Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #387488 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-09 08:20 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-15 17:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 122 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-09 08:20 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 18:02 +0200
Re: QM and GR. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-09 16:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-09 17:55 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-10 07:16 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-11 06:04 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:25 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-10 10:28 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:00 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 17:08 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:12 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:08 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:42 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:07 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:15 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:29 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-14 22:48 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 16:30 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-15 07:03 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:37 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-15 22:56 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-16 22:17 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:47 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-18 07:09 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-17 10:17 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-18 06:56 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-11 15:27 +0000
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-16 15:31 +1000
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-16 12:15 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-18 15:01 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Greg Buttler <grgb@novotnysite.org> - 2016-07-22 16:09 +0000
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 12:21 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Tsvetana Kasatkina <tzve@noemail.info> - 2016-07-29 20:23 +0000
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-22 22:39 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-23 08:14 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:43 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-23 12:33 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-23 22:41 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-24 07:12 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-26 09:21 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-27 07:11 +0200
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-23 11:21 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 22:39 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-25 09:12 +0200
Re: QM and GR. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:02 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-25 16:23 +0200
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 12:44 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-25 10:22 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 12:15 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-29 13:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 16:04 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 11:32 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:19 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 12:35 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:56 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 13:37 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 16:09 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 15:03 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 17:11 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 16:05 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:17 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 12:30 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:11 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 13:36 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:02 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-30 08:27 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 12:25 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 13:47 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 14:17 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:04 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 18:01 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:57 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:04 -0500
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 12:37 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-05 08:37 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 12:40 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-06 14:47 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:16 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-08 13:25 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:16 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-10 10:52 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 16:45 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 16:46 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:08 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 12:28 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-25 10:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2016-07-26 12:11 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 12:11 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-29 10:20 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 07:13 -0500
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-08-07 15:36 +0000
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-07 11:16 -0700
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:21 -0700
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-08 13:36 -0700
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 12:31 -0500
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-08 06:57 -0500
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 07:18 +0200
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-08 10:10 -0700
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-08 11:02 -0700
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-08 13:14 -0500
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 22:52 +0200
Re: Nature decides _everything_. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 08:42 +0200
Re: Nature decides _everything_. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:16 -0700
Re: Nature decides _everything_. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:49 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-09 12:09 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-09 13:35 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 23:53 +0200
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 18:17 -0400
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-09 06:51 -0500
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 17:51 -0400
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-02 06:41 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 23:55 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-03 05:27 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 07:39 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-05 05:25 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:07 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 07:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 15:57 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 14:49 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 17:30 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-15 17:06 -0700
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 22:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dut10sFhomgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387809 |
Am 15.07.2016 14:37, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>> But to your earlier comment, the faith in a model is directly tied to >>> how well it matches between expected and observed experimental results. >>> And on that front, the standard model of quantum fields is spectacularly >>> successful. There have been some quantities where the match is down to >>> the 12th decimal place, which is just about unprecedented anywhere else. >> >> >> My personal assumption is, that particles are not really things, but >> just specific aspects of an undivided 'real thing'. > > Well, that's all fine and a pet metaphysical hypothesis of yours. This > doesn't change these facts: > 1. Modern physics describes things as quantum fields, not as classical > particles. > 2. The theory of quantum fields has enormous success at QUANTITATIVE, > ACCURATE prediction of measurable phenomena. > 3. These metrics of quantitative, accurate prediction of measurable > phenomena are THE measures of validity of a scientific theory. Any other > idea that does not meet these criteria is considered either > scientifically inferior or scientifically irrelevant. > >> >> This 'real thing' I call 'spacetime' , (but 'quantum-field' or 'mumble' >> would serve the same purpose.) > > Not sure why you think of "spacetime" and "quantum field" as being the > same thing. I assume, that spacetime is real, hence call that something 'spacetime'. I have excluded this question: what actually is this something 'really'? (You can do that, if you like, but I reject the question and regard it as beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do.) So 'spacetime' is a place-holder term and could be easily replaced by 'quantum field' (or 'mumble'). There is just one requirement: it should be the spacetime of GR. This is a necessity, since I try to connect GR to QM. So my 'agenda' is: try to build particles out of spacetime. What is NOT a requirement, that is: find something usable for a simulation. So I'm perfectly happy with a mechanism, that is actually utilised by nature on a fundamental level, even if this method cannot be replicated or used to calculate something of practical value. It is also not necessary to rebuild everything, that physicist believe they know. So I have checked a lot of different possibilities and 'structured spacetime' is, what remained in my 'dragnet'. I test my finding by trying to replicate certain known features of nature. Bi-quaternions are what I have found, since this would enable to connect relativity to quantum mechanics. You cannot really use such numbers, since nature uses means, we simply cannot replicate. But we can check, whether or not it is possible, that such a mechanism is used in the universe. The test would be the requirement, that from only a few principles all known phenomena could eventually emerge. You will certainly agree, this kind of tall order, hence just a few possibilities should survive such a test. And the mechanism I describe does (as far as I can tell). ... >>>> >>>> But what do you think about my proposal to create particles out of >>>> spacetime? This would also be a connection, but would connect QM from >>>> the GR side (and not from QM to GR, as you assume). >>> >>> I don't think physicists are going from QM to GR. Usually, they are >>> going from GR to QM (or more accurately, to QFT). >> >> This seem to be correct, since my own approach is just that. > > I think the point was that if you had read up a little on what > scientists were ACTUALLY doing, you wouldn't have so casually > mischaracterized it. > Actually I'm not a scientist, hence don't know, what scientists usually do. So scientists usually do something. Well, fine. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmdsrt$17te$10@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387844 |
On 7/15/2016 3:56 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > I assume, that spacetime is real, hence call that something 'spacetime'. > > I have excluded this question: what actually is this something 'really'? > > (You can do that, if you like, but I reject the question and regard it > as beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do.) > > So 'spacetime' is a place-holder term and could be easily replaced by > 'quantum field' (or 'mumble'). > > There is just one requirement: it should be the spacetime of GR Well, I think you should know that the spacetime of GR and quantum fields are both "somethings" in physics but not the SAME something. They have distinct meanings. After all a zebra is a something and a dog is a something, but it would do no good to call a zebra a dog or a dog a zebra. So the important thing is to learn what exactly kind of something is this spacetime of GR, wouldn't you agree? How would you propose to learn what kind of something it is? I have my own ideas, but I'd like to know what you would do if you wanted to do that. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 22:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <duvj24F5n19U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387883 |
Am 16.07.2016 20:02, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> I assume, that spacetime is real, hence call that something 'spacetime'. >> >> I have excluded this question: what actually is this something 'really'? >> >> (You can do that, if you like, but I reject the question and regard it >> as beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do.) >> >> So 'spacetime' is a place-holder term and could be easily replaced by >> 'quantum field' (or 'mumble'). >> >> There is just one requirement: it should be the spacetime of GR > > Well, I think you should know that the spacetime of GR and quantum > fields are both "somethings" in physics but not the SAME something. They > have distinct meanings. After all a zebra is a something and a dog is a > something, but it would do no good to call a zebra a dog or a dog a zebra. You may have noticed, that I have refereed to 'spacetime of GR' with 'something'. My plan was, to build particles out of THAT 'something'. This is in fact possible, (thou not easy). To illustrate the problem I use a model reduced in dimensions. GR is represented by a ball and QM is locally approximated by a tangential plane. Time behaves like an vertical on the ball's surface, hence the ball has many timelines. QM is a local approximation, in the close proximity of the observer, and therefore has only one axis of time (the local vertical). So QM is not really real, but a certain special case of a more general one, where time does not behave like a single axis, but as a realm, where we have a multitude of timelines. So the question is, how matter in one FoR would be encountered from a different FoR, where the axis of time has an angle in respect to the previous one. This is actually simple, since the photoelectric effect could be interpreted in a way, that radiation in one FoR is matter in another FoR. This concept is, of course, in sharp contrast to what is called 'standard-model of cosmology'. So I also reject big-bang (and so forth), but assume a mechanism, where the axis of time could have an angle compared to the realm, from where the observer watches a certain phenomenon. This angle could increase and beyond a certain degree a material object would completely vanish (in a black hole). This vanishing is actually 'relative' since the object in that black hole was not altered. It could also pop out of nowhere and could materialize from nothing in mid-air. This process is in a way similar to how we see sail-boots on the ocean. They do not really drop out of existence, if they sink behind the horizon. So objects are not crushed to pieces by a black hole, even if it looks like that. And the horizon is 'relative', too. So seen from an object, that is just vanishing in a black hole, the observer would seem to be vanishing in a black hole. So matter is kind of 'relative', like space and time. > So the important thing is to learn what exactly kind of something is > this spacetime of GR, wouldn't you agree? No. I explicitly exclude this question from what I do. You may try to solve this riddle, while I'm happy to solve others. btw: In case someone missed that, I have written kind of book, what I try to promote. It can be found here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 16:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmea1n$1qos$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387895 |
On 7/16/2016 3:17 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> So the important thing is to learn what exactly kind of something is >> this spacetime of GR, wouldn't you agree? > > No. > I explicitly exclude this question from what I do. You may try to solve > this riddle, while I'm happy to solve others. It's not really a riddle, I don't think. It's already documented what spacetime is in GR. So there's nothing to solve, only to read about. So you're electing not to learn about something already solved, and instead you're just going to talk about it without learning about it? Why? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 07:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dv36k1FshiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387899 |
Am 16.07.2016 23:47, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>> So the important thing is to learn what exactly kind of something is >>> this spacetime of GR, wouldn't you agree? >> >> No. >> I explicitly exclude this question from what I do. You may try to solve >> this riddle, while I'm happy to solve others. > > It's not really a riddle, I don't think. It's already documented what > spacetime is in GR. So there's nothing to solve, only to read about. > > So you're electing not to learn about something already solved, and > instead you're just going to talk about it without learning about it? > > Why? GR uses tensors, while I tried to use quaternions. I had then found a method called 'complex four-vectors and Pauli algebra', which behaves batter than quaternions. So why deal with tensors? As a matter of fact, I try to rebuild mathematical constructs by certain pictures and use them. So I mainly paint and do not calculate that often. In a way I was writing a concept and not a finished piece. So I can use my own method, if I want to. But the project ended, because I had no support whatsoever and got stuck in technical difficulties and in philosophical disputes - like about the role of time or about Growing Earth. So I dropped the subject, more or less. This is possible at no expenses, since it is my decision what I do with the outcome of an hobby. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 10:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Z_CdnZWOzfcKPBbKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #387895 |
On 7/16/16 7/16/16 3:17 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> You may have noticed, that I have refereed to 'spacetime of GR' with 'something'.
> My plan was, to build particles out of THAT 'something'.
This is a PUN on "something" -- such unacknowledged puns destroy your argument.
Spacetime is a "something" in the sense that humans can imagine it IN THEIR
MINDS. That is, spacetime is part of the MODEL, inherently and ineluctably so.
Careful authors do not imply spacetime is a "thing", because it is NOT.
Particles (in the sense you mean) are "something" in the sense of EXISTING IN
THE WORLD.
Your "plan" here conflates two completely incommensurate ideas, which is hopeless.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 06:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dv35s2FncnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387918 |
Am 17.07.2016 17:17, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> You may have noticed, that I have refereed to 'spacetime of GR' with >> 'something'. >> My plan was, to build particles out of THAT 'something'. > > This is a PUN on "something" -- such unacknowledged puns destroy your > argument. > > Spacetime is a "something" in the sense that humans can imagine it IN > THEIR MINDS. That is, spacetime is part of the MODEL, inherently and > ineluctably so. > > Careful authors do not imply spacetime is a "thing", because it is NOT. > > Particles (in the sense you mean) are "something" in the sense of > EXISTING IN THE WORLD. > > Your "plan" here conflates two completely incommensurate ideas, which is > hopeless. Not quite right. 'Spacetime of GR' is not just a model. It is not, as you assume, an abstract combination of Newtonian space and absolute time. 'Newtonian space' is identified -by me - to what is called in relativity ligo 'past-light-cone' (of the specific observer). This space is co-moving, since the observer moves in time. As species living on planet Earth we all see the same sky, because the direction 'above' is almost parallel. So the surface of our home planet is a 'time domain'. But what is it, that we observe in space? My assumption is, that spacetime of GR is in fact a real 'thing' and what we call matter are timelike stable patterns within this 'thing'. So I describe the entire universe in past and future as one piece and call that 'spacetime'. I assume this 'something' behaves like a fractal and is composed of the equivalent to a point, which I call 'elements of spacetime'. (What that is in a more technical sense, I do not want to answer, since it is out of the range of my research. ) Such elements are assumed to be connected like quaternions are multiplied, what is kind of rotation. So I take such assumed elements and let them twist each other and compare the emerging timelike patters to what we call 'atoms'. And this does work. Only things had to be slightly reinterpreted. So an atom is not composed from particles, but certain aspects of a 'rotation wave' are, what we call particles. E.g. the outer shell is then what we call 'electrons', while the opposite occurs in the centre, where this wave would return outwards. This kind of matter is depending on the axis of time, hence is 'relative'. It could eventually pop out of the realm of observability. Such matter could also be created or destroyed. As prove such effects do occur in the real world, I tried to prove 'Growing Earth'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 15:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nm0dtm$5sb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387520 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/9/16 7/9/16 10:20 AM, Y wrote: >> I really don't see the point in these theories being combined into one. >> Can anyone explain very simply the point of doing so ? > > Sure: the world works (i.e. in every regime that occurs in the world, at > every scale, nature behaves in some manner). > > At present we don't have a theory that describes how nature works at > every scale -- QM describes how nature works at small scales, and GR > describes how nature works at large scales, but in between they are > incompatible. As nature works at these intermediate scales, there must > be some theory that describes it; presumably it is some sort of > "combination" of QM and GR, but that is just a guess, as it could be > something else altogether (and the current major research efforts are > indeed something else: string theory and loop quantum gravity). Now substitute your "describe" with "guesses that" or "approaches and approximate", then try answering the question. That there are no needs or requirements in Nature to combine anything. And btw, Relativity is not describing the large scales in any way. I needs an additional of 96% which is not there, where Relativity says that should be. Nice try. Now try with real physics taking place in real Nature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 15:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dutv5vFo4jqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387584 |
On 12/07/2016 1:27 AM, Jack Chardy wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 7/9/16 7/9/16 10:20 AM, Y wrote: >>> I really don't see the point in these theories being combined into one. >>> Can anyone explain very simply the point of doing so ? >> >> Sure: the world works (i.e. in every regime that occurs in the world, at >> every scale, nature behaves in some manner). >> >> At present we don't have a theory that describes how nature works at >> every scale -- QM describes how nature works at small scales, and GR >> describes how nature works at large scales, but in between they are >> incompatible. As nature works at these intermediate scales, there must >> be some theory that describes it; presumably it is some sort of >> "combination" of QM and GR, but that is just a guess, as it could be >> something else altogether (and the current major research efforts are >> indeed something else: string theory and loop quantum gravity). > > Now substitute your "describe" with "guesses that" or "approaches and > approximate", then try answering the question. That there are no needs or > requirements in Nature to combine anything. > > And btw, Relativity is not describing the large scales in any way. I needs > an additional of 96% which is not there, where Relativity says that should > be. Nice try. Now try with real physics taking place in real Nature. > You can ask the question "What will the result be if I measure X?". There cannot be two different correct theories, because if they're different, they'll sometimes give different answers, and at least one would have to be wrong. So either there is no theory possible, or it must be possible to create a single theory. That single theory has to reduce to GR[*] on the large scale with modest gravitational fields, to QM on the small scale with gravitational fields ignored, and to something else in situations where the scale is small, but the gravitational fields are large and varying on that scale. To my mind, whether not that theory is to be regarded as a combination of GR and QM is a value judgement, and to some extent dependent on how it was reached. Sylvia. [*] Just as GR reduces to special relativity in the absence of gravity, and special relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the absence of high relative velocities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | astrofoton@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 12:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ad42f75-7a58-42f1-b2be-e0c8856b9eb8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387857 |
W dniu sobota, 16 lipca 2016 07:31:46 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > [*] Just as GR reduces to special relativity in the absence of gravity, > and special relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the absence of > high relative velocities. Wrong. Any stupidity is irreducible to any rational domain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 15:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dv364qFovjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387889 |
On 17/07/2016 5:15 AM, astrofoton@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 16 lipca 2016 07:31:46 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> [*] Just as GR reduces to special relativity in the absence of gravity, >> and special relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the absence of >> high relative velocities. > > Wrong. > Any stupidity is irreducible to any rational domain. > Well, that's a compelling argument. Thank you. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Buttler <grgb@novotnysite.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nmtgg6$jb7$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387857 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > There cannot be two different correct theories, because if they're > different, they'll sometimes give different answers, and at least one > would have to be wrong. I'm not sure it works like that. You may easily have to distinct theories predicting same outcome. However, the discussion is not about it, but combining all existing theories into a single one. There is no need for that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 12:21 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dvlbcsFbs1pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388186 |
On 23/07/2016 2:09 AM, Greg Buttler wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> There cannot be two different correct theories, because if they're >> different, they'll sometimes give different answers, and at least one >> would have to be wrong. > > I'm not sure it works like that. You may easily have to distinct theories > predicting same outcome. However, the discussion is not about it, but > combining all existing theories into a single one. There is no need for > that. > If you have two separate theories that address disjoint aspects of physics - that is, there are no areas of physics that both theories address - then you can trivially put them together to form a single theory. Most of the time, though, that's not the situation we have. General relativity has little to say about the microscopic world, and quantum mechanics has little to say about the macroscopic world. But little is not nothing, and one can imagine circumstances in which both these theories have something to say, but what they say is different. The problem them is to determine what they should say (by experiment), and then find a way of modifying one or (more likely) both theories so that they say that thing. Once that's done such that both theories always say the same thing, there's an expectation that we'll find that they're mathematically equivalent - that is, that there's a single theory. Though it seems inevitable that eventually the required experiments cannot be done because the conditions for them are unobtainable. So rather than having a single theory of everything, we'll probably end up with multiple theories of everything that make different predictions, but only for conditions we can neither create, nor find in the observable universe. At that point, I suppose science becomes philosophy. Sylvia. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tsvetana Kasatkina <tzve@noemail.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 20:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nngdvq$nj8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388326 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > On 23/07/2016 2:09 AM, Greg Buttler wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>> There cannot be two different correct theories, because if they're >>> different, they'll sometimes give different answers, and at least one >>> would have to be wrong. >> >> I'm not sure it works like that. You may easily have to distinct >> theories predicting same outcome. However, the discussion is not about >> it, but combining all existing theories into a single one. There is no >> need for that. > > If you have two separate theories that address disjoint aspects of > physics - that is, there are no areas of physics that both theories > address - then you can trivially put them together to form a single > theory. You may want to rephrase this total nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 22:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <GJ-dnRUU_7lCew_KnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #387857 |
On 7/16/16 7/16/16 12:31 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > There cannot be two different correct theories, because if they're different, > they'll sometimes give different answers, and at least one would have to be wrong. Sure there can, as long as they predict the same result(s) for the experiments. Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian mechanics are all quite different theories, yet they all predict exactly the same result for any experiment within their domain (which is common to all). Closer to this newsgroup, SR and LET are quite different theories, yet they predict the same results for any experiment within their common domain. But the situation is quite different for QM and GR -- they are each valid in their own domain, and these domains do not overlap significantly. Moreover, the union of their domains does not include all possible phenomena. As nature "works" for all phenomena in all domains, there must be some theory that can model her behavior in all domains, including the domains of QM and GR and the additional domain(s) not covered by either. Yes, as you say this new theory must have appropriate limits that reduce to QM and GR in their respective domains. Actually that is a bit stronger than the real requirement, which is that this new theory agree with all experiments in the domains of QM and GR. As those theories agree with all experiments within their domains, the traditional way to do that is to have an appropriate correspondence limit, but that is not the only conceivable way.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 08:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dvggauF6uhtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388212 |
Am 23.07.2016 05:39, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> There cannot be two different correct theories, because if they're >> different, >> they'll sometimes give different answers, and at least one would have >> to be wrong. > > Sure there can, as long as they predict the same result(s) for the > experiments. > > Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian mechanics are all quite different > theories, yet they all predict exactly the same result for any > experiment within their domain (which is common to all). > > Closer to this newsgroup, SR and LET are quite different theories, yet > they predict the same results for any experiment within their common > domain. > > But the situation is quite different for QM and GR -- they are each > valid in their own domain, and these domains do not overlap > significantly. Moreover, the union of their domains does not include all > possible phenomena. As nature "works" for all phenomena in all domains, > there must be some theory that can model her behavior in all domains, > including the domains of QM and GR and the additional domain(s) not > covered by either. > > Yes, as you say this new theory must have appropriate limits that reduce > to QM and GR in their respective domains. > > Actually that is a bit stronger than the real requirement, which > is that this new theory agree with all experiments in the domains > of QM and GR. As those theories agree with all experiments within > their domains, the traditional way to do that is to have an > appropriate correspondence limit, but that is not the only > conceivable way.... > As far as we know, nature behaves unpredictable. E.g. we cannot predict the path, a certain fly would take. So, why should nature like to predict experiments? I would exclude the requirement of usefulness (as means of predictions) for a valid theory about how nature behaves at a fundamental level. Instead it should be simple, since nature would not use too many different entities, but infinite variations of the same in different manners. The best theory possible would use only one something, that is observed in various guises, as stuff, fields or empty space. TH TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 10:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn03a6$1k0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388217 |
On 7/23/2016 1:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > As far as we know, nature behaves unpredictable. > > E.g. we cannot predict the path, a certain fly would take. Because we do not have a good understanding of how a fly works. > > So, why should nature like to predict experiments? > > I would exclude the requirement of usefulness (as means of predictions) > for a valid theory about how nature behaves at a fundamental level. But this is central to the scientific method. It is THE sole way that the validity of our scientific understanding is asserted. So you are saying that you want to dispense with the scientific method. > > Instead it should be simple, since nature would not use too many > different entities, but infinite variations of the same in different > manners. > > The best theory possible would use only one something, that is observed > in various guises, as stuff, fields or empty space. While this is a lofty philosophical stance, it has little to do with science. What scientists have shown is that nature is inherently simple, but only as simple as necessary. To desire to drive nature to be simpler than it is, is folly. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 12:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-86dnSEA0ZbqNw7KnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #388217 |
On 7/23/16 7/23/16 1:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > As far as we know, nature behaves unpredictable. NONSENSE! Mostly nature behaves very predictably. We have excellent models that have great predictive power over large domains of interest to us. However it is true that in the quantum domain there is considerable randomness. Usually for macroscopic objects this randomness averages away.... > E.g. we cannot predict the path, a certain fly would take. You confuse complexity with unpredictability. A fly is FAR too complex for our models of nature to be applied. But there are lots of situations for which we can accurately predict how an individual atom will behave.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 22:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dvi348Fiu7pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388234 |
Am 23.07.2016 19:33, schrieb Tom Roberts: : >> As far as we know, nature behaves unpredictable. > > NONSENSE! Mostly nature behaves very predictably. We have excellent > models that have great predictive power over large domains of interest > to us. > > However it is true that in the quantum domain there is > considerable randomness. Usually for macroscopic objects > this randomness averages away.... > > >> E.g. we cannot predict the path, a certain fly would take. > > You confuse complexity with unpredictability. A fly is FAR too complex > for our models of nature to be applied. But there are lots of situations > for which we can accurately predict how an individual atom will behave.... > No. I want to express, that the input into a system, which we try to model, is not known completely. This is so, because we have only access to a subset of all influences, that have an impact on the outcome of something. E.g. we would like to predict the path of a floating ball. This is a large plastic ball and there are two kids inside. They pay a few Euros for half an hour inside this ball. The path is unpredictable, since we cannot know, what these kids are doing. Or we cannot know, how the wind would blow in the future. And all sort of other things we cannot know. So we have no chance to predict, what will happen to this ball. Predictability is restricted to very simple cases. But even in extremely simple case, there could be influences from unexpected sides and things go other ways than we predict. But that's not bad at all. Only the expectations should be a little lower than to predict the future. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 07:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dvj11bFp7duU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388238 |
Am 23.07.2016 22:41, schrieb Thomas Heger: > Am 23.07.2016 19:33, schrieb Tom Roberts: > : >>> As far as we know, nature behaves unpredictable. >> >> NONSENSE! Mostly nature behaves very predictably. We have excellent >> models that have great predictive power over large domains of interest >> to us. >> >> However it is true that in the quantum domain there is >> considerable randomness. Usually for macroscopic objects >> this randomness averages away.... >> >> >>> E.g. we cannot predict the path, a certain fly would take. >> >> You confuse complexity with unpredictability. A fly is FAR too complex >> for our models of nature to be applied. But there are lots of situations >> for which we can accurately predict how an individual atom will >> behave.... >> > > No. I want to express, that the input into a system, which we try to > model, is not known completely. > > This is so, because we have only access to a subset of all influences, > that have an impact on the outcome of something. > > E.g. we would like to predict the path of a floating ball. This is a > large plastic ball and there are two kids inside. They pay a few Euros > for half an hour inside this ball. > > The path is unpredictable, since we cannot know, what these kids are doing. > > Or we cannot know, how the wind would blow in the future. > > And all sort of other things we cannot know. So we have no chance to > predict, what will happen to this ball. > > Predictability is restricted to very simple cases. > > But even in extremely simple case, there could be influences from > unexpected sides and things go other ways than we predict. > > But that's not bad at all. Only the expectations should be a little > lower than to predict the future. > 'To measure' means, that a process is conducted, by which we refer to shape, size and behaviour of a system (in the macroscopic realm). But nature does not support this kind of measurements, since natural systems are based on infinite variations of similar principles. Example: we grow a plant, say a tree. With endless variations all trees look different, but somehow similar, even if they would stem from the same seed. This is so because macroscopic shape is a function of a multitude of tiny entities, which have themselves no idea of macroscopic shape. This is similar to clouds: clouds are composed from air and water-droplets. But the drops have no intention to create a specific shape of the cloud. So all clouds look different. This would not say, that drops are different and behave in different manners. Only size and shape could have variations, what makes macroscopic forms unpredictable. So natural systems behave from inside to outside. And the larger forms are an overlay of smaller forms. And this goes up and down very far. What we call 'macroscopic shape' is actually a certain level of a larger picture, which corresponds to the level we as humans beings have in respect to our own environment. This may be our own preferred realm of measurements and where we would like to predict things. But nature has other plans, rather than to provide us with information about the future. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web