Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Spacetime
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 09:09:11 +0200
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <le4hgmFk1orU5@mid.individual.net>
References: <46633b77bddb3b8bcf79567060ac4687@www.novabbs.com>
 <le0krbF2j9cU1@mid.individual.net>
 <816c22cd6777f919d255d5b5a98551e6@www.novabbs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net zYPKB8k+aNlDUwNDpQDKXAo55ZYeMZNZbzOE42rbr3rHByh3BK
Cancel-Lock: sha1:caYkm2Xf2MwHfzLnqvYfLAWKp14= sha256:jo9S6fZOY5qTlgwmz7Ybq0wYstO9nuVdgn2nwQQBSOQ=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <816c22cd6777f919d255d5b5a98551e6@www.novabbs.com>
Bytes: 5333

Am Mittwoch000026, 26.06.2024 um 01:26 schrieb gharnagel:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am Dienstag000025, 25.06.2024 um 14:20 schrieb gharnagel:
>> >
>> > “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
>> > something quite different.” – Steven Carlip
>> >
>> > It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
>> > as an actual "fabric."  It's really a mental model that
>> > may not have any existence at all.  The equations of
>> > relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
>> > but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.
>> >
>> > I think the things that are real are THINGS.  I find the
>> > basic concept of string theory very compelling: that is,
>> > elementary particles are not points as the standard model
>> > posits.  In the real world there are no such things as
>> > dimensionless points.  It's a very good assumption because
>> > the string theory particles are way smaller than we can
>> > detect, but presuming elementary particles have extension
>> > in space is surely correct, even though strings may not be.
>>
>> My own view:
>> spacetime is real and particles are not.
> 
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :-)
> 
>> As 'proof of concept' I had effects, where seeminly matter comes from
>> nothing or disappears without a trace.
> 
> I don't believe that has ever been observed happening.  Conservation of
> mass-energy is quite firmy established.
> 
>> Examples for 'matter out of nothing':
>> 'magic dust'
> 
> I'm not familiar with such.
> 
>> Growing Earth
> 
> An unscientific speculation.
> 
>> Matter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns'
>> (of/in spacetime).
>>
See my 'book' about this idea:
>>
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> TH
> 
> "It's based entirely on geometrical relations within a smooth continuum,
> that is supposed to be the spacetime of GR."
> 
> Yes, in GR fields are real things.  But as Feinman said in Q.E.D.,
> photons
> are PARTICLES.  QFT has tried to get around this by going back to
> fields,
> but string theory started out with particles.  I'm with Feinman.


Well, I personally think, that material objects like particles are 
'timelike stable patterns'.

This was my assumption, which I needed to connect GR and QM.

As proof of concept I had 'growing Earth' in mind.

This is so, because the growth of Earth is happening from the inside of 
the planet, where no particles from out space are supposed to be.

(Actually I have always disliked the 'particle concept' and wanted a way 
to disprove it.)

Particles are too 'materialistic' for my taste. They also attempt to 
exlain particles by particles (quarks), but make no attempts to explain 
quarks. (string theory is actually worse)

My own approach is very different and based on spacetime of GR as 'real'.

Now I only needed VERY few assumption!

that are mainly: points have features and space is a subset of something 
with higher dimensions.

Also: systems are what you call system and have imaginary borders, which 
are infinetely thin.



> "We treat ourselves as more or less as at rest and base observations on
> our
> own state of being."
> 
> This is essentially the first postulate of SR.
> 
> "By this definitions we turn imaginary phenomena into real observations.
> But our observations are real only to us"
> 
> I don't believe in "imaginary phenomena."  What we observe IS the real
> world.

No, we don't, because we can only see a subset of the real world, that 
is visible to us.

E.g. we cannot see beyond the horizon, even if there is a 'world' behind.

But visibility is also very limiited to us, because from the wast range 
of the em-spectrum we can see only a very small part.

But time is also an issue, because we are bond to what I call 'Time 
domaine'.

This is so, because we like to stay material objects and do not want to 
dissipate into the environment.

But we could imagine, that such a 'universe around the corner' would 
exist, where time runs into a different direction than our time.

Such a world would be entirely invisible, even if it could be really close.

So, in effect we can only observe some parts of reality and need to 
guess, how the rest of the universe may look like.


TH