Why is space three-dimensional?

May 3, 2016 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org feature

Researchers propose that the three dimensions of space may have been “frozen in” during the early moments of the universe. (Left) The Helmholtz free energy density (f) reaches its maximum value at a temperature T = 0.93, which occurs when space had n = 3 dimensions. (s and u represent entropy density and internal energy density, respectively.) (Right) Transitions to different dimensions cannot occur below a temperature of 0.93, corresponding to three dimensions. Credit: Gonzalez-Ayala et al. ©2016 EPL
(Phys.org)—The question of why space is three-dimensional (3D) and not some other number of dimensions has puzzled philosophers and scientists since ancient Greece. Space-time overall is four-dimensional, or (3 + 1)-dimensional, where time is the fourth dimension. It's well-known that the time dimension is related to the second law of thermodynamics: time has one direction (forward) because entropy (a measure of disorder) never decreases in a closed system such as the universe.

In a new paper published in EPL, researchers have proposed that the second law of thermodynamics may also explain why is 3D.

"A number of researchers in the fields of science and philosophy have addressed the problem of the (3+1)-dimensional nature of space-time by justifying the suitable choice of its dimensionality in order to maintain life, stability and complexity," coauthor Julian Gonzalez-Ayala, at the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico and the University of Salamanca in Spain, told Phys.org.

"The greatest significance of our work is that we present a deduction based on a physical model of the universe dimensionality with a suitable and reasonable scenario of space-time. This is the first time that the number 'three' of the space dimensions arises as the optimization of a physical quantity."

The scientists propose that space is 3D because of a thermodynamic quantity called the Helmholtz free energy density. In a universe filled with radiation, this density can be thought of as a kind of pressure on all of space, which depends on the universe's temperature and its number of spatial dimensions.

Here the researchers showed that, as the universe began cooling from the moment after the , the Helmholtz density reached its first maximum value at a very high temperature corresponding to when the universe was just a fraction of a second old, and when the number of spatial dimensions was approximately three.

The key idea is that 3D space was "frozen in" at this point when the Helmholtz density reached its first maximum value, prohibiting 3D space from transitioning to other dimensions.

This is because the second law allows transitions to higher dimensions only when the temperature is above this critical value, not below it. Since the universe is continuously cooling down, the current temperature is far below the critical temperature needed to transition from 3D space to a higher-dimensional space. In this way, the researchers explain, are loosely analogous to phases of matter, where transitioning to a different dimension resembles a phase transition such as melting ice—something that is possible only at high enough temperatures.

"In the cooling process of the early universe and after the first critical temperature, the entropy increment principle for closed systems could have forbidden certain changes of dimensionality," the researchers explained.

The proposal still leaves room for higher dimensions to have occurred in the first fraction of a second after the big bang when the universe was even hotter than it was at the . Extra dimensions are present in many cosmological models, most notably string theory. The new study could help explain why, in some of these models, the extra seem to have collapsed (or stayed the same size, which is very tiny), while the 3D space continued to grow into the entire observable .

In the future, the researchers plan to improve their model to include additional quantum effects that may have occurred during the first fraction of a second after the big bang, the so-called "Planck epoch." In addition, the results from a more complete model may also provide guidance for researchers working on other , such as quantum gravity.

Explore further: Physicists investigate lower dimensions of the universe

More information: Julian Gonzalez-Ayala, Rubén Cordero and F. Angulo-Brown. "Is the (3 + 1)-d nature of the universe a thermodynamic necessity?" EPL. DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/113/40006
Also (early version) at arXiv:1502.01843 [gr-qc]

Related Stories

Physicists investigate lower dimensions of the universe

March 18, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Several speculative theories in physics involve extra dimensions beyond our well-known four (which are broken down into three dimensions of space and one of time). Some theories have suggested 5, 10, 26, ...

Who cares about the fourth dimension?

February 3, 2009

Austrian scientists are trying to understand the mysteries of the holographic principle: How many dimensions are there in our universe?

Stepping beyond our 3-D world

January 18, 2016

Since the dawn of time, humans have endeavoured to unravel the laws governing the physical world around us. Over centuries we have tried to discover a Theory of Everything.

Is the universe a hologram?

April 27, 2015

Describing the universe requires fewer dimensions than we might think. New calculations show that this may not just be a mathematical trick, but a fundamental feature of space itself.

Recommended for you

Sculpting stable structures in pure liquids

February 21, 2019

Oscillating flow and light pulses can be used to create reconfigurable architecture in liquid crystals. Materials scientists can carefully engineer concerted microfluidic flows and localized optothermal fields to achieve ...

How to freeze heat conduction

February 21, 2019

Physicists have discovered a new effect, which makes it possible to create excellent thermal insulators which conduct electricity. Such materials can be used to convert waste heat into electrical energy.

Water is more homogeneous than expected

February 21, 2019

In order to explain the known anomalies in water, some researchers assume that water consists of a mixture of two phases, even under ambient conditions. However, new X-ray spectroscopic analyses at BESSY II, ESRF and Swiss ...

Correlated nucleons may solve 35-year-old mystery

February 20, 2019

A careful re-analysis of data taken at the Department of Energy's Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility has revealed a possible link between correlated protons and neutrons in the nucleus and a 35-year-old mystery. ...

333 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

betterexists
May 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SkyAbove
3.9 / 5 (11) May 03, 2016
Brilliant explanation for why 3D space and how entropy (2nd law) is the key.
Andrew Palfreyman
4.3 / 5 (12) May 03, 2016
Implies we could recreate higher dimensional space locally in a high energy collider.
JongDan
4.5 / 5 (10) May 03, 2016
Implies we could recreate higher dimensional space locally in a high energy collider.

Very high energy, we're talking about temperatures close to planck temperature; which would be on the order of several 10^18 GeV.
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (9) May 03, 2016
Unfortunately the T = 0.93Tp (0.93 Planck Temperature) is way too high for a collider to reach.

But it does give the string theorists something to think about. And, like string theory itself, this may also have some manifest effect accessible in current collider results.
javjav
1.9 / 5 (17) May 03, 2016
From the article:
"... when the universe was just a fraction of a second old, and when the number of spatial dimensions was approximately three"

So why it was 3 dimensions in the first place? That is the interesting question
shavera
4.6 / 5 (16) May 03, 2016
So why it was 3 dimensions in the first place?

From my understanding of their argument (reading the arxiv paper), this article's supposition that you quote is not really necessary. Their point is that 3 is a local minimum or maximum, and thus if you allow for the number of dimensions to vary, 3 becomes the one that best fits the laws of thermodynamics. So if, say, some early universe quantum mechanics allows the number of dimensions to go up or down, as they fluctuate about, they get trapped at 3 spatial dimensions.

I feel like this article gives perhaps too much importance on the scientific article published. I don't think that article specifically *solves* the problem, just points out one way that the problem may be solved.
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (31) May 03, 2016
I have always said that Time can ONLY go forward - never stops, pauses or reverses. It can't.
Like space, Time has ALWAYS existed, but not as a commodity like matter/energy and the many other dimensions that have their own matter/energy and space. Time flows at a steady pace. It's only humans who THINK that Time can be controlled by Black Holes and gravitational lensing, etc.
What CAN be controlled by BH are the EVENTS such as the ability of BH to attract and hold objects in its inward gravitational pull. On a Cosmic timescale, the events that are happening seem slow by comparison with the 24 hour clock that is familiar to humans, animals & plants. But it only SEEMS that way b/c Earth clocks represent rotation of planet Earth, which means that EarthTimescale is going faster than CosmicTimescale.
(cont'd)
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (33) May 03, 2016
(cont'd)
Humans can detect matter/energy being pulled into BHs, but it seems to go so slowly, as though Time had stood still. But it is ONLY an illusion and Time itself has not stopped or slowed while the BH is attracting & consuming.

To the human/animal mind/senses, Earth's timescale is set to ~24 hour day/night cycle. This means that in Cosmic timescale, Earth and solar system may have already been swallowed by the Sun and destroyed in a cataclysm, while the Cosmos/Universe is still plodding along on its normal timescale. However, any other planetary and solar objects in that Cosmos/Universe as consisting of matter/energy are all subject to their own timescales and have possibly been destroyed also. The Hubble T-scope SEES these objects, but it can't inform the viewer if the object(s) are still existing. It has only picked up on the history but not the present.
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (32) May 03, 2016
(cont'd)
Placing Time as a component of a math equation without explaining it as only a "measurement of an event or distance" is ridiculous, especially since science bases those equations on Earth's timescale. The Cosmic timescale is yet unknown…UNTIL the actual AGE of the Universe/Cosmos becomes known.. and maybe not even then.
The 3 dimensions are also subject to the 24 hour Earth timescale by necessity. It is the only thing that humans can be certain of…unless the Earth begins rotating faster or slows down.

"The key idea is that 3D space was "frozen in" at this point when the Helmholtz density reached its first maximum value, prohibiting 3D space from transitioning to other dimensions."

The term "3D space" is absurd, IMO, since Space itself is non-dimensional and is ONLY the medium in which 3D objects such as planets, stars, asteroids, stairs, schoolbuses, life forms and all other objects built of matter/energy are imprinted as 3 dimensional figures.
Pooua
4.5 / 5 (16) May 03, 2016
Time flows at a steady pace. It's only humans who THINK that Time can be controlled by Black Holes and gravitational lensing, etc.


No, scientists have actually measured time slowing as objects enter an accelerated reference frame. Whether we send atomic clocks into orbit and compare them with their counterparts on Earth, or accelerate particles in a particle accelerator, or measure the decay time of particles reaching us from space, time dilation theory perfectly explains the observed results, as the calculated values precisely match the measured values in every case.

Humans can detect matter/energy being pulled into BHs


Not that I've heard. We do not possess the resolution to be able to measure the time dilation of objects falling into a black hole.

but it seems to go so slowly, as though Time had stood still. But it is ONLY an illusion and Time itself has not stopped or slowed while the BH is attracting & consuming.


That isn't an illusion.
Pooua
4.3 / 5 (11) May 03, 2016
I regret that I've never taken enough physics and math to understand space time as well as I'd like. A question I have is whether the reason that we can't travel in negative time is that we cannot travel in negative space. If negative space exists, we are unable to enter it.

Why are space and time linked? I think that's something to do with the Lorentz transform; it's geometrical. What does it mean that space is warped? Does it mean a gradient in some field? A field of what? If warping space also warps time, is time actually part of space, or merely adhering to it?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (18) May 03, 2016
I have always said that Time can ONLY go forward - never stops, pauses or reverses. It can't.
No need for time. It is simply explained by knots and braids in EM waves
petersonwalter
2.6 / 5 (10) May 03, 2016
Pooua says:

"No, scientists have actually measured time slowing as objects enter an accelerated reference frame."

Does this mean that after the moment of the Bug Bang, when the universe was expanding rapidly, time was actually going slower? If the expansion of the universe is slowing down, is time going faster now? How can we know, then, how "old" the universe is?
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (30) May 03, 2016
"No, scientists have actually measured time slowing as objects enter an accelerated reference frame. Whether we send atomic clocks into orbit and compare them with their counterparts on Earth, or accelerate particles in a particle accelerator, or measure the decay time of particles reaching us from space, time dilation theory perfectly explains the observed results..." - Pooua

Yes, the clocks differ in time values from their counterparts. But the reason for it is the gravitational pull of the Earth...meaning that the closer to the Earth surface one clock is, the more it is timed to coincide with the Earth's rotation and, once set, will not lose its set momentum. Whereas, a clock that is in flight somewhere over the Earth, the slower it will run in comparison to the one that's closer to Earth's surface and grav. pull. Earth gravity loses its "attraction" and pull the further away from it an object is. In NEO, the ISS doesn't fall to Earth due to its distance from the grav pull
javjav
3 / 5 (14) May 03, 2016
@pettersonwalter: space expansion does not affect the speed of time in any way. When space expands nothing is accelerated, any particle or object located on expanding space will continue moving at the same speed,.it will not "feel" any acceleration. No gravity field is created and no change in the speed of time is measured by any observer.
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (29) May 03, 2016
IOW, it isn't Time itself that is slowing down the traveling clock's momentum as it flies at a distance over the Earth, or is in NEO, as compared to the other clock's momentum on the surface. The Earth is an object with a gravity well and that gravity prevents the atomic clock on the surface from running faster or slower. It can do neither unless it is set to do either one.
While the traveling atomic clock has much less gravitational pull on it so that the particles within aren't limited by gravity. Thus the traveling atomic clock slows down to whichever degree that is more in keeping with Cosmic timescale, rather than what was its original setting back on Earth's surface.
There is the Cosmic timescale that governs all bodies/objects that are at distance from matter with its inherent gravity - gravitational pull.
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (30) May 03, 2016
"There is the Cosmic timescale that governs all bodies/objects that are at distance from matter with its inherent gravity - gravitational pull."

Bodies/objects such as Photons travel at the same speed in the vacuum of space, having nothing to do with Time. Only its speed and distance can be measured. Time doesn't warp or dilate - only events and distance may warp or dilate.
I hope that I've explained it well.
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (29) May 03, 2016
I regret that I've never taken enough physics and math to understand space time as well as I'd like. A question I have is whether the reason that we can't travel in negative time is that we cannot travel in negative space. If negative space exists, we are unable to enter it.

Why are space and time linked? I think that's something to do with the Lorentz transform; it's geometrical. What does it mean that space is warped? Does it mean a gradient in some field? A field of what? If warping space also warps time, is time actually part of space, or merely adhering to it?
- Pooua
Spacetime is misnamed. Einstein thought that space and time were indivisible. Why, I can't imagine. Time itself has no bearing on the space that objects inhabit or travel through. And space itself is only a "placeholder" in which objects (stars, planets) travel through. Space, of and by itself, has no gravity. It is neutral. It is only matter/energy that has gravity and is NOT neutral.
David Aye
3.9 / 5 (14) May 03, 2016
Space and time ARE indivisible, in the sense that you cannot measure or describe anything in space without reference to the moment in time at which you took your measurement. :) So yes, they are intrinsically linked.
RobertKarlStonjek
5 / 5 (9) May 03, 2016
entropy (a measure of disorder) never decreases in a closed system such as the universe.

Entropy can decrease according to statistical mechanics. The probability of a general and persistent decrease is diminishingly small but never non-zero.

If the universe is expanding then the probability of even a brief fall in entropy is significantly lower than for a non-expanding universe.

Local falls in entropy are not only possible but inevitable.

The statement that 'entropy always rises in a closed system' is false. The actual conjecture is 'entropy always rises or stays the same in a closed system' and even this can only possibly refer to the average which, for an infinite time scale, is also false.
RobertKarlStonjek
4.4 / 5 (13) May 03, 2016
Space does not 'have' some number of dimensions. This is a false statement.

The correct statement is 'space can be modelled using just three dimensions'

It can also be modelled in four dimensions as well as ten, twenty or various other combinations of dimensions. It can also be modelled with fractional dimensions. And it can be modelled in ways which we are yet to conceive.

Space can also be modelled using quantum mechanics and QFT which gives a quite different view of a grainy space. Some cosmologists have suggested that empty space does not exist at all.

These various theories can either fight among themselves in a battle which is unlikely to have winners any time soon or simply acknowledge that there are many ways to model space and that each model has its merits and answers some questions.

If a single overarching model that encompasses all other models emerges then that is a huge bonus, but these are all still models.
trevor_white
1.6 / 5 (20) May 03, 2016
strange to see these arguments, an interesting view yet the assumption is that there is an assumed understanding of time and although Einstein very clearly defined it in his maths & attempted to explain this, governed by the teachings of his time. I have yet to see even a basic understanding. No understanding means these solutions must fail as do all theories at the point of the "big Bang"
trevor_white
1.9 / 5 (18) May 03, 2016
really? How long was your second at the big bang as time was stopped above the Schwarzschild radius and only after the expansion would time have started up and then very slowly such that your 1 second could have been years, hours or longer against our current definition of a second
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (15) May 03, 2016
Who says that it is 3 dimensional? See it only the tiny electron or proton. proton + electron -> hydrogen or neutron. Etc. but try to visualize the tiny hole or spike when distance to a point charge is zero. Like in golf get closer to the hole. Also the fields superimpose upon each other while the particle moves with respect to the field. Tiny to large is only a perspective, there may be dimensional continuity different from anything we can think.
Colbourne
3.5 / 5 (8) May 03, 2016
This is only one of many possible universes. The initial definition of this universe is 3 dimensional but the others can be different. It is possible that intelligent life can only exist in a 3d universe hence that is what we see.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (17) May 03, 2016
In NEO, the ISS doesn't fall to Earth due to its distance from the grav pull

And a little fuel...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (17) May 03, 2016
entropy (a measure of disorder) never decreases in a closed system such as the universe.

Entropy can decrease according to statistical mechanics. The probability of a general and persistent decrease is diminishingly small but never non-zero.

If the universe is expanding then the probability of even a brief fall in entropy is significantly lower than for a non-expanding universe.

Local falls in entropy are not only possible but inevitable.

The statement that 'entropy always rises in a closed system' is false. The actual conjecture is 'entropy always rises or stays the same in a closed system' and even this can only possibly refer to the average which, for an infinite time scale, is also false.

And... if it's an OPEN (even just a little bit) system?
Seeker2
1.6 / 5 (14) May 04, 2016
What does it mean that space is warped? Does it mean a gradient in some field? A field of what? If warping space also warps time, is time actually part of space, or merely adhering to it?
I don't think it's a gradient in some field, only in the density of spacetime, or the vacuum density. Essentially the vacuum takes on a different index of refraction, causing curved light paths in spacetime. Spacetime isn't curved, it's only the path of light passing into a medium of different refractive index.
Seeker2
1.6 / 5 (14) May 04, 2016
How can we know, then, how "old" the universe is?
That would be what they call proper time, that is the time measured by an observer undergoing the actual acceleration or deceleration. For an observer positioned outside the universe and not under acceleration the universe would appear to be younger. But I guess we won't be meeting that observer in this life.
Jayded
3.3 / 5 (6) May 04, 2016
Who said the universe was a closed system? That's a pretty large assumption.
slash
3.9 / 5 (14) May 04, 2016
@obamasocks: I suggest you look up time dilation, e. g. wikipedia offers a very helpful explanation of the _two_ time dilation effects explained by general and special relativity respectively : https://en.wikipe...dilation

Note that the two effects can combine; e. g. the astronauts on the ISS experience both the gravitational effect of time dilation and the effect of moving at high speed. Even that combined effect is very small however, requiring high precision instruments to even detect it.

Also note that the ISS isn't very high above earth, and the gravitational pull isn't significantly reduced. It doesn't fall down, because it moves so fast that its centripetal force counters gravition: it goes around earth once every 40 minutes! (and that is why sending rockets to ISS is so expensive: getting to that height is easy - catching up with ISS is the hard part!) That is totally covered by Newtonian mechanics however. No time dilation involved.
EyeNStein
4.6 / 5 (9) May 04, 2016
Emergence is the current hot idea for unifying all physics and cosmology at all scales and energies.
Time and space (as space-time ) as a three plus one dimensional construct may well emerge as a best expression of thermodynamics, as an 11 (OR 26) dimensional 'space' expanded and cooled; As this article implies.
It is now apparent how: at the various scales and energies and temperatures various theories EMERGE like a phase change (like steam-water-ice) from the proceeding higher-energy, smaller-scale, state: As Newtonian classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics: And General Relativity emerged from a wider (relative) understanding of Newtonian space and gravity.

Anyone who doesn't accept that time is NOT some natural invariant had better hand in their GPS unit and have an alternate theory for the varying lifetime of fast muons.

There are a few brain bending lectures on this on YouTube: Here's my favourite:-
https://www.youtu...sAPywma0
EyeNStein
4.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2016
We definitely need to stop thinking of space and time as fixed constructs: Nor an empty stage where the universe performs a ballet.
Space-time is the chief player in every performance. Quantum field theory indicates that Shielding/Anti-shielding are important to understand every charge of every type we measure.
The nuclear "Strong force " is only as it is because of its constriction (asymptotic freedom) by the fields of the space around it.

Future generations will begin their understanding of physics from the properties of the fields of space-time, just as previous generations learned to understand chemistry emerging from the laws of physics.
RobertKarlStonjek
5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2016
Whydening Gyre
And..if it's an OPEN (even just a little bit) system


An expanding universe is like an open system. In an open system, like a tank with a small hole in it, the heat can leak out but is very unlikely to leak back in assuming that the tank is a heat reservoir and is hotter than the atmosphere.

That's where the 'thermo' in thermodynamics comes from, heat is still a good explainer for the phenomena.

If you have a spatial extension of 1 cubic light year today and 10 cubic light years way down the track then the heat concentrated in the smaller region 'leaks' into the bigger later extension even if the change in volume is entirely due to the expansion of spacetime.

Although the universe may be closed to the outside, it is not closed to the later expanded size it becomes. It is *like* putting one container, the original universe, into a bigger container, the later universe. The smaller universe is not closed but 'open' to the larger universe.
shavera
4.8 / 5 (21) May 04, 2016
A brief introduction to what spacetime is (at least what actual physicists mean by it, not what the several trolls on this site may mean)

1) Space-time is the set of all measurements you can make with rulers and clocks. Not a thing, not a stuff, just a set of measurements.
2) Distance in space is found by x²+y²+z² = d². Distance in space-time is found by s² = -ct²+x²+y²+z² (let's just call the space distance X²) s² = -ct²+X².
3) When you rotate stuff in space, distances stay the same, but some x mixes into y and z and vice versa and so on. When you rotate stuff in space-time, 'distance' (s) stays the same, but t mixes into X and vice versa (length contraction and time dilation).
4) "Rotation" in space-time is a Lorentz-boost. Regular space is "Euclidean" and (simple) space-time is "hyperbolic." A circle is all the points equidistant from some center. For Euclidean space, it's x²+y². For hyberbolic space it's t²-x² (circle v. hyperbola).
(cont)
shavera
4.8 / 5 (21) May 04, 2016
5) in many ways you'll see hyperbolic maths show up in relativity because of this fundamental connection between the two.
6) Lorentz boosts are precisely the same as relative motion. Relative motion is the same as 'rotating' in space time.
7) Just like you can have different normal coordinate systems that are rotated relative to each other, you can have different space-time coordinate systems, rotated relative to each other.
8) Differently rotated space-time coordinates is no different than observers in relative motion
9) Accelerated motion is not a static rotation, but a continuously rotating coordinate system
9a) remember, this is rotation in a hyperbolic coordinate system, so it's the same as getting closer to the hyperbolic asymptotes, not like circular rotation.
10) Depending on how matter and energy is distributed, how you measure space-time distances changes to more complicated expressions than -ct²+X² . How you describe how to find distance is called a 'metric'
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (17) May 04, 2016
Whydening Gyre
And..if it's an OPEN (even just a little bit) system


If you have a spatial extension of 1 cubic light year today and 10 cubic light years way down the track then the heat concentrated in the smaller region 'leaks' into the bigger later extension even if the change in volume is entirely due to the expansion of spacetime.

Although the universe may be closed to the outside, it is not closed to the later expanded size it becomes. It is *like* putting one container, the original universe, into a bigger container, the later universe. The smaller universe is not closed but 'open' to the larger universe.

Sounds like a good enough explanation to me....
shavera
4.8 / 5 (20) May 04, 2016
11) When we talk about space being warped or curved, we mean these more complicated 'metrics.' Not the same as a fabric being warped or curved.
12) "Curvature" is a mathematical word describing a property of any given metric (maths stuff here)
13) Stuff (in the form of a stress-energy tensor) equals curvature (essentially a metric, but often written in a more useful way.
14) We can put in stuff we know, and calculate curvature.
14a) These maths are hard, and we can only directly solve simple 'stuff', numerically slightly more complicated.
15) Some people have put in a curvature and solved for 'stuff'
15a) There's no guarantee that the equation run this way will produce stuff that can actually exist
15b) These are your 'warp drives' and 'wormholes.' The curvature is mathematically possible. The stuff is not. (using not in the sense of unless there's some major new physics discovery, not. Not just an 'engineering' problem, a fundamental physics problem)
KBK
1.5 / 5 (20) May 04, 2016
As soon as I saw the article title, I knew it would be a developing CCC down at the physorg ranch, or a "contrarian comment clusterfuck".

As I'm sure all you knew that as well.

A freaking soapbox derby, for better or for worse.

The worse part would be if the contrarian commentary did not exist. If it failed to materialize, I'd rate the human race already dead.

So revel in the screechy gawkers and hawkers mess - it is humanity's friend, and more..it is required.

We'd be no where without it.
antigoracle
2.5 / 5 (23) May 04, 2016
So revel in the screechy gawkers and hawkers mess - it is humanity's friend, and more..it is required.

We'd be no where without it.

No..no..no. You have entered that other dimension, my friend. The dimension of high time, where you scream.. "It's high time to put an end to this mess".
OceanDeep
2 / 5 (25) May 04, 2016
I'd always thought space was three-dimensional because if it were one-dimensional, it would be really dull at parties.

Seriously, though, good article. :-)
OceanDeep
1.4 / 5 (20) May 04, 2016
I have always wondered, though, why is the Second Law what it is? What part of the universe explains why it moves toward greater entropy, or whether any other kind of universe could exist where things move toward less entropy.
shavera
4.8 / 5 (21) May 04, 2016
Just think of 'moving toward more entropy' as kind of saying 'getting to the most likely state' There are many different types of universes that can exist that all lead toward a universe that's pretty much just a very cold photon (and some other particles) gas.

So if the beginning of time is the broad ensemble of every possible universe, the end of time is the only possible universe (to speak exceedingly generally, and avoiding many possible caveats).

But even the things I've just said are problematic because I'm still talking about 'going' from past to future. As best we understand time, it just all 'is.' So what I'm really saying is that the rules of physics mean that higher entropy is found toward one direction along an axis, and lower entropy the other. There's not yet a deeper answer, though some ideas have been floated.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (32) May 04, 2016
Good posts shavera, and well needed here.

It is a common mistake to conflate the mathematical structure of a theory with a 'realist' interpretation which leads to mathematical-idealism, rather than an understanding of what the original theory was actually meant to say.

GR takes an operational approach, which means defining coordinate-time and coordinate-space to be represented as some physical system,... not taken as a "thing unto itself".

It is a kinematical theory as opposed to a dynamic one,... IN THE SENSE that the field equations only equate proportionally the metric tensor [as expressed in the contracted Riemann tensor], to mass-energy,..... but does not say WHY, ....which is what one would expect for a dynamical theory that took space-time as a substance.

Another point here is that entropy is not itself "time", but is an epiphenomenon,... i.e. merely statistically emergent phenomenon and not a fundamental property of reality.

torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (14) May 04, 2016
There are some problems with the work.

- The thermodynamics is based on superstring theory, which may or may not be a valid description of underlying physics. [ https://www.resea...al_space ]

However, I found another work that is based on dimensionality only, which seems to give the morally same description. (I.e. the BBR energy density varies in the same way with dimensions, but the constants are different.)
[ http://arxiv.org/...0002.pdf ]

- It assumes an invalid cosmology of a Big Bang from Planck energies (temperature TP). But we know that the current cosmology passes through a Hot Big Bang era that has 3 orders of magnitude less energy density, and that the ear before that is 0 K inflation. It would be odd if inflation didn't occur in 3D, and the HBB reaches 0.001 TP at most not 0.93 TP. so it won't change the dimensionality.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (14) May 04, 2016
[ctd]

Does inflation starts at Planck energies, or is it eternal? The question is still open.

Meanwhile we do know that cells, or containers in general, only work in 3D space. This doesn't mean that the anthropic principle is valid, but it means this work is not a contending theory, at least as of yet.

@walter: "Bug Bang".

I wondered where all the bug juice came from. ;-)

Finally, re observers "outside" the universe/a closed universe, the universe is closed in the sense of GR in standard cosmology. (That is, it may well be infinite flat/approximatively open, but there isn't any 'outside'.)
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.9 / 5 (15) May 04, 2016
@Noumenon: Give your misguided philosophy a rest.

A phenomena is real if it is a robust trait of the universe, e.g. spacetime and entropy are both real. Thermodynamics always, spacetime on large scales/low energies (see below).

However, no one (I hope) has declared spacetime 'a substance' at all times. If you look at Einsteins equations, the stress appears not on the spacetime curvature side but on the mass/energy side, so obviously the (realist) description doesn't map to the substances we know and love.

But if the energies are small enough/you don't look to closely, i.e. stay away from high curvature/small scales, gravity is best approximated as a quantum field with gravitons as its particles. That description breaks down eventually due to the EEs non-linearities cropping up (black holes being one example). It isn't robust in that sense (see above on stress), but it is the kind of robust 'substance' of gravity you ask for.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.5 / 5 (14) May 04, 2016
I forgot to nitpick the article:

"entropy (a measure of disorder)".

That is useful in most situations. But in very confined systems ordered states can be more likely, c.f. dense packing.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (30) May 04, 2016
I'm not sure what your objection is exactly. I'm not speaking philosophy,... those that take space-time as "a curved thing" are speaking philosophy. Please give your "characterizations" a rest.

A phenomena is real if it is a robust trait of the universe, e.g. spacetime and entropy are both real.


I stated quite plainly that entropy is a phenomenon. So what are you taking about?

I stated quite plainly that that space and time are operationally represented as physical systems. The notion that they are "things" would require observing them, independently of those concepts use, as a particle or a field or as some force,... etc. Space-time is not involved in any dynamics.

but it is the kind of robust 'substance' of gravity you ask for.


I never asked for such a thing. IF there develops a valid quantum theory of gravitation, that is compatible with the GR geometric formulation of gravity,.... then it may answer further questions. It does not exist at present.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (20) May 04, 2016
those that take space-time as "a curved thing" are speaking philosophy

You must try to realize the truth, there is no space-time.
...There is no space-time? [you say]
Then you'll see that, it's not space-time that's curved, it's only yourself.

https://www.youtu...tO5dMqEI
shavera
4.6 / 5 (13) May 04, 2016
Noumenon, et al. I think the bigger problem is that we have no good definition of what a 'thing' is in a physics of field theories. Everything's a field, when it comes down to it. There's a curvature field, and an EM field, and an electron field, and so on and so on. Is an EM field a 'thing'? Or is it just the photons within the field? What of an electron field? In some area of space where the electron field's expectation value is very nearly zero, is that a 'thing'? If a curvature field is, in fact, quantized as we generally expect it may be, then are particulate quanta of a curvature field a thing? (these paritcular quanta go by the name graviton, which I find misleading, since gravitation is a relatively indirect phenomenon of the curvature field more directly)
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (4) May 04, 2016
@Oceandeep
I have always wondered, though, why is the Second Law what it is? What part of the universe explains why it moves toward greater entropy, or whether any other kind of universe could exist where things move toward less entropy.

It seems to arise that energy needs to radiate ( a photon that doesn't propagate isn't a photon)unless something confines it. (In which case it radiates within its container.) Radiation as a principle may well extrapolate back to an early extra-dimensional universe.
Exchange of radiations between a high energy place and a similar but low energy place, in equilibrium, naturally has second law of thermodynamics behaviour: This is where time and especially time having a direction come in, as radiation has a direction. ( As Maxwell's laws don't permit photons to reverse and back up: Though Maxwell assumes time so this may become a circular argument.)

PBS Spacetime give good explanations of this:- https://www.youtu...zgpt4HBU
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (19) May 04, 2016
Our Universe always seeks the most efficient methodology. 3D(+ time) is, apparently, the most efficient in terms of energy usage, etc....
compose
May 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
May 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
May 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
May 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (31) May 04, 2016
Noumenon, et al. I think the bigger problem is that we have no good definition of what a 'thing' is in a physics of field theories. Everything's a field, when it comes down to it....


You mean a Description. IMO, it is because fields and particles, and time and space, are components of the Description, and not of the 'independent Reality'.

The 'conceptual form' is implicit in the conceptual and mathematical formulation, in the necessary conditions for observation,... and are not 'things unto themselves'. The basis of field theories, QM, shows such a dependency on the experimental arrangement.
..................................

The very same people who feign "offense" to any hint of philosophy of physics, are usually the first to mistake the conceptual and mathematical formalism (which are merely a means to make observational predictions) as Being aspects of 'independent Reality'. Ironically such Realists are the most readily to engage in metaphysics.

Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (34) May 04, 2016
If string theory becomes tenable, then there will be naive people like Torbjorn objecting to what they think is philosophy, all the while believing that everything is made of actual strings in 10 actual dimensions,...... rather than understanding that this is merely a means for consistently formulating an ability to make observational predictions.

...................................

[I continue to be troll rated by some cowards pack of screen-names.....[either a paraplegic or Phys.Org associated,...
jim_xanara, AGreatWhopper, chileastro, NiteSkyGerl, john berry_hobbes, chileastro, etc]

BongThePuffin
May 05, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (30) May 05, 2016
@noumenon
Why do you call physics "the Description"?
I hope this does not catch on.


Physical theories are not descriptions of phenomena? Then, do you think the mathematical formulation IS the reality?

believing that everything is made of actual strings in 10 actual dimensions,...... rather than understanding that this is merely a means for consistently formulating an ability to make observational predictions

Why "merely"?


'Merely' as in contrast to claiming some ontology for something that is not observable. The line of discussion is about the notion that 'space-time' is a "thing of itself".

Theory is a _very powerful_ means to make predictions.

I did not imply "merely" to stand alone as a negative qualification about theories. The intended contrast is clear given the entire sentence.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 05, 2016
[I continue to be troll rated by some cowards pack of screen-names.....[either a paraplegic or Phys.Org associated,...


Could someone parse that delusion into English???


Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

If others are interested they can click the link below and see the same pack-of-screen-names troll rated every one of my posts irrespective of content as far back as 6 pages within minutes in the same time period.

https://sciencex....ml?v=act

torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4 / 5 (12) May 05, 2016
@Nuomenon: "I'm not speaking philosophy,"

The terms "a 'realist'" and "interpretation" are philosophical terms, ideas that have nothing to do with observations and nature.

"Please give your "characterizations" a rest."

As long as the comments aren't about science, it is a communal service. You should never assume that a reader know what is science and what isn't.

As for the rest, I was exemplifying what real phenomena are (robust phenomena) and isn't ('"a 'realist' interpretation").

"Space-time is not involved in any dynamics".

That is news for those who study dynamics of quantum fields, such as what low energy gravity approximates.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4 / 5 (11) May 05, 2016
[ctd]

"It does not exist at present."

If you are ignorant of the subject, why do you try to make unsupportable claims?

"It's often said that it is difficult to reconcile quantum mechanics (quantum field theory) and general relativity. That is wrong. We have what is, for many purposes, a perfectly good effective field theory description of quantum gravity. It is governed by a Lagrangian
S = ...

This is a theory with an infinite number of coupling constants (the ciand, all-importantly, the couplings in Lmatter. Nonetheless, at low energies, i.e., for

ε≡E2M2pl≪1we have a controllable expansion in powers of ε. To any finite order in that expansion, only a finite number of couplings contribute to the amplitude for some physical process. We have a finite number of experiments to do, to measure the values of those couplings. After that, everything else is a prediction.

[tbctd]
Noumenon
2 / 5 (28) May 05, 2016
Without concepts we would still crawling around in the forest. Why deny the reality of concepts like "electron" ?


I have not denied that the concept of an "electron" nor any other, are useful in theoretical descriptions. You will have to explain what you mean by "reality of concepts" for me to understand your objection.

Concepts are mind-dependent. That is what concept means. What is termed "phenomenal reality",.... the realm of physics,.... necessarily has a component that is mind-dependent in the sense that concepts are used in theories. How is this debatable?

Some mistake that mind-dependent component of phenomenal-reality,... concepts or mathematical description,.... as "things unto themselves" existing independently of description. This is to take physics beyond it's purpose into either metaphysics or mathematical idealism.

torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (11) May 05, 2016
[ctd]

In other words, as an effective field theory, gravity is no worse, nor better, than any other of the effective field theories we know and love."

[ https://golem.ph....639.html ]

"fields and particles, and time and space, are components of the Description, and not of the 'independent Reality'."

There you go again. Since they are robust phenomena that happens whether or not we observe them or how we describe them, they are independent and real.

But we better describe them faithfully to be able to make predictions, i.e. describe the process with a well tested theory.

Maybe you are confused by that we can make an image (theory). I see that a lot of philosophers, who routinely mistake the image for the real thing. =D

"realists", "metaphysucs".

And again, confusing your image - which isn't faithful - with the real thing (robust phenomena, and those who observe them)
shavera
5 / 5 (12) May 05, 2016
noumenon: I agree that we both have separate philosophical beliefs about the nature of reality. As beliefs neither of us are objectively right or wrong, they simply are beliefs about how 'the world is.' I do think that fields *are* reality, and not just a 'useful description.' However, I, at least, will acknowledge that there is a perfectly legitimate philosophical belief that physics is 'merely' a useful tool to describe reality.

There are always philosophical roots to science and what it 'means.' Whether people acknowledge those roots is sometimes difficult.

But I also agree that this site should exist primarily to discuss the results of science and not its philosophical underpinnings. The forum format itself is entirely unsuited to such discussions which inevitably result in misunderstandings and then name calling.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.2 / 5 (10) May 05, 2016
@shavera: "we have no good definition of what a 'thing' is in a physics of field theories. Everything's a field, when it comes down to it."

Good points, but they dig deeper than we can do at the moment. There are quantum physics systems that predict that they are "particle less" in some situations, which asks the question if they are fields. But of course it hasn't been observed yet.

"the name graviton, which I find misleading, since gravitation is a relatively indirect phenomenon of the curvature field more directly)".

As far as I know they are produced when the curvature changes much and fast. That is why LIGO could put a new limit on their properties.

@EyeNStein: "It seems to arise that energy needs to radiate".

Also (too) deep. The inflation field doesn't radiate much, it is cold and doesn't produce much particles.

More problematic is that the question leads up to universe expansion and different so called "arrows of time". Open questions, in other words.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (10) May 05, 2016
@shavera: " the results of science and not its philosophical underpinnings."

I'll start on the name callings (or characterizations) if you please.

As I think I have illustrated with the hellp of Nuomenon, philosophy isn't testable and so isn't a tool that science uses, There is an arrogant, several millennium old, erroneous belief that philosophy encapsulates everything.

But as we now know, it is science that describes everything worthwhile (reality), while fantasies - however arrogant - are just that. Of course, gamers would note that fantasies have their uses...
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 05, 2016
"Space-time is not involved in any dynamics".


That is news for those who study dynamics of quantum fields, such as what low energy gravity approximates.


I will simply repeat what I said above,..... "IF there develops a valid quantum theory of gravitation, that IS COMPATIBLE with the GRT GEOMETRIC formulation of gravity,.... then it may answer further questions.".... IOW,... a background independent theory. Such a theory is still under development. You are correct though, that I do not know much about QG theories.

Even still, this does not mean that there is a "substance" as you said, to gravity or space-time,... so that they are "things unto themselves" existing in some ontological sense independent of mathematical description.

All that can be said to be "real" is what imposes itself upon experiment, which is properly independent of theory.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 05, 2016
The terms "a 'realist'" and "interpretation" are philosophical terms, ideas that have nothing to do with observations and nature.

"Please give your "characterizations" a rest."

As long as the comments aren't about science, it is a communal service. You should never assume that a reader know what is science and what isn't.


Perhaps you missed the entire history of how the contrast between a "realist" and a "positivist" outlook, effected the development and understanding of QM? Maybe Einstein and Schrodinger were speaking philosophy?

Of course it is important to make these distinctions in science for otherwise you have people speaking of space-time as a 'thing', and many-worlds, and guiding-waves that can never be observed as if they were "actual things". Do you not know the definition of metaphysics?

It is disruptive to object to the supposed form of ones argument, all the while making metaphysical pronouncements about "substance of gravity".

Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 05, 2016
...are components of the Description, and not of the 'independent Reality'."


There you go again. Since they are robust phenomena that happens whether or not we observe them or how we describe them, they are independent and real.


There you go again, speaking philosophically and metaphysically. How can a thing be a "robust phenomena" independent of observation? That is the definition of metaphysics!

They are not observational phenomena,…. they are components of the description. They are real only in the sense of being a component of phenomenal-reality [as defined above], but they are a mind-dependent component, not one that imposes itself upon experiment Independent of theory.

Is the electron a "particle" or a "wave", independent of the experimental apparatus? Further, that the wavefunction itself is a physical wave is not a matter of experimental observation but instead one of interpretation (properly philosophy of physics).
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (29) May 05, 2016
I see that a lot of philosophers, who routinely mistake the image [theory] for the real thing. =D


Yes, that is funny as well as ironic, precisely because my argument is that you are doing exactly that,.... even while denouncing the very means in which one can make that clear. Perhaps you should read my post just prior to your above quoted one.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 05, 2016
this site should exist primarily to discuss the results of science and not its philosophical underpinnings. The forum format itself is entirely unsuited to such discussions which inevitably result in misunderstandings and then name calling.


I agree with the rest of your post. But, given the history of QM for example as mentioned above, and given that legitimate "realist" theories and legitimate "positivist" theories are common and that physicists take one or the other outlook.,,

I would agree with the motive underlying your first series of posts in this thread that aimed to make the distinction between "curve space time" and theoretical description clearer. I don't find your posts to this effect off topic at all.

Also, if one makes claims that go beyond science and borders on metaphysics, it is appropriate to point this out as well, imo. What is disruptive and off topic, is to categorize and focus on the form of argument rather than its substance.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (18) May 05, 2016
shavera stated
...this site should exist primarily to discuss the results of science and not its philosophical underpinnings
nou stated
... But, given the history of QM for example as mentioned above
Well nou, this i disagree with (your comment)
for starters, everyone likes to know "why" something does what it does... so any typical person (likely scientists included) will speculate to the reasoning (hence the "philo" comments you've posted)

but that doesn't mean it is an integral part of the theory - and QM is no different
... metaphysics
metaphysics is philo, and it is subjective as demonstrated by Hume, Wittgenstein, Ayer and Carnap
it is appropriate to point this out as well, imo
WHY is it important to point out the opinion of a subjective belief on a science site?
can you truly answer that?

and will your answer be subjective or will it be definitive for all people?
(hence my objection to philo in the first place)
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 05, 2016
I'll start on the name callings (or characterizations) if you please. As I think I have illustrated with the hellp of Nuomenon, philosophy isn't testable and so isn't a tool that science uses


I have not claimed that philosophy is testable.

Interpretations of QM for example, which are de facto https://en.wikipe...chanics, are independent of experiment, in that they all rely on the same experimental results,...and yet are ubiquitous and necessary as guides to further scientific research.

As the article above points out the given problem started out as a philosophy of science.

You're the one who has out of context characterized my posts as "philosophy", and so was disruptive to the present discussion,... all the while adding your opinion about "realists" interpretations.

gkam
2.6 / 5 (28) May 05, 2016
We see it as three dimensional because that is all we can perceive as 3-D creatures.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (30) May 05, 2016
Edit:.... Interpretations of QM for example, which are de facto Philosophy of Physics are independent of experiment, in that they all rely on the same experimental results,...and yet are ubiquitous and necessary as guides to further scientific research.

@CaptainStumpy,... I'm not interested in discussing the validity of philosophy to science in sweeping generalities. That discussion was already an unnecessary derailment by Torbjorn. If you object to the substance of a post that I made, then articulate that objection on that topic.

Your post is even further disruptiveness than Torbjorn was.

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (19) May 05, 2016
If you object to the substance of a post that I made, then articulate that objection on that topic
i did exactly that, and i even quoted it to you
Your post is even further disruptiveness...
and your inclusion of philo is never disruptive?
LOL

i directly commented about a post you made and quoted you, piggy-backing and supporting the posts of shavera and TBGL

worst yet: you specifically state
and yet are ubiquitous and necessary as guides to further scientific research
but this isn't true, is it?
so long as someone asks "why" then there will always be something else to research and consider

that isn't philo - that is investigating reality (AKA - Science) by asking questions and seeking answers - & you don't call detectives "philo's" do you?
no

philo isn't a "necessary guide to further scientific research" so long as there is someone who asks "why" any more than the bible is necessary for religion to exist
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (29) May 05, 2016
I'm not interested in discussing the validity of philosophy to science in sweeping generalities. [...] If you object to the substance of a post that I made, then articulate that objection on that topic.


i did exactly that, and i even quoted it to you


Yes, in an effort to debate the validity of philosophy to science in general terms. As I said, I'm not interested in discussing the validity of philosophy to science in sweeping generalities,.. as a topic unto itself.

The substantive topic above in my first post, before Torbjorn interjected his out of context "characterizations",... was whether space-time or gravity are curved "substances". I did not start that discussion.

If you read my posts above objectively, you would have notice that it is me who is claiming that such notions ARE philosophy (metaphysics) and are claims that extend beyond what physical theories justify.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (29) May 05, 2016
philo isn't a "necessary guide to further scientific research"


I never said that. This is why having a discussion with you is difficult because you put my posts into a blender before responding to them.

I stated this.....

Interpretations of QM for example, which are de facto Philosophy of Physics are independent of experiment, in that they all rely on the same experimental results,...and yet are ubiquitous and necessary as guides to further scientific research.


Now, are you going to tell me interpretations of QM [Copenhagen, transactional, CI consistent histories, Bohm-de Broglie, Everett MW, etc ] are not guides to further research?

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (17) May 05, 2016
I never said that
@nou
uhm... you said
,...and yet are ubiquitous and necessary as guides to further scientific research
so, by definition, you did state philo is "necessary as guides to further scientific research", which is the same thing as saying it's a "necessary guide to further scientific research"
that is purely factual, and it is also absolutely wrong, as i noted above
and it's not broken or in a blender, it is a statement using a direct quote from you.

.

i said, very specifically, that so long as there is someone to ask "Why" there will be reason to continue researching

you're the one putting "my posts into a blender before responding", not the other way around

PS- there is a reason that hypothesis precedes theory, and conjecture precedes hypothesis... these are the "why" that leads to testing, experiment, reproducing experiment, validation and theory
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 05, 2016
"Interpretations of QM for example, which are de facto Philosophy of Physics are independent of experiment, in that they all rely on the same experimental results,...and yet are ubiquitous and necessary as guides to further scientific research". - Noumenon

The salient points were that 1) "Interpretations of QM" are "ubiquitous and necessary as guides to further scientific research", and 2) that interpretations of QM are de facto a philosophy of phiscs [for the reasons sited i.e. rely on same experimental results].... but you deliberately spliced up the quote so that you could focus the discussion on your anti-philosophy metaphilosophy.

Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) May 05, 2016
@shavera, the fact that the dimensionality of the universe may be determined by something makes that dimensionality a thing.

The fact that you have the necessary blinders installed to apparently render you incapable of observing this obvious implication of the article we are discussing makes your bias clearly apparent.

I note that when you had no answers to my earlier points you simply abandoned the conversation and appear to have classified me as a "troll." This makes it clear that this is your problem, not mine.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 05, 2016
"Interpretations of QM for example, which are de facto Philosophy of Physics are independent of experiment, in that they all rely on the same experimental results,...and yet are ubiquitous and necessary as guides to further scientific research"

Only interpretations that give rise to predictions different from QM, and thus are not merely philosophy, are useful in research.


They would not be "interpretations" then, they would be new theories,... i.e. as in objective collapse theories [added terms to the Schrodinger equation that allows for this],.... while interpretations of QM all rely on the same experimental data and do not intend to make new predictions,... thus are not new theories. They are called "interpretations" for that reason and yet are legitimate and useful part of science.

obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (21) May 05, 2016
@Nou
"merely a means for consistently formulating an ability to make observational predictions"
Why "merely"? Theory is a _very powerful_ means to make predictions.
Without concepts we would still crawling around in the forest.
Why deny the reality of concepts like "electron" ?
- Pissypants1

"Concepts" are a byproduct of Philosophy: e.g. ideas, questions, theories, formulas, hypotheses, conjecture, math equations, etc. are ALL results of the MIND working out problems, while applying observations in concert with known values. Without Philosophy, there wouldn't BE any science.
Each time you look at the sky and observe and wonder, you are posing a philosophical question, while pursuing a philosophical answer. Why is the sky blue, a child might ask. His mind is inquiring in a philosophical manner.

@Noumenon
Would you agree?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (31) May 05, 2016
Hi all. :)

Still very busy, so must briefly comment on article-posed question and on certain interesting points raised by others.

DIMENSIONALITY: Observed process/phenomena indicates that the radial extension from any location/object is infinitesimally separable into omni-directional dimensional 'lines of action/freedom'. The universe at its most fundamental 'energy-space' terms is effectively constitutes an infinitely-extendable omni-directional 'space-energy' system of unceasing dynamical 'balance seeking' over ALL dimensional DIRECTIONAL possibilities, the 'average' effect of any 'complex extended' body/feature involving more than one directional 'line' of action/freedom'. The 3-D graphing convenience is a 'reduction' to allow for easier mathematical/conceptual analysis.

PHILOSOPHY: The 'Point' concept (look it up for yourselves on Wikipedia), upon which current mathematics/geometry analysis constructs are based, is an UN-real 'philosophical abstraction concept'.

cont
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (29) May 05, 2016
...cont

METAPHYSICS: the most famous examples of this in modern science are: (a) Big Bang "everything from nothing" Hypothesis/Concepts, and; (b) Quantum Theory's "spooky action at a distance" and "uncertainty/superposition state" interpretations of experimental/observable measurements and hypotheses.

REALITY: There exists an effective mechanistically explicable/comprehensible 'energy-space' Universal system of REAL dynamical process/features which, at fundamental level, is independent of current cosmological human analytical/theoretical interpretations patently based UN-real philosophical abstractions and concepts which are built into and pervade our conventional thinking/understanding 'exercises/communications' efforts (refer to my above examples: Big Bang "everything from nothing" hypotheses; "point" concept; "spooky action at a distance" and "uncertainty/superposition" interpretations).

PS: I also observe that PO science discussion has improved greatly. Kudos guys! :)
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 05, 2016
Hidden variable theory is not philosophy but physics.


Non-local hidden variable theories are indeed philosophy of physics, as they are considered interpretations of QM, since they are subject to the same experimental results as any other interpretation,... at least this is the case with the one I listed above, deBroglie-Bohm pilot wave.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 05, 2016
... local hidden variable theories have been experimentally refuted, which is fact of physics.
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (22) May 05, 2016
REALITY: There exists an effective mechanistically explicable/comprehensible 'energy-space' Universal system of REAL dynamical process/features which, at fundamental level, is independent of current cosmological human analytical/theoretical interpretations patently based UN-real philosophical abstractions and concepts which are built into and pervade our conventional thinking/understanding 'exercises/communications' efforts (refer to my above examples: Big Bang "everything from nothing" hypotheses; "point" concept; "spooky action at a distance" and "uncertainty/superposition" interpretations).

SHITE!!. I've fallen into another dimension. The dimension of rambling, baffling bullshit. Got to watch where I step.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (31) May 06, 2016
Hi antigoracle. :)

Have you anything more than cheap shots to offer the on-topic and on-science discussion? If not, then what you post means shite in the scheme of things. Understanding of complex scientific concepts and issues requires comprehension of the relevant lexicon, concepts and logics involved; as well as deep thought and consideration of the comment and its contextual basis, and then answer (if you can) without biased/egotistical motivated kneejerking and cheap shots. Otherwise you make yourself irrelevant and confirm yourself as a loser troll on the internet. Try being relevant, unbiased and scientific, not trollish. You might get to like it and learn something in the process. Good luck in your future choices/participation. :)
compose
May 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
1.3 / 5 (15) May 06, 2016
Time have nothing to do with space. Time is absolute by which can be defined the speeds of all physical interactions between physical objects.
Space is abstract geometric entity with naturaly derived spatial dimensions, which represent the volume in which exist all physical objects of the universe and are performed all physical interactions between them.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.2 / 5 (10) May 06, 2016

@Nuo: ""IF there develops a valid quantum theory of gravitation, that IS COMPATIBLE with the GRT GEOMETRIC formulation of gravity,.... then it may answer further questions."".

Despite your repeated mischaracterization, I put a QG theory which explicitly was compatible, by using the GR Lagrangian.

Your ideas of 'background independence' is misguided, since we know the cosmological background (flat) that follows from applying GR on cosmological spacetime, and it happens to be compatible with the QGT we know.

As an analogy, are buildings or evolution 'background independent'? No, they use scaffolds (in evolution's case gene duplications) while the 'construction' is generated. We can think of flat spacetime as the scaffold we need and have used.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (14) May 06, 2016
[ctd ]

In the rest you frantically and at length continue to repeat what I have already showed is fractally erroneous , erroneous in every detail, no doubt hoping that the Gish Gallop of crackpots can suffice to sway innocent bystanders. But I think Phys.org readers are more savvy than that, an initial hint of Crackpot Error-dom should suffice.

If you can't understand physics, why do you make (erroneous) claims instead of asking questions? You come over as the arrogant oaf all philosophers seems to be by training and 2.5 millenniums of failed efforts that you need to glorify.

And no wonder, since 400 years we now have a Science of Philosophy theory, which as I noted, predicts philosophy is useless and that especially their arrogant 'Philosophy of Science' is a worthless concept. There is only one way of knowing things, and now we know this.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.2 / 5 (14) May 06, 2016
I'll return to the ad hoc, unsupported putative condition of 'background independence', which was invented by a minority of physicists that wanted to come up with a condition that separated their naive attempts to replace GR from modern theories like string theory.

The only condition on theories, before even trying to meet tests of prediction, is consistency since nature is.

Ironically GR uses a scaffold too, Einstein's Equivalence Principle. It is admissible since it results in a consistent theory (and it happens to be well testable). But some 'independent' people don't see this and recognize the problem.

@Phys1: The well tested fact that philosphy doesn't work is the only fact adhering to it that I know of. =D
Noumenon
2 / 5 (28) May 06, 2016
IF there develops a valid quantum theory of gravitation, that IS COMPATIBLE with the GRT GEOMETRIC formulation of gravity,.... then it may answer further questions.... IOW,... a background independent theory. - Noumenon

[…]
… unsupported putative condition of 'background independence', which was invented by a minority of physicists that wanted to come up with a condition that separated their naive attempts to replace GR from modern theories like string theory.


Loop quantum gravity theory is a MAJOR alternative, which is background independent, unlike string theory. GR requires background independence, not mathematical idealism philosophy.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) May 06, 2016
Despite your mischaracterizations and derailments, the original line of argument was whether space-time was a "thing" unto itself, involved in dynamics [substantively as a field or a particle, et al],… this requires a QG compatible with the GEOMETRIC nature of GR, … a background independent theory.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 06, 2016
If you can't understand physics, why do you make (erroneous) claims instead of asking questions? You come over as the arrogant oaf all philosophers [..]

And no wonder, since 400 years we now have a Science of Philosophy theory, which as I noted, predicts philosophy is useless and that especially their arrogant 'Philosophy of Science' is a worthless concept. There is only one way of knowing things, and now we know this.


All of this is more of your vacuous ad hominem characterizations, and a disruptive attempt designed to give 'an impression' rather than specific articulated counter point. Fraudulent.

As I repeated above, I am not interesting in debating the general validity of philosophy of physics with neophytes,…. but yet notice how, The Torbjorn, Otto, and Stumpy cartoon show, frequently attempt to start such a debate as if that is all they're interested in.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 06, 2016
You have been mentioning "QG" without specifying which approach. Why not say "string theory" if that is what you meant? Neither LQG nor string theory are considered complete workable theories at present....

The qualifications for a proper scientific theory is that it make testable predictions. This is a major issue with mathematical idealism theories like string theory, that are more akin to the philosophy of mathematics than science. This is what I mean above about conflating a component of the description with an independent reality that imposes itself upon experiment Independent of theory.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 06, 2016
Hidden variable theory is not philosophy but physics.


Non-local hidden variable theories [ARE] indeed philosophy of physics, as they are considered interpretations of QM, since they are subject to the same experimental results as any other interpretation […] local hidden variable theories have been experimentally refuted, which is a fact of [experimental] physics.


Indeed. A fact of _physics_ . Not a fact of philosophy. This was my point.


It was not your point, because it is necessary to make the distinction between local and non-local hidden variable theories in order to substantiate whether it is new physics or interpretation (philosophy of physics).
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 06, 2016
Is 'Cogito ergo sum' a fact? What about logic, or semantics? Determining was is a valid fact of reality or what is not, is itself a branch of philosophy, called epistemology.

Philosophy is more about interpreting what theories and experiment means,… what can we legitimately claim to know about reality. This isn't as trivial as it seems, which is why there are several, equally valid, interpretations of QM [philosophy of physics]. It is why we have physicists who are "realists" and others who are "positivists" in general outlook. It is why I made the important distinction between a component of description and a comment of independent reality.

Of course, physics neophytes are entirely ignorant of such subtle distinctions which is why their eye glaze over when adults start speaking about philosophy.

Please do not join the childish "I-hate-Noumenon / I hate philo cabal" and just stick to the actual points made.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (27) May 06, 2016
EDIT: "It is why I made the important distinction between a component of description and a [component] of independent reality.

antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (18) May 06, 2016
Oh, to ponder the mysteries of the Universe.
Why, in a 3 dimensional space, there are so many 1 dimensional brains?
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (16) May 06, 2016
[deleted]
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 06, 2016
Hidden variable theory is not philosophy but physics.


Non-local hidden variable theories [ARE] indeed philosophy of physics, as they are considered interpretations of QM, since they are subject to the same experimental results as any other interpretation […] local hidden variable theories have been experimentally refuted, which is a fact of [experimental] physics.


Indeed. A fact of _physics_ . Not a fact of philosophy. This was my point.


It was not your point, because it is necessary to make the distinction between local and non-local hidden variable theories in order to substantiate whether it is new physics or interpretation (philosophy of physics).

Of course I meant local hidden variables.


Local hidden theories are not a fact of experimental physics, that they have been refuted is a fact of experimental physics.

I post on physics here, as much or more so than you do. Stop with the "philo accusations".

Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) May 06, 2016
Is 'Cogito ergo sum' a fact?

"cogito" and "sum" are facts.
Well, in Noum's case I'm not so sure "cogito" is. Just sayin'.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (30) May 06, 2016
Hidden variable theory is not philosophy but physics. - Phys1


Non-local hidden variable theories are indeed philosophy of physics, as they are considered interpretations of QM, […] local hidden variable theories have been experimentally refuted, which is a fact of [experimental] physics.


Indeed. A fact of _physics_ . Not a fact of philosophy. This was my point.


It was not your point, because it is necessary to make the distinction between local and non-local hidden variable theories in order to substantiate whether it is new physics or interpretation (philosophy of physics).

Of course I meant local hidden variables.


Local hidden theories are not a fact of experimental physics, that they have been refuted is a fact of experimental physics.

Exactly as I said. Your point being?


The point is included in the quotes here,... in order to substantiate your first point, you needed to make this distinction clear.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 06, 2016
My opinion about philosophy is that it _can_ generate new science.
Unfortunately it mostly produces confusion and shelves full of unreadable and boring books.


Imo, if one is not interested in the meaning underlying physics,.... what it is saying about reality,... , then they are more mathematicians than physicists.

There are many interesting writings on philosophy [of physics] written by physicists,.... Weyl, Omnes, d'Espagnat, Torretti, Heisenberg, Bohm, Weizsäcker, Penrose et al,.....

obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (20) May 07, 2016
@obamasocks: I suggest you look up time dilation, e. g. wikipedia(..)

Note that the two effects can combine; e. g. the astronauts on the ISS experience both the gravitational effect of time dilation and the effect of moving at high speed....

Also note that the ISS isn't very high above earth, and the gravitational pull isn't significantly reduced. It doesn't fall down, because it moves so fast that its centripetal force counters gravition: (...) No time dilation involved.
- slash
There is no such thing as "Time dilation". Time cannot be dilated as it isn't an object made of matter/energy. It also cannot be "bent" or warped. The term "spacetime" was possibly chosen by Einstein due to his conflation of space and duration of events and/or motion.
A clock can only measure the DURATION of the MOTION of an object or a force. It also measures distance of motion, e.g. marathons. This is why we use clocks, atomic or otherwise...along with such instruments as slide rules
compose
May 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 07, 2016
@Noumenon
"The meaning underlying physics" is debated by philosophy but not established by it, although philosophy can contribute. It is established by the physics itself. I have seen so many paradoxes resulting from overinterpretation


Good point, and I agree in part,.... tending to positivism I would say that what physics can say of the "underlying reality" is inherently limited,.... though it is common for the realist physicists to attempt to say more by conflating components of the description for components of independent reality.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 07, 2016
.. Philosopher [Bergson] Helped Ensure There Was No Nobel for Relativity. Henri Bergson, a French philosopher was first who realized correctly, that the general relativity would lead into static unmovable [...] Bergson has claimed that his theory of time or duration was explaining and correcting some misconceptions that the ordinary people had about time. ...


Henri Bergson was very well renowned at the time as compared to Einstein, so had considerable influence.

There is a book [link below] at Amazon that chronicles this historic debate between Einstein and Bergson, in which I debate a convinced Bergsonian's review, ...arguing that Bergson in essence over stepped the bounds of which STR was saying and did not understand the theory in full, especially wrt time-dilation.

http://www.amazon...re=books

torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.2 / 5 (14) May 07, 2016
@Nuo:

"Loop quantum gravity theory is a MAJOR alternative".

Now you are getting desperate. It is an alternative among mathematicians that dabble in science, it isn't an alternative that theoretical physicists humor much. (It may get a session at conferences, just in case.)

That it can't produce a harmonic oscillator, that it hasn't the reeuired dynamics, is a clue - you mentioned it yourself, remember?

"GR requires background independence".

More desperation, repeating instead of supporting an ad hoc claim of a tool which isn't used elsewhere in science or technology, see my examples.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.2 / 5 (14) May 07, 2016
[ctd]

"There are many interesting writings on philosophy [of physics] written by physicist".

Since there is no 'philosophy of science' that describes science, that is neither here nor there. No one says that scientists can't get inspiration from many sources - nature, culture and so yes, religion and philosophy. But theories has to be tested. and as compose notes, philosophy (and religion) has harmed science more than it has helped.

Another example described by Sagan in Cosmos is how the religious mystics under Plato destroyed the early Greek experimenter's tradition those practice had been born out of commerce. Religion, theology, philosophy, magic, mysticism - same thing under different names, amply illustrated by Sagan.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.2 / 5 (14) May 07, 2016
[ctd]

"derailments".

That is ironic, coming from a person who prefers to insert philosophy among a science discussion for grownups, and hence spout irrelevant, unsupported, naive (childish) claims endlessly.

As usual, philosophers have nothing interesting to say. But they do try to live up to their unsupported arrogance.

We can agree that your comments are unproductive and there is no meaning with further response from either side. I am here for the interesting science and interesting comments. Why you are here is a mystery, but it is your business. Expect criticism if you make unsupported - as you say, derailing - comments.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 07, 2016
More unsubstantiated "subjective characterizations" and strawman arguments …

I have not argued for the validity of philosophy to science in such generalized sweeping terms as your "characterizations" desire to portray, but mostly as presented by other physicists.

I have not argued anywhere that philosophy can in anyway supplant science,... but yet there you go again trying to feign the discussion into a debate which was entirely of your own manufacture.

Ironically to your "vague objections", my arguments serve to OBJECT to metaphysics in science, ....i.e. empirically unsubstantiated interpretations.

"Loop quantum gravity theory is a MAJOR alternative".


[…] It is an alternative among mathematicians that dabble in science


Funny, because 'as we all know', string theory is only pursued by physicists (sarcasm). Wait, didn't Witten win the Fields medal? At present, …string theory is mathematical philosophy, it is mathematical idealism.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 07, 2016
I am here for the interesting science and interesting comments. Why you are here is a mystery.


I have posted on pure science many times here. I'm principally interested in physics here,.... despite attempts by frauds to portray the opposite. Other than the article, it is YOU that was the first to mention "philosophy" in this thread, for example.

You're the one claiming that gravity is a "substance", and others trying to substantiate that space-time is a "thing" in some vague way.

It is NOT the job of physics to make such proclamations. That is what philosophy of physics IS,... to make empirically unsubstantiated proclamations of what theory is saying. You're not understanding this point that it is not me who is interjecting metaphysics into science,.... it is those who are naive of what science IS that are doing so. But, ya Noumenon is the bad guy here, lol.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 07, 2016
Expect criticism if you make unsupported - as you say, derailing - comments.


What criticism?,… you still have not articulated what those comments where,... such is your vagueness and desire to post "characterizations" instead of actual substantive counter points.

I expect criticism, and I expect to learn here even. I was the only one in this thread to admit to a lack of knowledge on a specific topic for example.

I see that DaSchneib 5-rated your anti-philo posts,..... I've had rewarding discussions with DaSchneib at phys.org (as well as others) principally about physics,... for example in THIS THREAD,... as I recall, in this thread, DaSchneib maintained that mathematics was in some way real and independent. Now that is de facto a philosophy of mathematics position,... which I attempted to counter.

Again, my position [if understood] is anti-metaphysics in science. I love irony.

Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) May 07, 2016
I'd say the main problem with background independence is that it doesn't seem to hook up with the real world which is dependent upon the 3+1 dimensionality of spacetime, not to mention the fact that time has a hyperbolic relation to the three space dimensions, whereas among themselves they are all in circular relations to one another.

So now that we may have some sort of answer to why space is 3D in our universe, the next question is why time is hyperbolic. This brings us to the decidedly non-philosophical question, did time predate space? It would seem so if the results in the linked paper are in any way correct.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 07, 2016
"....the original line of argument was whether space-time was a "thing" unto itself, involved in dynamics [substantively as a field or a particle, et al],… this requires a QG compatible with the GEOMETRIC nature of GR, … a background independent theory." - Noumenon

.... thus my point in even mentioning LQG.

"Loop quantum gravity theory is a MAJOR alternative".


Now you are getting desperate. It is an alternative among mathematicians that dabble in science, it isn't an alternative that theoretical physicists humor much.


Besides being a hilarious comment [in contrast to string theory's 10^500], it does not even qualify as being wrong. For example Lee Smolin is a Major physicists who advocates LQG, and who even claims that LQG may be mathematically compatible with string theory.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (11) May 07, 2016
Worth mentioning that naively one would expect that since Lorentz symmetry shows that space and time can transform into one another, the entire ensemble would be Euclidean; instead it is Minkowskian. This is entirely due to the negative index of time, viz.:

d² = x² + y² + z² - c²t²

If spacetime were Euclidean, time would merely appear in the naive Pythagorean formula:

d² = x² + y² + z² + t²

That is, time would not have a negative index and the speed of light would not appear at all.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (11) May 07, 2016
@richardwenzel, one of the interesting contrasting properties of odd-dimensional spaces vs. even-dimensional ones is that in odd-dimensional spaces, one can define axes of rotation that point in defined directions, whereas in even-dimensional spaces these axes point in directions that are undefined in the space. Take 2D space; rotation can only occur in the x-y plane, and the axis of rotation is in an undefined direction. In 3D space, rotation occurring in the x-y plane has an axis of rotation pointing in the z direction. Go to 4D, and one has not four, but six planes of rotation: x-y, x-z, y-z, x-t, y-t, and z-t; and the axes of the first three point in defined directions, but the axes of the last three do not.

Thus the dimensionalities of space, as opposed to spacetime, behave differently with respect to rotation. And this is simple geometric fact. It means, in the end, that even-dimensioned spaces cannot be mapped onto odd-dimensioned ones.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 07, 2016
I'd say the main problem with background independence is that it doesn't seem to hook up with the real world which is dependent upon the 3+1 dimensionality of spacetime


Background independence just means that the structure of space-time is emergent from the theory itself, ... that the theory is not "embedded" within a separately postulated background in which physics occurs.

LQG is an example, as well as GR as the "curvature" as expressed in the Riemann manifold [as a commutator operator of covariant derivatives applied to a tensor], is intrinsic and does not require an embedding space. As shavera pointed out [I won't interfere with your thread with him as I would be interested in his response to you as well],.... this is a mathematical statement, not an ontological one.

Since, GR is manifestly background independent,… it hooks up with the physics as described in 3 + 1 dimensions as is presently understood at large scales.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 07, 2016
I wonder about spaces embedded in other spaces of higher (or lower) dimensionality. For instance, relations among points in a two space might mimic a three space, and perhaps it is even possible to map a 3 space into a one space. But could you map a space of dimension n into a space of dimension n+x, where x is any integer?


Interesting thought. There is such an idea of n to n-1,2 spaces implicit in quantum gravity theories like string theory and possibly LQG, as in the Holographic_principle.

Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (30) May 07, 2016
Another point here is that in QM the wavefunction description for more than one 'particle' evolves in a tensor product space and not the intuitive 3 + 1 space-time. Again, another indication that the "space" of theories is more mathematical than ontologically substantive our more philosophical posters would like.

[I continue to be troll rated by some coward know-nothings sock-drawer, who is hiding under their desk.,.. typical of Phys.Org corrupt comment rating system. This is a fraudulent and intellectually dishonest,.... and will not stop me from posting. Apparently Phys.Org is more about popularity contest than substantive science discussion?]

Steelwolf
1.8 / 5 (20) May 08, 2016
Actually, it is prety easy both to point out the math points involved and how, if you actually allow for the possibility of 0 dimensions, or very close to 0 dimensions, rather than the at or very close to 1, then you end up with numbers taht cleanly correlate to the thermodynamic regime of each of the different, and certainly existing, other 'planes of spacetime. But, once you go through the single dimension of time, which has it's own manifold system surface, but 5D and 6D and, as it follows, 7D are all time-space, rather than spacetime, it is timepspace and one can travel the X, Y and Z axis of time. They can come together as a set of tetrahedrons, one being 3 planes of space with one of time, the other, interpenetrating such that it has the same center forms a cube, and it can be shown that the balance of time and space are not only matched, they are set to a one to one correspondence of entanglement. Seriously just look at the intersected tetrahedra and think time and space.
Steelwolf
2 / 5 (21) May 08, 2016
The Universe started when Space met Time and went ahead and used energy and matter as placeholders and timekeepers.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
@Noumenon
So space is 3N dimensional where N=10^80 or so?
I don't buy that.


That is the Hilbert space formulation of QM from von Nuemann text and is fully consistent with standard QM.

The point being that thus far physics is not making statements about a supposed substantive or ontological nature to space-time,..... that the spaces made use of have to do with the mathematical formulation,.... as in Hilbert space referenced or Riemann manifolds.

In physics in order for something to be said to be "real", it must inform experiment in some way independent of the experimental arrangement,... an electron can be said to be a real "something" but the attributes of point-particle or wave are created by the experimental apparatus, and do not exist otherwise as such.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (30) May 08, 2016
If you equate space to the quantum vacuum then this is the consequence I guess.


That is philosophy of physics,... not that I mind because that is a desire to find meaning to theory which I certainly don't object to. What does present physics theory say about that? It depends on the formalism how it is quantified which don't even equate with each other.

In any case how would you use it as a coordinate system, when it is not even observable? How would it be used with vacuum polarization? Maybe if the higher order Feynman diagram loops contribution to the electron self-energy was not homogeneous every where?

[btw, looks like some kid is paying with an anti-noumenon screen name. I would not have given you a 1 for that comment].
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (23) May 08, 2016
The point being that thus far physics is not making statements about a supposed substantive or ontological nature to space-time,..... that the spaces made use of have to do with the mathematical formulation,.... as in Hilbert space referenced or Riemann manifolds.
When it is stated that space-time supports or carries a causal structure, and that holds true for any effective field theory (mathematical formulation), it is both substantive and ontological, since it may be inferred or deduced that space-time, even when "empty," is connected to itself in some way that preserves the order of the coordinates of choice (for any and all choices). The proofs are mathematical – as concrete and certain as it gets for something as abstract and meaningless as empty space-time [following and extending the logic that space without time is meaningless... ].
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
When it is stated that space-time supports or carries a causal structure, and that holds true for any effective field theory (mathematical formulation), it is both substantive and ontological, since it may be inferred or deduced that space-time, even when "empty," is connected to itself in some way that preserves the order of the coordinates of choice


Very good point, ….but I would say that rather than that implying a substantive and ontological nature to space-time, … it is rather a constraint imposed on the kinematics of STR given the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum in all IRF,… rather than substantive dynamics of space-time.

cont...
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
Continued from above.....

Once Einstein postulated his equivalence principal for GR, it is no longer possible to preserve an order to coordinates that extend beyond local**. It is not possible to establish a grid of synchronized clocks in general for example,….. as the metric which defines invariant lengths is path dependent, and so arbitrarily dependent upon the presence of mass-energy.

As mentioned above, GR does not say WHY there is a proportionality between the metric and stress-energy tensors,… only that there IS such a proportionality. IOW, it does not say dynamically WHY, but only establishes a kinematics.

IMO, in order to substantiate an ontology for space-time, there needs to be an empirically justified dynamical theory for space-time, independent of kinematics.

**[only the tangent/cotangent space to the Riemann manifold reduces to Minkowskian];

Of course, you CAN infer whatever you like as an interpretation [philosophy of physics].

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (27) May 08, 2016
There are other generalizations of the Pythagorean Theorem that apply [....] to angular relations of other than 90 degrees opposite the "diagonal".


Yes, which lead to differential geometry and the notion of a metric. For an oblique coordinate basis [other than 90*], the Pythagorean Theorem runs into trouble because there is then two different ways of determining vector length (hypotenuse), as there are two ways equally valid of determine point locations.

This is distinct from curvilinear coordinates, where it is also possible to have a metric.

Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (17) May 08, 2016
d² = x² + y² + z² - c²t²
This looks superficially like the Cosine Rule but with an extra dimension. I wonder whether one can get from the Cosine Rule applied to spacetime to the precise expression above? There are other generalizations of the Pythagorean Theorem that apply to higher dimensions of Euclidean space and to angular relations of other than 90 degrees opposite the "diagonal".
I wouldn't compare it to the Cosine Rule, personally. It's pretty much Pythagoras' Theorem for our spacetime. The negative index of the final term is dictated by the geometry of time with respect to space, and that geometry is non-Euclidean due to the non-circular relation of time to space.

The generalization of Pythagoras' Theorem to Euclidean higher dimensions is quite straightforward:
d² = x² + y² + z² + ... + n²

The derivation of the Minkowski formula is from the Lorentz transform. There is another form of the transform; I will elaborate:

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (14) May 08, 2016
[contd]
The usual algebraic form of the Lorentz transform is:
x' = x - vt/γ
y' = y
z' = z
t' = (t - vx/c²)/γ
Where
x is the direction of motion,
y and z are the other coordinates of the frame of the observer,
x', y', and z' are the coordinates of the frame being transformed to,
v is the velocity of the frame being transformed to, and
γ = √(1-v²/c²)

But there is another form, which treats velocity as a rotation in spacetime:
x' = (sinh s)t + (cosh s)x
y' = y
z' = z
t' = (cosh s)t + (sinh s)x
Where
s is the "rapidity," s = tanh⁻¹(v/c).

Note the hyperbolic trig functions. Note also that lim(v→c)tanh s = 1.

Thus, the rapidity is a function of the hyperbolic angle to which a particular velocity rotates a frame relative to the frame of the observer. Note that this transform results in transforming some x into t and vice versa.

[contd]
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (27) May 08, 2016
n order to substantiate an ontology for space-time, there needs to be an empirically justified dynamical theory for space-time, independent of kinematics.


I will elaborate this point. Again, I mean by "dynamics" as would be expected of a ontologically substantive spacetime. The non-linearity of GR field equations makes it a dynamical theory and it is also so that gravitational waves carry away energy (two orbiting neutron stars) and conversely puts energy into matter (Weber bar),... but as Sean Carrel points out in the link below, the energy density of the curvature of spacetime is not uniquely defined at every point in spacetime [thus not dynamics in the sense that I mean], and there is a freedom interpretation.

http://www.prepos...nserved/
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (15) May 08, 2016
[contd]
Now, you can see how the Minkowski formula is derived from the algebraic form of the Lorentz transform. (Way too long to do here.) γ implies the negative index of the final term; from there it is relatively straightforward.

Since these are the basic formulae that govern transforms in our spacetime, I would have to say that it seems that they are not independent of the background, i.e. not independent of the existence and furthermore the geometry of x, y, z, and t. Furthermore, these are the transforms of SRT, and since SRT is GRT with zero spacetime curvature, they are also integral to GRT, meaning that relativity is not background independent.

Last but not least, although I'm sure it's perfectly OK to postulate a space where the dimensions are not normal to each other, our spacetime doesn't appear to behave like that. It's asymmetric; and our spacetime is symmetric.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
I would have to say that it seems that they are not independent of the background, i.e. not independent of the existence and furthermore the geometry of x, y, z, and t. Furthermore, these are the transforms of SRT, and since SRT is GRT with zero spacetime curvature, they are also integral to GRT, meaning that relativity is not background independent.


That is not what "background independence" means.

As I explained above,... "Background independence just means that the structure of space-time is emergent from the theory itself, ... that the theory is not "embedded" within a separately postulated background in which physics occurs.". GR is manifestly a background independent theory, because it that is the point of it. See the link below.

https://en.wikipe...pendence

The metric in GR reduces to the Minkowski metric only in the limit,... not in general.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (16) May 08, 2016
Minor mistake I just spotted, actually it's lim(v→c) s = 1. My bad.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
I'm sure it's perfectly OK to postulate a space where the dimensions are not normal to each other, our spacetime doesn't appear to behave like that.


What do you mean by "normal". This requirement for vector basis does not necessarily mean "perpendicular".

All that is required is that a vector congruent with a particular axis cannot be decomposed or constructed by a combination of the remaining axis.

This condition can be generalized [orthogonality] and is met in the Minkowski space which you described, and so in STR, and in GR in the tangent/cotangent space, even though the time and space axis are not at right angles.

Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (15) May 08, 2016
OK, Noum, one shot. You know the rules. I will apply them strictly. No insults, no logic games, no hesaidshesaid, none of that crap. Otherwise back on ignore you go.

"Background independence just means that the structure of space-time is emergent from the theory itself, ... that the theory is not "embedded" within a separately postulated background in which physics occurs." GR is manifestly a background independent theory, because it that is the point of it.
Well, according to this article the dimensionality of spacetime is not emergent, and spacetime is the background of GRT. Furthermore all the GRT I know of uses 4-tensors. And the use of 4-tensors is dictated by the background of 4 dimensional spacetime.

[contd]
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) May 08, 2016
I'm not speaking philosophy
You're speaking philosophy.
It is a common mistake to conflate the mathematical structure of a theory with a 'realist' interpretation which leads to mathematical-idealism, rather than an understanding of what the original theory was actually meant to say
... you're speaking philosophy. You can't NOT speak philosophy because you can't tell the difference between it and anything else.
I will elaborate this point. Again, I mean by "dynamics" as would be expected of a ontologically substantive spacetime
-Philosophy.
IMO, in order to substantiate an ontology for space-time, there needs to be
-philosophy.
but I would say that rather than that implying a substantive and ontological nature to space-time, … it is rather a constraint
-philosophy.

Junk.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (12) May 08, 2016
[contd]
I found the Wikipedia article on background independence badly written. It appears some LQG fanatic got ahold of it and is slanting everything his/her way to try to smear string physics to me. I also agree with other posters who think background independence is not rigorously defined, and that article tends to show that fairly well.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (24) May 08, 2016
That is philosophy of physics
There is no philosophy of physics. Physicists do not use philosophy in doing their work. And so the phrase is a dishonest one.

There IS a philosophy of philosophers, which is to ATTEMPT to imply relevance by ATTEMPTING to commandeer the discussion of all sorts of popular but difficult issues.

This is for them an easy thing to do because they have been refining their art for centuries. They only need to become familiar with the technical jargon (which in this case physicists use as shorthand for the math and data they are all familiar with), and intersperse it with their own notoriously undefinable jargon.

And voila! All arguments become circular. All questions are begged. All men are straw and thus easily ignited.

And everybody's time is wasted except the philos.

It's like indulging psychopaths. Good only for stupifaction and headaches.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
Background independence just means that the structure of space-time is emergent from the theory itself [GR], ... that the theory is not "embedded" within a separately postulated background in which physics occurs….


Well, according to this article the dimensionality of spacetime is not emergent, and spacetime is the background of GRT. Furthermore all the GRT I know of uses 4-tensors. And the use of 4-tensors is dictated by the background of 4 dimensional spacetime.


I will just post another reference, because I already addressed what "background independence" means wrt a theory.

http://arxiv.org/...35v1.pdf

Concerning dimensionality,… The choice of dimensionality doesn't change the fact that GR is 'background independent'. GR could be extended to more dimensions, as in Kaluza–Klein theory. The choice is more to do with the usefulness and compatibility with the given scope of problems being addressed.....

Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (16) May 08, 2016
I will just post another reference, because I already addressed what "background independence" means wrt a theory.
Sorry, you were wrong and more references won't fix it. If you don't understand it well enough to discuss it then the conversation is over.

Concerning dimensionality,… The choice of dimensionality doesn't change the fact that GR is 'background independent'. GR could be extended to more dimensions, as in Kaluza–Klein theory.
Now you're changing the subject.

Bye Noum. You're just doing your usual Gish Gallop, and I warned you.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
continued .... than anything to do with the ontology or substantive nature of space-time. For example, string theory would make use of 10 dimensions, so does this mean that there is 10 physical dimensions or does it mean rather that the theory uses the most efficient number degrees of freedom it needs to.

'Give me enough dimensions in which to stand and I will explain everything that exists including everything that doesn't' - Archimedes as a string theories.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
I will just post another reference, because I already addressed what "background independence" means wrt a theory.


Sorry, you were wrong and more references won't fix it. If you don't understand it well enough to discuss it then the conversation is over.


It is common knowledge actually, that GR is background-independent. It is clearly you who does not understand this.

I thought it would take a least a little longer before you degenerated into accusations and insults,... but I knew you would eventually without provocation.

Here is another reference...............

http://www.einste...pendence

General Relativity is not embedded within another space-time,.... it's entire point is to provide the space-time dynamics,... thus it does not require a background space-time, as it's purpose is to provide that itself ; background independence.

I can only repeat myself at this point.

Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (15) May 08, 2016
It is common knowledge actually, that GR is background-independent.
You haven't answered my assertion that GRT is composed of 4-tensors, which imply that the background of GRT is spacetime. And you can't. Not even by handwaving at Kaluza-Klein. This type of handwaving is exactly the sort of logic game I was talking about.

There is no such "common knowledge." You're BSing again. This is sufficient to put you back on ignore again, if upvoting your posts with your sockpuppets wasn't.

But there's more:
I thought it would take a least a little longer before you degenerated into accusations and insults,
Noting that you're using logical fallacies in your arguments is not insulting, but
but I knew you would eventually without provocation
is.

You then go on to make another unsupported statement, and again refuse to engage on the use of 4-tensors in GRT.

Like I said, bye Noum.
Kron
1.4 / 5 (16) May 08, 2016
The arrogance in the assumption that space is 3 dimensional is appalling. In fact, dimensionality could range from zero to infinite, the question here (as many have already alluded to) is why we perceive in 3 dimensions. A TOE is beyond our reach and will forever remain so, this is just how it is. You can never prove with 100% probability that our perception of reality and reality itself are in accord. Even if our models were spot on, if our picture of reality were true, we'd never be able to prove it certainly.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Mate, why go back to that tactic? It hasn't served you all that well before. Remember? You start out with assertions; then assume/state that you/your assertions are 'certainly correct' and everyone else 'certainty wrong' etc. Then eventually you are shown to be the one incorrect, and finally have to admit you had the issue all wrong. Remember? This time you added a twist to that 'certainty' and 'you're wrong' tactic; you added a 'condition' that your interlocutor (in this case Noumenon) posts...
No insults, no logic games, no hesaidshesaid, none of that crap.
...thus 'painting' him as the 'aggressor'...even though it is you making aggressive 'certainty' and 'I'm correct' assertions while dismissing his perfectly polite/correct on-topic and on-science explanations! Then you go and break your own 'condition' by making exactly the insults etc you 'expected' from him; then use that as excuse to 'end' the exchange. Not good look. Drop that tactic, mate.:)
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (18) May 08, 2016
As for philosophy and its uselessness in science _as science_, the story is over: philosophy has never contributed as shown in peer reviewed literature.

"string theory is only pursued by physicists (sarcasm). ... string theory is mathematical philosophy, it is mathematical idealism."

So? Not all math is useful (LQG math may be among that set), that doesn't mean useful math is not part of science. String theory is popular among physicists as physics because it has a dynamics, and as math because it allows to solve hard problems. An analogy would be Feynman diagrams, popular among physicists as physics because they describe dynamics, and as math because it allows to solve hard problems.

[tbctd]
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
You haven't answered my assertion that GRT is composed of 4-tensors, which imply that the background of GRT is spacetime.


Well I did, its just that you did not understand that explanation. General Relativity does NOT have a background that is spacetime,...... rather space-time is included within the theory itself as a dynamical response to mass-energy,... thus it is "background independent". This fact is not my assertion, but rather is that of physics.

You are correct that GR uses 4-tensors without itself deriving that necessity. The above article may address that, maybe. THIS DOES NOT MEAN that GR is not a "background independent theory".

if upvoting your posts with your sockpuppets wasn't.


I'm not controlling "anti-noumenon". If you can't see that I'm being massively troll rated with 1's then you are blind. Look at my profile page going back six pages.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (14) May 08, 2016
The arrogance in the assumption that space is 3 dimensional is appalling. In fact, dimensionality could range from zero to infinite, the question here (as many have already alluded to) is why we perceive in 3 dimensions.
Conservation of energy is sufficient to show it; otherwise energy could disappear into dimensions we could not perceive.

A TOE is beyond our reach and will forever remain so, this is just how it is. You can never prove with 100% probability that our perception of reality and reality itself are in accord. Even if our models were spot on, if our picture of reality were true, we'd never be able to prove it certainly.
Considering refrigerators, jet aircraft, and the computer you typed this on, I'd have to say that our theories seem to work pretty well despite the fact we can't, in philosophical terms, "prove" them.

There is no "prove" in science. You're confusing it with math or philosophy.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.5 / 5 (15) May 08, 2016
[ctd]

"Background independence just means that the structure of space-time is emergent from the theory itself, ... that the theory is not "embedded" within a separately postulated background in which physics occurs."

And now we come to the tall tale that shows you don't understand background independence, theories and testing.

Here are some methods that use temporary scaffolds built on the background:
- House building.
- Gene duplication in evolution.
- GR (equivalence principle)
- Quantization of GR (flat space)*
- Theories (based on the observations they test)
- Testing (use constraints that are tested with the rest of the prediction)

[tbctd]
NiteSkyGerl
3.1 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
Philosophy of science is not The Philosophy of science.

If I had been in a coma for 15 years and woke up and wanted to guess how a particular scientific discipline was doing, I'd ask a practitioner, "How important are philosophical theories to your discipline at the moment?" There is a huge inverse correlation between the reception that philosophers get and how well they're doing.

That's not all bad. Makes sense that when you're getting work done you don't often stop to think about the assumptions. They're working. And questioning those assumptions when things aren't working seems reasonable too. What isn't reasonable is forgetting that you ever did one when the other is all the rage. The condition is pretty much endemic. Feynman is the only scientist I've ever read of note that writes like he can see that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (26) May 08, 2016
The choice is more to do with the usefulness and compatibility with the given scope of problems being addressed.....
-Philosophy.
than anything to do with the ontology or substantive nature of space-time
-Philosophy.
It is common knowledge actually, that GR is background-independent. It is clearly you who does not understand this
-Philosophy.
I thought it would take a least a little longer before you degenerated into accusations and insults
-It seems to be the only way to get your nose out of your navel.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (14) May 08, 2016
Actually, very very occasionally, there is mathematical proof of some theoretical science. It is extremely rare, but not unknown. Good and well-known examples are the Fluctuation Theorem and Noether's Theorem. Unless mathematics itself is somehow wrong, these are proven facts.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.5 / 5 (15) May 08, 2016
[ctd]

Yet when the method is finished, the background dependent scaffold is removed, and the result is no longer depending on whatever background and hence scaffold construction it used. These methods are testably background independent, they can be used on any background and gives a robust, consistent result during small changes of background.

Yet according to those who invented the concept they are not by way of sophist/pomo reasoning (i.e. 'I can say whatever').

I think the discussion is over here too. Nuo can "can only repeat [himself]" on this, and is, as he claims to be well aware of, rated as a troll.

* Like Newton gravity, the quantum field approximation breaks down when space starts to curve too much.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
[…] It is an alternative among mathematicians that dabble in science - torbjorn

Funny, because 'as we all know', string theory is only pursued by physicists (sarcasm). Wait, didn't Witten win the Fields medal? At present, …string theory is mathematical philosophy, it is mathematical idealism.

So? Not all math is useful (LQG math may be among that set), that doesn't mean useful math is not part of science. String theory is popular among physicists as physics because it has a dynamics,

I reproduced the context here as you tend to leave that off. My comment was in response to yours about the mathematical nature of LQG,.. so I then made a similar quip,.. to which you now take exception?

A theory becomes physics once it is testable.
Kron
1.6 / 5 (14) May 08, 2016
Conservation of energy is sufficient to show it; otherwise energy could disappear into dimensions we could not perceive.

I'm not stating that these dimensions are in a separate space. The energy you speak of is within the space I'm referring to. Why would there be energy loss? You trolling here or lacking comprehension?
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (30) May 08, 2016
As repeatably stated above,.... I am not interesting in debating the general validity of philosophy of physics with neophytes,…. but yet notice how, The Torbjorn, Otto, and Sock-Puppet cartoon show, continue to attempt to start such a debate as if that is all they're interested in.

Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (16) May 08, 2016
Conservation of energy is sufficient to show it; otherwise energy could disappear into dimensions we could not perceive.

I'm not stating that these dimensions are in a separate space. The energy you speak of is within the space I'm referring to. Why would there be energy loss? You trolling here or lacking comprehension?
Neither. If there were extra dimensions, then energy could flow into them; it doesn't. Therefore there aren't. QED. Proof by contradiction.
Kron
1.5 / 5 (16) May 08, 2016
Conservation of energy is sufficient to show it; otherwise energy could disappear into dimensions we could not perceive.

I'm not stating that these dimensions are in a separate space. The energy you speak of is within the space I'm referring to. Why would there be energy loss? You trolling here or lacking comprehension?
Neither. If there were extra dimensions, then energy could flow into them; it doesn't. Therefore there aren't. QED. Proof by contradiction.


I'll leave you be in your misunderstandings. You've provided me with the proof I need to disengage from any serious conversation with you. Best of luck to you. Have fun on your trolling adventures. The 11 dimensional world calls upon me. I've leaked enough of my energy on you. ;)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (30) May 08, 2016
Hi torbjorn_b_g_larsson. :)

Mate, you're starting to come across as 'emotionally attached' and 'personal' in your assertions/stances. Cool it. :)

Did you read my earlier posts pointing out the Philosophy and Metaphysics which actually underpins maths/geometry Axiomatic constructs/arguments (ie purely Philosophical "point' concept) and underpins cosmological/physics Postulative theories/interpretations (ie, purely Metaphysical "beginnings from nothing" postulate and "relativity not absolute" interpretations) of the Universal energy-space phenomena/extent?

Do realize that the more you "protest too much", and try to characterize Noumenon's explanations as "philosophical" rather than "physical", the more you are proving his point: it is YOU bringing in the "philosophical" aspects, not him. He is merely pointing out where the philosophy starts/ends and science fact/reality begins; ie: COSMOLOGY results/claims/interpretations must be INDEPENDEBTLY verified via EXPERIMENT. :)
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (15) May 08, 2016
I'll leave you be in your misunderstandings. You've provided me with the proof I need to disengage from any serious conversation with you. Best of luck to you. Have fun on your trolling adventures. The 11 dimensional world calls upon me. I've leaked enough of my energy on you. ;)
This is instant ignore material.

That you can't even articulate the only hole I left in my proof- that of compact dimensions- shows that you have misunderstood the half of string physics you read about. Sorry I wasted time on trying to talk to a knowitall.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
"Background independence just means that the structure of space-time is emergent from the theory itself, ... that the theory is not "embedded" within a separately postulated background in which physics occurs."


And now we come to the tall tale that shows you don't understand background independence, theories and testing.


I posted multiple references. If you understand GR then you understand that it is a 'background independent' theory,.... if you don't then you will misconstrue what that phrase means. I have no control over that.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (27) May 08, 2016
Corrected quotations....

[…] It is an alternative among mathematicians that dabble in science - torbjorn


Funny, because 'as we all know', string theory is only pursued by physicists (sarcasm). Wait, didn't Witten win the Fields medal? At present, …string theory is mathematical philosophy, it is mathematical idealism. - Noumenon


So? Not all math is useful (LQG math may be among that set), that doesn't mean useful math is not part of science. String theory is popular among physicists as physics because it has a dynamics,


I reproduced the context here as you tend to leave that off. My comment was in response to yours about the mathematical nature of LQG,.. so I then made a similar quip,.. to which you now take exception?

Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (17) May 08, 2016
I posted multiple references.
None of which proved you were right.

This is the problem with you, Noum; you have the form without the function. To you it's all some logic game. You keep getting downvoted because logic games are all you know how to do, and when presented with an opportunity to learn something you invariably fail.

This is the inherent problem with philosophy, too.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Take it easy. mate. Read Kron's statements again. Properly and without kneejerking from your 'certainties' that you 'know it all' and others are 'wrong' etc etc.

Consider the implications of what Kron actually clarified for your benefit: 'other' dimensions are all still part of the overall dynamics, no 'energy' or anything else is 'lost' to the system as observed.

Just as nothing is 'lost' in our 'reduced construct' of 3 SPATIAL DIMENSIONS if some energy component acts along ONE of those THGREE spatial dimensions. In other words, as Kron said, the 'energy' would still be 'here' in the 'reduced construct' dynamics over 3-D action possibilities/distributions.

See? Same with 'infinite' number of 'infinitesimally distinct' dimensional possibilities/paths for energy action. None is 'lost'; it merely DISTRIBUTES across more of the possible paths in that system which is still totally complete Universal system.

So mate, calm down, avoid kneejerking. :)
Noumenon
2 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
Conservation of energy is sufficient to show it; otherwise energy could disappear into dimensions we could not perceive.

I'm not stating that these dimensions are in a separate space. The energy you speak of is within the space I'm referring to. Why would there be energy loss? You trolling here or lacking comprehension?
Neither. If there were extra dimensions, then energy could flow into them; it doesn't. Therefore there aren't. QED. Proof by contradiction.


Above I linked to an interesting point made by Sean Carrel concerning conservation of energy and and GR,.... in particular that it is a matter of interpretation given the choice of postulates you accept. He gives explanatory reasons for not holding to conservation of energy in GR,....

http://www.prepos...nserved/

john berry_hobbes
3 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
Steelwolf 1.7 /5 (11) 10 hours ago
The Universe started when Space met Time


Are you sure you're not quoting from Tom Baker's recent "Gallifreyan Fairy Tales"? Of course! Now I get why that one poster calls you TinDog. K-9!

Apologies to K-9.
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (16) May 08, 2016
[contd]
The usual algebraic form of the Lorentz transform is:
x' = x - vt/γ

Should be x' = (x - vt)/γ.
Correct.

Your definition of γ is unusual, but why not.
Mmmmm, did I put tau instead of gamma? Quite possibly- I originally learned what I know of SRT using tau; gamma is "new math" to me.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
I posted multiple references.


None of which proved you were right.


Well yes they do. They confirm that I am right as they are independent sources. The phrase "background independence" is a conditions for theories. It has meaning in physics. It is not even a matter of opinion whether GR is a background independent theory,..... IT IS as a matter of fact.

If you want to discuss physics beyond theory, then you want to discuss metaphysics.

I can drag a donkey to the stream but I can't make him drink.

Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (17) May 08, 2016
Well yes they do.
Unsubstantiated claim since you do not discuss it, you just post a reference without any support. Typical philo-sophistry.

And you still haven't addressed why we use 4-tensors in GRT if it's background independent.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
I posted multiple references.


None of which proved you were right.


Well yes they do. They confirm that I am right as they are independent sources. The phrase "background independence" is a conditions for theories. It has meaning in physics. It is not even a matter of opinion whether GR is a background independent theory,..... IT IS as a matter of fact.


Unsubstantiated claim since you do not discuss it, you just post a reference without any support. Typical philo-sophistry.


I explained above what 'background independence' means on multiple occasions now with multiple references. I'm not going to do the work for you.

You've established politeness conditions for discussing with me and then promptly preceded to break those conditions. Smart move.

And you still haven't addressed why we use 4-tensors in GRT if it's background independent.


I did, it is above. I am not going to repeat it.

Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (17) May 08, 2016
You've established politeness conditions for discussing with me and then promptly preceded to break those conditions.
^ sophistry
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
You've established politeness conditions for discussing with me and then promptly preceded to break those conditions.
^ sophistry


Unfortunately it is not possible to have a discussion with you, as you tend to degenerate into naming calling and ad hominems. You are on Ignore.

In the mean time, for your own benefit research "background independence". You can do this secretly without anyone knowing. It is a present debate among quantum gravity theorists whether such a theory should be 'background independent', as is GR, and is the approach taken by LQG mention above. I have read that since around 1990 even string theorists have begun to acknowledge the importance of this condition.

Best of luck to you. Increase of meds may be an option.

Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (17) May 08, 2016
Unfortunately it is not possible to have a discussion with you, as you tend to degenerate into naming calling and ad hominems.

^ insult

Oh, and just in case anyone missed it, Noum now claims that since everyone is so unfair as to downvote his posts for sophistry, lawyering, and insults it's OK if he makes a sockpuppet and upvotes himself.

Definitely amusing.

We'll see whether this troll wants to slap-fight any more after that shot.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (30) May 08, 2016
Oh, and just in case anyone missed it, Noum now claims that since everyone is so unfair as to downvote his posts for sophistry, lawyering, and insults it's OK if he makes a sockpuppet and upvotes himself.


As stated above, I have no control over "anti-noumenon", nor the pack of screen names that have mass 1-rated me at the same time for six pages of comments.....

NiteSkyGerl
antigoresockpuppet
fckthierreyhenry
BongThePuffin
john berry_hobbes
maloderousmiscreant
YoureAPeanut
GoshURStupid
tooty
jim_xanara
AGreatWhopper
chileastro
iamsmarterthanyou
et al

... if it was up to me, the comment ratings would be disabled, and comments would stand on their own merit. That's how much Noumenon cares about ratings.

Instead, what is important at phys.org is not substance as much as it is "what impression" or "characterization" can one hoist onto another. I don't post for those who would be fooled by this. I post for those who read objectively. There are some.

AGreatWhopper
2.9 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
Multiply the number of names you accuse by the number of comments voted on and my maths say that comes out to about 10 hours, if all you are referring to were done today.

I think the more parsimonious hypothesis is that your ego is so inflated that you honestly believe that there could only be one person disagreeing with you, so everyone that votes you down must be the same person.

Grow up. You never manage a "2" because your comments are rubbish and most people can see that.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (26) May 08, 2016
Multiply the number of names you accuse by the number of comments voted on and my maths say that comes out to about 10 hours, if all you are referring to were done today.

I think the more parsimonious hypothesis is that your ego is so inflated that you honestly believe that there could only be one person disagreeing with you, so everyone that votes you down must be the same person.

Grow up. You never manage a "2" because your comments are rubbish and most people can see that.


A while back Nounamen-Skippy had dozens of voting puppets, he got so tired of making up new names to remember, he would just the same name over and over with a number on him.

Like Puppet1, Puppet2, Puppet3, Puppet4 and others like Sock1, Sock2, Sock3, Sock4. Don't take my word for it, ask anybody who has been here more than two years. All the time saying he wished they would take the voting buttons down. He had more socks than Obama-socks-Skippy.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (27) May 08, 2016
You never manage a "2" because your comments are rubbish and most people can see that.


Stop lying. You're a trolling know-nothing who rates based on emotion rather than objectivity. My posts in the following thread were all rated 1's with a short time period despite them being for the most part purely factual.

http://phys.org/n...ite.html

Trolls like you are treating phys.org like it's facebook.

@Ira,... I have never initiated a sock war at phys.org. The "frankherbert" clown, maybe the same person now, used to mass troll rate me as well. Didn't like "right-wingers". So, you object to my countering this behavior while Phys.Org does nothing or is behind it, but not the trolls in question?

Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (23) May 08, 2016
@Ira,... I have never initiated a sock war at phys.org. The "frankherbert" clown, maybe the same person now, used to mass troll rate me as well. Didn't like "right-wingers".
That's a good theory, except for one thing. He voted you down, so you thought you were more important than his vote. Same with others, your refusing to accept your down votes is what started the puppet voting wars.

So, you object to my countering this behavior while Phys.Org does nothing or is behind it
Cher, I don't object, if that is how you want to spend your time. I vote once me. I always make one vote for the comment I read, if I like the person, and disagree with them, I vote them a 5 because I like them. Same with the 1 votes.

Voting is just to let the person know "I seen him". You notice I don't vote on you much? Your stuffs ain't worth reading because it is just torturing words and never going anywhere, so I don't read them, they are not entertaining and I don't vote them.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
Wrt, the frankherbert you don't know what you're talking about.

If you look objectively in the above link and page 5 of my comments you can plainly see how many times I was rated compared to phys1 or DaSchnieb , and that those on the above list routinely uprate each other,..... but never actually post about science.

It is not my concern if you, UncleIra, know this. I was online at the time and witnessed it. They're the same paraplegic or Phys.Org sponsored fake screen-names or some 15 year old. The point is to fraudulently establish an "impression" of the value of ones posts irrespective of actual substantive content.

This is why the dolt that opens that sock-drawer has never made a counter point about anything I have ever posted.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
Your stuffs ain't worth reading because it is just torturing words and never going anywhere, so I don't read them, they are not entertaining and I don't vote them.


never going anywher? And of what value is such an subjective opinion from one who does not display any knowledge in the particular topic, GR, QM? Any coward can hide under their desk a 1-rate, or post "subjective characterizations" of another poster. This is why the rating system is used by frauds.

Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (27) May 08, 2016
Wrt, the frankherbert you don't know what you're talking about.
Cher, I do know exactly what I am talking about.

If you look objectively
I don't have a dog in this fight Cher. I look and see what I see, non more, and non less.

but never actually post about science.
Sometimes there is more there than you can see because you are too busy seeing how you are faring.

It is not my concern if you, UncleIra, know this.
Then why you are working so hard on me about it?

The point is to fraudulently establish an "impression" of the value of ones posts irrespective of actual substantive content.
The point is to get a rise out of you. And it's working. Yeah Cher, like I said, there is a lot to see there if you weren't looking at your self so hard.

opens that sock-drawer has never made a counter point about anything I have ever posted
That's life on the interweb, suck it up Cher, it is what it is.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
Your stuffs ain't worth reading because it is just torturing words and never going anywhere, so I don't read them, they are not entertaining and I don't vote them.


never going anywhere? And of what value is such an subjective opinion from one who does not display any knowledge in the particular topic, GR, QM? Any coward can hide under their desk a 1-rate, or post "subjective characterizations" of another poster. This is why the rating system is used by frauds.


If the rating system were dumped, most of the people who presently post here & use it would be gone overnight.............case in point, my leading quote for this post.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (26) May 08, 2016
Your stuffs ain't worth reading because it is just torturing words and never going anywhere, so I don't read them, they are not entertaining and I don't vote them.


never going anywher?
That's what I said. Have you ever settled one of your "debates"? Non, not that I ever saw. Like I said, you torture language, wiggle with words, twist and tangle, and never get to the end.

And of what value is such an subjective opinion from one who does not display any knowledge in the particular topic, GR, QM?
I don't place a value on my opinions. But they all come with the double your money back guarantee, if you are unsatisfied.

This is why the rating system is used by frauds.
Cher, it is not the voting for the next Nobel Prize. They are silly karma points on the comment section of an interweb newsletter that is read by a lot kinds of peoples. Some smart, some stupid, some interesting and more than just some that have mental conditions.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
@ Bennie-Skippy. Come on in the house and show us how it's done, eh? How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking. My computer is set so I can not see what you are writing but I am sure it is something really good. Different Equations again?. Everwhat, help Noumanon-Skippy out, he's trying to rack up some karma points so he can,,,,well,,,, I am not sure what he wants to do with them, but he wants them really bad for something.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
Why do you post here Ira? Why are you interjecting your opinion on this troll rating now? What do you know of frankherbert and his attacks on me which was several years ago?

I wonder if UncleIra cares about his 5's he gets by posting nothing about science, that he gives Stumpy and Vietvet the 5'finger job no matter what non-science is posted. Should I take Ira's points away and mass troll rate him-skippy? It would not take much time as I can automate this. That is why frankherbert lost in his attempt, skippy. Will you care about it then? If the rating system went away would you have anymore reason to be here?

Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (27) May 08, 2016
What do you know of frankherbert and his attacks on me which was several years ago?
Well let's see what I know about this, eh?

Maybe we should take a stroll down the memory lane and see what the empirical umpires say.

2013: https://sciencex....ml?v=act

2012: https://sciencex....ml?v=act

2011: https://sciencex....ml?v=act

2010: https://sciencex....ml?v=act

I wonder if UncleIra cares about his 5's he gets by posting nothing about science, that he gives Stumpy and Vietvet the 5'finger job no matter what non-science is posted
Not a wit do I care.

It would not take much time as I can automate this
That's the point I was trying to make, thanks for the assist..

Will you care about it then?
Non Cher. Not a wit, give it go and see how much I care. What does it mean to me?
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
You can see from the 1st link that you even provided that I was massively troll rated, skippy? I did not start that ,.... I just did not let him get away with it. Do you understand this difference, skippy,.... to defy the troll what they want? I have debated "FrankHerbert" many times and know all about his mentality, and why he struck out against me.

Do you post on science here, skippy?

Unlike you skippy, Noumenon posts about science facts here,... like in the link below where I was troll rated by a pack of screen names. You don't see that the rating system is fraudulent? Perhaps Benni is correct,... had this corrupt system been disabled, people like you would not have any more interest in Phys.Org ?

http://phys.org/n...ite.html

Benni
2.9 / 5 (30) May 08, 2016
If the rating system went away would you have anymore reason to be here?


The answer is: No he wouldn't.

This Rant Brigade Clan that hangs out here positively mystifies me.

The entire bunch are advocates for human torture, witness the 5 Star votes a couple of weeks ago when Schneibo & gang gave "chileastro" 5 Star votes after "chileastro" advocated wires be hooked up to my nether regions & voltage be applied.

Ira, Stumpo, the usual suspects were all there as well putting up their pro-torture 5 Star votes. It was in response to an equation I put up directly from General Relativity showing how Einstein calculated photon deflection (gravitational lensing for Ira), Now just why would they get so all bent out of shape to see an actual solution to an actual equation appear on a science site?

Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
Because they cannot discuss a subject with facts,... I have never actually had a physics nor philosophy of physics debate with 'the Stumpy, Ira, and Otto cartoon' show,... not once.

Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (30) May 08, 2016
You can see from the 1st link that you even provided that I was massively troll rated, skippy?
Yeah Cher, the first linkum was the end of the puppet voting war. But the bottom link is where you got going,,,,, Hard to whine about the voting puppets when your tally is up in the 4's, eh?

I did not start that ,.... I just did not let him get away with it.
Yeah, you did Cher. It all started with you not like the down votes from one or two posters, you decided that for any justice in the world you have to null their votes because they are not worth having a vote. Your puppets started the puppet wars.

Do you understand this difference, skippy,.... to defy the troll what they want?
I understand it is a silly thing to worry about. You just got mad because they did not let your "justice votes" go unchallenged.

Do you post on science here, skippy?
Yeah, everyday. Mostly on the Abnormal Psychology lately.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (16) May 08, 2016
Mostly on the Abnormal Psychology lately.
This got a nasty chuckle from me.

Meanwhile, right on topic and right on cue, this gem:

The entire bunch are advocates for human torture, witness the 5 Star votes a couple of weeks ago when Schneibo & gang gave "chileastro" 5 Star votes after "chileastro" advocated wires be hooked up to my nether regions & voltage be applied.
Bizarre, man.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
witness the 5 Star votes a couple of weeks ago when Schneibo & gang gave "chileastro" 5 Star votes after "chileastro" advocated wires be hooked up to my nether regions & voltage be applied.
Bizarre, man.


Thanks for that, I missed him. He must have wrote that while I was doing my last postum. Drama-Skippette comes to mind. But this is good too,

Ira, Stumpo, the usual suspects were all there as well putting up their pro-torture 5 Star votes.
@ Nounamen-Skippy. It's the interweb Cher. Some of the language is a little ruff sometimes, but even though I do not use the bad language, I know it is the interweb and if any of it was so ruff it ruined my day, I am would just fine another place to go. I sure would not spend 6 or 5 years hanging out where I felt so abused, thinking that one more whiny complaint would be the one that will make it all go away.

Choot, you should see all the names that Really-Skippy has called me over the years, some really vulgar ones.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
Meanwhile, right on topic and right on cue, this gem:


The entire bunch are advocates for human torture, witness the 5 Star votes a couple of weeks ago when Schneibo & gang gave "chileastro" 5 Star votes after "chileastro" advocated wires be hooked up to my nether regions & voltage be applied.


Bizarre, man.
..............You think so? Okay then, prove you never made such a 5 Star vote?

In subsequent posts in the same thread I challenged you to not only rescind your 5 Star vote after you cast it, next I challenged you to rebuke "chileastro" in his advocacy for human torture, of course you didn't do that either.

Hey, Scheibo, I can Copy & Paste real well.........they're easily reproducible, along with your vote......c'mon here snivel boy, prove you didn't do it.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (17) May 08, 2016
Okay then, prove you never made such a 5 Star vote?
I don't deal with 8-year-olds who haven't learned logic yet.

You can't prove a negative.

Get over it.

I mean, seriously, is this the highest level of discourse you are capable of? Really? And you're willing to show that off in public? And you expect not to be mocked?

Not to mention, you can't even produce a link to what you claimed happened?

Wow. Just wow.
AGreatWhopper
3.2 / 5 (26) May 08, 2016
Da Schneib4 /5 (1) 39 minutes ago

I don't deal with 8-year-olds who haven't learned logic yet.


FWIW, looking at the times and watching some conversations, I think it's pretty likely that obummersucker is cantthink. Of course, beyond those three, antirational has to take the prize for pure puerile. He comes up with things I haven't heard since I was 8.
chileastro
3.2 / 5 (27) May 08, 2016
Benni3 /5 (2) 2 hours ago
The entire bunch are advocates for human torture, witness the 5 Star votes a couple of weeks ago when Schneibo & gang gave "chileastro" 5 Star votes after "chileastro" advocated wires be hooked up to my nether regions & voltage be applied.


Sure about that? Link? I remember something more along the lines of having deniers hooked up in series and running a continuous enema through them from the melting Greenland glaciers. Sure you didn't take "series" to imply electricity? Even if, I'm pretty sure you're spinning that. I tend to think that for a torture threat 2b credible & harassing it has to be...well, possible. I'll stand corrected, but I'm going to bet that you spun what I actually wrote to turn it from fanciful to possible torture. And we all know it was liberals and progressives that brought talk of torture to every conversation. U know, if you can't stand the heat, don't drool at the idea of sticking someone else's head in the oven.
TechnoCreed
4.8 / 5 (19) May 09, 2016
I wonder if UncleIra cares about his 5's he gets by posting nothing about science, that he gives Stumpy and Vietvet the 5'finger job no matter what non-science is posted. Should I take Ira's points away and mass troll rate him-skippy?

It can be understandable that, for some irrational reasons, a person is unable to express compassion towards another. What is less understandable and defendable, is when those irrational reasons turn to indecent reasoning.

Vietvet is no longer active on Physorg. Would it be possible to have a minimal amount of respect.
Protoplasmix
4.8 / 5 (20) May 09, 2016
They only need to become familiar with the technical jargon (which in this case physicists use as shorthand for the math and data they are all familiar with), and intersperse it with their own notoriously undefinable jargon.
Very good point, let's all be perfectly clear then, shall we?

"To proceed further along these lines, we need to make ourselves familiar with more terminology and notations." See Causal and Topological Aspects in Special and General Relativity

There is no philosophy of physics.
How is that remark not your philosophy? Reminds me of that Rush lyric, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Knowledge of the definition of logic is not a requisite for demonstrating it. But it sure helps.
obama_socks
2 / 5 (21) May 09, 2016
Multiply the number of names you accuse by the number of comments voted on and my maths say that comes out to about 10 hours, if all you are referring to were done today.


A while back Nounamen-Skippy had dozens of voting puppets, he got so tired of making up new names to remember, he would just the same name over and over with a number on him.

Like Puppet1, Puppet2... Don't take my word for it, ask anybody who has been here more than two years. All the time saying he wished they would take the voting buttons down. He had more socks than Obama-socks-Skippy.
- Ira (the pretend Cajun)
WTF are you talking about? I don't use sock puppets in this website. Who the hell are YOU anyway? I have never even once read anything that you've said that has even remotely added to a science discussion in scientific terminology and I've been in Physorg since 2006.
WHY ARE YOU COMMENTING IN THIS FORUM AT ALL? BECAUSE YOU CAN? YOU'RE A F**KING DIMWIT TRYING TO SEEM RELEVANT.
willieaames25
1.5 / 5 (16) May 09, 2016
I always hear about gravity in terms of planets and objects creating "depressions" in the fabric of space, but space is three-dimensional... why doesn't the explanation of gravity seem to take this into account?
obama_socks
2 / 5 (21) May 09, 2016
Because they cannot discuss a subject with facts,... I have never actually had a physics nor philosophy of physics debate with 'the Stumpy, Ira, and Otto cartoon' show,... not once.

- Noumenon
I TOLD you that Stumpy and Ira were two of Otto's sock puppets but you refused to believe that Cap'n Rumpy was also Otto in disguise. Otto's other sock puppet, FrankHerbert had been banned a few years back, so Otto had to make some new Physorg accounts to replace FH and add to his legion of sock puppets and create a new personality for each one. Theghostofotto1923 (the Nazi lover) repeats certain mantras: anti-philosophy, anti-religion, and says that women are forced to have babies until they die. Oh, and Otto talks about a "tribal dynamic" also, but never talks about the science topics with anything resembling scientific terminology. This is why Stumpy and Ira, BAKOON and all the rest could never talk science with any kind of credibility. Because they can't. They're only puppets
obama_socks
2 / 5 (21) May 09, 2016
Da Schneib4 /5 (1) 39 minutes ago

I don't deal with 8-year-olds who haven't learned logic yet.


FWIW, looking at the times and watching some conversations, I think it's pretty likely that obummersucker is cantthink. Of course, beyond those three, antirational has to take the prize for pure puerile. He comes up with things I haven't heard since I was 8.
- AGreatWhopper
Nope. I am not cantdrive and I don't use sock puppets in this Physorg. You are referring to Theghostofotto1923 and all of his sock puppets that he uses for down voting me and several others, and giving FIVES to Otto's "friends". You are most likely one of them.
obama_socks
2 / 5 (21) May 09, 2016
I wonder if UncleIra cares about his 5's he gets by posting nothing about science, that he gives Stumpy and Vietvet the 5'finger job no matter what non-science is posted...

It can be understandable that, for some irrational reasons, a person is unable to express compassion towards another. What is less understandable and defendable, is when those irrational reasons turn to indecent reasoning.

Vietvet is no longer active on Physorg. Would it be possible to have a minimal amount of respect.
- TechnoCreed
Would you care to elaborate on the cause for Vietvet's absence from this website? I don't recall anything nice about Vietvet's posts. He doesn't seem to have anything nice or uplifting to say in terms of any kind of a feeling of "fellowship" for all who post in this forum. He also seems to gravitate toward the nastiest people who post on Physorg as his "comrades". And he seems like a very mean person even in spite of his health issues...or maybe because of it
obama_socks
2 / 5 (20) May 09, 2016
They only need to become familiar with the technical jargon (which in this case physicists use as shorthand for the math and data they are all familiar with), and intersperse it with their own notoriously undefinable jargon.
Very good point, let's all be perfectly clear then, shall we?

"To proceed further along these lines, we need to make ourselves familiar with more terminology and notations." See http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1836

There is no philosophy of physics.
How is that remark not your philosophy? Reminds me of that Rush lyric, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Knowledge of the definition of logic is not a requisite for demonstrating it. But it sure helps.
- Protoplasmix
Philosophy is/was the precondition for all the sciences and religions. Philosophy is kindled by Thought/Mind to search for answers. The Sciences are permeated with philosophical conception. It is undeniable.
Your answer was perfect, BTW.
obama_socks
2 / 5 (20) May 09, 2016
I always hear about gravity in terms of planets and objects creating "depressions" in the fabric of space, but space is three-dimensional... why doesn't the explanation of gravity seem to take this into account?
- willieaames25
The "fabric" of space is an imaginary condition of space itself. The depression in that "fabric" is caused by the natural gravity that is inherent in all bodies of matter that supposedly makes a depression (or gravity well) in the imaginary fabric when that body displaces the space that would ordinarily BE there if that body of matter wasn't there.
IMO it isn't space that is 3 dimensional...but only the object that is made of matter that has the properties of height, breadth and width. Perhaps space is, instead, 2 dimensional, but don't quote me on that.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (30) May 09, 2016
I wonder if UncleIra cares about his 5's he gets by posting nothing about science, that he gives Stumpy and Vietvet the 5'finger job no matter what non-science is posted. Should I take Ira's points away and mass troll rate him-skippy?

It can be understandable that, for some irrational reasons, a person is unable to express compassion towards another. [...]

Vietvet is no longer active on Physorg. Would it be possible to have a minimal amount of respect.


I'm not abreast as to vietvets present state, and I HAVE offered him kind words in another thread which I'm sure he read and which more important for me than you seeing those words. W he Marcus from physics forums?. Would it be possible to minimize the presumptions here.

The point was that I'm am routinely down rated for posting substantive physics and yet people like Ira are routinely 5 rated for posting soap-opera gibberish.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 09, 2016
There is no philosophy of physics - Torbjorn.

How is that remark not your philosophy? Reminds me of that Rush lyric, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Knowledge of the definition of logic is not a requisite for demonstrating it. But it sure helps.


I love Rush.

They don't seem to understand that interpretations of QM that don't predict anything new that other interpretations predict,.... ARE philosophy of physics.

Torbjorn, Otto, and Stumpy routinely attempt to derail discussions into one of antiphilosophy which is actually a form of metaphilosophy. Torbjorn and DaSchneib are the ones who are engaging in philosophy of physics all the while objecting to my more philosophical posts,.... by attempting to substantiate an ontological existence for space-time and speaking of "substance of gravity". This is to take physics beyond what theory is saying (at present),... thus is de facto philosophy of physics.

AGreatWhopper
3.2 / 5 (29) May 09, 2016
Benni 1.5 / 5 (13) 10 hours ago

If the rating system were dumped, most of the people who presently post here & use it would be gone overnight.............case in point, my leading quote for this post.


What a load of crap. You specialize in specious reasoning, no? Incredible how nice and neat things are to the logic challenged. You really haven't thought this through.

1). Many that vote and don't post might post if the site weren't thick with trolls.
2). The site owners would sell their mothers for a dozen reliable hits every day. They LIKE the voting wars.
3). What chutzpah! If it weren't for #2, your account would have long ago been deleted.

Bottom line, you just want to drool your incoherent ramblings with impunity. Ain't gonna happen, loser. You're going to have to find something else to think about when you whack off.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 09, 2016
@ AGreatWhopper / NiteSkyGel / John_Hobbes / sock-puppet-drawer,...
Do you ever post about science? Why are you here? Why isn't Torbjorn or Otto or Stumpy focusing their anti-x efforts on posters like you, instead of ones that actually say stuff?

As I said to Stumpy,... you're not competent to debate Benni,.... the site is better off with you telling Benni or compose, WHY they are wrong rathsr than empty soap-opera drama. Speak about physics, debate him. Use them to engage in substantive science debate. Everyone would benefit. Instead what are you doing here?

NiteSkyGerl
3.3 / 5 (32) May 09, 2016
Benji's beating the xtians for victimization fantasies. I'm so oppressed! Torture!!!

The idiot's only picking on Da because he's the only one that would respond politely. The rest would say, "Hell, yeah, loser. I've got a lot more where that came from."

Chutzpah is the word all right. You come here posting contrarian BS JUST to get an emotional reaction (pretty much the definition of a troll), then whine when you get a reaction.

Why is it that every ne'er do well and lifelong loser decides that they're not a loser, they're persecuted! No, you're a loser.
NiteSkyGerl
3.2 / 5 (34) May 09, 2016
Nou, posting crap is more irritating than posting nothing. I've seen posts by everyone you name. Frankly, most seldom-posters here seem put off by your lot, so the answer basically, is because you won't stop wittering on. Tor, Otto, Stumpy- the legit posters- don't have an agenda. You do. anti-agenda is a principle of science. REAL scientists will naturally unite to fight your lot.

It's like another poster said. You're really so arrogant that you can't imagine someone actually voting you down because of the content. You just refuse to accept it. Case in point: I'd love you to give your real name so that we could contact wherever you might have actually taken a philosophy course and ask your prof what kind of student you were. I'm quite sure we'd hear the EXACT same reaction that you're hearing from the aforementioned legitimate posters. But we're all wrong. Nobody appreciates you except your mother. So, go back to bed and preach to her.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 09, 2016
You're posting nothing but more subjective "characterizations" of me. Again this isn't facebook. You are not posting actual counter points to anything that I have stated, thus you fraudulently feign having read those posts and analyzed them with objectivity, when you have not demonstrated having done so.

I have demonstrated knowlege of physics above,... but I'm the bad guy precisely on account of the arrogance of others for their inability to admit being wrong. I'm the ONLY one in this thread to have admitted to a lack of knowledge on a specific topic,.... but yet at least displayed familiarity enough to debate others points. I'm the ONLY one to have told others "good point" several times.

You don't know me personally and this is not the Jerry-Springer show.

If you and your brigade of screen names, and also Ira, Stumpy, Otto, etc,... can not articulate specific objections with scientific knowledge, then do phys.org a favour and STFU.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 09, 2016
That one would think that it is appropriate to post generalized sweeping subjective characterizations without the decency of having actually engaged in substantive physics or interpretations thereof,.... if off the charts arrogant.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (27) May 09, 2016
Mar 29, 2016

@Schneibo

I have a recurring dream where I'm in a bar and overhear someone saying something that identifies them as one of the regular trolls, like benni, and I follow them out into a dark alley and beat some respect into their empty heads.


....and here you are Schneib, chief the complainer about "trolls". You want credibility, give chileastro a 1, I dare you. Not one word in his post about the subject matter or anything else about science, only his threats to physically confront & commit acts of violence against those with whom you in the Rant Brigade disagree.

Oh, I get it Schneib, you intend to take the high road instead & just not vote on his post? You're silence is your consent.

Remember Schneib, rate posters on science content? Let's see if you can practice the narrative.


Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Benni
2.6 / 5 (27) May 09, 2016
Mar 29, 2016

@Schneibo

.and here you are Schneib, chief the complainer about "trolls". You want credibility, give chileastro a 1, I dare you. Not one word in his post about the subject matter or anything else about science, only his threats to physically confront & commit acts of violence against those with whom you in the Rant Brigade disagree.

chileastro
March 29, 2016, 9:46 am 4 Benni <1> Da Schneib <5> jim_xanara<5> antigoresockpuppet<5>

So Schneib, let's do this math: Four votes....... 1+5+5+5=16/4=4

.......and you want the forum to believe the drivel you just posted right above this, that you're here for the science? But consenting to violence against Posters with whom you disagree. So tell us, what really does this make you?


Bizarre isn't it? I didn't just prove a negative, your own vote for your advocacy for beatings to be committed on persons with whom you disagree.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (17) May 09, 2016
I always hear about gravity in terms of planets and objects creating "depressions" in the fabric of space, but space is three-dimensional... why doesn't the explanation of gravity seem to take this into account?

It does. It's just hard to draw a three dimensional 'depression' on a two dimensional image (not impossible, but such an image is too complex for many to correctly visualize).
So authors use the 2D analogy because it gets the point accross - not because relativity doesn't deal with it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (16) May 09, 2016
Addendum: The best visualization for 3D warping I've found is in a comic I got when I was a kid (In english it's called: "The adventures of Archibald Higgins: The black hole")...but you have to wrap your head around the idea of geodesics before the visual representation makes sense.

Unfortunately I can't find that particular image on the web.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (17) May 09, 2016
Oooh...brilliant.. I just found out the author has made all the comics available to the public domain.
So you can take a look at it here
http://www.savoir...HOLE.pdf
(pages 26-28 is the part I'm referring to, but you'll probably also want to have a look at the preceding pages for an idea of what geodesics are)
dgxt002
5 / 5 (13) May 09, 2016
The reality of the dimensionality of the universe is a bit of a moot point. I'd rather argue that the physical perception of reality that we currently experience being limited to 3 spacial dimensions is the simplest achievable by nature, and study why that is. There may be more dimensions to reality, but we will never be able to perceive them in the natural sense. If experiments can conclusively prove an observation of the "shadow" of other dimensions, then I'd consider the extra dimensions a part of reality that we simply can not perceive. All other discussions of extra dimensions are simply ways of mathematically expressing what we observe in the three spatial dimensions our perception is limited to.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (24) May 09, 2016
routinely attempt to derail discussions into one of antiphilosophy
@Nou
only when you introduce philo into a science thread (like above)
I'm am routinely down rated for posting substantive physics
when you include philo as part of the substantive physics (like above) then it is the prerogative of the rater to give you a one as philo isn't "substantive physics"
Ira are routinely 5
ira has a nose for trolls, & the rating structure is entirely dependent on the user, not your specific criteria, therefore this is just whining
can not articulate specific objections with scientific knowledge
everything i've stated has been valid, articulate and either provable or validated, sometimes in your own words (See above)
subjective "characterizations"
in NiteSkyGerl's defense, if the characterization can be substantiated, like above, then it isn't subjective and it falls in the realm of psychological science (science being the keyword)

and she's right
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (23) May 09, 2016
@Nou cont'd
the site is better off with you telling Benni or compose, WHY they are wrong rathsr than empty soap-opera drama. Speak about physics, debate him
you know, i can partially agree with this... but there is a serious problem with your reasoning:
when someone makes a repeated claim about something (like, say... ODE's or GR/SR), but then can't actually demonstrate proficiency in said topics (or even basic math) then how is it you're supposed to debate them?
case in point: http://phys.org/n...ate.html

http://phys.org/n...als.html

http://phys.org/n...ood.html

http://phys.org/n...rse.html

http://phys.org/n...dio.html

"you can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think"-TCS
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (23) May 09, 2016
@Nou last
You are not posting actual counter points to anything that I have stated
wrong: if you're bringing in a point at any time and you post it, like what i noted above in my first comment, then it opens the door to conversation of your post which is relevant to the thread
now, @NiteSkyGerl said
Nou, posting crap is more irritating than posting nothing
if you're posting any philo anything, and NiteSkyGerl is concentrating on "substantive physics", then the sudden introduction of anything philo is like a speed bump (or a brick wall to some) and becomes a serious detriment to comprehension, which is my argument to you on more than one occasion

therefore the "derail" is coming from you-not others

if you can admit to that: fine

if you can't then the problem isn't NiteSkyGerl, Otto, Ira (or anyone else downrating you) but your own Dunning-Kruger (or narcissism), and that is also relevant (and substantive)
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (21) May 09, 2016
- TechnoCreed
Would you care to elaborate on the cause for Vietvet's absence from this website? I don't recall anything nice about Vietvet's posts. He doesn't seem to have anything nice or uplifting to say in terms of any kind of a feeling of "fellowship" for all who post in this forum. He also seems to gravitate toward the nastiest people who post on Physorg as his "comrades". And he seems like a very mean person even in spite of his health issues...or maybe because of it

The beauty of humanity does not lie in simplicity; the very fast progress of the human kind is mainly driven by diversity.

tbc
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (21) May 09, 2016
...

Sadly two individual cannot look at one and the other and give a proper assessment of the other because this assessment is tainted by the relationship they entertain. Look at it this way; people are attracted by their similarities and repelled by their differences and that is especially true in the virtual world where we cannot see the person behind the character. We can analyse the psychology of the other but do not have any means to appreciate their real life struggles.

tbc
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (21) May 09, 2016
...

o_s you come here and question the point of view of others; it is normal, it challenges your views of the world and it is all right, Physorg allows different point of views to be expressed and it gives this place some purpose. But please just appreciate that your point of view is just one of 7 billion and that is the beauty of it; it also defines our identity. I will not have a prolonged debate on this; it is not that I spent too much time on you, but I hate wasting too much time Physorg and did it already.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (27) May 09, 2016
@Stumpy,... all three of your above posts are juat more subjective characterizations ,... and do not refer to any actual thing I posted here,.... just more sweeping characterizations about the supposed form of argument.

Do you not understand that asking for the ontology of spacetime IS philosophy, in fact metaphysics. Can you not read my post with objectivity enough to notice it is ME who is pointing out statements that go beyond present theory? .... "substance of gravity"

Do you have a specific objection or counter point to something I actually stated?

You are on ignore along with Ira for not posting anything of substance.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (26) May 09, 2016
@ Nounamen-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good thanks for asking.

the site is better off with you telling Benni or compose, WHY they are wrong rathsr than empty soap-opera drama. Speak about physics, debate him.


Now come on Skippy. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. What was that,,, supposed to be some sort of joke? Anybody who has been here for more than a month or so knows beyond a shadow of any doubt that ALL of the SMARTER Skippys have tried to debate, argue or discuss the physics and science with Zephir-Skippy AND Bennie-Skippy. Hundreds of times over the years.

And where does it ever get to? Who usually can't answer the other's questions (you know it is always Zephir-Skippy and Bennie-Skippy)?

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (24) May 09, 2016
... specific objection or counter point to something I actually stated?
@Nou
yep, and i quoted/posted it too
Can you not read my post with objectivity
stopped there... and yes, i can
except when you intro philo (as I explained above)

when you intro anything philo, it immediately stops being about "substantive physics" and becomes about subjective opinion

this was the reasoning for my first interjection *and* above defense of @NiteSkyGerl
... juat more subjective characterizations
i can validate my claims with evidence from the site and your own posts, especially the benji post
and do not refer to any actual thing I posted here
yes, it does: and it is quoted as well as argued in the post

now, i am not going to continue this b/c:
you CAN'T see why subjective philo is irrelevant to factual science
&
you CAN'T understand why this gets you downrated
&
it simply will repeat all past arguments and piss off people

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 09, 2016
Do you have anything to add about physics here?

@Stumpy, one final point,... I will continue to post whatever form of argument that I see fit,.... whether that is philosophical, or facts of physics, or political ideology.

As is clear from your comments, the fact that your objection is merely to "form of argument" rather than actual substance of argument ,.... has lead you to miss the fact that above that my purpose was to inform others they THEY were speaking philosophically (not that I mind),... by asking questions about the ontology of spacetime and "substance of gravity".

You are on ignore for not reading the above posts to see this, and ignoring my comments about physics.

Btw, NiteSkyGerl is a guy. You haven't figured this out yet.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (27) May 09, 2016
Anybody who has been here for more than a month or so knows beyond a shadow of any doubt that ALL of the SMARTER Skippys have tried to debate, argue or discuss the physics and science with Zephir-Skippy AND Bennie-Skippy. Hundreds of times over the years.
........and Scheibo's advocacy vote for bodily beatings upon those with dissenting (scientific) points of view proves this? How?

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (25) May 09, 2016
I will continue to post whatever form of argument that I see fit,.... whether that is philosophical, or facts of physics, or political ideology
@Nou
then why condemn people for not liking it by downrating you?
this is hypocrisy- we talked about it: http://phys.org/n...and.html

has lead you to miss the fact
nope
You are on ignore for not reading the above posts to see this, and ignoring my comments about physics
1- read them
2- didn't argue with some of them
3- re-read what i said, plus that link above
4- you keep saying this... but you keep posting to me
makes me thing you have a thing for me... but i'm straight, and married, so sorry
Btw, NiteSkyGerl is a guy. You haven't figured this out yet
Rule 37 from the /b/ro's... learn it, live it, know it

and if you don't get it, ask liar-kam or someone else i've explained it to (at least 50 times on PO alone)
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 09, 2016
@ Stumpy, you're characterizing my posts generally as being of philosophy , which is factually incorrect as most of them here are about physics. It is only your "subjective opinion" that even the supposed philosophy ones are not pertinent to the discussion or to physics in general . This opinion is ill informed as evidenced by the list of preeminent physicists which I provided above, and the topics known to 'philosophy of physics'. Furthermore you failed to understand that 1) it was me who was making the distinction between valid statements of theory to philosophy questions as pointed out, and 2) that others here were the ones engaging in what is interpretations of theory, i.e. philosophy of physics.

I WILL continue posting whatever form that suits me. If you are not able to articulate a substantive objection then pipe down.

obama_socks
2 / 5 (23) May 09, 2016
From what I've read in this and many other threads, it appears that certain posters such as Torbjorn, DaSchneebo, and Phys1 (Pissypants1) have a very low tolerance for any kind of reasonable and logical conceptual references in opposition to their own philosopy of science that are in partial or complete disagreement with their own understanding of the science. This low tolerance advances nothing and demeans the character of the forum for civil discourse and tolerance of ideas and other information on the topic. Add to that the preference of the puppet master(s) for one side or the other according to his/their low view of innovative Thought that may threaten the purview of those who are firmly ensconced within the "protection" of the prevailing "judge(s)" of which faction MUST be right, with all others being less so. The ratings are most often according to "friendships" rather than according to reason and logic in the postings.
Such ratings without basis are meant to intimidate
obama_socks
2 / 5 (23) May 09, 2016
(cont'd)
As punishment for detracting from their statements and calling into question the validity of their preferred scientific conclusions which are most often disseminated by such as those three mentioned, the submitter of valid counter-arguments wrt the statements that had been submitted by the low-tolerance persons is duly placed in a position of defending himself against negative characterizations, innuendo, and diatribe on a personal basis. This is desperation in the face of possible intelligent discourse which may prove to be a substantial antithesis to the scientific claims of those who are firmly entrenched in their rigid dichotomy that is opposed to any and all differences of opinion(s) and new concepts. Such a fixed position wrt Science is immoral and is not congruent with the spirit of new discoveries and innovation.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (22) May 09, 2016
If it were not for persecution by the close-minded Science Establishment my theories would be recognized as revolutionary explanations of every question in science.
- Ensign Flandery
Really? Those dastardly dudley doorights!!
Seriously though, science has made great achievements, and yet, scientists still don't know EVERYTHING. What they learned at University is firmly entrenched in their brain, making them RESIST as much new information (unless it is they who made the discovery). Experimentation is key to validating all theories, and yet "they" still resist new ideas if those ideas aren't able to blend/incorporate into the prevailing science that is regarded as fact. Anything new is an oooh and aaaah moment.
Why, they might have to go back to school and/or buy an entirely new set of books that elaborate on the NEW science. Many of them have families to support, so funding is paramount in their lives.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (22) May 09, 2016
...

o_s you come here and question the point of view of others; it is normal, it challenges your views of the world and it is all right, Physorg allows different point of views to be expressed and it gives this place some purpose. But please just appreciate that your point of view is just one of 7 billion and that is the beauty of it; it also defines our identity. I will not have a prolonged debate on this; it is not that I spent too much time on you, but I hate wasting too much time Physorg and did it already.
- TechnoC
I appreciate ALL opinions. But I feel it is important to be discerning as to the motivations of those who submit their comments that have entirely NOTHING to do with the topic of the article in each thread. Case in point: I expect that someone who posts in a SCIENCE thread is going to post their opinions wrt the SCIENCE ITSELF, and not a constant stream of demands for information as Stumpy does on a daily basis. He offers nothing but tripe.
(con'td)
obama_socks
2 / 5 (24) May 09, 2016
(cont'd)
There there is "Uncle Ira" who also wastes bandwidth in Physorg by attacking personalities and offering absolutely NOTHING wrt the science topic of the article.
Then there is Otto who also offers nothing but Nazi type opinions of humans, as well as his recent discovery of Psychopathy and earlier attention to Dunning-Kruger, which he liberally drops into his posts to attack those such as Noumenon and others that have been accused of expounding on Philosophy and/or religion even without merit for such accusation.

As I have already mentioned several times, Philosophy is a PRECONDITION of science and religion. ANY expression of opinion naturally incorporates Philosophy within that expression. IT CANNOT BE AVOIDED. Speech is FILLED with Philosophy no matter the subject.
john berry_hobbes
3.3 / 5 (26) May 09, 2016
Who ever gave these crackpots the idea that logic is a matter of personal style? Computer CPUs used to be called ALUs, for arithmetic and logical unit. Logic is like addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Symbolic logic is no more negotiable than the sum of 2+2.

WHY don't we listen to those poor persecuted types like obamarocks and numbnuts? It would be like having someone balance your checkbook that had a different definition of how basic math sums worked. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. But, logic challenged, you don't even know what a fact is. It's not alternative, it's dysfunctional. You probably think color blindness is actually an alternative interpretation of the state of affairs. It is, but it's pathological. It's broken. It's like your logic. It's not alternative, it's wrong.

Damn PO to hell for feeding your demons.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (22) May 09, 2016
...

Sadly two individual cannot look at one and the other and give a proper assessment of the other because this assessment is tainted by the relationship they entertain. Look at it this way; people are attracted by their similarities and repelled by their differences and that is especially true in the virtual world where we cannot see the person behind the character. We can analyse the psychology of the other but do not have any means to appreciate their real life struggles.

tbc
- TechnoCreed
I surmise that you are a great fan of Philosophy because all three of your posts in response to me are brimming over with Philosophical Thought/opinion.

I suspect that you have no knowledge of Vietvet's present condition and will not be offering any information on same. That's fine, but my opinion of Vietvet still stands. I place a lot of credence on what a person posts in Physorg or any other website. I have been known to make jokes and talk silly for the fun of it. But hey!!
Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) May 09, 2016
@Noumenon
" site is better off with you telling Benni or compose, WHY they are wrong"
That would be futile. This site is better off by ignoring them completely.


One or the other.

I point out the important distinction above between 'components of the description' [the mathematical elements of a theory] and 'elements of reality',... because it is common to conflate the two and by doing so engage in metaphysics,.... thus the discussion about the ontology of space-time. The fact that Stumpy posts objection to this demonstrates he is not qualified to be thought-police here.



obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (22) May 09, 2016
Who ever gave these crackpots the idea that logic is a matter of personal style? Computer CPUs used to be called ALUs, for arithmetic and logical unit. Logic is like addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Symbolic logic is no more negotiable than the sum of 2+2.

WHY don't we listen to those poor persecuted types like obamarocks and numbnuts? It would be like having someone balance your checkbook that had a different definition of how basic math sums worked. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. But, logic challenged, you don't even know what a fact is. It's not alternative, it's dysfunctional. You probably think color blindness is actually an alternative interpretation of the state of affairs. It is, but it's pathological. It's broken. It's like your logic. It's not alternative, it's wrong.

Damn PO to hell for feeding your demons.
- john berry_hobbes
Personal style? How did you come by that? Your whole post is philosophical
Seeker2
1.8 / 5 (15) May 09, 2016
1) Space-time is the set of all measurements you can make with rulers and clocks. Not a thing, not a stuff, just a set of measurements.
Spacetime is the place where energy lives.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (27) May 09, 2016
@Noumenon
" site is better off with you telling Benni or compose, WHY they are wrong"
That would be futile. This site is better off by ignoring them completely.


You know Mr 1st semester Physics guy, I come to this site constantly Copy & Pasting quotes straight from the pages of Special & General Relativity, along with calculations, and I guess that's what so gets you, Scheibo, Stumpo & the rest of the Rant Brigade so all bent out of shape. You persist in misquoting Einstein & you resent it when I post the direct quotes from his SR & GR, and that is what galls you.......well, along with the fact none of you even know how to write a discernible equation & I point that out on occasion as well.

It is just so entertaining, observing the ranting reactions of those of those of you who are so well educated in the fields of modern day pop-sci pseudo-sciences.
Seeker2
1.9 / 5 (14) May 09, 2016
I have always said that Time can ONLY go forward - never stops, pauses or reverses.
Time expands in 2 directions just like all other dimensions in spacetime. On average the U is going nowhere in space or time unless it is being influenced by another U in a multiverse. Objects going in forward time we call matter, backwards in time antimatter. For each particle of matter created there is a corresponding particle of antimatter. For each positive charge created there is a corresponding negative charge. Some even say the total energy of the U is 0. Else where would it come from if the U is really all there is? Actually it's like a giant swap shop.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (25) May 09, 2016
you're characterizing my posts generally as being of philosophy
@Nou
some, yes
never said all your posts were philo... just too many of them
and i downrate those i consider philo depending on if i see or read them
the list of preeminent physicists
a preeminent physicists spouting philo doesn't mean it's anything but support for a subjective opinion - period
you failed to understand that
nope. still didn't fail to understand, and this is addressed in the post above yours
repeating your opinion doesn't make it more true any more than cd, hannes, jvk, verkle, viko, or o_s repeating their faith makes it more true
I WILL continue posting
and so long as you do, then be prepared for the backlash of downrating and STFU about the downrating when it does happen, like above

https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

The fact that Stumpy posts objection to this
it aint nice to lie in print
Seeker2
1.9 / 5 (14) May 09, 2016
If warping space also warps time, is time actually part of space, or merely adhering to it?
Time is a change of configuration of space. So if you're going to warp space it takes time. If you're going to warp time then the time to change the configuration would change but all you can observe is the change in configuration so you would never detect it since all you can detect is the change of configuration.
Seeker2
1.9 / 5 (14) May 09, 2016
So if you're going to warp space it takes time. If you're going to warp time then the time to change the configuration would change but all you can observe is the change in configuration so you would never detect it since all you can detect is the change of configuration.
Sorry if I'm starting to repeat myself. Pushing 80 real hard. :)
Seeker2
1.9 / 5 (14) May 09, 2016
GR takes an operational approach, which means defining coordinate-time and coordinate-space to be represented as some physical system,... not taken as a "thing unto itself".

It is a kinematical theory as opposed to a dynamic one,... IN THE SENSE that the field equations only equate proportionally the metric tensor [as expressed in the contracted Riemann tensor], to mass-energy,..... but does not say WHY, ....which is what one would expect for a dynamical theory that took space-time as a substance.
Space-time is the dimensions where the substance exists. The actual substance is the vacuum pressure which would seem to be what he actually used in the field equations.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (16) May 09, 2016
What does it mean that space is warped? Does it mean a gradient in some field? A field of what?
In this context I think it would be the vacuum pressure. In the case of an e/m field I think you would be talking about the energy stored in a non-random distribution of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs. The energy stored in configuration, actually.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (16) May 09, 2016
In the case of an e/m field I think you would be talking about the energy stored in a non-random distribution of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs.
An interesting consequence of this is that as the U continues to cool the e/m fields will decrease in intensity as the energy of the virtual particle-antiparticle pairs decreases.
obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (24) May 09, 2016
I have always said that Time can ONLY go forward - never stops, pauses or reverses.
Time expands in 2 directions just like all other dimensions in spacetime. On average the U is going nowhere in space or time unless it is being influenced by another U in a multiverse. Objects going in forward time we call matter, backwards in time antimatter. For each particle of matter created there is a corresponding particle of antimatter. For each positive charge created there is a corresponding negative charge. Some even say the total energy of the U is 0. Else where would it come from if the U is really all there is? Actually it's like a giant swap shop.
- Seeker2
What 2 directions are those wrt Time? I am only familiar with 3 dimensions: height, width, depth, where Time is not a dimension in the same sense whereby matter/energy can exist within Time as though it were equal or similar to any 3 dimensional object.
(cont'd)
obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (24) May 09, 2016
(cont'd)
@Seeker2
1. You cannot BUILD ANYTHING out of your concept of Time as a Dimension. You can only MEASURE THE DURATION of how long it takes to build something or to measure something's dimensions for accuracy. That involves the use of clocks and rulers, measuring tapes, etc.
2. Time exists only UNTO ITSELF and isn't a byproduct of the 3 dimensional object whether or not that object is matter or energy.
3. Time isn't a commodity that you can hold in the palm of your hand. It isn't capable of life. You can't step on Time like you would a 3 dimensional object like a ladder.
4. Time is ONLY a very useful concept that was formulated by ancient man to EXPLAIN WHY there is a day/night cycle and the seasons within a year. These are examples of philosophical questioning and seeking answers that leads to experimentation and discovery. Ancient man didn't process a thought that other dimensions might exist and then proceed to place Time in that category.
(cont'd)
obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (24) May 09, 2016
(cont'd)
@seeker2
So now Science has gone to great lengths to determine that Time is itself a dimension...maybe...but with no evidence of it.
5. Taking into consideration that other dimensions MAY exist, one must then determine if the NEXT DIMENSION above the one in which we exist would, in turn, put us on a QUANTUM LEVEL OF EXISTENCE, just as we regard atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, etc. as the smallest objects wrt the famed Quantum Theory.
If that were a possibility, then our Universe is not exceptional by any means, except to our own perception of its importance. That also begs the questions: Is there a "seventh heaven"? Are there mirror images of our Universe?

In the case of an e/m field I think you would be talking about the energy stored in a non-random distrib(..)
An interesting consequence of this is that as the U continues to cool the e/m fields will decrease in intensity as

Cold is the strongest force. It's the ultimate death of everything
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (28) May 09, 2016
GR takes an operational approach, which means defining coordinate-time and coordinate-space to be represented as some physical system,... not taken as a "thing unto itself".
[...] The actual substance is the vacuum pressure which would seem to be what he actually used in the field equations.


The "pressure" in the stress-energy tensor [which is called pressure because it is the flux of momentum across a surface element, for each component],... is generalized,.. so is not intended to refer to specific sources.

Einstein added an extra term called the cosmological constant. This term is on the opposite side of the stress-energy tensor. There are issues with renormalization, but vacuum energy may be able to be associated with this term,.... but there are issues as I mentioned above....

https://en.wikipe...astrophe
obama_socks
2 / 5 (24) May 09, 2016
So if you're going to warp space it takes time. If you're going to warp time then the time to change the configuration would change but all you can observe is the change in configuration so you would never detect it since all you can detect is the change of configuration.
Sorry if I'm starting to repeat myself. Pushing 80 real hard. :)
- seeker2
Still going strong, are you? Great - keep up the good work.

Space is being warped already. Time isn't. Remember the imaginary "fabric of space" that resembles a sheet of graph paper, and that is explained by that "fabric" being displaced by objects made of matter/energy and a gravitational force? The displacement of space by the material object doesn't actually make the space that is being displaced "sink down", as though space was like a linen sheet in which a rock has ben thrown into. Space actually swirls around the object, surrounding the object so that space can interact with it - almost being a part of the object.
Seeker2
2.1 / 5 (11) May 10, 2016
The displacement of space by the material object doesn't actually make the space that is being displaced "sink down", ...
Yes - the space that is displaced is expelled from the region around the material object. So what's left around the material object has less total vacuum pressure than it had before displacement. So vacuum energy flows from regions without material objects into those with material objects like black holes. Material objects just get caught up in the flow - which we call gravity. You'd think in an expanding U matter would be blown apart. Instead it all gets collected - eventually into one great black hole. That would seem like a catastrophe for the universe but matter only makes up maybe 5% of the energy budget of the U so it will hardly even notice - or care. It just sucks up all the material stuff like it's wants to clean up the mess and take out the trash. :(
Seeker2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 10, 2016
You cannot BUILD ANYTHING out of your concept of Time as a Dimension.
I can build an ordered set of object configurations. Time as a dimension is the actual count of the number of these configurations. Or at least some attempt to make this count.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (13) May 10, 2016
"string". background independence"."metaphysics", "How is that remark not your philosophy?".

Is that the string that strangles your ability to leave a failed analysis, to understand how "background independence" is construed by its followers. and to support the ignorant arrogance of philosophers hell bent to claim 'another way of knowledge that subsumes everything else' (while in reality isn't applicable to anything)? =D

That philosophy is useless to science, inclusive the philosophist attempt of construing a 'philosophy of science', is a well tested hypothesis based on observation: the absence of peer reviewed philosophic results that applies to science and therefore have been published as science.

Until there is even one such publication, a broader science discussion on the subject is meaningless. Philosophy has failed to connect with reality.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (13) May 10, 2016
[ctd]

"I am not interesting in debating the general validity of philosophy of physics with neophytes".

I am not interested in debating the obvious irrelevance of philosophy, astrology, theology, and similar related erroneous beliefs in science with non-scientists. 'Nuff said.

This thread was derailed when Nou interrupted with inserting irrelevant philosophic 'interpretations' of accepted science, such as 'mathematical structure' and 'realism', and erroneously claimed that GR hadn't a dynamic 'object' quantum field approximation.

I showed him wrong, and after 200 comments he is still protesting that he doesn't know what science is and how it works. A very 1D argument, i would say,

@RC: "Mate, you're starting to come across as 'emotionally attached' and 'personal' in your assertions/stances."

Sure, every time someone has the drive to engage in a discussion it looks attached and personal. Doesn't have to be.

[tbctd]
Seeker2
2 / 5 (11) May 10, 2016
The "pressure" in the stress-energy tensor [which is called pressure because it is the flux of momentum across a surface element, for each component],... is generalized,.. so is not intended to refer to specific sources.

Einstein added an extra term called the cosmological constant. This term is on the opposite side of the stress-energy tensor. There are issues with renormalization, but vacuum energy may be able to be associated with this term,.... but there are issues as I mentioned above....

https://en.wikipe...astrophe
I'm seeing the stress-energy tensor as a gradient in the vacuum energy. But you're not going to get it right without adding in the actual zero-point vacuum energy, or so it would seem.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (14) May 10, 2016
[ctd]

But yes, I am tired of the philosophy trolls that injects their tripe into science. I had already said all I wanted to say on the article. So I prevaricated with lobbing rocks at the troll.

"Did you read my earlier posts ... maths/geometry Axiomatic constructs/...".

No, I did not. The discussion on the nature of math and its relation to science would be long, and besides the obvious point that philosophers don't engage in exclusively math in order to be useful for others. Also, famously you can't axiomatize physics, as shown by quantization methods et cetera.

I deemed it a side track to the larger point that philosophy is a 2.5 kyrs old entirely failed subject as shown by its publication record. But you certainly can't tell that from the arrogance of its decreasing group of supporters.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (27) May 10, 2016
Why do you continue to want to talk about the validity of philosophy here? Take that off-topic nonesense and your metaphysical "gravity substance" somewhere else.

Why do you think your opinion about philosophy concerns me? The list of preeminent physicists that I provided above who write on philosophy of physics and the fact that interpretations of science IS within that field, is all that matters to me,... not what some neive twit says over the internet.

GR is a background independent theory as well as LQG. This is a fact. String theory without testability is mathematical idealism,... and more philosophy than science.

You go ahead and conflate a component of the description with a empirically validated component of independent reality all you want, you neieve little girl.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (17) May 10, 2016
As repeatably stated above,.... I am not interesting in debating the general validity of philosophy of physics with neophytes
Well then why do you use your formal philosophy in your discussions with us, if you don't expect us to understand it?

Are you just enjoying the posturing?
Why do you continue to want to talk about the validity of philosophy here? Take that off-topic nonesense and your metaphysical "gravity substance" somewhere else
You use formal philosophy constantly but for you its on-topic whereas arguments against its use are not?

Make sense for a change.
obama_socks
2 / 5 (21) May 10, 2016
The displacement of space by the material object doesn't actually make the space that is being displaced "sink down", ...
Yes - the space that is displaced is expelled from the region around the material object. So what's left around the material object has less total vacuum pressure than it had before displacement. So vacuum energy flows from regions without material objects into those with material objects like black holes.
- seeker2

I won't comment on BH b/c it is still in the early stages of theory in spite of its perceived effects on matter/energy.
That is correct, but vacuum energy can't penetrate very far into the material object if there is an atmospheric envelope surrounding the object...such as the one above Earth.
And, it has nothing to do with the flow of Time. "Space" is simply replaced by the barrier of atmospheric envelope and its protective energies. Life forms on Earth are very fortunate to have this protective covering.
(cont'd)

obama_socks
2 / 5 (21) May 10, 2016
(cont'd)
@seeker2
Material objects just get caught up in the flow - which we call gravity. You'd think in an expanding U matter would be blown apart. Instead it all gets collected - eventually into one great black hole. That would seem like a catastrophe for the universe but matter only makes up maybe 5% of the energy budget of the U so it will hardly even notice - or care. It just sucks up all the material stuff like it's wants to clean up the mess and take out the trash. :(


The BH collective would, indeed, sweep up all the detritus, recycle it and spew it out in the form of energy. And, as you know, energy transmutates into matter. So, everything in the "U" gets recycled eventually. This enables new matter/energy to be created w/o the death of the entire U. That should also apply to all other U if they did exist in other realities.
Space bends but Time doesn't bend. If you are referring to motion, momentum, impetus in their purity, Time can only measure the effects of
obama_socks
2 / 5 (21) May 10, 2016
You cannot BUILD ANYTHING out of your concept of Time as a Dimension.
I can build an ordered set of object configurations. Time as a dimension is the actual count of the number of these configurations. Or at least some attempt to make this count.
- seeker2
I can build an operational &$%(#%^& *$%^@@ device from the ground up, but the only thing that Time has to do with it, is the amount of time (going by the clock) that it would have taken for me to design, configure, collect manufactured parts, and perform certain tasks to make it so. This would include my own energies expended. But STILL doesn't include Time as a Dimension. Only height, width, and depth are involved - 3 dimensional parts that are incorporated within one BIG &$%(#%^&*$%^@@. If I searched for Time as a dimension, I would NEVER find it. Neither could anyone else. I challenge anyone to search for Time as a dimension other than as a measurement of distance, duration, motion, momentum.
Please let me know
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (22) May 10, 2016
LMAO
In reading the previous posts by anti-philosophians I recognize that they are ALL enjoying the USE of pro-Philosophian Precepts in order that they may express their anti-Philosophian expressions of hateful discrimination against Philosophy, even while continuing their useless argument AGAINST THEMSELVES, without being aware of it.

Anyone who is anti-Philosophy should never:
1. question;
2. or have any opinion whether pro or con;
3. or seek answers;
4. or formulate math equations that seek to resolve a ?;
5. or make a statement;
6. or make a judgement or a decision;

THESE are ALL Philosophical actions and behaviors. Therefore, you anti-Philosophians are hypocrites, using the language of Philosophy to express your hatred of the very thing that you enjoy using.
And you are all supposedly learned and smart?
With the exception of Thegoatofotto1923, of course, who is neither learned OR smart.
:)
Noumenon
2 / 5 (28) May 10, 2016
As repeatably stated above,.... I am not interesting in debating the general validity of philosophy of physics with neophytes

Well then why do you use your formal philosophy in your discussions with us, if you don't expect us to understand it?


I would just assume do so with my dog than anyone in this thread, and indeed have not done so here. Some of the formal terminology that I posted above (contracted Riemann tensor,, commutator, covariant, component of the description, concepts, background independent, cotangent, etc),... are all ubiquitous physics terms, most of which concerns the mathematical formulation of GR.

Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2016
@Seeker, you're awfully close, but you've slipped up in one area: you can see your slip clearly if you study the Einstein Field Equations.

There are separate terms for the curvature of the manifold, the curvature of the metric (both of which are due to the presence of mass/energy), and the curvature of the cosmological constant. All three of these added together are the stress-energy tensor. The terms in the EFE are clear in the Wikipedia article on the EFE: https://en.wikipe...quations

It looks scary, but Einstein was a genius so it's actually quite simple when you figure out what he was thinking when he wrote it.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (19) May 10, 2016
@ Obama's-Skippy. You stole all that from the Really-Skippy didn't you?
obama_socks
2 / 5 (21) May 10, 2016
@ Obama's-Skippy. You stole all that from the Really-Skippy didn't you?
- Ira
Stole all WHAT? And WHO is Really-skippy?
Seeker2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 11, 2016
That is correct, but vacuum energy can't penetrate very far into the material object if there is an atmospheric envelope surrounding the object...such as the one above Earth.
Vacuum energy penetrates atoms of the atmosphere just like everything else. Per https://www.physi...y.74297/ atoms are 99.999999999999% empty space.
Seeker2
2.2 / 5 (10) May 11, 2016
@Seeker, you're awfully close, but you've slipped up in one area: you can see your slip clearly if you study the Einstein Field Equations.
I've been looking at that but I'm no genius like Einstein. Point being you have to include the zero point energy of the vacuum.
Seeker2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 11, 2016
- seeker2
I can build ...
And I can count. The 3d dimensions of each object as well as the number of these objects.
obama_socks
2 / 5 (20) May 11, 2016
That is correct, but vacuum energy can't penetrate very far into the material object if there is an atmospheric envelope surrounding the object...such as the one above Earth.
Vacuum energy penetrates atoms of the atmosphere just like everything else. Per https://www.physi...y.74297/ atoms are 99.999999999999% empty space.
- seeker2
If you read my response closely, you might've noticed that I said that V.E. can't penetrate VERY FAR INTO the material object IF there is an atmospheric envelope surrounding the object. I did NOT say that the V.E. can't penetrate at all.
In any case, that is not the problem, and it STILL doesn't resolve the TIME AS DIMENSION element we were discussing.
(cont'd)
obama_socks
2 / 5 (20) May 11, 2016
(cont'd)
@seeker2

According to Wiki:
"Vacuum energy can also be thought of in terms of virtual particles (also known as vacuum fluctuations) which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum. These particles are always created out of the vacuum in particle-antiparticle pairs, which in most cases shortly annihilate each other and disappear. However, these particles and antiparticles may interact with others before disappearing(..)"

"VIRTUAL PARTICLES" is VOODOO PHYSICS, much like a rabbit being pulled out of a hat; and, as such, has no place in the Reality of Existence without clear-cut OBSERVATION. IF it was true, there would be a constant stream of tiny explosions multiplied by the quantity of such annihilative interactions that would have to be observable on such a purportedly large scale.
Sorry if this offends your "Einstein-as-god" worship. It also doesn't say these P and anti-P DO INTERACT, but only MAY interact. Another Non-Absolute statement.
(cont'd)
obama_socks
2 / 5 (20) May 11, 2016
(cont'd)
My statement above re "non-absolutism" wrt Science, reminds me of this:

"Anekāntavāda (Sanskrit: अनेकान्तवाद, "many-sidedness") refers to the principles of pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints, or vantage points, the notion that reality is perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth, yet taken together they comprise the complete truth.[1][2] It is one of the most important and fundamental doctrines of Jainism."

Very interesting concept. Taken altogether, even without REAL OBSERVATION, virtual interactions are regarded as FACT, and not merely one aspect of an unproven Theory.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (18) May 11, 2016
- seeker2
I can build ...
And I can count. The 3d dimensions of each object as well as the number of these objects.
- seeker2
The 3D dimensions are proven and observable. No problem. But counting the number of such objects STILL has nothing to do with TIME AS A DIMENSION. Time ITSELF is NOT observable except within the parameters of observable CHANGES in DURATION, DISTANCE, MOTION, MOMENTUM, EVENTS. We have instruments and clocks to examine and observe those changes. But Time is NOT a dimension that could be harnessed and incorporated INTO a clock or other instrument such as a computer. ALL of those finely tuned objects depend solely on the input wrt perception(s) and observations by humans, e.g. the time of sunset and sunrise, etc.
You could build a Tesseract and count the number of cubes, etc. but it is STILL only variations of a CUBE that has nothing to do with Time; although Time is erroneously included as a dimension in the building of a Tesseract on paper.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (8) May 11, 2016
The 3D dimensions are proven and observable. No problem.
Right. The number of changes of configuration in 3D dimension observables is also proven and observable.
Seeker2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 11, 2016
...these particles and antiparticles may interact with others before disappearing(..)"
Yes as a matter of fact I'm thinking a non-random distribution of these particles (caused by a non-random distribution of the Higgs field) leads to e/m forces.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (20) May 11, 2016
are all ubiquitous physics terms, most of which concerns the mathematical formulation of GR
RIGHT. And 'ontological' and 'metaphysical' are NOT. They are worthless philo terms which have no place in science discussions.

And like I say, you don't know the difference. YOU think they are essential to some deeper understanding and further you assume that physicists use the concepts in their work.

There is no 'nature of being' associated with physics.
I have demonstrated knowlege of physics above
-But you still don't know that physicists don't do their work with words, do you?

Why do you think you can discern some deeper truths just by talking about it?
Seeker2
1.8 / 5 (10) May 11, 2016
I said that V.E. can't penetrate VERY FAR INTO the material object IF there is an atmospheric envelope surrounding the object.
If it penetrates at all into the material object it must penetrate 99.999999999999% of the way. Else what else in the object would limit its 99.999999999999% penetration? How could the V.E. limit the penetration of itself?. Maybe it just comes in small chunks but I don't think so.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (21) May 11, 2016

It also doesn't say these P and anti-P DO INTERACT, but only MAY interact. Another Non-Absolute statement
I guess they only interact if they want to, right? This is akin to your astute observation that photons aren't affected by gravity unless the gravity is strong enough to affect them.

In order to gauge the real nature of your postings, just imagine an entire room full of people laughing at you.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (26) May 11, 2016
I would just assume do so with my dog than anyone in this thread, and indeed have not done so here. Some of the formal terminology that I posted above (contracted Riemann tensor,, commutator, covariant, component of the description, concepts, background independent, cotangent, etc),... are all ubiquitous physics terms, most of which concerns the mathematical formulation of GR.


RIGHT. And 'ontological' and 'metaphysical' are NOT. They are worthless philo terms which have no place in science discussions.


They are if they are used in the derogatory sense, as I have done above. It is not science to say that spacetime are "things" nor that gravity is a "substance'. Your general incompetence precludes you from understanding these points made by me above.

But all those terms are just as well Greek to you.

What truly no place in science discussions is useless bickering. So why do you post at phys.org?

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (26) May 11, 2016
But you still don't know that physicists don't do their work with words, do you?


Do you post anything other than unsubstantiated characterizations and accusations? I know the math of GR and QM, do you? What Phys.Org article has math in it? This is a comment section about science, not a science journal in which to do science.

Do you have an actual substantive objection to a post I made?

obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (21) May 11, 2016

It also doesn't say these P and anti-P DO INTERACT, but only MAY interact. Another Non-Absolute statement
I guess they only interact if they want to, right? This is akin to your astute observation that photons aren't affected by gravity unless the gravity is strong enough to affect them.

In order to gauge the real nature of your postings, just imagine an entire room full of people laughing at you.
- otto
The strength of gravity doesn't come in "one size fits all" for every particle. You should know that by now. And yet you appear confused and your mind is restless so that you feel compelled to quote past statements as a compilation of the things that others have said. This is absolutely abnormal and is evidence of your psychopathic personality, for which you seem to believe is quite normal and natural. I see that you have begun using some of my words, such as "astute" which you have never done before. It only shows your limited verbal skills. Too bad
obama_socks
2 / 5 (20) May 11, 2016
...these particles and antiparticles may interact with others before disappearing(..)"
Yes as a matter of fact I'm thinking a non-random distribution of these particles (caused by a non-random distribution of the Higgs field) leads to e/m forces.
- seeker2
That is possible. I can't respond extensively on the matter (pun intended) :) b/c I would be way above my E & M Engineering pay grade. Still on a "learning curve" here, as I have explained in other Physics threads. Perhaps the dual annihilation of Particle & antiParticle might produce the e/m effect, as you have alluded to.

Your mission, seeker2, should you decide to accept it, is to surreptitiously gain entrance to the CERN lab/computer at Geneva to search the CERN database for all sources of e/m. As always, should you or any of your I.M. Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions.
obama_socks
2 / 5 (20) May 11, 2016
LOL
Sorry about that, seeker2. I couldn't help it.
It would be worth your time to explore such possibilities.
@seeker2
@Noumenon
Another thing you might want to mull over - whether it is possible that the purported BIG BANG was a response to super king-sized particle(s) and antiparticles mutually annihilating each other that produced larger forms of Matter/Energy....bypassing the Quantum level.
OK....going to watch a new movie that my wife bought today.
Later (Michelob in hand)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (17) May 12, 2016
Do you post anything other than unsubstantiated characterizations and accusations? I know the math of GR and QM, do you? What Phys.Org article has math in it? This is a comment section about science, not a science journal in which to do science
Right. So why are you using it as an excuse to attempt to do science with words?
They are if they are used in the derogatory sense, as I have done above
?? You refer to them as legitimate 'things' whether or not use them in a derogatory way.

You say for instance
IMO, in order to substantiate an ontology for space-time, there needs to be an empirically justified dynamical theory for space-time, independent of kinematics
You refer to ontology as something real and useful, correct?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (17) May 12, 2016
Very interesting concept. Taken altogether, even without REAL OBSERVATION, virtual interactions are regarded as FACT, and not merely one aspect of an unproven Theory
An accurate model of pussytards mental functionings;
https://www.youtu...WyfceJ58
Seeker2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 13, 2016
...whether it is possible that the purported BIG BANG was a response to super king-sized particle(s) and antiparticles mutually annihilating each other
Particles of course sink into black holes while antiparticles float away as I see it. But if the zero point vacuum energy drops below the energy density of antiparticles, antiparticles also begin to sink, perhaps into antiparticle black holes. Meanwhile particle black holes sink even deeper into the vacuum energy. The minimum energy configuration comes when everything sinks into the same black hole. Annihilation would then release all energy going into the creation of real particle/antiparticle pairs. That should provide enough energy to restart the big bang and maybe even restore the original zero point vacuum energy. Just a thought.
Chipsy
2.4 / 5 (13) May 13, 2016
@Noumenon
I agree with you that space-time is a construct of mathematical architecture of GR. People have the tendency to approach science in a naive and religious-like manner. If a theory doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. If it does it might be partly correct. If it cannot be proved by experiment is nice metaphysics.
AGreatWhopper
3.2 / 5 (22) May 13, 2016
OK, numbnuts, you filthy little beast, I'll have at you. You want to bring Kant into physics? Great. I'll go a few rounds and teach you a thing or two.

You've disgraced the name.
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (15) May 13, 2016
Very interesting concept. Taken altogether, even without REAL OBSERVATION, virtual interactions are regarded as FACT, and not merely one aspect of an unproven Theory
An accurate model of pussytards mental functionings;
https://www.youtu...WyfceJ58
- Otto
You shouldn't talk about your ugly mama that way even if she does have the mental functionings of a pussytard.
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (15) May 13, 2016
...whether it is possible that the purported BIG BANG was a response to super king-sized particle(s) and antiparticles mutually annihilating each other
Particles of course sink into black holes while antiparticles float away as I see it. But if the zero point vacuum energy drops below the energy density of antiparticles, antiparticles also begin to sink, perhaps into antiparticle black holes. Meanwhile particle black holes sink even deeper into the vacuum energy. The minimum energy configuration comes when everything sinks into the same black hole. Annihilation would then release all energy going into the creation of real particle/antiparticle pairs. That should provide enough energy to restart the big bang and maybe even restore the original zero point vacuum energy. Just a thought.
- seeker2
Somehow, I don't think we're on the same page. I was referring to super particles created as result of BigBang with no BHs at the time...or stars as yet.
Seeker2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 14, 2016
...whether it is possible that the purported BIG BANG...Somehow, I don't think we're on the same page. I was referring to super particles created as result of BigBang with no BHs at the time...or stars as yet.
Yes I'm not into anything purported.
Seeker2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 14, 2016
- seeker2
Somehow, I don't think we're on the same page. I was referring to super particles created as result of BigBang with no BHs at the time...or stars as yet.
I've heard of primordial black holes supposedly created at the big bang before any stars. But other than that no super particles.
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (17) May 14, 2016
- seeker2
Somehow, I don't think we're on the same page. I was referring to super particles created as result of BigBang with no BHs at the time...or stars as yet.
I've heard of primordial black holes supposedly created at the big bang before any stars. But other than that no super particles.

- seeker2
For the sake of argument, let's say that BB was a real event. But if BHs were already existing, whether Before OR After the BB, how & where did they pop into reality from the great Nothing. There would've had to be a "catalyst" that formed them &gave them certain properties to enable their existence at a quantum level. It is only from supernovae that BHs are capable of forming. If they had been present within the Nothing of whichever size, shape, temperature, etc., then that Nothingness would've had to be Somethingness. I look at it from the POV of pure Logic. A Positive + can't derive from a Negative - UNLESS there was Something Else present in the Nothing to assist
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (18) May 14, 2016
@Noumenon
According to Dictionary, Ontology is the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of Being.
Perhaps it is the Dictionary interpretation of Ontology that has been embedded in the brains of your detractors, rather than the more in-depth version from Wikipedia, which is: "Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of Being, Becoming, Existence, or Reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist, and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. Although ontology as a philosophical enterprise is highly theoretical, it also has practical application in information science and technology, such as ontology engineering." Attention to the last sentence is of prime importance to you, IMO.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (22) May 14, 2016
Do you post anything other than unsubstantiated characterizations and accusations? I know the math of GR and QM, do you? What Phys.Org article has math in it? This is a comment section about science, not a science journal in which to do science

Right. So why are you using it as an excuse to attempt to do science with words?


Who says I'm "doing science" here? That's your invented strawman. I'm making comments/interpretations About science just as everyone else is. I have never advocated a alternative theory to mainstream.

Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (22) May 14, 2016
IMO, in order to substantiate an ontology for space-time, there needs to be an empirically justified dynamical theory for space-time, independent of kinematics

You refer to ontology as something real and useful, correct?


You're not following the thread. I'm not the one saying that spacetime is a "thing" nor that gravity is a "substance". What I mean in context is..... "in order [for them] to substantiate an ontology for space-time,......"

Since they are robust phenomena that happens whether or not we observe them or how we describe them, they are independent and real - Torbjorn

Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (22) May 14, 2016
As you can see from the above quote from Torbjorn,... he is confused about what science says, and because of this his naïveté gives him confidence to engage in metaphysics (making statement about Reality as it exists in itself). First of all, by its very definition, "phenomena" do not exist independent of observation. Secondly, physics knowledge is never independent of its means of description,.... so again such a person who is naive about what science 'can say', are the ones most likely to make metaphysical proclaimations,.... such as that spacetime is a "thing" or that gravity is substantive.

There must be an objective reality that refutes arbitrary theory through experiment, but this Reality is necessarily masked by concepts. For example, do you think the electron IS a point-particle? Well, such a notion is refuted by experiment, because QM shows that the 'conceptual form' (particle / wave) is dependent upon the experimental apparatus and means of description.

Seeker2
2.1 / 5 (7) May 14, 2016
A Positive + can't derive from a Negative - UNLESS there was Something Else present in the Nothing to assist
Does seem rather unlikely that we're the most intelligent beings in the universe!
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (22) May 14, 2016
@Obama_Socks,.... yes exactly. Within the context of science and my comments above, it just means 'what can be said of Reality independent of observation'.

For example, I made a statement about the "ontology" of "independent reality" by saying it must be objective, given that it informs experiment in some way. GhostOfOtto would not disagree with this, therefore he would concure with such a ontology for reality.

My objection in these posts has been to point out the distinction between the 'conceptual form' implicit in the description, From the ontology of independent Reality. For example, the 'electron' is neither a particle nor a wave, .... it's conceptual form being contingent upon experimental conditions and means of description. This is what QM says. Alternative theories that 'escape' this epistemic condition tend to depend on metaphysical entities.

Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (22) May 14, 2016
"There is no way to remove the observer — us — from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception — and hence the observations upon which our theories are based — is not direct, but rather is shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our brains." - Stephen Hawking

Spacetime is a component of phenomenal reality, but it is an epistemic condition for experience and observation to be possible, and therefore is a component of the mind-dependent description. This is why Einstein had to make use of a "operational" or "instrumentalist" definition of time and space in STR/GRT,.... (as representations as physical systems, a clock and rod,... and not "things unto themselves").

Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (22) May 14, 2016
OK, numbnuts, you filthy little beast, I'll have at you. You want to bring Kant into physics? Great. I'll go a few rounds and teach you a thing or two.

You've disgraced the name.


A) And yet you continue to say nothing but "subjective characterizations", devoid of actual substance B) wouldn't a debate about Kant conflict with your entire premise of sock-puppet troll rating me irrespective of content, in the first place? C) what makes you think I would engage someone of your adolescent mentality, even had you demonstrated knowledge of anything, .....which you haven't.

MalleusConspiratori
3.2 / 5 (24) May 14, 2016
So, nou, any remaining shred of credibility you had as a poster has evaporated.

STFU, get the hell off the site, and don't come back.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (20) May 14, 2016
So, nou, any remaining shred of credibility you had as a poster has evaporated.

STFU, get the hell off the site, and don't come back.


No.

You forgot to articulate why. I'm guessing because you can't, troll. How many fake account names do you have? Are you a paraplegic?
BurnsTrollsAlive
May 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
AlbertPierrepointOBE
3.2 / 5 (22) May 14, 2016
Noumenon 1.2 /5 (12) 3 hours ago

OK, numbnuts, you filthy little beast, I'll have at you. You want to bring Kant into physics? Great. I'll go a few rounds and teach you a thing or two.

You've disgraced the name.


A) And yet you continue to say nothing but "subjective characterizations", devoid of actual substance B) wouldn't a debate about Kant conflict with your entire premise of sock-puppet troll rating me irrespective of content, in the first place? C) what makes you think I would engage someone of your adolescent mentality, even had you demonstrated knowledge of anything, .....which you haven't.


ROFLMAO The rude little git answers to "numbnuts". Too funny.

Hey...NUMBNUTS...substance? Substance??? You've provided anti-substance, which is to say that someone has to add shit to your drivel to make it nothing. You're also a lying hypocrite, or is that your divine right to be the prime puppet master? Trolls that yell "liar" always are.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) May 14, 2016
"There is no way to remove the observer — us — from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. (..) - Stephen Hawking

Spacetime is a component of phenomenal reality, but it is an epistemic condition for experience and observation to be possible, (..)mind-dependent description. This is why Einstein had to make use of a "operational" or "instrumentalist" definition of time and space in STR/GRT,.... (as representations as physical systems, a clock and rod,... and not "things unto themselves").

- Noumenon
I was getting ready to refute your assertion wrt "spacetime", but I see by your mention of a clock & rod that we are, after all, in agreement that Time, in and of itself, is NOT within the nature of a dimension as are the 3 "height, width, depth". Many of my posts in this thread have been in argument for the removal of Time in math equations, except as a measurement of duration, distance, etc..
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) May 14, 2016
(cont'd)
Sadly, the Time element in "spacetime" as a configuration of what passes for dimensional reality in Einsteinian math equations has been absorbed as Scripture within the Physics community. Once embedded through the learning process and repeatedly stroked as complete and unequivocal, the term as regarded by those who cannot abide change, and who will be less likely to accept that Time is not, as you have said, a "thing", will resist with vehemence, any new information regarding Time.
Try as they may to observe Time without the benefit of manmade tools, it simply cannot be done. Even the Event Horizon of a Black Hole falls under the categories of Duration, Distance, Motion, Momentum, Event, whether a nanosecond or trillions of years. Time itself flows onward, bypassing BHs and all other matter/energy as though none of it exists.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) May 14, 2016
"There is no way to remove the observer — us — from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception — and hence the observations upon which our theories are based — is not direct, but rather is shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our brains." - Stephen Hawking

- Noumenon
In addition to Dr. Hawking's statement -- I must add that the "brain" is only the PHYSICAL CONDUIT for the Mind to express itself. I equate the Mind with the Soul as Thought, and it is the combination thereof that is able to express itself through the brain's ability to accept input and act upon that input. The brain is a material source of energy that controls the body and all of its abilities (and liabilities). But the brain without Mind, Thought and Soul is totally clueless and renders only as a piece of tissue.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) May 14, 2016
A Positive + can't derive from a Negative - UNLESS there was Something Else present in the Nothing to assist
Does seem rather unlikely that we're the most intelligent beings in the universe!
- seeker2
Humans are most certainly NOT the only ?intelligent? life forms in this Universe. I assure you that there are many others. And judging by the amount of trolling done in this website by the many who have expressed a hatred of scientific discourse, and only wish to make Physorg their personal playground; in addition to all the other trolls of Earth who murder, injure, steal and other ghastly things, I would say that humanity will be considered unacceptable to join with the many other civilizations within the Cosmos to trade and gain knowledge. Although I doubt very much that any of them would require anything from humans.

Really, humanity is a failed experiment.
Seeker2
4.8 / 5 (10) May 14, 2016
Really, humanity is a failed experiment.
Cheers!
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) May 15, 2016
Really, humanity is a failed experiment.
Cheers!

LOL
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (18) May 15, 2016
Here we go
@Obama_Socks,.... yes exactly. Within the context of science and my comments above, it just means 'what can be said of Reality independent of observation'
-Noumenon attempts to discuss formal philosophical mysticism with a kumquat; ie someone who might actually believe he knows what he is talking about.

Ie someone who believes she sees 900ft tall glassy headed Martians in NASA photos.

What's the scientific term for seeing patterns in garbage?
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (11) May 17, 2016
Here we go
@Obama_Socks,.... yes exactly. Within the context of science and my comments above, it just means 'what can be said of Reality independent of observation'


Ie someone who believes she sees 900ft tall glassy headed Martians in NASA photos.
-Otto the Goat

Oh, you STILL didn't provide any evidence that I, or anyone else but YOU, have claimed belief in 900 FOOT GLASSY HEADED MARTIANS. SO WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE WITH THE CORRECT LINK, STUPID? I have searched old threads and the only one who ever claimed seeing 900 foot glassy headed martians in NASA photos IS YOU. You thought you were making fun of the owner of the Photos.

The lady who has those NASA photos in her web pages NEVER said anything about 900 foot tall martians, whether in her website or on a Physorg comments section.
This is further evidence that Theghostofotto1923 suffers from Dunning-Kruger, as well as psychopathy and feels compelled to tell LIES about others to get and maintain attention.
ChiefFartingDog
May 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 19, 2016
@Seeker:
@Seeker, you're awfully close, but you've slipped up in one area: you can see your slip clearly if you study the Einstein Field Equations.
I've been looking at that but I'm no genius like Einstein. Point being you have to include the zero point energy of the vacuum.
Yes; that's Λ, the cosmological constant. It's right there in the EFE.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) May 20, 2016
@Seeker:
@Seeker, you're awfully close, but you've slipped up in one area: you can see your slip clearly if you study the Einstein Field Equations.
I've been looking at that but I'm no genius like Einstein. Point being you have to include the zero point energy of the vacuum.
Yes; that's Λ, the cosmological constant. It's right there in the EFE.
Kudos!
MrData
3 / 5 (4) May 24, 2016
Only energy can exist in 2 space dimensions, not matter, therefore in those universes no one is there to ask the question. Four normal space dimensions don't work either (ignoring the micro-dimensions used in quantum-mechanics). Three is goldilocks and allows someone to ask "why 3?".
MrData
3 / 5 (4) May 24, 2016
Like asking "why am I here?" - it is not possible for you to be anywhere else.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) May 24, 2016
Like asking "why am I here?" - it is not possible for you to be anywhere else.
Actually in the quantum world nobody knows exactly where here is or what time it is. In the macro world we can estimate where we are or what time it is with some probability. Not sure if there's really any difference though.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.