Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:57:13 +0000
Subject: Re: SpaceTime
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <6249F967.3B4A@ix.netcom.com> <624B373A.68E5@ix.netcom.com>
 <624BBDF1.1594@ix.netcom.com> <624C7C50.638A@ix.netcom.com>
 <lbqi8uF7r8kU3@mid.individual.net>
 <SZCcnfMeCMTTzMT7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <46358f5157687acd0539d6848f6b626c@www.novabbs.com>
 <lc2g63FdkjpU3@mid.individual.net>
 <a36c62011f40ea648ffe8d884ce5eebd@www.novabbs.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 08:57:26 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a36c62011f40ea648ffe8d884ce5eebd@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <wNKcneC0osLHC8H7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 106
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-3wb/kwMVbTKAWk2bNRv59HRv5Cf7QFvBR5HkWH5t3htVI5HRrZSL6TzA3E9zfiy6Vzf72N1Z5ZBJqHm!IUpi1/7qTUWS9Kjj9SVjh+o3NY2t4cwrkeVjiuAM/Qgq2tdtYt8y8/JXz+H3VCVNm5JhdTN5A98=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5544

On 06/02/2024 05:48 AM, gharnagel wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am Samstag000001, 01.06.2024 um 15:35 schrieb gharnagel:
>> >
>> > Tom Roberts wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships observed in
>> > > the real world.
>> > >
>> > > Tom Roberts
>> > > I tend to think of physics that way, too, but I was watching this
>> > episode of How the Universe Works called "The Mystery of Space Time"
>> > and had a few issues with it:
>> > > "Space-time is the fabric of our reality"
>> > > "The universe is made of space-time"
>> > > "Whatever the substance is, time and space bound together, that's
>> > expanding
>> > and creating the universe we see around us.  It's everything.
>> Space-time
>> > is what the universe really is."
>>
>> Well, sounds good!
>
> Since we don't really understand what "space-time" is, we're not nailed
> down to a particular mindset.  I believe that the equations of GR are
> more
> correct than the notion of space-time.
>
> “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something
> quite
> different.” – Steven Carlip
>
> That's not saying GR is absolutely correct, either.
>
>> I had written kind of 'book' about this idea and called it 'structured
>> spacetime'.
>>
>> This can be found here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> The idea behind it is quite simpel:
>>
>> if GR and QM are somehow valid, there must be a way to bring both
>> systems into a consistent relation.
>>
>> My own approach was: start at the GR side and with some sort of real
>> existing spacetime.
>
> Or one could start from the QM side.  Might the virtual particle sea be
> the basis of space-time?
>
>> The observed world is then the local 'subchapter', which is seen from
>> where we (or any other observer) are placed.
>>
>> This world has to have fewer dimensions than spacetime.
>
> Aren't dimensions just a human way of looking at reality?  Anyway, I
> have a hard time dispensing with them :-)  I would say that our
> description
> of reality probably needs more than four dimensions.
>
>> Spacetime must also be coordinates free and having no beginning and no
>> end.
>
> If you look at the Schwarzschild metric:
>
> ds^2 = (1 - 2GM/rc^2)c^2 dt^2 - dr^2/(1 - 2GM/r) - r^2 dOmega^2
>
> and apply it to the whole universe, rs = 2GM/c^2 is MANY orders of
> magnitude
> larger than the purported size of the universe.  So the notion that
> space-time
> is limited to how far the expansion has proceeded is ludicrous.

First of all, "zero dimensions" is just a sort of amorphous whole,
yet it's whole, it's monist, and it's "the thing", "Space-Time a thing".

Then, a linear continuum, you can fold up infinities and infinitesimals
to encode two other linear dimensions, about why three space dimensions
are exactly what there are.

Then that a ray of time falls out of that is just least, yet non-zero,
action, and a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials is the thing.

So, the continuous manifold sitting on space-time, 3 + 1/2, is just
a vector space in the tuples of quantities, about the contracting
and relaxing, and the torsions and vortices, all sitting on and
attached to space-time, the Space-Time, a field-number formalism
these vector-tuples, those sitting on "The Continuum", again!

So, _more_ dimensions, just make room for book-keeping and
the mathematical formalism of geometry for conformal mapping
above the mathematical formalism for geometry of a 3-D Euclidean
space with Cartesian origins everywhere.

I.e., it's just perspective and projection, about a fuller dimensional
analysis, while at the same time, the mere mathematical resources
of a "The Continuum", have for this sort of _hologram_, this can
help explain why it's so totally natural and has an explanation
exactly why there are three-dimensions everywhere and there's
a ray of time the universal gradient and parameter, and that's it.