Question - out of curiosity

Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Question - out of curiosity

I'm curious to know what the science-minded here think we should base a quantisation of space-time on.

Yes, I have my own ideas... and if you ask nice I might post them, but I would like to hear most of all what atheists especially, think would be the intuitive basis and why.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sure what you mean

I'm not sure what you mean by "quantization of space-time." Personally I would base it around volume per period (m3/s), unless you 're referring to something more relative. Where would you use this quantization?


TomJ
atheist
TomJ's picture
Posts: 112
Joined: 2008-01-20
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:I'm curious to

Eloise wrote:

I'm curious to know what the science-minded here think we should base a quantisation of space-time on.

Yes, I have my own ideas... and if you ask nice I might post them, but I would like to hear most of all what atheists especially, think would be the intuitive basis and why.

I say base it on either one of 2 things:

1. Observational evidence of quantization.  I mean that energy, mass, and time measures are always multiples of universal constant.

2. If using quanization makes good predictions.

Remember how you figured out there is no Santa? Well, their god is just like Santa. They just haven’t figured out he’s not real yet.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
TomJ wrote:Eloise wrote:I'm

TomJ wrote:

Eloise wrote:

I'm curious to know what the science-minded here think we should base a quantisation of space-time on.

Yes, I have my own ideas... and if you ask nice I might post them, but I would like to hear most of all what atheists especially, think would be the intuitive basis and why.

I say base it on either one of 2 things:

1. Observational evidence of quantization.  I mean that energy, mass, and time measures are always multiples of universal constant.

2. If using quanization makes good predictions.

Wow, I had a completely different idea of what she meant. If by "base" she means it as in the phrase "empirically based," then quantum physics experimentation has already done this as far as I can tell.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'm not sure what you

Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "quantization of space-time." Personally I would base it around volume per period (m3/s), unless you 're referring to something more relative. Where would you use this quantization?

It sounds to me like she was asking what the quanta would be, in a hypothetical quantization of space-time. At least that was how I interpreted.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:I'm

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "quantization of space-time." Personally I would base it around volume per period (m3/s), unless you 're referring to something more relative. Where would you use this quantization?

It sounds to me like she was asking what the quanta would be, in a hypothetical quantization of space-time. At least that was how I interpreted.

Yeah, I think DG has the closest interpretation of what I was asking, sorry I didn't realise I was being obscure.. well, at least not in that way, anyhow.

Okay, to rephrase my question, how would you quantise space time? at least, if you were trying to, what basis would you look to intuitively describe the nature of a quantum, space-time, "bubble"?

I know the chances are that nobody really has any ideas about it, which is cool because it's not exactly an easy, everyday thing to consider, but I was just curious to see if anyone had any ideas to share.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard wrote:I'm

inspectormustard wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "quantization of space-time." Personally I would base it around volume per period (m3/s), unless you 're referring to something more relative.

a relative - ish description would make more sense as volume per second is too background dependent to be particularly useful.

InspectorMustard wrote:

Where would you use this quantization?

To describe quantum gravity with any luck. Smiling but seriously, quantum space-time geometry could be potentially used for everything.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
TomJ wrote:Eloise wrote:I'm

TomJ wrote:

Eloise wrote:

I'm curious to know what the science-minded here think we should base a quantisation of space-time on.

Yes, I have my own ideas... and if you ask nice I might post them, but I would like to hear most of all what atheists especially, think would be the intuitive basis and why.

I say base it on either one of 2 things:

1. Observational evidence of quantization.  I mean that energy, mass, and time measures are always multiples of universal constant.

2. If using quanization makes good predictions.

Hi Tom,

No I didn't mean that at all, I'm of the opinion that quantised space-time is the not-too-distant future of physics, and not a moment too soon, at that. I'm really just asking, who has been thinking about this around here? and what are your thoughts? if you don't mind sharing them, of course.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 But any quantization is in

 But any quantization is in some way arbitrary and subject to interpretation. Is that why you're asking?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I know the chances are

Quote:

I know the chances are that nobody really has any ideas about it, which is cool because it's not exactly an easy, everyday thing to consider, but I was just curious to see if anyone had any ideas to share.

You probably aren't going to get many responses. Nobody has come close to unifying Relativity and Quantum mechanics, so an internet forum is probably not going to produce a spark of genius that will.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote: But any

HisWillness wrote:

 But any quantization is in some way arbitrary and subject to interpretation. Is that why you're asking?

No, I don't think so. I'm not so much interested in anyone here on the forum coming up with the end product, only in other peoples ideas as to where to start (what quantities could describe a unit of space-time) and how they might justify starting with those quantities.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:I

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

I know the chances are that nobody really has any ideas about it, which is cool because it's not exactly an easy, everyday thing to consider, but I was just curious to see if anyone had any ideas to share.

You probably aren't going to get many responses. Nobody has come close to unifying Relativity and Quantum mechanics, so an internet forum is probably not going to produce a spark of genius that will.

LOL, fair enough. But that's kind of why I am asking, because nobody has yet come close, radical thinking, however it might be basically flawed, is sometimes helpful with that problem.

Can I ask you a question DG? Do you believe there is one theory and if so which one do you think breaks down into it, quantum or relativity?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I believe it will be

I believe it will be possible to unify QM and Relativity, thus creating what is colloquialy called the Theory of Everything. To do so, however, requires a quantum explanation of gravity, something which nobody has ever achieved. If there is one theory, it will fall under QM. According to our understanding of physics, every physical phenomenon should be able to be explained in terms of quantum mechanics. To have a phenomenon which cannot be explained by QM is to have a disjointed understanding of reality. As to which hypothetical explanation should work for this, I'm not holding my breath on M-theory, loop quantum gravity seems promising, but of course, you must remember, I am not a physicist. This is not my field. Thus, although I can follow developments, I adopt a wait and see approach. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


TomJ
atheist
TomJ's picture
Posts: 112
Joined: 2008-01-20
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Hi Tom,No I

Eloise wrote:

Hi Tom,

No I didn't mean that at all, I'm of the opinion that quantised space-time is the not-too-distant future of physics, and not a moment too soon, at that. I'm really just asking, who has been thinking about this around here? and what are your thoughts? if you don't mind sharing them, of course.

I am amazed to have recently learned that just about all the forces have been merged into the electro-strong-weak force, with gravity still being the lone force that acts according to its own seperate law.

{edit:  I am apparently delusional in my assertions about the unification of strong and electroweak. Well, the strong nuclear force is still considered a separate force.  I could have sworn I read about a significant discovery in concerning this, but I can't find it anywhere. Oh well , don't mind me and my spewing of bad info... }

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity spoke of the fabric of space-time, maybe this is the dark matter that keeps that universe together.  Maybe the quanta of space time are these hidden particles that aren't affected by the electro/strong/weak force.  I've read that gravity waves were key to proving something fundamental in this area, but the magnitude of their fluctuation is almost immeasurable. Or rather I should say that if one were near something that generated measurable gravity waves, it would probably be something fairly dangerously massive enough to threaten the continued existence of the solar system.

But alas, physics is not my area of expertise.  I like to read the journals every so often, but I definately stay at the shallow end of the physics pool of knowledge.

Remember how you figured out there is no Santa? Well, their god is just like Santa. They just haven’t figured out he’s not real yet.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:I'm not so much

Eloise wrote:

I'm not so much interested in anyone here on the forum coming up with the end product, only in other peoples ideas as to where to start (what quantities could describe a unit of space-time) and how they might justify starting with those quantities.

But ... um ... calculus.

That's the whole of my argument, actually. Getting all discrete math where almost all of the math that's done in physics is calculus is just confusing.

I mean, if you want to say there's a smallest unit of space-time and call it the "Eloise", go ahead. You can make it an N-dimensional limit as space-time approaches zero.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 Wait, I think I can work

 Wait, I think I can work with this idea.

"Kids, I'm one Eloise away from turning this car around."

"I could kick your ass in an Eloise."

It's certainly more colourful than the usual expressions.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Eloise

HisWillness wrote:

Eloise wrote:

I'm not so much interested in anyone here on the forum coming up with the end product, only in other peoples ideas as to where to start (what quantities could describe a unit of space-time) and how they might justify starting with those quantities.

But ... um ... calculus.

Oh, so I see where you stand, now, Will, Okay...

(kidding.. Sticking out tongue)

HisWillness wrote:

That's the whole of my argument, actually. Getting all discrete math where almost all of the math that's done in physics is calculus is just confusing.

No? Really? Mixing discrete and continuous physics is confusing, you say?

HisWillness wrote:

I mean, if you want to say there's a smallest unit of space-time and call it the "Eloise", go ahead. You can make it an N-dimensional limit as space-time approaches zero.

Is that a dare?

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote: Wait, I

HisWillness wrote:

 Wait, I think I can work with this idea.

"Kids, I'm one Eloise away from turning this car around."

"I could kick your ass in an Eloise."

It's certainly more colourful than the usual expressions.

 

LOL! I like!

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:HisWillness

Eloise wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

I mean, if you want to say there's a smallest unit of space-time and call it the "Eloise", go ahead. You can make it an N-dimensional limit as space-time approaches zero.

Is that a dare?

Totally.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:No? Really?

Eloise wrote:

No? Really? Mixing discrete and continuous physics is confusing, you say?

Well ... uh ... not for someone with such an enormous brain as mine, but ... uh ... maybe for other people ... like, uh ... LOOK OVER THERE!

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I think a better way to

I think a better way to tackle this would be to ask, what do we need in order to quantize space-time.

Well, we clearly need the physical constants we already have, and perhaps others to be named later, like the speed of light and gravitational constant.

We also need a much better understanding of gravity on the quantum level.

To do that, we need a lot more experience in and understanding of how to work in more than 4 dimentional systems.

To do that, we need to better understand fundamental particles.

All that said, I think space-time, if it is ever quantized beyond our idea of light-years, will involve the understanding of accelerations within multiple dimentions.

That isn't much of an answer, I know, but part of arrive at such an answer lies in recognizing the pieces of the puzzle we don't have quite yet.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:All

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

All that said, I think space-time, if it is ever quantized beyond our idea of light-years, will involve the understanding of accelerations within multiple dimentions.

We have agreement !  How interesting, and slightly unexpected.

May I ask, by the way, why you say "in multiple dimensions"? Acceleration (well more directly change and differences in velocity) basically covers what I am thinking about.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The amount of information

The amount of information that can be obtained from particle and/or photon could be a basis.

Empty space has zero information, like a computer's memory that is erased. A particle has a finite amount of information associated with it(position, frequency/energy). Since high energy particles have more information(i.e. finer quantization) the so called base quantization is higher than low energy particles.

So there is not really a base quantization of time-space. There is empty time-space which has the potential to contain packets of information(particles/photons) which are all being clock by the digital computer(our time/space universe) at the speed of light.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The amount of

EXC wrote:

The amount of information that can be obtained from particle and/or photon could be a basis.

Empty space has zero information, like a computer's memory that is erased. A particle has a finite amount of information associated with it(position, frequency/energy). Since high energy particles have more information(i.e. finer quantization) the so called base quantization is higher than low energy particles.

So there is not really a base quantization of time-space. There is empty time-space which has the potential to contain packets of information(particles/photons) which are all being clock by the digital computer(our time/space universe) at the speed of light.

Empty space isn't empty, though. For one thing, there's the quantum foam. For another, space warps. Both could be considered kinds of information.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard wrote:EXC

inspectormustard wrote:

Empty space isn't empty, though. For one thing, there's the quantum foam. For another, space warps. Both could be considered kinds of information.

Then what is the amount of information in empty space? Sounds like the foam and virtual particles are conductors of information but have zero information. Like a computer memory that is erased it has the potiential to contain real information, but if it's empty(erased) it has zero information.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:inspectormustard

EXC wrote:

inspectormustard wrote:

Empty space isn't empty, though. For one thing, there's the quantum foam. For another, space warps. Both could be considered kinds of information.

Then what is the amount of information in empty space? Sounds like the foam and virtual particles are conductors of information but have zero information. Like a computer memory that is erased it has the potiential to contain real information, but if it's empty(erased) it has zero information.

Yes, I suppose you're right on the virtual particle part.

Still, if space really bends with gravity there's more information there than just "particle x has gravity y," there's a whole 3d field around the particle that (as far as my imagination will take me) isn't wholly attributable to particles. If there are messenger particles of spacial density then those particles would also be carrying time density as well. I know density is probably a bad word to use, hold your fire. Anyway, harnessing those particles would lead to some pretty crazy stuff. These particles would also have to be more abundant than photons since they would be affecting the relative position of entire galaxies.

I'll think about it more when I'm less tired and brain fried. I'm sure I'm forgetting something that makes that whole paragraph I just wrote into stupid-talk. Yeah, I said stupid-talk. That's how tired I am.


QuasarX
QuasarX's picture
Posts: 242
Joined: 2007-10-04
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:inspectormustard

EXC wrote:

inspectormustard wrote:

Empty space isn't empty, though. For one thing, there's the quantum foam. For another, space warps. Both could be considered kinds of information.

Then what is the amount of information in empty space? Sounds like the foam and virtual particles are conductors of information but have zero information. Like a computer memory that is erased it has the potiential to contain real information, but if it's empty(erased) it has zero information.

I lean more towards the idea of conductors of information than storers of information myself.  So, going with the computer analogy, they wouldn't be memory but rather the silicon wires that connect the logic gates.  There is always some information on the line (at least while the circuitry is active with flowing electricity) but that information rapidly changes as the state of the system progresses.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:May I ask, by

Eloise wrote:

May I ask, by the way, why you say "in multiple dimensions"? Acceleration (well more directly change and differences in velocity) basically covers what I am thinking about.

Acceleration of any arbitrary mass?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The amount of

EXC wrote:

The amount of information that can be obtained from particle and/or photon could be a basis.

That's interesting, and I think there is some truth to what you're saying/thinking however, I don't see how that can be a basis, it kinda needs to be a result.

EXC wrote:

Empty space has zero information, like a computer's memory that is erased.

What empty space is that? Is that empty space by definition, or are you referring to the appearance of physical spaces in everyday experience?

EXC wrote:

There is empty time-space

Is there? How do you know this?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Eloise

HisWillness wrote:

Eloise wrote:

May I ask, by the way, why you say "in multiple dimensions"? Acceleration (well more directly change and differences in velocity) basically covers what I am thinking about.

Acceleration of any arbitrary mass?

Aha! quick on the uptake as usual, Will. Smiling

No, of course, as a proportion of specific energies.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Aha! quick on

Eloise wrote:

Aha! quick on the uptake as usual, Will. Smiling

That's all that learnin' I done in them schools.

Eloise wrote:

No, of course, as a proportion of specific energies.

Browr? I think you may have lost me, but that's all the equations in my head being unable to find a direct relationship between a proportion of energy (are we still talking kinetic energy?) and acceleration that wouldn't somehow involve a mass. Help? 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Eloise

HisWillness wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Aha! quick on the uptake as usual, Will. Smiling

That's all that learnin' I done in them schools.

LOL, no really you are.

HisWillness wrote:

Eloise wrote:

No, of course, as a proportion of specific energies.

Browr? I think you may have lost me, but that's all the equations in my head being unable to find a direct relationship between a proportion of energy (are we still talking kinetic energy?) and acceleration that wouldn't somehow involve a mass. Help? 

When I said no I was referring to 'arbitrary'. You know you make it difficult to be elusive with your pertinent questions, Will, dammit.  Okay, I shouldn't say but.... what I am thinking is that the specific energies of any arbitrary mass must necessarily be a direct proportion to the kinetic energy of a "boson" whereas the bosonic fields are in relativistic proportion to each other. So what you have is either the mass has enough specific energy to make its own gravity or it necessarily must contribute to field of gravity which is in a precise proportion to light energy. (time and space should then be precisely given by the proportions, mass and velocity, of the most efficient body)

But there is a significant way to understand gravity which makes this make more sense... but I'd like to keep that to myself for now, if you don't mind. ;D

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:When I said no

Eloise wrote:
When I said no I was referring to 'arbitrary'. You know you make it difficult to be elusive with your pertinent questions, Will, dammit.

I yam what I yam. (A jerk, in case nobody's been paying attention.)

Eloise wrote:
what I am thinking is that the specific energies of any arbitrary mass must necessarily be a direct proportion to the kinetic energy of a "boson" whereas the bosonic fields are in relativistic proportion to each other.

Oh-HO! Do I smell a unification attempt, or are you giving time a couple of dimensions instead of just one? Like on  this site?

Eloise wrote:
So what you have is either the mass has enough specific energy to make its own gravity or it necessarily must contribute to field of gravity which is in a precise proportion to light energy.

I thought bosons were self-gravitating by definition. But what you're talking about seems to be the potential energy of the mass of the boson when you say "specific energy".

Eloise wrote:
(time and space should then be precisely given by the proportions, mass and velocity, of the most efficient body)

By "efficient body" do you mean the net vector(s)?

Eloise wrote:
But there is a significant way to understand gravity which makes this make more sense... but I'd like to keep that to myself for now, if you don't mind. ;D

What a tease! Is it five dimensions, or is it base gravitation for a particle that measures exactly one Eloise?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
THat site's interesting, I'm

THat site's interesting, I'm impressed by what he is saying but there's a lot missing from it. BTW. Do you really need to ask if I'm giving time extra dimensions? seriously?

HisWillness wrote:

Eloise wrote:
So what you have is either the mass has enough specific energy to make its own gravity or it necessarily must contribute to field of gravity which is in a precise proportion to light energy.

I thought bosons were self-gravitating by definition. But what you're talking about seems to be the potential energy of the mass of the boson when you say "specific energy".

Er, what did I do there? I've accidentally deleted a word or two, I think, oops.

Anyhow, the simple intuitive treatment is to take the mechanical energy of a system, if this is sufficiently large (well exactly large enough really) it's an efficient gravitational field, if it's not then the mass is necessarily contributing gravitational energy to one that is - basic enough, right ?

So then I say that system is conjoined to other mass via a concurrent space-time degree (where "space-time degree" means: I'm eluding the question).

HisWillness wrote:

Eloise wrote:
(time and space should then be precisely given by the proportions, mass and velocity, of the most efficient body)

By "efficient body" do you mean the net vector(s)?

That depends on what you're looking at.

HisWillness wrote:

Eloise wrote:
But there is a significant way to understand gravity which makes this make more sense... but I'd like to keep that to myself for now, if you don't mind. ;D

What a tease! Is it five dimensions, or is it base gravitation for a particle that measures exactly one Eloise?

neither of those things really.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote: Eloise

HisWillness wrote:

Eloise wrote:
what I am thinking is that the specific energies of any arbitrary mass must necessarily be a direct proportion to the kinetic energy of a "boson" whereas the bosonic fields are in relativistic proportion to each other.

Oh-HO! Do I smell a unification attempt, or are you giving time a couple of dimensions instead of just one? Like on  this site?

More like on this site, amirite? Heheh, I kid.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard

inspectormustard wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Eloise wrote:
what I am thinking is that the specific energies of any arbitrary mass must necessarily be a direct proportion to the kinetic energy of a "boson" whereas the bosonic fields are in relativistic proportion to each other.

Oh-HO! Do I smell a unification attempt, or are you giving time a couple of dimensions instead of just one? Like on  this site?

More like on this site, amirite? Heheh, I kid.

Wow that's nuts.. I know you said you're kidding but, seriously mustard, what gives there? How did you find that and why?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
I've known about that site

I've known about that site for ages, still cracks me up. The guy is a loony, but also the first thing I think of when I hear "multi-dimensional time."

TIME CUBE: Because time is bipolar. . .? lol


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard wrote:I've

inspectormustard wrote:

I've known about that site for ages, still cracks me up. The guy is a loony, but also the first thing I think of when I hear "multi-dimensional time."

TIME CUBE: Because time is bipolar. . .? lol

oh, cool. Now I've looked him up I vaguely recall hearing about this before, Gene Ray is a famous! lunatic LOL.

 

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise

Eloise wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

All that said, I think space-time, if it is ever quantized beyond our idea of light-years, will involve the understanding of accelerations within multiple dimentions.

We have agreement !  How interesting, and slightly unexpected.

May I ask, by the way, why you say "in multiple dimensions"? Acceleration (well more directly change and differences in velocity) basically covers what I am thinking about.

Well, clearly the dimensions we curently use do not cover what happens. Three or four dimensional space cannot account for or explain sufficiently gravitational lenses or black holes - and that's before we even get to the subatomic level, which I frankly don't understand suffieciently to offer a meaningful treatise here.

Looking at gravity wells, such as black holes or gravity lenses, I think it is even possible that time and space can bend or if you will, acclecerate, differently. And we've not even gone to the quantum level. These would certainly be anomalies, but I think it's the anomalies that will help us understand how things really work.

In a nutshell though, I mean accelerations in physical space, quantum space, and in time. Perhaps others. I also think we need to learn how to understand how gravity changes and influences space-time much better before we get to the previous.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.