Quantum theory and Physical space

[s0cratus]

Quantum theory and Physical space.

In microscopic physics, or quantum physics, the notion of space is associated
with an "arena of actions" in which all physical processes and phenomena take place.
And this arena of actions we feel subjectively as a "receptacle for subjects".
The measurement of physical space has long been important.
The International System of Units (SI) is today the most common system of units
used in the measuring of space, and is almost universally used within physics.
However, let us critically look at the determination of physical space as an “arena of actions”.
#
All this means that physical space is a peculiar substrate that is subject to certain laws,
which as has been seen below are purely mathematical.

http://inerton.wikidot.com/physical-space

This article is very professional.
One problem :
the "arena of quantum actions" is purely mathematical and
doesn't have practical reference frame. (!)
Then I cannot understand:
Why we need to search quantum particle ( Higgs boson ) in the
reference frame of CERN / LHC if at the end it is a purely mathematical game?
Bay the way,
the “big bang “ also doesn't have an " arena of actions" – a reference frame.
So, maybe the God’s table is the an "arena of quantum actions" .
===..
socratus

 

[spoirier]

I think that it makes no sense to try following the cutting-edge questionings of particle physicists about the deep nature of space before properly understanding yourself general relativity and quantum field theory.
Moreover I have the strong impression that the whole site containing the page you link to, is just a big piece of pure BS, its authors not knowing physics at all.

 

[s0cratus]

I think that it makes no sense to try following
the cutting-edge questionings of particle physicists about the deep nature
of space before properly understanding yourself general relativity and quantum field theory.
Moreover I have the strong impression that the whole site containing the page
you link to, is just a big piece of pure BS, its authors not knowing physics at all.

Question : in which reference frame the " big bang " expanded ?
Question: where did the mass for " big bang " come from ?
Neither " big bang " nor another theory gives answer.
===..
The situation is:
most physicists focus on the symptoms of that is bothering technology and
not addressing the root cause that is producing the symptoms
And they / we frequently think that those symptoms are our root issues
and challenges. However, there is something much bigger and deeper
than those symptoms masking a root cause.
Is it hard to identify the root cause?
In my opinion the root cause is hidden in questions:
Was the ether theory pseudoscientific?
Does ether / vacuum exist?
Can ether / vacuum be absolute - infinite reference frame: T=0K ?
Does absolute zero T=0K have real physical meaning ?
===..

 

[s0cratus]

Question : in which reference frame the " big bang " expanded ?
Question: where did the mass for " big bang " come from ?
Neither " big bang " nor another theory gives answer.
===..
The situation is:
most physicists focus on the symptoms of that is bothering technology and
not addressing the root cause that is producing the symptoms
And they / we frequently think that those symptoms are our root issues
and challenges. However, there is something much bigger and deeper
than those symptoms masking a root cause.
Is it hard to identify the root cause?
In my opinion the root cause is hidden in questions:
Was the ether theory pseudoscientific?
Does ether / vacuum exist?
Can ether / vacuum be absolute - infinite reference frame: T=0K ?
Does absolute zero T=0K have real physical meaning ?
===..

I want to say that physicists try to explain big-bang ,SRT, quantum particles . . .
. . . without using reference frame.
If we want to know what elephant is then we must to study its surrounded
space- savanna too.
If we want to know what fish is then we must to study its surrounded space -
sea / river / ocean too.
Because the different forms of living beings depend on the surrounded space.
Without using reference frame physicists explain us what fish is when . . . .
. . . this fish is on the plate on the table restaurant.
=...

 

[Vrecknidj]

I agree. In the early 20th century, some primatologists took mother chimps and their babies out of the wild and brought them into steel-and-glass cages to study how "mothering behaviors" worked.

One doesn't understand how a mother chimp mothers her offspring by taking the mother and her offspring out of their environment, out of their circle of other chimps, etc. Mothering takes places within contingent circumstances, with allomothers, in the presence of predators and food shortages and all of that.

I think the analogy holds. I understand the appeal of abstracting a piece of a puzzle out of the puzzle so that the piece can be analyzed. Scientists have made great progress by choosing their focus. However, ignoring the relevant space into which something exists can be perilous.

Metaphysics aims for scope, physics aims for accuracy. We must do both. Doing so, however, requires caution.

 

[s0cratus]

I agree. In the early 20th century, some primatologists took mother chimps and their babies out of the wild and brought them into steel-and-glass cages to study how "mothering behaviors" worked.

One doesn't understand how a mother chimp mothers her offspring by taking the mother and her offspring out of their environment, out of their circle of other chimps, etc. Mothering takes places within contingent circumstances, with allomothers, in the presence of predators and food shortages and all of that.

I think the analogy holds. I understand the appeal of abstracting a piece of a puzzle out of the puzzle so that the piece can be analyzed. Scientists have made great progress by choosing their focus. However, ignoring the relevant space into which something exists can be perilous.

Metaphysics aims for scope, physics aims for accuracy. We must do both. Doing so, however, requires caution.

The concepts of space and time must be basic in physics.
But these conceptions didn't solve until now .
From the one hand, according to SRT, both space and time relative . . . .
From the other hand, according to SRT, 4D spacetime is an absolute continuum.
And nobody explains what negative 4D really is by ordinary logical language
and therefore . . . . . .
===...

 

[s0cratus]

The boundaries of Physics.
In classic physics motions are governed by Newton's laws.
Question:
how can there be motions not ( !) governed by Newton's laws?
The answer:
there are causes of motions not included in Newton's theory.
Q.: where are these causes hidden ?
A: these causes are in QT, in the microworld.
There are boundaries between Quantum and Classical physics
and the territories they share. There are eternal and infinite game
between macro and micro worlds, between life and death.
==..

 

[Vrecknidj]

Speaking of 4D, etc. ...

I was marveling again the other day at an Escher-esque image and I commented to the one wearing the shirt that one of the marvels is that, normally, we have no problem representing 3D objects with 3D images -- televisions, photographs, etc. However, it is possible to "play" with this ability of ours and produce "impossible" images such as some of those found on the Wikipedia page Impossible Object.

It occurred to me, years ago, that, just as we can model 3D objects on a 2D surface, we can model 4D objects in a 3D space. But, just as we can draw "impossible objects" of an unreal 3D object onto a 3D surface, we should also be able to generate "impossible objects" of unreal 4D objects onto a 3D space.

What do we learn about 3D objects by looking at 2D drawings of impossible 3D objects?

What might we learn about 4D objects by looking at 3D spatial representations of impossible 4D objects?

 

[Hawkeye]

To me, this is the most accurate representation of a 4D object

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xrSvVEpOog

 

[redbaron]

The “big bang “ also doesn't have an " arena of actions" – a reference frame.

Taking the most recent ideas that cosmologists are putting forth, it does have a reference frame because, 'nothing' itself has properties and is itself constantly in flux.

 

[s0cratus]

Taking the most recent ideas that cosmologists are putting forth,
it does have a reference frame because,
'nothing' itself has properties and is itself constantly in flux.

Talking without formulas is a market debates ( my opinion your opinion,
his/ her opinion , , , , ) it is not a scientific debates.
can you post the formula of " the most recent idea " of the
reference frame which is 'nothing itself " ( formula of the nothing itself )
and has properties ( which formulas ) and is itself constantly in flux.
( by which formulas . . . . . . )

 

[s0cratus]

Scientists create never-before-seen form of matter

Sep 25, Physics/Quantum Physics

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html

====.

 

[s0cratus]

Scientists create never-before-seen form of matter

Sep 25, Physics/Quantum Physics

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html

====.

Could quantum of light be the original source of life forming molecules ?
====.
Lukin said. " What we have done is create a special type of medium in which
photons interact with each other so strongly that they begin to act as though
they have mass, and they bind together to form molecules.
This type of photonic bound state has been discussed theoretically for
quite a while, but until now it hadn't been observed.
=.
I think they don't create a new " special type of medium "
The cloud of rubidium atoms just a few degrees above absolute zero
can be only in superconductivity state . . . . .
then fired single photons into the cloud of atoms .. . . . . .
they are binding together to form molecules. . . .
What kind of molecules can they be?
In my opinion: only helium II . . . .
? ! ? !
In my opinion:
Light Quanta can be the original source of life forming molecules.
#
The behavior of photon in vacuum is deferent than in superconductivity state.
==========================….

 

[s0cratus]

Physicists Francois Englert of Belgium and Peter Higgs of Britain
have won the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics for predicting
the existence of the Higgs boson particle.
However, our knowledge of particle physics is still far from complete,
with mysteries such as the nature of dark matter to still be solved.
======================…
My question is:
In which frame of reference the Higgs boson was found ?
In LHC this frame of reference is a vacuum.
Without vacuum the LHC is a good place for formula-1 competition.
Then other question, what is a vacuum?
The answer:
‘ All kinds of electromagnetic waves ( including light’s)
spread in vacuum . . . . thanks to the vacuum, to the specific
ability of empty space these electromagnetic waves can exist.’
/ Book : To what physics was come, page 32. R. K. Utiyama. /
Ok. Vacuum is not an empty space.
But . . . what is vacuum itself ?
Answers.
1
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
2.
The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
vacuum is a gross misnomer!
/ Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
3
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
===…
Vacuum is still a fundamental puzzle in physics.
==..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
====…

 

[redbaron]

Talking without formulas is a market debates ( my opinion your opinion,
his/ her opinion , , , , ) it is not a scientific debates.
can you post the formula of " the most recent idea " of the
reference frame which is 'nothing itself " ( formula of the nothing itself )
and has properties ( which formulas ) and is itself constantly in flux.
( by which formulas . . . . . . )

It's part of quantum mechanics;

Quantum Fluctuation

Essentially, it gives an explanation for 'empty' space holding mass as a result of virtual particles popping in and out of existence.

I guess one way to see how this works, is in the makeup of a proton. The composition of a proton is made up of three quarks, yet as you are probably aware, these three quarks only make up a tiny portion of the whole mass of the proton (less than 5-10%).

It is surmised then, that the empty space within a proton also holds mass through these virtual particles.

Combining Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, using the concept of Asymptotic Freedom - a facet of Quantum Chromodynamics, demonstrates that empty space is not so empty and vacuums are not so vacuous.

This accounts for the fact that much of the mass in the universe is contained not around galaxies, but the void in between.

 

[s0cratus]

It's part of quantum mechanics;

Quantum Fluctuation

Essentially, it gives an explanation for 'empty' space holding mass as a result of virtual particles popping in and out of existence.

I guess one way to see how this works, is in the makeup of a proton. The composition of a proton is made up of three quarks, yet as you are probably aware, these three quarks only make up a tiny portion of the whole mass of the proton (less than 5-10%).

It is surmised then, that the empty space within a proton also holds mass through these virtual particles.

Combining Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, using the concept of Asymptotic Freedom - a facet of Quantum Chromodynamics, demonstrates that empty space is not so empty and vacuums are not so vacuous.

This accounts for the fact that much of the mass in the universe is contained not around galaxies, but the void in between.

Quantum fluctuation in Dirac's vacuum sea is a process when
virtual particle with negative potential energy –E=Mc^2 using
its own inner spin / impulse h* changes its condition and becomes
real particle with energy: E=h*f
Socratus

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Question: where did the mass for " big bang " come from ?

How does anything come into existence out of zero? Impossible. Sure, I could say that the necessary something came from another universe but that would be dodging the bigger question.

Is it eternal (big crunch theory)? While that explanation might not be satisfying, it isn't outright impossible and might actually be the only possibility (the eternal part).

It brings this famous quote to mind:

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

I'm thinking that the world religions weren't far off. Just replace "god" with "omniverse" and forget about all of the personifications.

the “big bang “ also doesn't have an " arena of actions" – a reference frame.

We don't have a reference frame for it yet but if we figure out how to leave our universe (imagine those bubble universes from the multiverse hypothesis) then we would be outside of this universe's "time" and might be able to view the event unfold as gods.

 

[redbaron]

Post

I won't say that the question can be, 'answered' but it can certainly be addressed. Cosmology, astronomy and particle physics are now starting to converge on indications of the origin of our universe.

There is no theory of quantum gravity (yet), however as has been shown by quantum mechanics - particles can literally come into existence from nothing. Any theory of quantum gravity that is created, will show how space and time fluctuate at the quantum level.

It is plausible that space, time, energy, gravity, strong & weak force, and whatever else you can think of did literally arise out of, 'nothing' - without any violation of the laws of physics.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

I won't say that the question can be, 'answered' but it can certainly be addressed. Cosmology, astronomy and particle physics are now starting to converge on indications of the origin of our universe.

There is no theory of quantum gravity (yet), however as has been shown by quantum mechanics - particles can literally come into existence from nothing. Any theory of quantum gravity that is created, will show how space and time fluctuate at the quantum level.

It is plausible that space, time, energy, gravity, strong & weak force, and whatever else you can think of did literally arise out of, 'nothing' - without any violation of the laws of physics.

A vacuum isn't true nothingness. It is illogical to claim that something can come from true nothingness. Something exists. Therefore, something must have always existed.

 

[redbaron]

A vacuum isn't true nothingness. It is illogical to claim that something can come from true nothingness.

The theory defines nothing as: no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no gravity, no laws of physics. It doesn't relate simply to a 'vacuum' where there is no matter - it means literally nothing.

I'd also like to point out that lots of things are, 'illogical' in science, yet they are real nonetheless. Which is the beauty of science - the ability to create predictive models of reality that are accurate, in spite of how illogical they might seem.

Something exists. Therefore, something must have always existed.

As above. It's a valid logical statement, but navigating the intricacies of quantum mechanics and special relativity is not strictly, 'logical'. At microscopic scales, the universe does not work in a way that seems, 'logical'.

Stating that something must always have existed in order to get something - is wrong.

 

[gilliatt]

When we shuffle a deck of cards into random order, we are talking of a increase in entropy. All spontaneous processes seem to forward 'the second law of Thermodynamics' to bring about an increase in disorder. Your neat little orderly room in the future will become messed up. Clean things will become dirty, shiny things dull, things remembered will become forgotten. We are attempting to find some order of the universe. The Greeks were sure one existed. But the more we studied the first two laws of Thermodynamics, it tells
a story that the universe is a perpetually increasing disorder. Another point is my intuition is that one will not be able to get something for nothing.(conservation law)

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

The theory defines nothing as: no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no gravity, no laws of physics.

What theory? Where? That which you are describing would not even be observable, so we wouldn't know about it. Virtual particles don't come out of absolute nothing, they come out of the quantum vacuum, which is something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

 

[BigApplePi]

A vacuum isn't true nothingness. It is illogical to claim that something can come from true nothingness. Something exists. Therefore, something must have always existed.

At the macro level, you exist. Yet isn't it likely or rather possible you never existed before? If this is the case, why not at the sub-atomic level?

 

[Hawkeye]

Nothingness is tricky; it can mean many things (ironically).

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

At the macro level, you exist. Yet isn't it likely or rather possible you never existed before? If this is the case, why not at the sub-atomic level?

Yes, I exist. Given infinite time/big bangs it's likely that events have repeated themselves in the exact same way countless times over. We might have had this conversation a billion times in the past(?). Yes, I exist.

Am I missing something?

What I was getting at is that some basic form of substance or energy or whatever must be eternal.

 

[redbaron]

What theory? Where? That which you are describing would not even be observable, so we wouldn't know about it. Virtual particles don't come out of absolute nothing, they come out of the quantum vacuum, which is something.

Stating that it wouldn't be observable and we therefore wouldn't know about it, is rather presumptuous I think. The existence of the Higgs-Boson was predicted nearly half a century ago, well before it was observable - here we are some 40 years later having developed the means to observe it, and we have.

Read these:

http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/unc_vir.html

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11337189-a-universe-from-nothing

And watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F87DyAsYQoI

I use Krauss as an example, because he's very good at compartmentalizing these concepts into easy-to-understand terms (which I will echo in this post for simplicity's sake).

If it's too basic for you, study the works of Frank Wilczek, David Gross, David Politzer - regarding asymptotic freedom, and study Quantum Chromodynamics as a whole.

To be clear, there are certain theories converging in separate fields that point to the universe being the product of nothing.

Example: we have measured the universe to be flat. It was done using a combination of observation and computer modelling. Using those same computer models though, it is possible to create a closed universe so large that any measurement we make will appear flat - to do this, the universe would have to be simply huge, almost unfathomably.

Interestingly though, particle physics makes this prediction - that the universe underwent an expansion just like this. So if the universe is indeed closed - you can indeed produce something out of nothing for longer than microscopic time scales (like in virtual particles) - without any violation of the law of energy conservation (because the total net energy of a closed universe can be zero on a universal scale, regardless of any local imbalance in energy conservation).

The other thing is that any universe that survives long enough for evolution to occur - will always appear flat. Why? An open universe will spread apart too quickly for stars to form. A generic closed universe will collapse in on itself too quickly for stars to form. Only a universe that is flat, or a closed universe that undergoes such a massive expansion so as to appear flat - will exist long enough for hot gas to coalesce to form stars, to form black holes, planets, galaxies and so on.

So the universe appearing flat is not a surprise - it's theoretically impossible (as far as our knowledge goes) for us to be able to measure any other kind of universe.

Also take into account that when a theory of Quantum Gravity exists, it will account for fluctuations in not only the existence of virtual particles, but also spacetime. Meaning not only can particles pop into existence for miniscule periods of time, but space also.

Again, I'm not saying, 'this is how it is' - it's simply plausible, and interestingly enough a universe created in such a manner would look like ours - random, flat, expanding faster than the speed of light etc.

Please note: plausible, on the basis of what is presented here. You could call this an exercise in intellectual honesty.

Someone else whose works I've found are excellent (unfortunately a lot of it is in German, although translating is not too hard).

Christof Wetterich - http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~wetteric/

His articles on Cosmology run parallel to this topic (his others are perfectly interesting as well if you don't care about it though :P)

 

[s0cratus]

Vacuum space for dark mass and virtual particles.
=.
Vacuum is an 'empty' space between billions and billions galaxies.
You can see the vacuum with naked eyes in the night sky looking
deep – deep in the distance between stars .
#
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
is so small (the average critical density of all substance in the
Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it
cannot ‘close’ the Universe into a sphere and therefore
the Universe as a whole is ‘open’ - endless.
#
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is about 4%
More than 90% is mystic unseen dark mass.

* God has to be a real fool to think that the >99% Hidden Universe
has no control of his <1% Visible Universe.
And if he knew this then he would not be a god but a physicist.
And if he was a smart physicist he would be laughing at just
how much less than 1% a universe really needs to appear really real.*
/ O'no. /
#
And this mystic dark mass consist of individual Dirac's virtual particles.
=…

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Stating that it wouldn't be observable and we therefore wouldn't know about it, is rather presumptuous I think. The existence of the Higgs-Boson was predicted nearly half a century ago, well before it was observable - here we are some 40 years later having developed the means to observe it, and we have.

I admit that was poor word choice; I'll look into the rest of the things you mentioned.

 

[BigApplePi]

@spoirier

I think that it makes no sense to try following the cutting-edge questionings of particle physicists about the deep nature of space before properly understanding yourself general relativity and quantum field theory.
Moreover I have the strong impression that the whole site containing the page you link to, is just a big piece of pure BS, its authors not knowing physics at all.

I protest that the article is "pure BS." Even if it contains false or misleading things, what about it is true? How can we hook up these truths with both the layman and the understanding to which you refer?

For example I can quote the article

"In such a determination there exists, first, subjectivity and, second, objects themselves that play in processes that can not be examined at all (for instance, size, shape and the inner dynamics of the electron; what is a photon?; what are the particle’s de Broglie wavelength [FONT=MathJax_Math]λ[/FONT] and Compton wavelength [FONT=MathJax_Math]λ[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]C[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]o[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]m[/FONT]?; how to understand the notion/phenomenon “wave-particle”?; what is spin?; what is the mechanism that forms Newton’s gravitational potential [FONT=MathJax_Math]G[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]m[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]r[/FONT] around an object with mass [FONT=MathJax_Math]m[/FONT]?; what does the notion ‘mass’ mean exactly?, etc.)."

and say, that says to me we can propose a theory by observation and taking measurements and statistics "in the large", but that theory can be wrong if we can't get hold of the entities of which we are talking. Our theories are subjective. Would you agree?

Just what would I gain if I learned general relativity and quantum field theory? If you say that I have to learn them first, I say that is pure evasion.

 

[BigApplePi]

"Zero"

@ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε

How does anything come into existence out of zero?

Allow me to propose a theory about that.

First thing would be to define "zero." We do not know there is such a thing if we talk about the "subness" of the "arena of actions" of particle physics. Suppose the content of this "subness" can't be accessed to us as with the strings of string theory. Suppose this content can be rearranged. This rearrangement can bring into existence something which never existed before. One can see this even on the macro scale we see in everyday life: move three points and a new new triangle comes into existence that was never there before.

This means we can have all sorts of new things. Some will be undetectable and therefore look like zero. Some will be detectable and like magic appear to arise out of nothing. But that isn't so.

 

[BigApplePi]

@ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε.

Yes, I exist. Given infinite time/big bangs it's likely that events have repeated themselves in the exact same way countless times over. We might have had this conversation a billion times in the past(?). Yes, I exist.

Am I missing something?

What I was getting at is that some basic form of substance or energy or whatever must be eternal.

Disagree. It is possible you NEVER existed. Here is an infinite sequence: .43434343434343 ... . That sequence goes on eternally as I've defined it. Yet nowhere do you see a "5." If a 5 appeared that would be new. Just because something is infinite doesn't mean it includes everything or even repeats. Pi doesn't repeat ... ever.

 

[BigApplePi]

@s0cratus

The concepts of space and time must be basic in physics.

Not sure if I'm repeating what has been said, but if space and time are defined and basic, what else is basic? What if matter is not a part of space or time? If it is somehow different, could it not define another dimension?

 

[redbaron]

The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is about 4%
More than 90% is mystic unseen dark mass.

The split between matter and dark matter is more like 35/65.

 

[s0cratus]

@s0cratus
Not sure if I'm repeating what has been said, but if space and time are defined and basic, what else is basic? What if matter is not a part of space or time? If it is somehow different, could it not define another dimension?

Question:
Where did gravity- space and gravity-time come from?
Answer:
They came from * another dimension*
==

 

[s0cratus]

The split between matter and dark matter is more like 35/65.

The candidate for dark matter.
=..
According to Dirac in the hole vacuum sea exist virtual particles
with negative energy; -E=Mc^2.
According to QED in interaction with vacuum all electron's parameters
becomes infinite. That is impossible.
What is possible?
My suggestion:
all real electron's parameters in zero vacuum change into
negative parameters of virtual –potential- positrons :–E=Mc^2
The mass of virtual- positrons is good candidate for dark matter
And using the well known * tunneling phenomena * the dark positrons
matter can emerge again as a real matter.
=.

 

[BigApplePi]

Question:
Where did gravity- space and gravity-time come from?
Answer:
They came from * another dimension*

Dimension we can define as another variable that is independent of the others just as width doesn't depend on length and time doesn't depend on space ... unless this is wrong.

It seems that gravity has something to do with this entity called, "matter." According to relativity theory, doesn't "matter" define space and time? That would put a lot of pressure on speculating on just what matter is. Experimental physics tries to give us specific answers which theoretical physics tries to provide general answers. But something is missing. I wonder if spoirier is willing to speak to this since he is close to this?

 

[s0cratus]

Dimension we can define as another variable that is independent of the others just as width doesn't depend on length and time doesn't depend on space ... unless this is wrong.

It seems that gravity has something to do with this entity called, "matter." According to relativity theory, doesn't "matter" define space and time? That would put a lot of pressure on speculating on just what matter is. Experimental physics tries to give us specific answers which theoretical physics tries to provide general answers. But something is missing. I wonder if spoirier is willing to speak to this since he is close to this?

But something is missing.
/ BigApplePi /
#
‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing.

How do we find that missing idea? '
/ Book: The trouble with Physics’. Page 308. By Lee Smolin /

 

[BigApplePi]

‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing.

How do we find that missing idea? '
/ Book: The trouble with Physics’. Page 308. By Lee Smolin /

I wonder what page 308 says. One can note if there are dimensions which we can't apprehend, then we are in trouble. What may be real will seem like magic to us. Magic is phenomena which has no cause. The cause may be there but we can't find it.

Proposition:

There are phenomena with no apparent causes.
All phenomena are caused.
Dimensions are independent variables which cannot cause other dimensions.
Therefore such causes represent hidden dimensions meaning hidden dimensions exist.

Non physics analogy:

A pocket calculator is given to an ancient Greek or Roman.
It calculates like magic.
The cause can't be determined.
Therefore there is a hidden cause.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

@ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε.
Disagree. It is possible you NEVER existed. Here is an infinite sequence: .43434343434343 ... . That sequence goes on eternally as I've defined it. Yet nowhere do you see a "5." If a 5 appeared that would be new. Just because something is infinite doesn't mean it includes everything or even repeats. Pi doesn't repeat ... ever.

I exist now though. If it was that kind of infinity then I wouldn't exist now.