phase of light in relationship to this universal orientation would be shifted 180 degs in one direction and shifted another 180 degs coming back.
So if the quanta of an electron is related to an integer number of standing waves it must complete passing around a nucleus, then we could geometrically portray each of these smaller cycles as a fixed angle, 2pi/n.
Photons could be seen as conveying information within a network and matter could be seen as focal points for processing this information.
The number of connections a mass could "interleave" within such a cycle and the density of this processing could be seen as the mass. (A mass moving through space is envisioned to become effectively more massive as it moves closer to the speed of light, this could be seen as space instead flowing through a "node" of mass and increasing the density of processing within. Time dilation could occur along the lines of overload, where only a limited flow of data through a node is possible and the rest of the information flows past it unaltered, so the mass is witnessed as altering things less than expected at high velocities ... so time dilation would be the a disparity between an expected processing rate increasing with velocity and mass, versus the actual limit to flow of information through it, which would be related to light speed)
An atom with two electrons (Helium) could be seen as a node in a network with two connections:
--OO--
Hydrogen would be a single storage element with one bidirectional input/ouput
--O
Lithium would be able to some routing or computation, having 3 inputs/outputs
|
|
O
|\
| O-----
|/
O
|
|
Likely the mass of a particle is associated with the "density" in which information interacts and is processed in the nucleus and so this would be a function of the various rates, directions and information content exposed on each input/output.
A proton could be similar to a port that a photon can communicate through, the neutrons would represent routing this information to another proton and another electron/photon.
When the angular momentum of an electron changes, an associated unit of information is exchanged via. a photon.
And electrons would be seen as spanning an atom in an integer number of waves, because the connections to an atom occur as discrete quantities.
.... as always, these are just ideas to think about.
I'm going to mess around and see if I can get a model of a few atoms using such an information flow analogy that matches atomic weights. In this case space could be seen as information flowing through mass or visa versa and mass could easily seen as a distortion to space, like relativity. Light speed would equate to a maximum bandwidth and photons would be the data. Time would occur in the nucleus as processing events between information stored within it and electrons or photons communicating with it etc...
If h is "quantum of least action" you get this abstract kind of "theory" with a set of working, usefull but ptolemaic procedures.
h in my view (similary D. Deuch and P. Kanarev) is pseudovector of angular momentum. So,
h = mvr
There is no any Uncertainy Principle at all. Namely,
delta(p)*delta® ~ h
is pure expression of fundamental DYNAMIC angular momentun paradigm.
Where come from that first tiny vortex, Divine Vibration h!?
I'm going to toss out some musings here regarding this:
Something to consider is that the wavefront of a photon is seen as perpendicular to the path a photon follows.
Now where is a photon most likely to be found? In a pathway perpendicular to the envisioned direction of motion. A photon has a complex component of motion that can exhibit faster than light characteristic (Cherenkov radiation or group delay). A quantum unit of energy is associated with angular momentum. A photon can appear to pass through an object directly between the emittor and detector. Electrons - closely associated with a photon are seen in circular orbits around a neucleus. According to classical mechanical views an electron should be spiralling into a nucleus while emitting photons as the electromagnetic field surrounding the nucleus should act as a "drag" on the motion.
So what does this all imply about a photon?
They don't travel outward in straight lines, they move in a perpendicular spiral fashion.
Imagine a single universal field sweeping everying in spirals. You wouldn't actually see these spirals reflected in point to point photon exchanges because the two angles, to and from are 180 degs apart, a full cycle, as we typically use to measure light creates a 360 deg delay. So the phase of light in relationship to this universal orientation would be shifted 180 degs in one direction and shifted another 180 degs coming back.
So if the quanta of an electron is related to an integer number of standing waves it must complete passing around a nucleus, then we could geometrically portray each of these smaller cycles as a fixed angle, 2pi/n.
Photons could be seen as conveying information within a network and matter could be seen as focal points for processing this information.
The number of connections a mass could "interleave" within such a cycle and the density of this processing could be seen as the mass. (A mass moving through space is envisioned to become effectively more massive as it moves closer to the speed of light, this could be seen as space instead flowing through a "node" of mass and increasing the density of processing within. Time dilation could occur along the lines of overload, where only a limited flow of data through a node is possible and the rest of the information flows past it unaltered, so the mass is witnessed as altering things less than expected at high velocities ... so time dilation would be the a disparity between an expected processing rate increasing with velocity and mass, versus the actual limit to flow of information through it, which would be related to light speed)
An atom with two electrons (Helium) could be seen as a node in a network with two connections:
--OO--
Hydrogen would be a single storage element with one bidirectional input/ouput
--O
Lithium would be able to some routing or computation, having 3 inputs/outputs
|
|
O
|\
| O-----
|/
O
|
|
Likely the mass of a particle is associated with the "density" in which information interacts and is processed in the nucleus and so this would be a function of the various rates, directions and information content exposed on each input/output.
A proton could be similar to a port that a photon can communicate through, the neutrons would represent routing this information to another proton and another electron/photon.
When the angular momentum of an electron changes, an associated unit of information is exchanged via. a photon.
And electrons would be seen as spanning an atom in an integer number of waves, because the connections to an atom occur as discrete quantities.
.... as always, these are just ideas to think about.
I'm going to mess around and see if I can get a model of a few atoms using such an information flow analogy that matches atomic weights. In this case space could be seen as information flowing through mass or visa versa and mass could easily seen as a distortion to space, like relativity. Light speed would equate to a maximum bandwidth and photons would be the data. Time would occur in the nucleus as processing events between information stored within it and electrons or photons communicating with it etc...
QUOTE (StevenA+Sep 3 2006, 09:25 PM)
They don't travel outward in straight lines, they move in a perpendicular spiral fashion.
Finally someone with very good intuition ("digitalizations" aside
), I'd say.
Along the same line of conclusions, see "graviton" as the "complementar part" of the picture: the incoming/inward HELIX part. So what we have as a "gravyphoton beam/wave"?
Please find time to read e.g. Philip Kanarev's articles, Shpenkov and Kreidik, Nduriri (with mine you are allready familiar, I think)
All the best
Finally someone with very good intuition ("digitalizations" aside
), I'd say. Along the same line of conclusions, see "graviton" as the "complementar part" of the picture: the incoming/inward HELIX part. So what we have as a "gravyphoton beam/wave"?
Please find time to read e.g. Philip Kanarev's articles, Shpenkov and Kreidik, Nduriri (with mine you are allready familiar, I think)
All the best
Thank you for those references, I'll go take a look (the first name I've looked at but it appeared I couldn't download any of the doc files, but I'll search more).
There was another idea I forgot to post here that might help see past uncertainty. I put it on another thread that you might be interested in, Turya.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&f=9&t=8915
There was another idea I forgot to post here that might help see past uncertainty. I put it on another thread that you might be interested in, Turya.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&f=9&t=8915
QUOTE (StevenA+Sep 4 2006, 07:01 PM)
the first name I've looked at but it appeared I couldn't download any of the doc files, but I'll search more.
...
There was another idea I forgot to post here that might help see past uncertainty.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&f=9&t=8915
I think that Kanarev's articles (electron and photon modeling in light of h-angular momentum paradigm, also a static-atom model very similar to your considerations if "digitalization" would be seen as magnetic-bloc units) are easily reached directly from Apeiron and from Journal of Theoretics sites.
Kreidik and Shpenkov are on the side of an interesting wave modeling of "reality", electron spin they see as "myth" and fundamental constants along with exp, pi, log10 are in very interesting system of measures which also is to some extend similar to your "procedural" meaning of it. Charge is m/t in units (similary to Kanarev, but also to one next author Klyushin).
In my view charge e is in direct function of h, ergo sort of 64 knots thoroidal vortex! I call it "chess or I-Ching model of electron", it could be in 2-D but also in 4-layer 3-D which is in direct connection with DNK. So once again electrogravity "helix"!
And as hint: how photon transfers charge? Via spin!? Or there must be "graviton" from the very beginning because levo and dextro helicity or plus and minus charge!?
Thanks for the next link, I'll jump into...
...
There was another idea I forgot to post here that might help see past uncertainty.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&f=9&t=8915
I think that Kanarev's articles (electron and photon modeling in light of h-angular momentum paradigm, also a static-atom model very similar to your considerations if "digitalization" would be seen as magnetic-bloc units) are easily reached directly from Apeiron and from Journal of Theoretics sites.
Kreidik and Shpenkov are on the side of an interesting wave modeling of "reality", electron spin they see as "myth" and fundamental constants along with exp, pi, log10 are in very interesting system of measures which also is to some extend similar to your "procedural" meaning of it. Charge is m/t in units (similary to Kanarev, but also to one next author Klyushin).
In my view charge e is in direct function of h, ergo sort of 64 knots thoroidal vortex! I call it "chess or I-Ching model of electron", it could be in 2-D but also in 4-layer 3-D which is in direct connection with DNK. So once again electrogravity "helix"!
And as hint: how photon transfers charge? Via spin!? Or there must be "graviton" from the very beginning because levo and dextro helicity or plus and minus charge!?
Thanks for the next link, I'll jump into...
In this case Turya really is Guest, which has its meaning in Sanskrit
Ok, I'm trying to dig in a bit more and found this Shpenkov site interesting http://shpenkov.janmax.com/spin.asp
I think I've read elsewhere that an electron beam can be made to diverge into two beams according to the individual spin of the electrons. What equivalent property to a spin would exist to allow that? Some other polarization should exist to have this discrete splitting.
(If I had to combine this with the spiral idea, I'd guess that each path is affected by a flow of information and the direction of the information flow determines the path ... but I'll go and find some more information on the names you provided)
I believe when you break all physical measurements down, they're ultimately all differential and every measurement requires something else to compare it against - so it's not a unidirectional flow of information, it ends up being a ring.
For example to measure a voltage, you need a positive reference and a negative reference and a flow. You're truly always measuring current or flow and not voltage directly. We imagine the voltages exist but ultimately it's a flow of power in a ring that's the tangible component of the measurement. This of course is seen in quantum mechanics as an inability to remove the observer from the observed as both are part of the same flow. But of course a flow at any point has both an input and an output and so you could view the information contained in a photon or electron or anything physical as far as I can tell, as being either an input or output, but in reality both are always present.
Something else to consider is that to achieve such a flow, you need a gradient and this gradient exists perpendicular to the flow. As a more abstract analogy, in order to measure the altitude of one point of land, you need a second point as a reference to measure the difference. If you're measuring the altitude of a mountain, then ths slope or gradient doesn't exist solely between the points you're measuring specifically, but exists as a ring around the mountain, similar to magnetic field lines. A topological map of terrain has altitude contours that run perpendicular to the visible changes in altitude. (I admit this concept is still one I'm trying to get used to, but I'm trying)
Doh! I meant 2^6th
(I've always been careless but I might be getting old too!)
BTW, you might enjoy this page: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Fi...reConstant.html
There's one approximation for the fine structure constant on that page I found intriguing:
a^-1 ~= 96 * (e^1/2 * 2^1/3) ^ 1/3
They recently got a better value for the fine structure constant and I don't know if moved closer to this value or not, but I've been curious (and I remembered seeing someone else post a similar interest) if there's a recursive/fractal algorithm to generate this. The prior error was a little over one part in 100 million, though it may have gotten closer or further with the new measurement.
Anyway, as usual my mind drifts around a lot, but I remember looking at this formula before and wanted to separate out the 96 as 3/2*2^(2*3). The e^1/2 seems to indicate a possible iterative value and the (2^(1/3))^(1/3) seems like a possible diffusion of 2 phases of energy in 3 dimensions.
... just thought you might find this interesting.
I think I've read elsewhere that an electron beam can be made to diverge into two beams according to the individual spin of the electrons. What equivalent property to a spin would exist to allow that? Some other polarization should exist to have this discrete splitting.
(If I had to combine this with the spiral idea, I'd guess that each path is affected by a flow of information and the direction of the information flow determines the path ... but I'll go and find some more information on the names you provided)
I believe when you break all physical measurements down, they're ultimately all differential and every measurement requires something else to compare it against - so it's not a unidirectional flow of information, it ends up being a ring.
For example to measure a voltage, you need a positive reference and a negative reference and a flow. You're truly always measuring current or flow and not voltage directly. We imagine the voltages exist but ultimately it's a flow of power in a ring that's the tangible component of the measurement. This of course is seen in quantum mechanics as an inability to remove the observer from the observed as both are part of the same flow. But of course a flow at any point has both an input and an output and so you could view the information contained in a photon or electron or anything physical as far as I can tell, as being either an input or output, but in reality both are always present.
Something else to consider is that to achieve such a flow, you need a gradient and this gradient exists perpendicular to the flow. As a more abstract analogy, in order to measure the altitude of one point of land, you need a second point as a reference to measure the difference. If you're measuring the altitude of a mountain, then ths slope or gradient doesn't exist solely between the points you're measuring specifically, but exists as a ring around the mountain, similar to magnetic field lines. A topological map of terrain has altitude contours that run perpendicular to the visible changes in altitude. (I admit this concept is still one I'm trying to get used to, but I'm trying)
QUOTE (Turya+)
In my view charge e is in direct function of h, ergo sort of 64 knots thoroidal vortex! I call it "chess or I-Ching model of electron", it could be in 2-D but also in 4-layer 3-D which is in direct connection with DNK. So once again electrogravity "helix"!
Hey, anything with a 2^8 power in it works for me
(The more binary it gets, the better ... for me at least )
Just another comment for the idea of atoms representing nodes in the flow of information in a discrete network, consider that the magnetic field is associated with a perpendicular force to the motion of a charge. Well, if you had motion through a node and this resulted in the equivalent of congestion through it (high velocity, large mass) then other information would be biased around this and you could see the equivalent of a force creating flow of information perpendicular to the flow. (Just like routing on the internet ... if congestion occurs, a packet is routed around it, or perpendicular to the equivalent "light speed"/shortest number of hops path)
Also if you inject energy into an atomic bond, what happens? On average, the bond length increases (except for some funny molecules like water). This could be seen similarly as increasing the delay between two points by injecting extra "traffic" between them - it's an equal and opposing "force" increasing the distance between those points (and associated areas of the network that share those paths ways). A super conductor is a network where no collisions in the flow occur.
Hey, anything with a 2^8 power in it works for me
(The more binary it gets, the better ... for me at least )Just another comment for the idea of atoms representing nodes in the flow of information in a discrete network, consider that the magnetic field is associated with a perpendicular force to the motion of a charge. Well, if you had motion through a node and this resulted in the equivalent of congestion through it (high velocity, large mass) then other information would be biased around this and you could see the equivalent of a force creating flow of information perpendicular to the flow. (Just like routing on the internet ... if congestion occurs, a packet is routed around it, or perpendicular to the equivalent "light speed"/shortest number of hops path)
Also if you inject energy into an atomic bond, what happens? On average, the bond length increases (except for some funny molecules like water). This could be seen similarly as increasing the delay between two points by injecting extra "traffic" between them - it's an equal and opposing "force" increasing the distance between those points (and associated areas of the network that share those paths ways). A super conductor is a network where no collisions in the flow occur.
QUOTE
Hey, anything with a 2^8 power in it works for me
Doh! I meant 2^6th
(I've always been careless but I might be getting old too!)BTW, you might enjoy this page: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Fi...reConstant.html
There's one approximation for the fine structure constant on that page I found intriguing:
a^-1 ~= 96 * (e^1/2 * 2^1/3) ^ 1/3
They recently got a better value for the fine structure constant and I don't know if moved closer to this value or not, but I've been curious (and I remembered seeing someone else post a similar interest) if there's a recursive/fractal algorithm to generate this. The prior error was a little over one part in 100 million, though it may have gotten closer or further with the new measurement.
Anyway, as usual my mind drifts around a lot, but I remember looking at this formula before and wanted to separate out the 96 as 3/2*2^(2*3). The e^1/2 seems to indicate a possible iterative value and the (2^(1/3))^(1/3) seems like a possible diffusion of 2 phases of energy in 3 dimensions.
... just thought you might find this interesting.
steven A
Sounds possible but this could still allow for space to become disconnected if densities were to change enough or over a large enough distance, continually approaching an extreme value.
Amrit
space can not disconnect, space is not like matter
you can disconnect a material object into two pieces but it is not same with the space
Sounds possible but this could still allow for space to become disconnected if densities were to change enough or over a large enough distance, continually approaching an extreme value.
Amrit
space can not disconnect, space is not like matter
you can disconnect a material object into two pieces but it is not same with the space
QUOTE (StevenA+Sep 4 2006, 09:31 PM)
For example to measure a voltage, you need a positive reference and a negative reference and a flow. You're truly always measuring current or flow and not voltage directly.
That is, direct measuring of "potential" is ambiguous (always "relative"), except if Bohm-Aharonov effect for vector potential is not in the scope, maybe.
*** a^-1 ~= 96 * (e^1/2 * 2^1/3) ^ 1/3 ***
I'm familiar with Wolfram's site and similar "numerology" ideas around. Well, again I think it seems that Nature guides us in a clear "dynamic mode". Namely, what if
alpha = (v/c)^2
from the very beginning (that is how Sommerfeld reached it, and later mostly Feynman made an "esotery" about its meaning) ?
In this case nuclear forces would be in "magnetic"ratio to the electrostatic one. Or should I be more specific: electro-gravito-magnetic!?
That is, direct measuring of "potential" is ambiguous (always "relative"), except if Bohm-Aharonov effect for vector potential is not in the scope, maybe.
*** a^-1 ~= 96 * (e^1/2 * 2^1/3) ^ 1/3 ***
I'm familiar with Wolfram's site and similar "numerology" ideas around. Well, again I think it seems that Nature guides us in a clear "dynamic mode". Namely, what if
alpha = (v/c)^2
from the very beginning (that is how Sommerfeld reached it, and later mostly Feynman made an "esotery" about its meaning) ?
In this case nuclear forces would be in "magnetic"ratio to the electrostatic one. Or should I be more specific: electro-gravito-magnetic!?
QUOTE (amrit+Sep 5 2006, 07:58 AM)
steven A
Sounds possible but this could still allow for space to become disconnected if densities were to change enough or over a large enough distance, continually approaching an extreme value.
Amrit
space can not disconnect, space is not like matter
you can disconnect a material object into two pieces but it is not same with the space
If Space is seen as "pre-existent" sort of a highly dynamic "proto-aether" (Space as Aether), then I fully agree with you in this regard.
Namely, our "next step science" must be partly about deeper level of Space. In that case, where come from "quantization" (of space and matter, might be of time also) or in StevenA's way of thinking "digitalization"!? It seems from "nonlinearity" in strong domains. Resonances.
The old problem "continuum-discontinuum" in this scope seems could be seen in a new light.
Sounds possible but this could still allow for space to become disconnected if densities were to change enough or over a large enough distance, continually approaching an extreme value.
Amrit
space can not disconnect, space is not like matter
you can disconnect a material object into two pieces but it is not same with the space
If Space is seen as "pre-existent" sort of a highly dynamic "proto-aether" (Space as Aether), then I fully agree with you in this regard.
Namely, our "next step science" must be partly about deeper level of Space. In that case, where come from "quantization" (of space and matter, might be of time also) or in StevenA's way of thinking "digitalization"!? It seems from "nonlinearity" in strong domains. Resonances.
The old problem "continuum-discontinuum" in this scope seems could be seen in a new light.
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.