Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #467685 > unrolled thread

Is Space different in QM and GR

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Is Space different in QM and GR SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-08-13 13:58 +1000
    Re: Is Space different in QM and GR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-12 21:11 -0700
      Re: Is Space different in QM and GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-13 12:23 -0700
    Re: Is Space different in QM and GR The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-12 22:08 -0700
    Re:Is Space different in QM and GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-08-13 07:17 +0200
    Re: Is Space different in QM and GR Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-13 10:21 -0500
      Re: Is Space different in QM and GR Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-13 15:59 +0000
        Re: Is Space different in QM and GR Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-13 11:58 -0500
          Re: Is Space different in QM and GR Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-13 21:26 +0000
      Re: Is Space different in QM and GR Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-13 20:38 +0200
        Re: Is Space different in QM and GR "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 12:37 -0700
          Re: Is Space different in QM and GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-13 12:49 -0700
            Re: Is Space different in QM and GR "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 13:09 -0700
              Re: Is Space different in QM and GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-13 13:28 -0700
                Re: Is Space different in QM and GR "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 14:10 -0700
        Re: Is Space different in QM and GR Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-13 19:30 -0500
          Re: Is Space different in QM and GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-13 18:09 -0700
            Re: Is Space different in QM and GR Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-14 10:17 +0000
          Re: Is Space different in QM and GR Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-14 13:33 +0200
    Re: Is Space different in QM and GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-13 12:30 -0700
    Re: Is Space different in QM and GR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-14 07:53 -0700
      Re: Is Space different in QM and GR Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-14 20:38 +0000
        Re: Is Space different in QM and GR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-14 14:51 -0700
          Re: Is Space different in QM and GR Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-14 22:44 +0000
            Re: Is Space different in QM and GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-14 15:53 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#467685 — Is Space different in QM and GR

I remember reading that Einstein wrote that space was simply a position, a
place where points marked and not anything in itself.

So while I was discussing this article with a friend of mine

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/11/ask-ethan-is-spacetime-really-a-fabric/#179ba04e97fc

The topic came up is space something different in QM compared to GR?

Althought I argued that it was not, I am now not so sure now. 

Is it different?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#467687

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 9:57:34 PM UTC-6, SolomonW wrote:
>
> I remember reading that Einstein wrote that space was simply a position, a
> place where points marked and not anything in itself.
> 
> So while I was discussing this article with a friend of mine
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/11/ask-ethan-is-spacetime-really-a-fabric/#179ba04e97fc
> 
> The topic came up is space something different in QM compared to GR?
> 
> Althought I argued that it was not, I am now not so sure now. 
> 
> Is it different?

“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite
different.” – Steven Carlip

“we can ask ourselves whether there is a raw precursor to the fabric of
spacetime – a configuration of the strings of the cosmic fabric in which
they have not yet coalesced into the organized form that we recognize
as spacetime. – Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe

"Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But
we don't know what it's replaced by." – David Gross

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467748

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 9:11:05 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 9:57:34 PM UTC-6, SolomonW wrote:
> >
> > I remember reading that Einstein wrote that space was simply a position, a
> > place where points marked and not anything in itself.
> > 
> > So while I was discussing this article with a friend of mine
> > 
> > https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/11/ask-ethan-is-spacetime-really-a-fabric/#179ba04e97fc
> > 
> > The topic came up is space something different in QM compared to GR?
> > 
> > Althought I argued that it was not, I am now not so sure now. 
> > 
> > Is it different?
> 
> “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite
> different.” – Steven Carlip
> 
> “we can ask ourselves whether there is a raw precursor to the fabric of
> spacetime – a configuration of the strings of the cosmic fabric in which
> they have not yet coalesced into the organized form that we recognize
> as spacetime. – Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe
> 
> "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But
> we don't know what it's replaced by." – David Gross

It's "silly string" that is doomed.
It has no objectivity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467693

SolomonW wrote:
> 
> I remember reading that Einstein wrote that space was simply a position, a
> place where points marked and not anything in itself.
> 
> So while I was discussing this article with a friend of mine
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/11/ask-ethan-is-spacetime-really-a-fabric/#179ba04e97fc
> 
> The topic came up is space something different in QM compared to GR?
> 
> Althought I argued that it was not, I am now not so sure now.
> 
> Is it different?
 
is the ocean a fabric?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467694

SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> Wrote in message:
> I remember reading that Einstein wrote that space was simply a position, a
> place where points marked and not anything in itself.
> 
> So while I was discussing this article with a friend of mine
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/11/ask-ethan-is-spacetime-really-a-fabric/#179ba04e97fc
> 
> The topic came up is space something different in QM compared to GR?
> 
> Althought I argued that it was not, I am now not so sure now. 
> 
> Is it different?
> 

As QM is not generally relativistic, it can be as well formulated
 if QED/SR and GR space is different.

As the  former has Euclidean geometry and the latter does not, it
 is different, whatever we think the space is.
-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467724

On 8/12/18 10:58 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> is space something different in QM compared to GR?

Remember that both QM and GR are models of the world we inhabit, but they are 
valid in different domains. The overlap of their respective domains is 
essentially empty.

Both models use 3-d spatial manifolds to model space. In GR that is not 
fundamental, but is a projection of a (3+1)-dimensional spacetime manifold. In 
QM, space is flat (i.e. its Riemann curvature tensor is identically zero); not 
so in GR, where the curvature of spacetime (and thus of space) is of fundamental 
importance.

	Note that on cosmological scales, space is observed to be flat
	(within measurement resolution); on smaller scales it is not.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467729

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 8/12/18 10:58 PM, SolomonW wrote:
>> is space something different in QM compared to GR?
> 
> Remember that both QM and GR are models of the world we inhabit, but
> they are valid in different domains. The overlap of their respective
> domains is essentially empty.

Are you just tell me, that you, as an experimentalist, isn't capable to 
discern among models and theories?? It reveals you are not comfortable 
with models in physics. Meshes, initial conditions, interfaces, governing 
equations, constraints and so on. What "models" do you think you are 
talking about. Let us establish it once for all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467734

On 8/13/18 10:59 AM, Lovu Biftek wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
>> On 8/12/18 10:58 PM, SolomonW wrote:
>>> is space something different in QM compared to GR?
>>
>> Remember that both QM and GR are models of the world we inhabit, but
>> they are valid in different domains. The overlap of their respective
>> domains is essentially empty.
> 
> Are you just tell me, that you, as an experimentalist, isn't capable to
> discern among models and theories?? It reveals you are not comfortable
> with models in physics. Meshes, initial conditions, interfaces, governing
> equations, constraints and so on. What "models" do you think you are
> talking about. Let us establish it once for all.

In modern physics, "model" and "theory" are synonyms. But to non-experts, 
"model" more accurately reflects what is actually going on.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467766

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 8/13/18 10:59 AM, Lovu Biftek wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> 
>>> On 8/12/18 10:58 PM, SolomonW wrote:
>>>> is space something different in QM compared to GR?
>>>
>>> Remember that both QM and GR are models of the world we inhabit, but
>>> they are valid in different domains. The overlap of their respective
>>> domains is essentially empty.
>> 
>> Are you just tell me, that you, as an experimentalist, isn't capable to
>> discern among models and theories?? It reveals you are not comfortable
>> with models in physics. Meshes, initial conditions, interfaces,
>> governing equations, constraints and so on. What "models" do you think
>> you are talking about. Let us establish it once for all.
> 
> In modern physics, "model" and "theory" are synonyms. But to
> non-experts, "model" more accurately reflects what is actually going on.


My frendos, it is actually those non-experts sustaining that absurdity. 
Amazing, you included among them. That is not a reason for using wrong 
terminology. As said, a model is a one particularly, investigating data 
and behavioural under certain conditions. That's about a 90% of Physics 
today for obvious reasons. Depressing that you don't know better. I feel 
suddenly so alone. It reveals you are not working with models in physics 
whatsoever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467742

Am 13.08.2018 um 17:21 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 8/12/18 10:58 PM, SolomonW wrote:
>> is space something different in QM compared to GR?
> 
> Remember that both QM and GR are models of the world we inhabit, but 
> they are valid in different domains. The overlap of their respective 
> domains is essentially empty.
> 
> Both models use 3-d spatial manifolds to model space. In GR that is not 
> fundamental, but is a projection of a (3+1)-dimensional spacetime 
> manifold. In QM, space is flat (i.e. its Riemann curvature tensor is 
> identically zero); not so in GR, where the curvature of spacetime (and 
> thus of space) is of fundamental importance.
> 
>      Note that on cosmological scales, space is observed to be flat
>      (within measurement resolution); on smaller scales it is not.
> 

What we call 'universe' or 'space' matches the description of our own 
past light cone (in GR lingo).

So it's more like Hermann Minkowski said, that there are a multitude of 
spaces, not just a single one.

The 'realm of overlap' would then be simply a point, which we could call 
'observer'.

The observer is somewhere and in his direct vicinity there are those 
tiny particles, that QM deals with, while on a larger scale and further 
distance we see remote objects like stars.

These stars belong to the realm visible to us (as observers), hence are 
'relative' (as is space).

The 'real thing', however', must be something (like spacetime), which 
looks in close proximity like particles and on the large scale like 
stars in distance.

This is so because nature must be understood as undivided and more or 
less independent from some special observer.

So the world of particles and the realm of QM is a certain perspective 
we have in our vicinity from the 'real thing', that behave differently 
than QM thinks.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467756

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 11:38:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 13.08.2018 um 17:21 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > On 8/12/18 10:58 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> >> is space something different in QM compared to GR?
> > 
> > Remember that both QM and GR are models of the world we inhabit, but 
> > they are valid in different domains. The overlap of their respective 
> > domains is essentially empty.
> > 
> > Both models use 3-d spatial manifolds to model space. In GR that is not 
> > fundamental, but is a projection of a (3+1)-dimensional spacetime 
> > manifold. In QM, space is flat (i.e. its Riemann curvature tensor is 
> > identically zero); not so in GR, where the curvature of spacetime (and 
> > thus of space) is of fundamental importance.
> > 
> >      Note that on cosmological scales, space is observed to be flat
> >      (within measurement resolution); on smaller scales it is not.
> > 
> 
> What we call 'universe' or 'space' matches the description of our own 
> past light cone (in GR lingo).
> 
> So it's more like Hermann Minkowski said, that there are a multitude of 
> spaces, not just a single one.
> 
> The 'realm of overlap' would then be simply a point, which we could call 
> 'observer'.
> 
> The observer is somewhere and in his direct vicinity there are those 
> tiny particles, that QM deals with, while on a larger scale and further 
> distance we see remote objects like stars.
> 
> These stars belong to the realm visible to us (as observers), hence are 
> 'relative' (as is space).
> 
> The 'real thing', however', must be something (like spacetime), which 
> looks in close proximity like particles and on the large scale like 
> stars in distance.
> 
> This is so because nature must be understood as undivided and more or 
> less independent from some special observer.
> 
> So the world of particles and the realm of QM is a certain perspective 
> we have in our vicinity from the 'real thing', that behave differently 
> than QM thinks.
> 
> TH

The substrate of motion as particulate 
or granular instead of smooth, has that 
it's smooth, the continuous manifold.

Today's findings in "running constants" 
and redefining constants in terms of 
others basically is a balancing act.

"Quantum mechanics" as for an "quantum/atomic" 
regime and then underneath the "quantum/Planckian" 
regime yet another "quantum/superstring" 
regime has that those are just approximations 
of a "continuum mechanics".

Everyone knows particles are dually waves.

Space-time as continuous manifold 
admits no discontinuities except as 
a granular (and incomplete) approximation 
of the smooth.

There may be asymptotes (and everywhere) 
but it falls back out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467758

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 12:37:18 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 11:38:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 13.08.2018 um 17:21 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > > On 8/12/18 10:58 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> > >> is space something different in QM compared to GR?
> > > 
> > > Remember that both QM and GR are models of the world we inhabit, but 
> > > they are valid in different domains. The overlap of their respective 
> > > domains is essentially empty.


So? Does quantum motion curve?


> > > 
> > > Both models use 3-d spatial manifolds to model space. In GR that is not 
> > > fundamental, but is a projection of a (3+1)-dimensional spacetime 
> > > manifold. In QM, space is flat (i.e. its Riemann curvature tensor is 
> > > identically zero); not so in GR, where the curvature of spacetime (and 
> > > thus of space) is of fundamental importance.
> > > 
> > >      Note that on cosmological scales, space is observed to be flat
> > >      (within measurement resolution); on smaller scales it is not.
> > > 
> > 
> > What we call 'universe' or 'space' matches the description of our own 
> > past light cone (in GR lingo).
> > 
> > So it's more like Hermann Minkowski said, that there are a multitude of 
> > spaces, not just a single one.
> > 
> > The 'realm of overlap' would then be simply a point, which we could call 
> > 'observer'.
> > 
> > The observer is somewhere and in his direct vicinity there are those 
> > tiny particles, that QM deals with, while on a larger scale and further 
> > distance we see remote objects like stars.
> > 
> > These stars belong to the realm visible to us (as observers), hence are 
> > 'relative' (as is space).
> > 
> > The 'real thing', however', must be something (like spacetime), which 
> > looks in close proximity like particles and on the large scale like 
> > stars in distance.
> > 
> > This is so because nature must be understood as undivided and more or 
> > less independent from some special observer.
> > 
> > So the world of particles and the realm of QM is a certain perspective 
> > we have in our vicinity from the 'real thing', that behave differently 
> > than QM thinks.
> > 
> > TH
> 
> The substrate of motion as particulate 
> or granular instead of smooth, has that 
> it's smooth, the continuous manifold.
> 
> Today's findings in "running constants" 
> and redefining constants in terms of 
> others basically is a balancing act.
> 
> "Quantum mechanics" as for an "quantum/atomic" 
> regime and then underneath the "quantum/Planckian" 
> regime yet another "quantum/superstring" 
> regime has that those are just approximations 
> of a "continuum mechanics".
> 
> Everyone knows particles are dually waves.

Not all particles...

> Space-time as continuous manifold 
> admits no discontinuities except as 
> a granular (and incomplete) approximation 
> of the smooth.

Space time is continuous at the infinitely small...
and that is all about continuity itself.


Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> There may be asymptotes (and everywhere) 
> but it falls back out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467759

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 12:49:11 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 12:37:18 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 11:38:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > Am 13.08.2018 um 17:21 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > > > On 8/12/18 10:58 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> > > >> is space something different in QM compared to GR?
> > > > 
> > > > Remember that both QM and GR are models of the world we inhabit, but 
> > > > they are valid in different domains. The overlap of their respective 
> > > > domains is essentially empty.
> 
> 
> So? Does quantum motion curve?
> 
> 
> > > > 
> > > > Both models use 3-d spatial manifolds to model space. In GR that is not 
> > > > fundamental, but is a projection of a (3+1)-dimensional spacetime 
> > > > manifold. In QM, space is flat (i.e. its Riemann curvature tensor is 
> > > > identically zero); not so in GR, where the curvature of spacetime (and 
> > > > thus of space) is of fundamental importance.
> > > > 
> > > >      Note that on cosmological scales, space is observed to be flat
> > > >      (within measurement resolution); on smaller scales it is not.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > What we call 'universe' or 'space' matches the description of our own 
> > > past light cone (in GR lingo).
> > > 
> > > So it's more like Hermann Minkowski said, that there are a multitude of 
> > > spaces, not just a single one.
> > > 
> > > The 'realm of overlap' would then be simply a point, which we could call 
> > > 'observer'.
> > > 
> > > The observer is somewhere and in his direct vicinity there are those 
> > > tiny particles, that QM deals with, while on a larger scale and further 
> > > distance we see remote objects like stars.
> > > 
> > > These stars belong to the realm visible to us (as observers), hence are 
> > > 'relative' (as is space).
> > > 
> > > The 'real thing', however', must be something (like spacetime), which 
> > > looks in close proximity like particles and on the large scale like 
> > > stars in distance.
> > > 
> > > This is so because nature must be understood as undivided and more or 
> > > less independent from some special observer.
> > > 
> > > So the world of particles and the realm of QM is a certain perspective 
> > > we have in our vicinity from the 'real thing', that behave differently 
> > > than QM thinks.
> > > 
> > > TH
> > 
> > The substrate of motion as particulate 
> > or granular instead of smooth, has that 
> > it's smooth, the continuous manifold.
> > 
> > Today's findings in "running constants" 
> > and redefining constants in terms of 
> > others basically is a balancing act.
> > 
> > "Quantum mechanics" as for an "quantum/atomic" 
> > regime and then underneath the "quantum/Planckian" 
> > regime yet another "quantum/superstring" 
> > regime has that those are just approximations 
> > of a "continuum mechanics".
> > 
> > Everyone knows particles are dually waves.
> 
> Not all particles...
> 
> > Space-time as continuous manifold 
> > admits no discontinuities except as 
> > a granular (and incomplete) approximation 
> > of the smooth.
> 
> Space time is continuous at the infinitely small...
> and that is all about continuity itself.
> 
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> > 
> > There may be asymptotes (and everywhere) 
> > but it falls back out.

Mitch, everybody (and that's a broad 
generalization) knows that particles 
are waves, dually, even in the macro.

Physics is a mathematical physics, it's 
apparent.  What then there is of "continuum 
mechanics" that isn't just "real analysis" 
has to do with what "individuation" of 
the "indivuum" of a "continuum" is, that 
there's a proper difference between 
"individua" and "individuum" that 
isn't just plurality, not as of 
matters of cohesion and coherence.

The observer and sampling and measurement 
effects and as of interference and interaction 
are basically to resolve most neatly as 
properties of mathematical objects with 
a physical interpretation.

QM and GR are different theories, their 
mathematical objects are different.  There's 
a usual conflation or "extensional" equivalence 
of the usual objects like quantities in 
space and time.

Like other settings with replete properties, 
like the linear continuum, this is another 
"elephant and blind men", here that a goal 
of unified theory is all the blind men agree 
and a goal of complete theory that it's the 
entire elephant.

Then, universals, and _a_ universe, is the 
setting of all these things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467760

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 1:09:25 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 12:49:11 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 12:37:18 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 11:38:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > > Am 13.08.2018 um 17:21 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > > > > On 8/12/18 10:58 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> > > > >> is space something different in QM compared to GR?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Remember that both QM and GR are models of the world we inhabit, but 
> > > > > they are valid in different domains. The overlap of their respective 
> > > > > domains is essentially empty.
> > 
> > 
> > So? Does quantum motion curve?
> > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Both models use 3-d spatial manifolds to model space. In GR that is not 
> > > > > fundamental, but is a projection of a (3+1)-dimensional spacetime 
> > > > > manifold. In QM, space is flat (i.e. its Riemann curvature tensor is 
> > > > > identically zero); not so in GR, where the curvature of spacetime (and 
> > > > > thus of space) is of fundamental importance.
> > > > > 
> > > > >      Note that on cosmological scales, space is observed to be flat
> > > > >      (within measurement resolution); on smaller scales it is not.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > What we call 'universe' or 'space' matches the description of our own 
> > > > past light cone (in GR lingo).
> > > > 
> > > > So it's more like Hermann Minkowski said, that there are a multitude of 
> > > > spaces, not just a single one.
> > > > 
> > > > The 'realm of overlap' would then be simply a point, which we could call 
> > > > 'observer'.
> > > > 
> > > > The observer is somewhere and in his direct vicinity there are those 
> > > > tiny particles, that QM deals with, while on a larger scale and further 
> > > > distance we see remote objects like stars.
> > > > 
> > > > These stars belong to the realm visible to us (as observers), hence are 
> > > > 'relative' (as is space).
> > > > 
> > > > The 'real thing', however', must be something (like spacetime), which 
> > > > looks in close proximity like particles and on the large scale like 
> > > > stars in distance.
> > > > 
> > > > This is so because nature must be understood as undivided and more or 
> > > > less independent from some special observer.
> > > > 
> > > > So the world of particles and the realm of QM is a certain perspective 
> > > > we have in our vicinity from the 'real thing', that behave differently 
> > > > than QM thinks.
> > > > 
> > > > TH
> > > 
> > > The substrate of motion as particulate 
> > > or granular instead of smooth, has that 
> > > it's smooth, the continuous manifold.
> > > 
> > > Today's findings in "running constants" 
> > > and redefining constants in terms of 
> > > others basically is a balancing act.
> > > 
> > > "Quantum mechanics" as for an "quantum/atomic" 
> > > regime and then underneath the "quantum/Planckian" 
> > > regime yet another "quantum/superstring" 
> > > regime has that those are just approximations 
> > > of a "continuum mechanics".
> > > 
> > > Everyone knows particles are dually waves.
> > 
> > Not all particles...
> > 
> > > Space-time as continuous manifold 
> > > admits no discontinuities except as 
> > > a granular (and incomplete) approximation 
> > > of the smooth.
> > 
> > Space time is continuous at the infinitely small...
> > and that is all about continuity itself.
> > 
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> > > 
> > > There may be asymptotes (and everywhere) 
> > > but it falls back out.
> 
> Mitch, everybody (and that's a broad 
> generalization) knows that particles 
> are waves, dually, even in the macro.

No. There is an exception...
both ways.
Light is only a wave. Neutrino is only a particle...

Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> Physics is a mathematical physics, it's 
> apparent.  What then there is of "continuum 
> mechanics" that isn't just "real analysis" 
> has to do with what "individuation" of 
> the "indivuum" of a "continuum" is, that 
> there's a proper difference between 
> "individua" and "individuum" that 
> isn't just plurality, not as of 
> matters of cohesion and coherence.
> 
> The observer and sampling and measurement 
> effects and as of interference and interaction 
> are basically to resolve most neatly as 
> properties of mathematical objects with 
> a physical interpretation.
> 
> QM and GR are different theories, their 
> mathematical objects are different.  There's 
> a usual conflation or "extensional" equivalence 
> of the usual objects like quantities in 
> space and time.
> 
> Like other settings with replete properties, 
> like the linear continuum, this is another 
> "elephant and blind men", here that a goal 
> of unified theory is all the blind men agree 
> and a goal of complete theory that it's the 
> entire elephant.
> 
> Then, universals, and _a_ universe, is the 
> setting of all these things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467765

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 1:28:10 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 1:09:25 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 12:49:11 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 12:37:18 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 11:38:29 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > > > Am 13.08.2018 um 17:21 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > > > > > On 8/12/18 10:58 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> > > > > >> is space something different in QM compared to GR?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Remember that both QM and GR are models of the world we inhabit, but 
> > > > > > they are valid in different domains. The overlap of their respective 
> > > > > > domains is essentially empty.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So? Does quantum motion curve?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Both models use 3-d spatial manifolds to model space. In GR that is not 
> > > > > > fundamental, but is a projection of a (3+1)-dimensional spacetime 
> > > > > > manifold. In QM, space is flat (i.e. its Riemann curvature tensor is 
> > > > > > identically zero); not so in GR, where the curvature of spacetime (and 
> > > > > > thus of space) is of fundamental importance.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >      Note that on cosmological scales, space is observed to be flat
> > > > > >      (within measurement resolution); on smaller scales it is not.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > What we call 'universe' or 'space' matches the description of our own 
> > > > > past light cone (in GR lingo).
> > > > > 
> > > > > So it's more like Hermann Minkowski said, that there are a multitude of 
> > > > > spaces, not just a single one.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The 'realm of overlap' would then be simply a point, which we could call 
> > > > > 'observer'.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The observer is somewhere and in his direct vicinity there are those 
> > > > > tiny particles, that QM deals with, while on a larger scale and further 
> > > > > distance we see remote objects like stars.
> > > > > 
> > > > > These stars belong to the realm visible to us (as observers), hence are 
> > > > > 'relative' (as is space).
> > > > > 
> > > > > The 'real thing', however', must be something (like spacetime), which 
> > > > > looks in close proximity like particles and on the large scale like 
> > > > > stars in distance.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is so because nature must be understood as undivided and more or 
> > > > > less independent from some special observer.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So the world of particles and the realm of QM is a certain perspective 
> > > > > we have in our vicinity from the 'real thing', that behave differently 
> > > > > than QM thinks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > TH
> > > > 
> > > > The substrate of motion as particulate 
> > > > or granular instead of smooth, has that 
> > > > it's smooth, the continuous manifold.
> > > > 
> > > > Today's findings in "running constants" 
> > > > and redefining constants in terms of 
> > > > others basically is a balancing act.
> > > > 
> > > > "Quantum mechanics" as for an "quantum/atomic" 
> > > > regime and then underneath the "quantum/Planckian" 
> > > > regime yet another "quantum/superstring" 
> > > > regime has that those are just approximations 
> > > > of a "continuum mechanics".
> > > > 
> > > > Everyone knows particles are dually waves.
> > > 
> > > Not all particles...
> > > 
> > > > Space-time as continuous manifold 
> > > > admits no discontinuities except as 
> > > > a granular (and incomplete) approximation 
> > > > of the smooth.
> > > 
> > > Space time is continuous at the infinitely small...
> > > and that is all about continuity itself.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > There may be asymptotes (and everywhere) 
> > > > but it falls back out.
> > 
> > Mitch, everybody (and that's a broad 
> > generalization) knows that particles 
> > are waves, dually, even in the macro.
> 
> No. There is an exception...
> both ways.
> Light is only a wave. Neutrino is only a particle...
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> > 
> > Physics is a mathematical physics, it's 
> > apparent.  What then there is of "continuum 
> > mechanics" that isn't just "real analysis" 
> > has to do with what "individuation" of 
> > the "indivuum" of a "continuum" is, that 
> > there's a proper difference between 
> > "individua" and "individuum" that 
> > isn't just plurality, not as of 
> > matters of cohesion and coherence.
> > 
> > The observer and sampling and measurement 
> > effects and as of interference and interaction 
> > are basically to resolve most neatly as 
> > properties of mathematical objects with 
> > a physical interpretation.
> > 
> > QM and GR are different theories, their 
> > mathematical objects are different.  There's 
> > a usual conflation or "extensional" equivalence 
> > of the usual objects like quantities in 
> > space and time.
> > 
> > Like other settings with replete properties, 
> > like the linear continuum, this is another 
> > "elephant and blind men", here that a goal 
> > of unified theory is all the blind men agree 
> > and a goal of complete theory that it's the 
> > entire elephant.
> > 
> > Then, universals, and _a_ universe, is the 
> > setting of all these things.

It seems what you're interested in there 
is about the duals and then about the 
extremes as "self-duals".  (And those 
then axes again as about symmetries, 
conservations, Noether's theorem, and 
other usual principles of least action, 
and about tendencies to entropy in the 
centralizing and also the dispersive.)

There's an idea about light that besides 
being energy that its the flux of "dissipation" 
of energy in space, about that what we usually 
perceive and measure is a "tip of the iceberg".

In a sense this is about the infinitely variable 
frequency of light, then also about what would 
be a "paradox" of discrete energy quanta transferred 
by light, and about the "ultraviolet catastrophe" 
then about what it means to equip the physics 
with why and how the "infinitesimal remnants" 
add back up instead of truncating them.

Other "discrete" phenomena in nature like 
"spectral lines" have as simply (or, you 
know, complicatingly, for simply) that 
they're just maxima of standing waves.

There's a lot to re-think if there is to 
be stitching together developments under 
QM and developments under GR as where there 
have been truncations of numerical methods 
(as the mathematics so equips and informs 
the physical model and its interpretation) 
as about normalization vis-a-vis uniformization 
and safety vis-a-vis freedom.

To align the orthogonal concerns of QM and GR 
involves quite a bit of explaining about how 
their true axes of development fall to one 
(and in the dual, how they point apart, then 
what it means to interpolate).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467782

On 8/13/18 1:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> What we call 'universe' or 'space' matches the description of our own 
> past light cone (in GR lingo).

Not at all! The past lightcone of any given event is a 4-D spacetime 
region -- nowhere close to what we mean by "space" or "universe".

	Some authors define "past lightcone" as the locus from
	which light rays will directly reach the given event.
	Others include the interior of that locus, as do I.

Moreover, there are events outside of our past lightcone that CLEARLY 
belong to space, and to the universe. For instance, at a given time both 
the earth and the sun exist in space, but are outside each other's past 
lightcone.

> So it's more like Hermann Minkowski said, that there are a multitude of 
> spaces, not just a single one.

He said that, because to define "space" in SR/GR one must project 
spacetime onto an achronal 3-d surface [#]. In SR the usual way to do 
that is to select an inertial frame and consider the 3-d submanifold 
consisting of all points with a given value of its time coordinate. 
Since there are an infinite number of inertial frames, there are an 
infinite number of such submanifolds, each of which can be called "space".

	[#] A surface for which the interval between every
	pair of events is spacelike.

> [... considerable nonsense omitted]

You clearly don't know what the words you use actually mean. You need to 
STUDY and LEARN.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467786

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 5:30:29 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/13/18 1:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > What we call 'universe' or 'space' matches the description of our own 
> > past light cone (in GR lingo).
> 
> Not at all! The past lightcone of any given event is a 4-D spacetime 
> region -- nowhere close to what we mean by "space" or "universe".
> 
> 	Some authors define "past lightcone" as the locus from
> 	which light rays will directly reach the given event.
> 	Others include the interior of that locus, as do I.
> 
> Moreover, there are events outside of our past lightcone that CLEARLY 
> belong to space, and to the universe. For instance, at a given time both 
> the earth and the sun exist in space, but are outside each other's past 
> lightcone.
> 
> > So it's more like Hermann Minkowski said, that there are a multitude of 
> > spaces, not just a single one.
> 
> He said that, because to define "space" in SR/GR one must project 
> spacetime onto an achronal 3-d surface [#]. In SR the usual way to do 
> that is to select an inertial frame and consider the 3-d submanifold 
> consisting of all points with a given value of its time coordinate. 
> Since there are an infinite number of inertial frames, there are an 
> infinite number of such submanifolds, each of which can be called "space".
> 
> 	[#] A surface for which the interval between every
> 	pair of events is spacelike.
> 
> > [... considerable nonsense omitted]
> 
> You clearly don't know what the words you use actually mean. You need to 
> STUDY and LEARN.
> 
> Tom Roberts

Time is in dimension but it is not a dimension.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467814

mitchrae3323 wrote:

>> > [... considerable nonsense omitted]
>> You clearly don't know what the words you use actually mean. You need
>> to STUDY and LEARN. Tom Roberts
> 
> Time is in dimension but it is not a dimension.

Excellent observation. Time, if existent, only exists in vacuuo. And only 
because of that. You don't even realize how much a big of truth is in 
that. By mistake you discovered the biggest theory mankind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467815

Am 14.08.2018 um 02:30 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 8/13/18 1:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> What we call 'universe' or 'space' matches the description of our own 
>> past light cone (in GR lingo).
> 
> Not at all! The past lightcone of any given event is a 4-D spacetime 
> region -- nowhere close to what we mean by "space" or "universe".
> 
>      Some authors define "past lightcone" as the locus from
>      which light rays will directly reach the given event.
>      Others include the interior of that locus, as do I.
> 
> Moreover, there are events outside of our past lightcone that CLEARLY 
> belong to space, and to the universe. For instance, at a given time both 
> the earth and the sun exist in space, but are outside each other's past 
> lightcone.


'Past light cone' is not really a cone. In a 3d Minkowski diagram we 
have one spatial dimension missing. So we need to take two dimensions as 
representative for three.

The picture means: nested spheres, the further away the longer ago.

And if you think about it for a moment, than this is actually what we 
find in the sky.

So: what we call 'universe' is not universal at all, but the picture we 
receive from the past and along the light cone.

That is not space, sure. But it is, what we actually see, if we look 
through a telescope.

The 'real thing' must therefor be assumed, so that it would look like 
our sky under the mentioned conditions.

IOW: the real universe is invisible and has not the properties we 
ascribe to space.

I personally think, that Minkowski was in fact right with his proposal.

>> So it's more like Hermann Minkowski said, that there are a multitude 
>> of spaces, not just a single one.
> 
> He said that, because to define "space" in SR/GR one must project 
> spacetime onto an achronal 3-d surface [#]. In SR the usual way to do 
> that is to select an inertial frame and consider the 3-d submanifold 
> consisting of all points with a given value of its time coordinate. 
> Since there are an infinite number of inertial frames, there are an 
> infinite number of such submanifolds, each of which can be called "space".

I personally think, that Minkowski was in fact right with his proposal.

>      [#] A surface for which the interval between every
>      pair of events is spacelike.
> 
>> [... considerable nonsense omitted]



So, what is your motivation for spreading nonsense for decades over the 
UseNet.

Is that a job? Or is this a cult?


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467753

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 8:57:34 PM UTC-7, SolomonW wrote:
> I remember reading that Einstein wrote that space was simply a position, a
> place where points marked and not anything in itself.
> 
> So while I was discussing this article with a friend of mine
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/11/ask-ethan-is-spacetime-really-a-fabric/#179ba04e97fc
> 
> The topic came up is space something different in QM compared to GR?
> 
> Althought I argued that it was not, I am now not so sure now. 
> 
> Is it different?

Does then QM respond to the curve of space?

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web