Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 06:53:12 +0200
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <lepchoFpu2cU3@mid.individual.net>
References: <46633b77bddb3b8bcf79567060ac4687@www.novabbs.com>
 <le0krbF2j9cU1@mid.individual.net>
 <816c22cd6777f919d255d5b5a98551e6@www.novabbs.com>
 <le4hgmFk1orU5@mid.individual.net>
 <aa1b8ce99f8dc2406be92550817af4d7@www.novabbs.com>
 <lecehcFr3voU9@mid.individual.net>
 <3d05da1bc3e7044abccacfc8ea78eed4@www.novabbs.com>
 <lemntiFdpnrU4@mid.individual.net>
 <d9c04a0ecea25dac5c2c60c6fc3a58fa@www.novabbs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net NDAAoEx67g23odF2NUi1JAk0e94v+vtfqYBbTwCWTZEo0P9IIB
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZBTpIz/Htw/jysTwG//EwVfwXas= sha256:XHAjHjIVutCjpYUrrods1s0jEP7zjzAjA1b7eWs+brw=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <d9c04a0ecea25dac5c2c60c6fc3a58fa@www.novabbs.com>
Bytes: 4630

Am Donnerstag000004, 04.07.2024 um 18:39 schrieb gharnagel:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am Sonntag000030, 30.06.2024 um 15:03 schrieb gharnagel:
>> >
>> > Thomas Heger wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.
>> >
>> > But M-theory STILL fits that description.  Just because you don't like
>> > it doesn't mean it's false.
>>
>> Sure, but dislike wouldn't proof it neither.
>>
>> 'String theory' is based on 'strings' and those are supposed to be
>> material objects (kind of 'superparticles').
>>
>> But I tried to show, that the particle concept itself is wrong.
> 
> I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.
> 
>> So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing.
> 
> Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
> matter doesn't last long.  I think that disproves that durable matter
> can come from nothing.
> 
>> I had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of GR
>> for real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of 'pointlike
>> elements'.
>>
>> That is something like a point with features and higher dimensions than
>> points in Euclidean space have.
> 
> Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.
> 
>> These 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a certain
>> equation for quaternions, which is used for rotations.
>>
>> This concept is my own invention, called 'structured spacetime' and
>> needs no strings.
>>
>> It is actually relatively simple and needs only very few unusual
>> assumptions.
>>
>> One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than three
>> dimensions.
> 
> I think points are nonexistent.  They are a mental invention to express
> geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
> mathematical
> concepts.

Sure: a point is actually meant as coordinate in space, hence not really 
real in a coordinate free space.

But real things are usually meant to consist of something.

If spacetime is real and a smooth continuum, than spacetime would 
consists of 'pointlike elements'.

If so, we need to build particles out of these 'points', if we like to 
combine GR and QM.

This sounds strange, to say the least, but is actually quite good, 
because it allows such things as 'big bang' or pair-creation.

Then we need something, that could eventually behave the way, that 
particles could be a substructur under a certain perspective.

I meant that a certain type of quaternions would match the discription 
and wrote my 'book' about this idea.


>> Actually I had assumed, such 'points' behave like bi-quaternions and are
>> connected like a certain type of geometric algebra which is known as
>> 'Pauli algebra'.
>>
>> My 'book' about this idea can be found here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> > > I wanted something different than one of the usual 'materialistic'
>> > > concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.
>> >
>> > That's where ALL of physics IS.
>>
>> Sure,
> 
> So you agree that your idea is not physics?  Hmmm.

no, not quite.

It's physics, but I'm not a physicist.

That is similar to other professions, say medicine:

I'm not a professional, but that doesn't mean, that my remedy does not heal.

...

TH