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

Groups > sci.physics > #590422 > unrolled thread

Re: QM and GR.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 13:29 -0700
          Re: QM and GR. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:24 -0400
            Re: QM and GR. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 05:00 -0700
      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. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 10:11 -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
        that & this noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:46 -0700
          Re: that & this noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:21 -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
              so sad, that M. is known only for his slogan about a mere phase-space noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:03 -0700
                lightcone(s brandonahenley9@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 12:18 -0700
              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. 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. 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. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-08 13:07 -0700
                Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-08 13:05 -0700
                Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 22:52 +0200
                  Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:11 -0700
                  Re: Nature decides _everything_. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 08:42 +0200
                    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. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 12:54 -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. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 13:38 -0700
                        Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 23:53 +0200
                          da tum noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 11:06 -0700
                      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: Nature decides _everything_. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-09 14:40 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#591127

Am 27.07.2016 19:11, schrieb Tom Roberts:

>> Another example is that SRT can be obtained from a set of (intuitive)
>> "relativity" axioms, yielding constant speed of light as a theorem
>> instead of
>> taking in as a (non-intuitive) axiom.
>
> Yes. I have pointed this out many times around here. But I would
> characterize the postulate as "invariance" or "symmetry" rather than
> "relativity", even though Einstein did call it the "principle of
> relativity".
>

The principle of relativity includes variance of length of material 
objects (length contraction) and time intervals (time dilation).

To call this a 'postulate of invariance' is a little twisted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity

Quote

"The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical 
phenomena should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an 
observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation; so that we 
have not and could not have any means of discerning whether or not we 
are carried along in such a motion.
— Henri Poincaré, 1904"

So the laws of nature do not change (are invariant).

Since some parts of nature do in fact change (e.g. length of material 
objects) it is the question, which laws are not subject to a change of 
velocity in uniform motion.

Especially the 'speed of time' seems to be variable. This is not 
measurable, hence get 'normalised' away.

In a spacetime diagram the axis of time is put into vertical and the 
hyperplane of the present in horizontal direction - irrespective of 
'real' movement.

This is actually possible, but makes time a local unit and linked to the 
co-moving hyperplane of the present.

So time is 'movement with no space' and present means 'movement with no 
time'.

What we call 'space' is therefore 'relative', too, since it is a 
combination of both 'movements' in space and time (the past light cone).

So with every possible axis of time we also have an associated 
'universe', but only one in every single case.

What is not an invariant upon such changes of the length of time 
intervals, that is the content of such a 'universe' - whether they are 
material or not.

So one ray of light is a ray of light only in respect to the universe it 
passes through. Also material objects would vanish if time is altered.

So we have variance of items, which we usually regard as invariant.



TH

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

#591132

On 7/29/2016 3:20 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> So the laws of nature do not change (are invariant).
>
> Since some parts of nature do in fact change (e.g. length of material
> objects) it is the question, which laws are not subject to a change of
> velocity in uniform motion.

And so it's useful to learn the difference between laws (which are 
invariant) and the values of properties which appear in those laws 
(which are variant).

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#591148 — so sad, that M. is known only for his slogan about a mere phase-space

Minkowski made so much *mathematica, a lot of whcih was n-ary,
like his n-ary Pick's theorem, but
I havae not read any of it, but that

> In a spacetime diagram the axis of time is put into vertical and the 
> hyperplane of the present in horizontal direction - irrespective of 
> 'real' movement.
> 
> This is actually possible, but makes time a local unit and linked to the 
> co-moving hyperplane of the present.
> 
> So time is 'movement with no space' and present means 'movement with no 
> time'.
> 
> What we call 'space' is therefore 'relative', too, since it is a 
> combination of both 'movements' in space and time (the past light cone).
> 
> So with every possible axis of time we also have an associated 
> 'universe', but only one in every single case.
> 
> What is not an invariant upon such changes of the length of time 
> intervals, that is the content of such a 'universe' - whether they are 
> material or not.
> 
> So one ray of light is a ray of light only in respect to the universe it 
> passes through. Also material objects would vanish if time is altered.
> 
> So we have variance of items, which we usually regard as invariant.
> 
> 
> 
> TH

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

#591184 — lightcone(s

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:04:02 AM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote:
> Minkowski made so much *mathematica, a lot of whcih was n-ary,

so, when Lanczos used quaternions for special relativity,
time is the canonical scalar, and space is i, j and k imaginary units,
viz the lightconeheads

> > So one ray of light is a ray of light only in respect to the universe it 
> > passes through. Also material objects would vanish if time is altered.
> > 
> > So we have variance of items, which we usually regard as invariant.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > TH

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

#592203 — Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 07:21:40 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:

> 
> Relativity can be used to model:
> 
>   The rate at which the time axis grows, 
>   relative to the spatial dimensions.
>

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

What a supreme dunce!

Relativity is used to transform 4-vectors (ct, x, y, z)
within a 4-D manifold (space) according to the Lorentz
transformation.

All dimensions are on an equal footing.  The same for
energy-momentum 4-vectors.


Your statement above is only a strange gibberish that
uses a few of the appropriate terms but embodies absolutely
no appropriate meaning.

Get back to your Microsoft Windows.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

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

#592223 — Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions.

On 8/7/16 8/7/16   9:21 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Thomas_Heger wrote:
>> the 'speed of time' seems to be variable.
>
> Relativity can be used to model:
>
>   The rate at which the time axis grows,
>   relative to the spatial dimensions.

No. You REALLY need to learn something about relativity before attempting to 
write about it.


Tom Roberts

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

#592310 — Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions.

Tom Roberts wrote:

>On 8/7/16 8/7/16   9:21 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:

*plonk*

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

#592299 — Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions.

Am 07.08.2016 16:21, schrieb Jeff-Relf.Me:
> Thomas_Heger wrote:
>>  the'speed of time'  seems to be variable.
>
> Relativity can be used to model:
>
>    The rate at which the time axis grows,
>    relative to the spatial dimensions.

Usually I go the opposite way:

(local) time is put into vertical direction.

'Space' as a concept is based on light, So we want to express with 
something remote in space (say a star), that intervals in space are 
measured in light-years.

This is not really the same thing as we denote with 'distance' in our 
close vicinity, which we usually measure with rigid devices.

But distant objects are far away also in time (and in space).

If we add timelike and spacelike intervals equally, we get what is 
called the 'past-light-cone'.

So what we see in space is actually restricted to our own past light cone.

This light-cone is always centred around the axis of time.

The inverse to the axis time is called spacelike and that denotes the 
'hyper-plane' of the present.

That hyperplane is perpendicular to the axis of time.

Now we move along our local axis of time by some sort of force, which 
tends to 'push' us into the future.

The light-cone and the hyperplane of the present we take with us (into 
the future).

Now we could watch other objects and think about their local axis of 
time. Then we find, their time seems to run at slightly different rates, 
compared with ours.

Usually their time runs slower by a very small amount. That means: their 
local axis of time has an angle toward our own local axis of time, since 
the other objects are at other places.

We could also define the set of all places, where the time-rate is equal 
to ours, while the vertical at an angle.

This is apparently the surface of planet Earth, where all clocks tick at 
the same rate. (The set of places with such a feature I call 'time-domain'.)


TH

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

#592344 — Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past.

Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> 
> TakuyaSaitoh wrote:
> > I need to go back to the past some 30 years
> > to warn myself of some disastrous events coming.
> 
> _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past;
> the (4d) TimeScape is static.  The more ignorant you are,
> the more you (erroneously) believe in "free will".
> 
> We were programmed by nature to breathe, drink, etc.



you can easily change the past if the information of the past is
wrong...


from example if you discover late that your mother is not your mother..

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

#592347 — Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past.

The Starmaker wrote:

> Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:

*plonk*

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

#592362 — Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past.

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 11:02:06 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> > 
> > TakuyaSaitoh wrote:
> > > I need to go back to the past some 30 years
> > > to warn myself of some disastrous events coming.
> > 
> > _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past;
> > the (4d) TimeScape is static.  The more ignorant you are,
> > the more you (erroneously) believe in "free will".
> > 
> > We were programmed by nature to breathe, drink, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> you can easily change the past if the information of the past is
> wrong...
> 
> 
> from example if you discover late that your mother is not your mother..


You could say that about most written history.

Double-A

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

#592361 — Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past.

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 8:12:43 AM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> TakuyaSaitoh wrote:
> > I need to go back to the past some 30 years 
> > to warn myself of some disastrous events coming.
> 
> _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past;
> the (4d) TimeScape is static.  The more ignorant you are,
> the more you (erroneously) believe in "free will".
> 
> We were programmed by nature to breathe, drink, etc.


Is there only one TimeScape?

Double-A

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

#592372 — Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past.

Am 08.08.2016 17:12, schrieb Jeff-Relf.Me:
> TakuyaSaitoh wrote:
>>  I need to go back to the past some 30 years
>>  to warn myself of some disastrous events coming.
>
> _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past;
> the (4d) TimeScape is static.  The more ignorant you are,
> the more you (erroneously) believe in"free will".
>
> We were programmed by nature to breathe, drink, etc.


Actually I don't think so.

IOW: you must not think in therms like '4d-space'.

It's actually a little tricky.

I would say, that spacetime has a topology of 3d-time.

'Space', as we use that term, is based on a certain, but arbitrary 
direction of time.

Since I call matter 'timelike stable structures' and since the observer 
is a material object, the observer choses the timeline, which enables 
him to stay together in one piece as material object.

This is the obvious choice for the local axis of time.

In 'relativity lingo' the axis called 'timelike' is vertical and has the 
angle zero.

The light-cone has the angle 45 °, what stands for c in vacuum.

And the inverse to timelike is called 'spacelike' and in right angle to 
the axis of time.

Now: the angle 45° is always 'relative' to the timeline of the observer, 
hence space is 'relative', too.

That is slightly counter-intuitive, since matter is then also observer 
dependent.

Anyhow...

If you would like to leave your particular axis of stability, you simply 
need to accelerate from zero (velocity) to something different (then 
your tv).

This is in fact possible (in most cases), since you have the choice to move.


TH

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

#592398 — Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past.

it depends upon what you mean by the terms being used,
so to say

> IOW: you must not think in therms like '4d-space'.
> 
> It's actually a little tricky.
> 
> I would say, that spacetime has a topology of 3d-time.
> 
> 'Space', as we use that term, is based on a certain, but arbitrary 
> direction of time.
> 
> Since I call matter 'timelike stable structures' and since the observer 
> is a material object, the observer choses the timeline, which enables 
> him to stay together in one piece as material object.
> 
> This is the obvious choice for the local axis of time.
> 
> In 'relativity lingo' the axis called 'timelike' is vertical and has the 
> angle zero.
> 
> The light-cone has the angle 45 °, what stands for c in vacuum.
> 
> And the inverse to timelike is called 'spacelike' and in right angle to 
> the axis of time.
> 
> Now: the angle 45° is always 'relative' to the timeline of the observer, 
> hence space is 'relative', too.
> 
> That is slightly counter-intuitive, since matter is then also observer 
> dependent.
> 
> Anyhow...
> 
> If you would like to leave your particular axis of stability, you simply 
> need to accelerate from zero (velocity) to something different (then 
> your tv).
> 
> This is in fact possible (in most cases), since you have the choice to move.
> 
> 
> TH

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

#592468 — Re: Nature decides _everything_.

Am 09.08.2016 01:23, schrieb Jeff-Relf.Me:

>>  >  _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past;
>>  >  the (4d) TimeScape is static.  The more ignorant you are,
>>  >  the more you (erroneously) believe in"free will".
>>  >
>>  >  We were programmed by nature to breathe, drink, etc.
>>
>>  [ ... ] you have the choice to move.
>
> Nature decides _everything_;
> including your SoCalled"choices"  and what you want.

'Predetermination' is actually an old concept and was believed to be 
true for a long time.

But this is most likely not, how nature actually functions.

So you may actually change things, especially those in your vicinity.

E.g. you could repair your shoes, for instance, or you could decide to 
do not (and watch tv instead).

The difference: in one case you have a functioning pair of shoes, you do 
not have in the other case.

If instead you are watching more tv, you will have additional 
information about the life and experiences of a family, where the father 
sells shoes.


TH

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

#592537 — Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other.

Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> 
> Just because something is too complex to fully understand,
> like tomorrow's weather, doesn't mean that it's truly random.
> 
> "Predetermination" is a bad word because it implies knowledge.
> Randomess is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> You ( Thomas_Heger ) wrote:
> > You could repair your shoes, for instance,
> > or you could decide to do not (and watch tv instead).
> 
> Nature programmed you to choose one over the other.
> 
>   _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past;
>   the (4d) TimeScape is static.  The more ignorant you are,
>   the more you (erroneously) believe in "free will".
> 
>   We were programmed by nature to breathe, drink, etc.


Who is programming Nature?

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

#592546 — Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other.

this is just the reification of Minkowski's so-called metric,
and the slogan of timennspacenn being other
than a simply cannonically scalar

> No one; intrinsically, the (4d) TimeScape is static.
> 
> Virtually, however, everything is spontaneously consuming
> "eXergy" ( energy that can do work );
> the Sun does it, we do it, as does the entire cosmos.

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

#592560 — Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other.

Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> 
> Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> > >   _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past;
> > >   the (4d) TimeScape is static.  The more ignorant you are,
> > >   the more you (erroneously) believe in "free will".
> > >
> > >   We were programmed by nature to breathe, drink, etc.
> >
> > Who is programming Nature?
> 
> No one; intrinsically, the (4d) TimeScape is static.
> 
> Virtually, however, everything is spontaneously consuming
> "eXergy" ( energy that can do work );
> the Sun does it, we do it, as does the entire cosmos.


Okay, then what type of computer is nature using to program us to breathe, drink, etc.? Or which version of Windows is nature using??

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

#592562 — Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other.

winwods bar-nine dot zero,
which is ten-adic for a)
minusone, and b)
infinity;
teh dot and the zero are just formal place-holders

> Okay, then what type of computer is nature using to program us to breathe, drink, etc.? Or which version of Windows is nature using??

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

#592582 — Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other.

Am 09.08.2016 22:35, schrieb The Starmaker:
  Or which version of Windows is nature using??

3.1


TH

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web