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

Groups > sci.physics > #502538 > unrolled thread

particle nature of spacetime?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  particle nature of spacetime? Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2015-06-25 18:14 -0400
    Re: particle nature of spacetime? Ralph <mmman_90@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-25 19:15 -0400
    Re: particle nature of spacetime? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-06-25 18:18 -0700
      Re: particle nature of spacetime? Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-06-26 10:20 -0700
        Re: particle nature of spacetime? Ralph <mmman_90@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-27 19:40 -0400
    Re: particle nature of spacetime? "Col. Edmund J. Burke" <namcolonel@bigboobs.net> - 2015-06-25 18:31 -0700
      Re: particle nature of spacetime? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-06-25 19:45 -0700
        Re: particle nature of spacetime? Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2015-06-26 00:25 -0400
          Re: particle nature of spacetime? Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 00:34 -0400
          Re: particle nature of spacetime? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-06-25 22:23 -0700
            Re: particle nature of spacetime? Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-06-26 10:20 -0700
          Re: particle nature of spacetime? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 18:41 -0400
          Re: particle nature of spacetime? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 18:51 -0400
            Re: particle nature of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 15:57 -0700
          Re: particle nature of spacetime? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-06-27 16:16 -0400
          Re: particle nature of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 17:33 -0700
    Re: particle nature of spacetime? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-06-26 01:53 -0400
    Re: particle nature of spacetime? HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 11:27 -0400
      Re: particle nature of spacetime? Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2015-06-26 12:56 -0500
        Re: particle nature of spacetime? HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 15:00 -0400
          Re: particle nature of spacetime? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 20:05 -0400
            Re: particle nature of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 17:19 -0700
    Re: particle nature of spacetime? Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-06-26 10:25 -0700
    minkosKi's ****-up noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 15:12 -0700
    Re: particle nature of spacetime? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-07-02 11:38 -0400
    uh noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 16:27 -0700
    Re: particle nature of spacetime? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 18:29 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#502538 — particle nature of spacetime?

if everything has a wave/particle duality, what are the particles of 
spacetime? and their anti-particles?

I don't think the standard particle model addresses this

if space is "nothing", what is on the other side of "nothing", more 
"nothing"? space would be some set having a cardinality/ordinality of 
infinity, but "nothing" is the null-set and would only exist in 
philosophical logic and philosophical mathematics, this is a contradiction

would have to study the mathematics of general relativity to see how 
time is proposed to fit in here ...

-- 
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#502557

On 6/25/2015 6:14 PM, Dale wrote:
> if everything has a wave/particle duality, what are the particles of 
> spacetime? and their anti-particles?
>
> I don't think the standard particle model addresses this
>
> if space is "nothing", what is on the other side of "nothing", more 
> "nothing"? space would be some set having a cardinality/ordinality of 
> infinity, but "nothing" is the null-set and would only exist in 
> philosophical logic and philosophical mathematics, this is a 
> contradiction
>
> would have to study the mathematics of general relativity to see how 
> time is proposed to fit in here ...
>


Space isn't 'nothing'. It is a sea of energy. It's really simple, Dale. 
Space is energy, matter is energy, thus matter didn't come from 'nothing'.

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

#502587

In article <8iek21.at1.19.2@news.alt.net>, Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> 
wrote:

> if everything has a wave/particle duality, what are the particles of 
> spacetime? and their anti-particles?
> 
> I don't think the standard particle model addresses this
> 
> if space is "nothing", what is on the other side of "nothing", more 
> "nothing"? space would be some set having a cardinality/ordinality of 
> infinity, but "nothing" is the null-set and would only exist in 
> philosophical logic and philosophical mathematics, this is a contradiction
> 
> would have to study the mathematics of general relativity to see how 
> time is proposed to fit in here ...


Start with Physics 1 and work your way up.

-- 

JD

Being open-minded is merely the willingness to consider
evidence, not the willingness to accept claims without any.

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

#502753

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 18:18:01 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Jeanne Douglas
<hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>:

>In article <8iek21.at1.19.2@news.alt.net>, Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> 
>wrote:
>
>> if everything has a wave/particle duality, what are the particles of 
>> spacetime? and their anti-particles?
>> 
>> I don't think the standard particle model addresses this
>> 
>> if space is "nothing", what is on the other side of "nothing", more 
>> "nothing"? space would be some set having a cardinality/ordinality of 
>> infinity, but "nothing" is the null-set and would only exist in 
>> philosophical logic and philosophical mathematics, this is a contradiction
>> 
>> would have to study the mathematics of general relativity to see how 
>> time is proposed to fit in here ...
>
>
>Start with Physics 1 and work your way up.

I'd recommend something a bit less challenging; "See Spot
run", perhaps.
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

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

#503047

On 6/26/2015 1:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 18:18:01 -0700, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>:
>
>> In article <8iek21.at1.19.2@news.alt.net>, Dale <dale@dalekelly.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> if everything has a wave/particle duality, what are the particles of
>>> spacetime? and their anti-particles?
>>>
>>> I don't think the standard particle model addresses this
>>>
>>> if space is "nothing", what is on the other side of "nothing", more
>>> "nothing"? space would be some set having a cardinality/ordinality of
>>> infinity, but "nothing" is the null-set and would only exist in
>>> philosophical logic and philosophical mathematics, this is a contradiction
>>>
>>> would have to study the mathematics of general relativity to see how
>>> time is proposed to fit in here ...
>>
>> Start with Physics 1 and work your way up.
> I'd recommend something a bit less challenging; "See Spot
> run", perhaps.



:-))))).

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

#502591

"Dale"  wrote in message news:8iek21.at1.19.2@news.alt.net... 

if everything has a wave/particle duality, what are the particles of 
spacetime? and their anti-particles?

I don't think the standard particle model addresses this

if space is "nothing", what is on the other side of "nothing", more 
"nothing"? space would be some set having a cardinality/ordinality of 
infinity, but "nothing" is the null-set and would only exist in 
philosophical logic and philosophical mathematics, this is a contradiction

would have to study the mathematics of general relativity to see how 
time is proposed to fit in here ...

I vote for the cardinality of cordiality any day, little feller.

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

#502602

In article <mmi9uj$2g2$1@dont-email.me>,
 "Col. Edmund J. Burke" <namcolonel@bigboobs.net> wrote:

> "Dale"  wrote in message news:8iek21.at1.19.2@news.alt.net... 
> 
> if everything has a wave/particle duality, what are the particles of 
> spacetime? and their anti-particles?
> 
> I don't think the standard particle model addresses this
> 
> if space is "nothing", what is on the other side of "nothing"

Space isn't "nothing".

-- 

JD

Being open-minded is merely the willingness to consider
evidence, not the willingness to accept claims without any.

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

#502607

On 06/25/2015 10:45 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <mmi9uj$2g2$1@dont-email.me>,
>   "Col. Edmund J. Burke" <namcolonel@bigboobs.net> wrote:
>
>> "Dale"  wrote in message news:8iek21.at1.19.2@news.alt.net...
>>
>> if everything has a wave/particle duality, what are the particles of
>> spacetime? and their anti-particles?
>>
>> I don't think the standard particle model addresses this
>>
>> if space is "nothing", what is on the other side of "nothing"
>
> Space isn't "nothing".
>

what is "nothing" then ?

its at least a concept
concepts are material
the body is material
the brain is part of the body and material
concepts are part of the brain and material

concepts might not be actualizations, but they seem to have more or less 
descriptive characteristics of them

could you copy a concept from the brain and compare it to an 
actualization? I think I saw some brain imaging on TV where they did 
this and what people were thinking looked like the actualizations

-- 
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

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

#502608

Le 2015-06-26 00:25, Dale a écrit :
> On 06/25/2015 10:45 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article <mmi9uj$2g2$1@dont-email.me>,
>>   "Col. Edmund J. Burke" <namcolonel@bigboobs.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Dale"  wrote in message news:8iek21.at1.19.2@news.alt.net...
>>>
>>> if everything has a wave/particle duality, what are the particles of
>>> spacetime? and their anti-particles?
>>>
>>> I don't think the standard particle model addresses this
>>>
>>> if space is "nothing", what is on the other side of "nothing"
>>
>> Space isn't "nothing".
>>
>
> what is "nothing" then ?

You and your ideas. They don't amount to much.

-- 
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

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

#502609

In article <8if9ol.4b2.19.1@news.alt.net>, Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> 
wrote:

> On 06/25/2015 10:45 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <mmi9uj$2g2$1@dont-email.me>,
> >   "Col. Edmund J. Burke" <namcolonel@bigboobs.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Dale"  wrote in message news:8iek21.at1.19.2@news.alt.net...
> >>
> >> if everything has a wave/particle duality, what are the particles of
> >> spacetime? and their anti-particles?
> >>
> >> I don't think the standard particle model addresses this
> >>
> >> if space is "nothing", what is on the other side of "nothing"
> >
> > Space isn't "nothing".
> >
> 
> what is "nothing" then ?


There's no such thing.

-- 

JD

Being open-minded is merely the willingness to consider
evidence, not the willingness to accept claims without any.

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

#502754

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 22:23:44 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Jeanne Douglas
<hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>:

>In article <8if9ol.4b2.19.1@news.alt.net>, Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> 
>wrote:
>
>> On 06/25/2015 10:45 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> > In article <mmi9uj$2g2$1@dont-email.me>,
>> >   "Col. Edmund J. Burke" <namcolonel@bigboobs.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Dale"  wrote in message news:8iek21.at1.19.2@news.alt.net...
>> >>
>> >> if everything has a wave/particle duality, what are the particles of
>> >> spacetime? and their anti-particles?
>> >>
>> >> I don't think the standard particle model addresses this
>> >>
>> >> if space is "nothing", what is on the other side of "nothing"
>> >
>> > Space isn't "nothing".
>> >
>> 
>> what is "nothing" then ?
>
>
>There's no such thing.

Certainly not in this universe...
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

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

#502825

On 06/26/2015 11:14 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/26/2015 9:48 AM, john wrote:
>> Odd, surprisingly, had a glimmering!!:
>> "The trick is to find concepts which DO match things in nature, because
>> those are useful physical concepts. "Nothing" doesn't seem to be one of
>> those useful concepts."
>>
>> I so agree!!
>> Odd, what's happening to you?
>>
>> Other useless concepts:
>> Beginning of Everything (Big Bang)
>
> Ah, but this DOES seem to match reality. There is a significant amount
> of evidence that supports this. Recession of the distant galaxies being
> one. Cosmic ray background radiation being another.
>
> Remember that an idea is not crazy if the evidence supports it.
>
>> Ending of Everything
>
> This isn't something that I think is a popular concept in physics.
>
>> Something with no volume ( No two
>> things, etc...)
>
> Again, this seems to match reality. There are objects that show no
> indications of size. Saying "But they just HAVE to" when the evidence
> says otherwise is just imposing wishes.
>
>> Limits to the smallness or largeness of
>> organizations of energy (atoms, emr).
>
> This isn't something that I think is a popular concept in physics.
>
>> Virtual ANYTHING (real is real)
>
> Virtual particles don't mean unreal particles. They are very real.
> They're not imaginary at all. I don't think you should let words trick
> you so easily.
>
>>
>> I could go on, but it would just be a
>> continual dis on Standard Model

You could go on but you'd only prove yourself a total moron!
Virtual particles aren't real. They are PURE mathematical fantasy. Your 
undying belief in them is noted. I'll tell Harlow so you two can get 
together and share ghost stories. Boinker, I've never seen someone quite 
as gullible to bullshit as you are!


-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#502829

On 06/26/2015 11:16 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/26/2015 9:48 AM, john wrote:
>> ( No two
>> things, etc...)
>
> This mantra that you allude to "no two things can be in the same place
> at the same time", is not a physical law, and in fact there is
> considerable evidence that it is a false statement.
>
> I'm curious why you would think such a statement HAS to be true if there
> is strong evidence that it is not true.

"considerable evidence"? Boinker you are a hoot! If you two lovebirds 
are going to play at pretend science, you should should start by 
defining exactly what you mean by "things". What exactly is a "thing"? 
Well, it's not a "nothing", that is for sure! So can two "fields" be in 
the same place at the same time? Obviously. Are they "real"? Well they 
produce forces on material objects with mass etc. so that makes them 
real. So are fields "things"? The definition is up to you guys.



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#502830

Plus- there are different "kinds" of
fields. What makes them different?

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

#503010

On 26/06/2015 6:09 PM, john wrote:
> Atoms and galaxies are the iteration
> of the Universal Fractal.
> You're right- I take ownership of that idea.
>
> I was just talking theoretically- you know,
> let's say I wasn't propounding any ideas.
> Like you.
> Or HVAC.

There's been lots of instances on this newsgroup of posters changing 
their names, and they are all usually found out, just by comparing 
styles of writing. It's not hard to figure out it's the same person, 
within at least a week or two. Especially some of the kookier elements 
of this newsgroup, they stand out.

	Yousuf Khan

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

#503053

Harlow, I'll give you a hint:
Karma= "live by the sword, die by the sword".
            ="what goes around, comes around "
           ="reap what you sow"
You advocate killing: you lay yourself open to being killed.

I saw the guy who molested me later on
when he was weak and I was strong. All
I did was comment something to the
effect that I hoped he wasn't out being
bad. He's long dead, but it was old age
and protracted illness that killed him.
Why would I want that on my
conscience?
Now- I know you don't have a conscience,
and you think you can handle anything,
but sometimes Life can throw you a
freaky-assed curve.
I wouldn't want anything to happen to you,
with your nice hair. Come to think of it,
check the donor box on your license and
maybe they can scalp you and transplant
it on me!! Yeah! Then you'll have DONE
something!

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

#502613

On 25/06/2015 6:14 PM, Dale wrote:
> if everything has a wave/particle duality, what are the particles of
> spacetime? and their anti-particles?
>
> I don't think the standard particle model addresses this

The Natural or Planck Units seem to address this. A Planck Length seems 
to be the ultimate smallest unit of space, while a Planck Time is the 
ultimate smallest unit of time. It doesn't mean that you can't invent 
numbers smaller than this, they simply won't have any meaning below the 
Planck level.

It's a controversial subject, many traditionalists don't believe in 
Planck units as being anything more than a mathematical curiosity. That 
space and time must extend down infinitesimally. Others think Planck 
Units are telling us something fundamental about the universe. 
Superstring Theory, with all of its controversy, may be right about one 
thing, it envisions its fundamental objects, the strings, as being about 
1 Planck Length in size. Some of the strings may grow & inflate to 
larger than 1 Planck Length, but none may shrink below it. Even if 
Superstring Theory is disproved, this aspect may remain in any other 
next-generation theory.

My own take on this is that space and time are just our way of 
interpreting the minimum distances between particles (either energy or 
matter), and the minimum movements of these particles, respectively. If 
no two particles of anything can occupy the exact same space, then the 
Planck Length is the minimum space between any two particles. If 
particles are moving about, the minimum movement step would have to be 
between two adjacent Planck Lengths, and the amount of time that passes 
between these two steps is the Planck Time.

> if space is "nothing", what is on the other side of "nothing", more
> "nothing"? space would be some set having a cardinality/ordinality of
> infinity, but "nothing" is the null-set and would only exist in
> philosophical logic and philosophical mathematics, this is a contradiction

Space is a very special nothing, because it's filled with lots of stuff. 
Our traditional definition of a vacuum was any volume of space that has 
no matter in it. Well as of Einstein's Special Relativity, we've known 
that matter is just a special form of energy (it's a phase of energy, 
much like ice is a phase of water). Then as of the advent of Quantum 
Mechanics (especially Quantum Electrodynamics) we've known that space 
must be filled with energy -- huge amounts of energy as a matter of 
fact. We call this energy the Quantum Vacuum Energy, or just Vacuum 
Energy. This energy just exists because space exists: if space didn't 
exist, this energy wouldn't exist either. So since we know matter and 
energy are the same thing, if space is filled with energy everywhere, 
then there really can't be any real vacuum anywhere in the universe.

Now think of my wording up above, "if space didn't exist, this energy 
wouldn't exist either". This implies that space must exist as a 
something. There doesn't exist a true nothingness. Mathematicians have 
something that's less than nothing, which they call a null set: it's a 
true zero, it's entirely abstract, just exists as a thought experiment. 
But a true zero doesn't actually exist in this universe (or any other).

> would have to study the mathematics of general relativity to see how
> time is proposed to fit in here ...

Time is a dimension just like any of the spatial dimensions, but it 
happens to be the direction in which movements are measured. During the 
Big Bang, this is the direction that was randomly chosen for the 
momentum of the Big Bang to express itself.

	Yousuf Khan

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

#502718

On 6/26/2015 10:51 AM, benj wrote:
>
>> Really tho, there is nothing bad about being gay.
>> Well, 'cept the fact that you have to take a dick up the ol wazoo.
>
> Harlow you are such a bigoted homophobe! Don't you know that today
> same-sex marriage is considered completely normal? You are the one into
> deviant practices.


I actually don't give a fuck about a faggot. They can get married and 
prance around all they want. Gays should be entitled to get married and 
be miserable just like all the normal people.

In fact, I wish every guy on the planet was gay. Except me.


-- 
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

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

#502764

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:27:22 -0400, HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/26/2015 10:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>
>>> Really tho, there is nothing bad about being gay.
>>> Well, 'cept the fact that you have to take a dick up the ol wazoo.
>>
>> Harlow you are such a bigoted homophobe! Don't you know that today
>> same-sex marriage is considered completely normal? You are the one into
>> deviant practices.
>
>
>I actually don't give a fuck about a faggot. They can get married and 
>prance around all they want. Gays should be entitled to get married and 
>be miserable just like all the normal people.
>
>In fact, I wish every guy on the planet was gay. Except me.
>
I think most would agree with you if they would choose another name
for their gay union. Marriage is, by definition, a legal and moral
union between one man and one woman.

They should have the same legal/tax/inheritance etc. rights as a
conventional married couple but they do need to come up with a
different name for their union. 

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

#502780

On 6/26/2015 1:56 PM, Gordon wrote:
>
>> I actually don't give a fuck about a faggot. They can get married and
>> prance around all they want. Gays should be entitled to get married and
>> be miserable just like all the normal people.
>>
>> In fact, I wish every guy on the planet was gay. Except me.
>>
> I think most would agree with you if they would choose another name
> for their gay union. Marriage is, by definition, a legal and moral
> union between one man and one woman.
>
> They should have the same legal/tax/inheritance etc. rights as a
> conventional married couple but they do need to come up with a
> different name for their union.


The tv show South Park came up with 'butt buddies'.


-- 
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web