Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

sSpacetime is a Non-local Entity?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Danny Milano - 15 Jul 2008 18:48 GMT
Spacetime "point" is not a thing or else it may not be
consistent with some theoretical effect. Hence Spacetime
is not something that is physical or a thing hovering in
vacuum. However, Spacetime seems to exist apart
from matter giving it the metrical properties. The
metrics of Spacetime in distant part is similar, the
only way this can happen if it's non-local in nature.
Also something that is not a thing (Spacetime "point"
not real) that can exist and influence matter could
be non-local at its heart.

What do you think?

Danny
Uncle Al - 15 Jul 2008 19:21 GMT
> Spacetime "point" is not a thing or else it may not be
> consistent with some theoretical effect.

Hey stooopid - spacetime *is* a theoretical effect.

> Hence Spacetime
> is not something that is physical or a thing hovering in
> vacuum.

Tell that to Mercury's perihelion.

> However, Spacetime seems to exist apart
> from matter giving it the metrical properties. The
> metrics of Spacetime in distant part is similar, the
> only way this can happen if it's non-local in nature.

If you don't like metric gravitation and spacetime curvature, use
teleparallel gravitation and spacetime torsion (transforming like
Lorentz force in electrodynamics).  If you don't like either classical
approach, try getting a prediction out of string theory.  That last
has at least 10^1000 acceptable vacuum solutions.  Certainly there is
a prediction in there somewhere (snigger).

> Also something that is not a thing (Spacetime "point"
> not real) that can exist and influence matter could
> be non-local at its heart.
>
> What do you think?

If it isn't mathematics it is opinion.  Everybody has an opinion and
an a.shole.  Attention to personal hygiene is important in  both
cases.

Signature

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Tom Roberts - 15 Jul 2008 20:20 GMT
> [...]

In modern theoretical physics, spacetime is a manifold used to MODEL the
spatio-temporal relationships we observe in the world we inhabit.
Spacetime is not part of that world, and is not a "thing", it is an
aspect of the MODEL of the world.

Understanding this will resolve most of your confusions....

Tom Roberts
Danny Milano - 16 Jul 2008 00:05 GMT
> > [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Tom Roberts

Not long ago. Someone called Gellman thought that quarks were
only used to model the relationship we observed in the particle
world. It was not supposed to be part of the world and not
supposed to be a thing but an aspect of the Model of the world.
Yet quarks were detected and what was once a model has
independent existence. So is Spacetime. It is added on to
matter for the spatiotemporal aspects. It is not a priori. Matter
can exist without Spacetime but there would be no order of
locality and order. Matter and Spacetime is like male and
female. The reason Matter and Spacetime could have
perfect intercourse is probably similar to the concept of
evolution where a male and female genital matches perfectly
that no machine or vibrator toys can compare or exceed.
Whaterver, Spacetime could really be a thing. You can't
categorically debunk this possibility. Could you? In LET,
Spacetime is the Ether and a thing and LET can't be
falsified. So Spacetime could really be a thing like quarks
that were once thought to be just an aspect of the model
of the Eightway Fold and not a thing that can be detected..

Danny
Eric Gisse - 16 Jul 2008 03:12 GMT
> > > [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Not long ago. Someone called Gellman [...]

You are not Gellman.
Igor - 17 Jul 2008 01:39 GMT
> > > > [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> You are not Gellman.

Isn't he Regis' producer?
Igor - 17 Jul 2008 01:38 GMT
> > > [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Danny

Spacetime is a mathematical abstraction.  Your analogy is severely
flawed anyway, since quarks have never been detected.  Many
predictions of the quark model have been verified, but individual
quarks have never been seen.
Danny Milano - 17 Jul 2008 13:23 GMT
> > > > [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Proton scattering shows 3 hard "things" inside it. It is as best
as any detection esp. since free quarks can't be isolated because
of the so called asymptotic freedom where separating them
can increase the attraction. When Gell-man first theorized about
quarks. He thought it is just a math artifact. So could be
spacetime. Relativists think it is so integrated with matter.
So is a person wearing a clothes which dogs could see as
the clothes integrating to the person like it's made of flesh
and bones. Hence spacetime could be an add-on to matter
and an independent entity born in the womb of the singularity.

D.
Sam Wormley - 17 Jul 2008 17:59 GMT
> Proton scattering shows 3 hard "things" inside it. It is as best
> as any detection esp. since free quarks can't be isolated because
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> and bones. Hence spacetime could be an add-on to matter
> and an independent entity born in the womb of the singularity.

  ILLUCID
Igor - 18 Jul 2008 01:44 GMT
> > > > > [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>
> D.-

And the snark sometime turns out to be a boojum too.  With just as
much relevance to this group.
glird@aol.com - 16 Jul 2008 20:56 GMT
> In modern theoretical physics, spacetime is a >manifold used to MODEL the spatio-temporal >relationships we observe in the world we inhabit.
> Spacetime is not part of that world, and is not
>a "thing", it is an aspect of the MODEL of the
>world.

 Yes. Even so, the question is: WHAT aspect of the real world does
Minkowski's spacetime actually model?   The answer is: It models the
fact that via Einstein's definition of "synchronous clocks",  which
puts a timelag of -vx/c^2 seconds into successive clocks of a moving
system; you have to know the xyz PLACE a clock is, in a given moving
system XYZ, in order to know the "time" of that system AT THAT POINT.

glird
Sue... - 15 Jul 2008 23:58 GMT
> Spacetime "point" is not a thing or else it may not be
> consistent with some theoretical effect. Hence Spacetime
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> What do you think?

Do you consider hydrogen and helium to be "entities" ?

Sue...

> Danny
Surfer - 16 Jul 2008 06:54 GMT
>Spacetime "point" is not a thing or else it may not be
>consistent with some theoretical effect. Hence Spacetime
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>What do you think?

I agree with Tom Roberts who wrote:

"In modern theoretical physics, spacetime is a manifold used to MODEL
the spatio-temporal relationships we observe in the world we inhabit.
Spacetime is not part of that world, and is not a "thing", it is an
aspect of the MODEL of the world."

In contrast the following models space as a physical entity.

Dynamical 3-Space: A Review
Reginald T. Cahill
School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences,
Flinders University, Adelaide 5001, Australia
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146

Abstract

For some 100 years physics has modelled space and time via the space-
time concept, with space being merely an observer dependent
perspective effect of that spacetime - space itself had no observer
independent existence - it had no ontological status, and it certainly
had no dynamical description. In recent years this has all changed. In
2002 it was discovered that a dynamical 3-space had been detected many
times, including the Michelson-Morley 1887 light-speed anisotropy
experiment. Here we review the dynamics of this 3-space, tracing its
evolution from that of an emergent phenomena in the
information-theoretic Process Physics to the phenomenological
description in terms of a velocity field describing the relative
internal motion of the structured 3-space. The new physics
of the dynamical 3-space is extensively tested against experimental
and astronomical observations, including the necessary generalisation
of the Maxwell, Schrodinger and Dirac equations, leading to a
derivation and explanation of gravity as a refraction effect of the
quantum matter waves.
Phenomena now explainable include the bore hole anomaly, the
systematics of black hole masses, the at rotation curves of spiral
galaxies, gravitational light bending and lensing, and the supernova
and Gamma-Ray Bursts magnitude-redshift data, for the dynamical
3-space possesses a Hubble expanding 3-space solution. Most
importantly none of these phenomena now require dark matter nor dark
energy. The flat and curved spacetime formalism is derived from the
new physics, so explaining the apparent many successes of those
formalisms, but which have now proven to be ontologically and
experimentally flawed."
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.