5Likes
In other words?Originally Posted by DrRocket
IF there is a universal frame containing all frames then on pain of paradox it does not contain itself!
Its not clear to us laymen what a "frame" really is, but if they can be identified with (however complex) ordered sets then the theory of frames has a set theorethical model. There is indeed no "set" of all sets but instead there is a "class"containing all sets. Implying that there are exceptional "Universal frames" containing the Ordinary frames.
The idea is that the universal frame is different somehow from other frames... Its just an idea or observation ...not a theory.
Quote Originally Posted by Janus:
While some conditions might effect the effects of aging, they don't alter the actual fact of aging.
If you were able to put a person into a state where he could last 71 years with only 1 year physical change to his body, this does not change the fact that his body still had to exist and was subject to time for 71 years. He would be 71 yrs older, even though his body only showed the effects of 1 yr of aging
However, if a person were to travel relative to the Earth at 99.99% of c, he could return having aged 1 year with 71 years passing on the Earth, and he would only experienced 1 yr of time. Not only would he show the physical effects of 1 yrs aging, he really would be only 1 year older.
Originally Posted by sigurdV:
YES! You are saying exactly the same thing that I say! Congratulations!
But it seems that you dont understand that? Do you think you have contradicted me?
Theres a difference between personal age (telling approximately how long time one can be expected to live)
and age telling how long one has existed.
There are two different aging concepts. You prove that sufficiently. How come you dont accept me proving the same thing?
And what "official name is given to the the different concepts so they can be kept separated, and not be mistaken for each other? I have tried to introduce the terms "official" time or "outside time" for time of existence within the universe or in any frame inside it. Is that Ok with you?
To make sure we see the same facts let us suppose there is a THIRD twin travelling together with his brother , but , hibernating at the same time! That brother would APPEAR zero years older! But his official age is the same as his travel partner. The question I want to be answered is: Has the three brothers been parts of the universe for an equally long time?. From the view of the universe... are they of the same official age or not?
Are all parts of the universe of the same age in the "official" sense? That is: irrespectively of how time dilated they are?
Similarly to the fact that all bodies in the same frame are equally old relative the frame no matter how hibernated they are.
IF you say: "there is no universal frame" THEN you are begging the question!
I have been thinking and posting about this for a long time now and ALL answers have been based on misunderstanding me.
It seems that the basic problem is that, according to theory, time within a frame is always time dilated as an effect of gravity so there cant be a universal frame giving the same age to contents within all frames!
My tentative solution is that the "Universal Frame" contains and relates only THE FRAMES within the universe,
NOT directly the contents within each frame. Then contradiction perhaps is avoided.
The universal frame is not one of its own frames.
I see the situation as perhaps similar to Bertrand Russells paradox:
Its not really so that there is no "set" of all sets...it is a CLASS!
Both Religion and Science are ordered sets of interpretations of facts...
the difference is that The Religious Attitude Towards Interpretation is a Psychosocial Disease.
There is nothing to stop Scientists from having the religious attitude ... as can be seen somewhere I will not point towards
In each frame time ticks differently,xo in a particular frame aging would be 1year only.but with respect to another frame aging could be 10years. A person aging with 1year in its frame might think that someone in another frame aging at 10years,is aging slower than himself or at same rate. But the effect on their body shows its quiet different. And its at this point i feel that consciousness plays a massive role.
The notion of a frame that contains all frames is nonsensical. The relationship among frames is not the relationship between sets and supersets.
A "frame" is a notion that arises in physics, not mathematics. It is simply a choice of a coordinate system that is associated with a given observer.
In mathematical terms a frame is associated with a Euclidean affine space is is a choice of coordinates for that affine space.
While there is no "set of all sets", that statement arises in connection withh axiomatic set theory and Russell's paradox. It has absolutely no bearing whatever on general relativity. The non-existence of a universal reference frame in general relativity is the result of the fact that spacetime in general relativity is a curved Lorentzian manifold which does not admit a covering by a single chart from any atlas that gives spacetime its differentiable structure. The problem lies with manifold theory and topology, not with set theory.
There is no such distinction as that between "Universal frames" and "ordinary frames" -- those terms have no meaning.
You need to read an introductory treatment of differentiable manifolds. Try Differentiable Manifolds by HU.
I already know you believe that. Your proof is missing though.
Im aware of the difference. But are you really denying that a frame and all that can be measured with it...defines uniquely an ordered set?
Thereby establishing a one to one connection between frames and a certain class of ordered sets?
Im not denying that.
How do you know that: "It has absolutely no bearing whatever on general relativity."?
If there is a one to one correspondence between ALL your frames and the elements of a class of ordered sets then the question arises what in reality corresponds to the class! There is no universal "frame" but what guarantee do you have that there is no "super frame"? ...
You were not expecting it to exist therefore it does not exist!?
You are all the time coming back to the same fact: The theory you use does not apply to the universe as a whole!
Why dont you go all the way and deny that there is a universe containing your frames?
Do you have an idea of what is meant by "meaning" or is it just something you say when you lack a good argument?
This is what frustrated opponents usually do...they suggest I go buy a book they select.
No thanks! (But stick it into my hands and I might read it
I ASK if there isnt a one to one correspondense between all the frames in the universe and the elements of a class of ordered sets.
Thinking of frames they look like ordered sets of elements to me.
So I wait for the argument proving there is no ordered set that can be identified with a frame and its content.
Which would exclude an isomorph relation between the universes of Physics and Set Theory.
I think that would surprise Set Theoricians all over the world, and thats why Im not expecting any such valid argument.
I am surprised the question wasnt raised before...I think the word "frame" is very,very, old and meant originally approximately "set".
A universal frame cannot exist to a being who is located in a spacetime and with its own coordinate and time.the term universal should be ascribe to an external observer whos spacetime is not located in our universe.and hence he sees all frame of refrence. Think of it as an existing creator.
Because he knows GR. You don't.How do you know that: "It has absolutely no bearing whatever on general relativity."?
That would be because you don't seem to understand what a frame of reference isThinking of frames they look like ordered sets of elements to me.
Heh! Do you mind if I dont? But I find your view refreshing. You see I assume every frame has outside time and inside time never with the same speed. So the universal frame , as I assume it , IS embedded in a larger frame
The universal frame is a limit. Wherever we go we bring our frame with us. If we seek out the place with the lowest gravitational effect, time in our frame still progresses slower than the universal time. Suppose we detect variations in the speed of our local time while being in the location...what would explain the variations?
Age is at least of two sorts: Looking at a stone you can ask when it was separated from the cliff and you get the inside age of that particular stone. If you instead ask when the mineral the stone consists of was formed then you get the outside age of the stone. Theres of course an Ultimate Outside Age when you ask how long it has been a part of the universe. Then its internal condition in the interval has nothing at all to do with its age. And its age is simply the same as the age of the universe.
This difference between outside and inside age shows clearly if the returning twin in Einsteins famous Twin Experiment returns home to find his brother not to be an old man but instead looking to be of the same age as himself!
Not possible according to relativity you say? Well he has been hibernating most of the time and bodily processes (internal remember!) dont proceed with the same speed as outside processes! So the home staying brother has a very different inside age from his outside age! Making his inside age the same as his brothers outside age!
Im not saying theres something intrinsically wrong with the theory of relativity only that when you say that different parts of the universe can have different ages I counter that they all have the same outside age with respect to the universe! No matter what their internal state of affairs are!
The relations between outside and inside affairs are not sufficiently investigated in my opinion, and heres a question made up for you:
Is origin of consciousness established at some limit of inside affairs?
This forum was founded with the expressed intent of trying to exclude woo.
It didn't work.
Lucky you!
And you are continuously demonstrating your failure to understand that GR is independent of any particular choice of frame or coordinate basis, and thus your above statement is not just wrong, but also nonsensical. Why is this so difficult to grasp for you ?You are all the time coming back to the same fact: The theory you use does not apply to the universe as a whole!
Actually, the basic idea was not so much to exclude woo, but to keep it confined to where it belongs, namely "Alternatives" or "Trash Can". I think thus far that is working pretty well.
The answer to your origin of consciousness ..... Can only be answered if we knew what consciousness really is. If consciousness is material,i.e of the brain then there should be no reason to think of two types of aging.since both would be affected by time dilation.
I gave you some suggested references. I can suggest and have suggested references that can help to ameliorate a state of ignorance. Other shortcomings are beyond my ability to provide help.I already know you believe that. Your proof is missing though.
Im aware of the difference. But are you really denying that a frame and all that can be measured with it...defines uniquely an ordered set?
Thereby establishing a one to one connection between frames and a certain class of ordered sets?
Im not denying that.
How do you know that: "It has absolutely no bearing whatever on general relativity."?
If there is a one to one correspondence between ALL your frames and the elements of a class of ordered sets then the question arises what in reality corresponds to the class! There is no universal "frame" but what guarantee do you have that there is no "super frame"? ...
You were not expecting it to exist therefore it does not exist!?
You are all the time coming back to the same fact: The theory you use does not apply to the universe as a whole!
Why dont you go all the way and deny that there is a universe containing your frames?
Do you have an idea of what is meant by "meaning" or is it just something you say when you lack a good argument?
This is what frustrated opponents usually do...they suggest I go buy a book they select.
No thanks! (But stick it into my hands and I might read it
I ASK if there isnt a one to one correspondense between all the frames in the universe and the elements of a class of ordered sets.
Thinking of frames they look like ordered sets of elements to me.
So I wait for the argument proving there is no ordered set that can be identified with a frame and its content.
Which would exclude an isomorph relation between the universes of Physics and Set Theory.
I think that would surprise Set Theoricians all over the world, and thats why Im not expecting any such valid argument.
I am surprised the question wasnt raised before...I think the word "frame" is very,very, old and meant originally approximately "set".
Did I say GR is dependent of any particular choice of frame or coordinate basis?
Why are you claiming I say things I dont say!
What do you find wrong and non sensical in this quote: The theory you use does not apply to the universe as a whole!
Are you saying GR applies on the universe as a whole? Or are you saying it doesnt?
Make up your mind!
I AM saying that is DOES NOT: Are you claiming the negation of that or not?
Unless there is a reason to believe otherwise consciousness is material.
But it has external and internal aspects... When one is UNCONSCIOUS then it is only consciousness seen internally that is gone...
externally the mind is still existing. Otherwise its state of unconsciousness could never end.
A proof that no frame used in SR or GR is describable as an ordered set would be appreciated.
Perhaps you dont know what an ordered set is?
If so there are books on the subject you can consult.
Do you claim that no frame used in SR or GR is describable as an ordered set?
Or do you agree that frames can be considered as ordered sets?
I do indeed know what it means for a set to be ordered, or partially ordered. That sort of knowledge is rather common among professional mathematicians.
However, it is abundantly clear that you are clueless. The concept of an order has nothing whatever to do with the notion of frames, as the term is used in either SR or GR.
I think that you need to learn some mathematics, but given your apparent level of confusion I am not able to suggest a suitable starting point.
Your request for a proof that frames are not ordered sets is rather like asking for a proof that a hamburger is not an orange.
You are claiming that there is such a thing as "universal time", meaning you claim that there is a coordinate system which is valid globally and thus more fundamental than others. This is tantamount of there being a specific coordinate system against which physics can be measured.
So yes, that is exactly what you are saying.
1) We have known for a century that there are cosmological solution to the GR field equations, i.e. that GR can be used to model cosmological evolutionWhat do you find wrong and non sensical in this quote: The theory you use does not apply to the universe as a whole!
2) Precisely because the theory is independent of any particular coordinate basis it is thus valid everywhere locally, given the basic postulates of the theory
Yes. The obvious example here would be the Lambda-CDM model upon which standard cosmology is based; it is just a particular solution to the GR field equations based on a certain set of assumptions.Are you saying GR applies on the universe as a whole?
I give up. What does the word woo mean?
This thread seems to be quite a mess. I see people talking about frames of reference but I can't find where anyone has actually taken the time to define the term. Let me take that time
Observer = An individual equipped with a clock a a measuring rod or ruler.
Frame of Referance - Observer's clock ruler and coordinate axes.
I'm sure that there are slight variations of this definition since its nearly impossible to get everyone to agree on all the definitions of the terms used in physics. This is a good example of where there will be variations in a definition. I believe other physicists define the term in other ways. This particular definition is defined in D'Inverno's text. The term observer as defined by Taylor and Wheeler in Exploring Black Holes is as follows
Observer - Collection of rods and recording clocks associated with a given frame of reference.
They don't define the term frame of reference though.
Personally I'd define these terms a follows
Observer = A coolection of recording clocks and measuring rods.
Frame of Referance - Observer's clock ruler and spatial coordinate system.
According to this definition, a universal frame of all frames is meaningless.
I just looked at A first course in general relativity by Schutz. This author defines "observer" as simply a coordinate system for spacetime.
If you think about it, this isn't too different than those I mentioned above.
I disagree with the assertions that you quoted in your first post, i.e.
By the way. I don't know why but it seems like a lot of people like to use the term chart. Sometimes I think people use it to intimidate layman. In case you're not familiar with the term it's simply a fancy-shmancy way of saying coordinate system. The term chart is a term normally used by mathematicians and this is a physics discussion forum and not a math forum I’ll be sticking to the term coordinate system.The critical insight of Einstein's general theory of relativity is that there is no such thing as time nor any such thing as space when the universe is viewed globally. "Time" and "space" are local notions only.
I believe this assertion to be quiet wrong. The reason he made this assertion seems to be due to the general nature of a manifold that he's assuming. In general one cannot cover an entire manifold with a single coordinate system. However one can certainly do it for some manifolds like a plane. In any case the points on the surface of the sphere are still there. One can even attach labels to them. We can’t use a single coordinate system for the entire Earth we can certainly use the name for each city on the surface of the Earth even with no coordinate system. This is like saying “The point A”. Instead we’d say “The center of the city of Boston.” So even if we have a spacetime manifold onto which we cannot use a single coordinate system we certainly can label each event on the manifold. E.g. (Christmas at center of Boston, Boston), (Easter at center of Las Vegas, Las Vegas), (New Years Eve at center of Washington DC, Washington DC) etc. On a two dimensional sphere one requires two numbers to uniquely determine a point. But the points in space are not the same as the points in spacetime. Spacetime is composed of both space and time, hence the location and time of event. Even though we don’t have a single clock to label events they are still events and still have a meaning for time and space. Every event in the universe cane be labeled even if we don’t have a single coordinate system to label them with. Points on a manifold are given letters like “The point A on the manifold.” In the same way we can label events in spacetime as “The event Q in the spacetime manifold.” To each event there is a physical meaning, one spatial and one temporal. It is for this reason that both space and time still exist without the existence of a single coordinate system to label them globally. It's for this read why we know that space exists around a black hole even though we can't globally label the space aroiund it with a single coordinate system.
While I'm not 100% certain of this I'm quite comfortable holding to it. Howerver just as any article a physicist or a mathematician wishes to submit to a journal I thought it best to get a second opinion for this same reason on this one particular topic. I happen to have a friend who is an expert on this particular subject. He told me that when he got to his office this week that he'd mail me a cooy of the papers he's written on this subject. I'll be glad to share this in PM for the truly interested. I don't wish to spell out my friends names on this forum. I already made that mistake once already
In any case space and time most certainly exist everywhere in the universe regarldess of whther we have given them a names or not. Its events that are the meat of relativity. And who knows, perhaps the structure of the universe allows for a single global coordinate system, so long as we're interested in cosmology rather than a particular black hole.
I disagree with the assertions that you quoted in your first post, i.e.
I don't know why but it seems like a lot of people like to use the term chart. Sometimes I think it's to intimidate layman. In case you're not familiar with the term it's simply a fancy synonymn for coordinate system. The term chart is a term normally used by mathematicians. Since this is a physics discussion forum and not a math forum I’ll use coordinate system.The critical insight of Einstein's general theory of relativity is that there is no such thing as time nor any such thing as space when the universe is viewed globally. "Time" and "space" are local notions only.
I believe that the reason he made this assertion is rooted in the general nature of a manifold and a misconception of the nature of what a point in spacetime is. In general one cannot cover an entire manifold with a single coordinate system (whereas one can certainly do it for some manifolds like a saddle).
Consider the commonly used example of a sphere. There exists no coordinate system which can be used to cover the entire surface of a sphere. E.g. the coordinate system of latitude and longitude does not cover the entire surface of a sphere since it doesn't give unique coordinates for the north and south poles.
In any case the points on the surface of the sphere are still there and are still spatial points regardless of the fact that there does not exist a unique coordinate system to cover the entire surface of the sphere. I can refer to a point on the surface as A without defining using a coordinate system.
The same idea holds for events on a spacetime manifold. But with spacetime its different in that to each point we associate an event rather than a spatial location. An event being something like Firecracker explode in the center of Boson. Intrinsic to the event is the temporal concept Firecracker explodes and the spatial concept Center of Boston. Therefore even though we have a spacetime manifold onto which we cannot use a single coordinate system each event on the manifold is an event and can be tagged as an event.
Instead of saying
spatial point A = P(A) = P(center of London)
we can say
spacetime event E = P(E) = P(T, A) = P(firecracker explodes, center of Boston)
To each event there is a physical meaning, one spatial and one temporal. It is for this reason that both space and time still exist without the existence of a single coordinate system to label them globally.
Actually the Lambda-CDM model is only one specific instance of the more general fact that ALL of modern cosmology is founded on models that arise from general relativity. It is simply the general relativistic model of spacetime under the assumption that the cosmological constant is a small positive number, which is choses so as to match the empirical observation of the accelerating expansion of space. No one has a clue what causes that constant to be what it seems to be. Our best attempt at a fundamental understanding of that constant, the calculation of the vaccuum energy using quantum electrodynamics, is off by 120 orders of magnitude, which is likely the largest predictive error in all of physics. (that is an error FACTOR of 1 follwed by 120 zeros.)
What we call "the universe" is either the entire spacetime manifold, or a 3-dimensional hypersurface that arises from an assumption that spacetime is homogeneous and isotropic and therefore admits a foliation into 3-dimensional spacelike hypersurfaces by a timelike parameter. But in any case the initial assumption starts with the spacetime manifold which encompasses all of time and all of space. In that sense general relativity is indeed universal, as it is the fundamental theory which gives us spacetime -- and spacetime is the whole enchilada.
Now, general relativity, like all current theories, is known to be incomplete. For instance, we know that general relativity and quantum theory are fundamentally incompatible. We also know that our current quantum theories are unable to address gravitation. Either, by themselves, are very good models within limitations -- i.e. within their domain of validity. But none of our theories are, in the final analysis, completely "correct". General relativity breaks down in situations in which quantum effects appear to be important -- in particular near the "big bang" and deep within the event horizon of black holes. This may be what the singularity theorems are telling us. In any case, general relativity is the best available theory of gravitation, and that theory applies universally within the known limitations, but genrealy relativity is probably not the final theory of gravitation. Neither are quantum field theories, the best available theory of forces other than gravity and theories that we believe operate everywhere in the universe, likely the final theories of those forces.
Physics is an active research science. That makes it exciting and a fruitful use of intellectual energy. But it also makes it a work in progress, and a discipline in which there are many gaps in our knowledge, potential inconsistencies in our theories, and areas of near total ignorance. That said, there is a great deal that is known and physics progresses by expanding that refining that which is known. Gaps in our knowledge are not invitations to the lunatic fringe to toss out the baby with the bath water, and foist nonsense off on the public at large.
Actually a chart at a given point, is a neighborhood of that point and a homeomorphism of that neighborhood onto an open set in some Euclidean space. It does not necessarily imply a coordinate system, although one can carry a coordinate system from the Euclidean space to the neighborhood via the homeomorphism. In order to make sense of this one does have to understand enough topology to know what a homeomorphism is, and that Euclidean spaces of different dimension are not homeomorphic.I disagree with the assertions that you quoted in your first post, i.e.
I don't know why but it seems like a lot of people like to use the term chart. Sometimes I think it's to intimidate layman. In case you're not familiar with the term it's simply a fancy synonymn for coordinate system. The term chart is a term normally used by mathematicians. Since this is a physics discussion forum and not a math forum I’ll use coordinate system.
I believe that the reason he made this assertion is rooted in the general nature of a manifold and a misconception of the nature of what a point in spacetime is. In general one cannot cover an entire manifold with a single coordinate system (whereas one can certainly do it for some manifolds like a saddle).
.
The reason that I made the assertion with which you disagree, is that the assertion is correct. Your disagreement simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of both general relativity and the nature of manifolds. A coordinate system and a chart are fundamentally different things and use of the terms interchangeably creates a great deal of confusion.
It would be acceptable to use the term "local coordinate system" for a chart, but when one omits the term "local" then the meaning is distorted to the point at which critical technical content is lost. In particular in a coordinate system one is tempted to apply ordinary calculus of several variables without taking into account the fact that a manifold, unlike a coordinate patch in Euclidean space, can have significant curvature and that therefore one needs to use tools like the covariant derivative rather that simply using partial derivatives. Hence the assertion that a chart is simply a coordinate system is both incorrect and fundamentally misleading.
A point in spacetime is a point on the Lorentzian manifold that is spacetime. It is that simple. Such points are called "events" in the general theory of relativity.
Again you make over-simplifications that are both incorrect and misleading.
The critical insight that Einstein made in formulating general relativity is that there is no such thing as "time" by itself nor "space" by itself. This becomes clear even in special relativity when one understands Minkowski space and the Minkowski metric. What one observer sees as time a second observer sees otherwise. In special relativity the decomposition of spacetime into space and time is dependent on the observer, but for any single observer there is a well-defined global notion of both time and space. It is just that different observers see different global decompositions. That is the nature of the Poincare group of transformations.
The situation in general relativity is rather different. In general relativity one has LOCAL coordinate systems at any given point that are relatable via Lorentz transformations (spacetime is a Lorentzian 4-manifold). However, the fundamental object of general relativity is an intrinsic Lorentzian 4-manifold, with no global notion of time and no global notion of space. One meaningful notions of time and space only at a point, or more colorfully only in an infinitesimal neighborhood of a point. Wheeler et al try to make this point in Gravitation by noting that one cannot compare "time here" to "time there" nor "space here" to "space there". This is not dependent on the fact that one may nor be able to cover the spacetime manifold with a single chart. Even for points in a single chart, if those points are separated spatiallly one cannot meaningfully compare times at those points. In fact in general relativity the notion of time is intrinsic to a world line and, up to a scale factor, the time associated with a segment of a world line is simply the length of the world line as measured using the spacetime metric. This results in that length being called "proper time" or sometimes "wristwatch time". In any case the only time that is measured by any clock is the proper time of the world line of the clock.
It is not that any physical event is associated with a time coordinate and a spatial coordinate. Rather in general relativity events are the points that make up the spacetime manifold. Given some arbitraty local coordinate system, one can then associate a time and spatial coordinate with the event, but those coordinates have meaning only in the context of the arbitrary local coordinate system that has been selected. The physical event has a meaning and an existence quite independent of any coordinate system.
Coordinates are sometimes necessary in order to relate events to measurements made using laboratory instruments. But events are what is physical, while coordinates are artificial and over-reliance on coordinates can get in the way of understanding the fundamentals of the theory. The whole point of Einstein's insistence on the formulation of general relativity as a "generally covariant" theory is that coordinates are not only unnecessary, but in many cases obscure fundamental issues.
Please refrain from "clarifying" my statements when you don't know what in the hell you are talking about.
There is good possibility for an existing frame. This can be only possible when we can for sure say that what einstein considered as spacetime is physical.
I don't understand what you mean by "possibility for an existing frame"? What frame are you talking about? And why should there be any confusion regarding the existance of a frame?
Question: Is this thread dead?
I was tossing this around in e-mail with some physicists I know to add to what I've already said. In one mail he showed me a nice way to demonstrate how obviously wrong this viewpoint of yours is. He wrote Think about the big bang and the accelerated expansion of the universe without space and time. I can't. which is a statement that is (1) obviously true and (2) does not require a global coordinate system to understand it. It's only when one wishes to have a certain level of precision does one need coordinates.
The word "accelerated" has the concept of time embedded in it while the word "expansion" has the concept of space embedded in.
I believe what DrRocket was referring to are global notions of same. There is no global time, and there is also no global notion of spatial distance; these are all local concepts.
Then you need to expand your circle of physicists to incluce some more competent ones, or else you need to improve your own knowledge of the subject so as to understand what they are saying.
In fact, in order to speak of the big bang and the accelerated expansion of space one need to make some rather restrictive assumptions. If you assume that the universe if both homogeneous and isotropic, which it manifestly is not except as an approximation on the very largest of scales, then spacetime decomposes as a foliation by a time-like parameter into 3-dimensional space-like hypersurfaces (this is a theorem of Geroch). With that idealization the time-like parameter serves as a surrogate for time and the hypersurfaces, which inherit a true Riemannian metric from the Lorentzian metric of spacetime, serve as surrogates for space. The notion that "space is expanding" and "the rate of expansion of space is accelerating" then refer to the separation of points on those parameterized hypersurfaces as measured using the inherited metric.
This idealization is indeed used very widely in cosmology precisely because most people find it difficult to speak in terms that are not precise when viewed in the context of general relativity. Indeed words like acceleration and expansion, with their roots in a Newtonian picture of the universe, do indeed bring to mind both "time" and "space". However, a more sophisticated and proper view of physics, in the light of what general relativity is all about recognizes that both "time" and "space" are in reality not the concepts of Newtonian mechanics but rather are local concepts only.
In short, as usual you don't know what you are talking about and are merely paroting words that you don't understand. You impress me not in the least in that you have "toosed and e-mail" around with a physicist or that you have provided comments to Taylor on a possible revision to his book. In fact Taylor has requested comments from anybody and everybody on the planeet via his web site. There are comments and then there are coments by people competent to have a valid opinion.
The FACT that space and time are local notions is brought rather clearly and repeatedly in the better texts on general relativity. In particular it made abundantly clear by Wheeler et al in Gravitation, but really comes simply from the realization that spacetime is a curved Lorentzian manifold. That trumps any e-mail opinion that you may have run across.
I agree. That's why I quoted him saying in part when the universe is viewed globally. and why I said does not require a global coordinate system to understand it.
I disagree for the reasons already stated. If you can prove my statements wrong then I welcome your input.
Let me explain more: Consider an arbitrary spacetime manifold. What does each point on the manifold correspond to?
That is not an explanation. It is simply evidence of ignorance, and a failure to even recognize that ignorance.
A point on the spacetime manifold is a point on the spacetime manifold, nothing more and nothing less. In general relativity such points are called events. But there is no inherent notion of either space or time attached to that point. The notions of space and time come only after one has identified a specific observer at that point, and then one may associate a LOCAL coordinate system to that observer.
Until you understand that you will not properly appreciate either the meaning or the power of general relativity.
You really do need to educate yourself a bit with regard to the mathematics that is relevant to general relativity. You might start with learning what is entailed in the term "mamifold" -- see for instance the many references to texts on differential geometry elsewhere in the forum.
I agree with you..GR in only applied within Our Universe (Our Scale Range...or Frame)...but beyond these limits I propose (although we can not prove yet) will may govern other "laws" and physical models (and mathematicians), although the underlying laws of the universe are unique globally, these can manifest differently.
Please, consider your ideas an theory adding the concepts of:
. Multi- Dimensions: As you sat withinOur Universe we have a 4D Framework...but beyond they can be moer (4D+6D else beyond 10 ^- 35 meters and 4D+1D else beyond 10 ^+ 30 meters)
- Multi Scales Levels: Why we cannot consider that the Global universe is so big as since 10^-1000 meters till 10^+1000 meters...or more?
Does fits with your Multi-Frame theory?...Does it helps you?....does it give a large frame to you?
Please, what it means WOO ?
Woo is nonsenseical crap posing as science.Please, what it means WOO ?
It's a rather informal term, and this article nicely sums it up.
"Gravitational attraction simply results when an electromagnetic field is saturated by highly-energetic aether vortexes" <-- an example of woo.
P.S. The above statement is self-explanatory, and it alone already goes against mainstream theory. However, if a person happens to make this statement, and also backs it up with mathematical rigor and valid scientific reasoning, then that's a different story.
Last edited by epidecus; 02-17-2013 at 05:00 PM. Reason: Irrelevant drivel.
Well... My WOO oppinion is that FRAME = DIMENSION..... As much DIMENSIONS...more FRAMES....
And then 5D include 4D....Multi-Dimensions imply Multy-Frames....
Our Universe ia a 4D and need a 4D FRAME....but if there are 5D ... we will need a 5D FRAME...and so on....
There are more than 4D somewhere?... Where are them?...Whithin Planck Dimension?..... Just in Our Universe?...Out of Our Universe?...In Other Space-Time Scales?
That is the question !!!!....This question includes and encompasses your FRAME discussion....Isn´t it ??
What little we know of the universe is based on general relativity. General relativity models the universe as a Lorentzian 4-manifold, which is, among other things, a manifold of dimension 4. Any connected manifold, Lorentzian or otherwise, is of a single fixed dimension everywhere. IF spacetime were to be a disconnected manifold, it would not matter since we would have contact only with our connected component.
Thus the notion of dimension varying with location, is not possible within the current conceptual and mathematical framework. If you have some alternative to general relativity then:
a) provide a complete mathematical description of that theory and
b) provide a body of evidence to suggest that it is a better model than is general relativity.
I rather doubt that you can do either.
As to the issue of physics at various scales, it is obvious from observational data that the universe is indeed large. It is also obvious that there is interesting physics at the scale of the very small. We do not know how to describe the important physics across this range of scales with any single unified theory -- yet.
Uneducated opinions are worth very little. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but that lends no value to it.
Please consider actually taking that medicine that the nice doctor prescribed, to the schedule that is noted on the bottle.
All you are saying is that our universe could posses more dimensions.we have long use 3D before einstein introduced 4D.but it was clear that time became part of space. Now what possible units will make this other possible dimensions.
What"s about the Kaluza-Klein Theory : String Theory propose that the these extra dimensions would be 6, and these should be rolled in a Calabi-Yau 6D shape, within the Plank Volume.
And what´s about the theory so-called Brane Cosmology propose that the visible part of our four-dimensional universe is limited to a brane in a higher dimensional space called the "bulk"
OK..I agree with you...but, please, don´t sat that GR and SR is proved for the whole universe...it is only proved for our known universe...but we don´t know what will happen beyond its limmits !!
Here is the "Alternative theories and new ideas" forum... so why we have to the mainstream theories?... I supose that this forum is to discuss and exchange different ideas and proposals beyond the mainstream .... but you are invited to destroy these new ideas...but with arguments... but not by only saying that they are not accepted by the mainstream science...or they are not proved...or...so on...with so low level arguments !!!
Please, be more critical, and use more elaborate arguments to refute ideas in this forum.
These are all interesting models, but they are only hypothesis. None of these have as per yet been empirically tested, and as per yet none of these give us any new physics.
We have no reason to assume that the laws of physics vary across the universe.OK..I agree with you...but, please, don´t sat that GR and SR is proved for the whole universe...it is only proved for our known universe...but we don´t know what will happen beyond its limmits !!
DrRocket can be a little abrupt at times, but all he was really trying to point out to you is that our personal opinions and theories are not necessarily of any scientific value. They are just, well, personal opinions. He possesses a wealth of knowledge and understanding, so you'd be well advised to disregard his style, and consider the substance in his posts instead.
Also, just because this is the "Alternatives" section doesn't mean we won't point out fallacies in reasoning or science.
What about them ?
Kaluza-Klein theory was a higher dimensional theory of electormagnetism that did not pan out.
String theory, in the current version DOES NOT predict 6 extra spatial dimensions, but quite a few more. In fact if a Calabi-Yau manifold of dimension 6 is the part of the picture that you suggest then the dimension of spacetime would be 10. String theory has not produced any new physics either, and is in fact not even well defined. M-theory is even less well-defined than string theory and any cosmology based on this theory that no one can even define is nothing more than a flight of fantasy.
None predict varying dimensions or anything of the sort. Whatever the dimension might be it is that dimension everywhere.
NO scientific theory is ever "proved". The best that can be said for a scientific theory is that it is self-consistent and non contradicted by any empirical evidence. Therefore NO scientific theory can extend beyond the "known universe", but of course there is no point whatever in discussing any "unknown universe" whatever that might be.
That said, the theories of science, so far as is known and so far as is supported by either theory or experimental evidence, apply EVERYWHERE.
Actually this venue is a nice container for WOO and outright insanity, which helps to prevent infection of more serious discussions.
Elaborate critical arguments are neither necessary nor desirable when dealing with illogical and factually false notions. Simple is most certainly more elegant and effective.
Mainstream science does not require adherence to dogma. In fact the essence of scientific research is the challenging of the status quo. What science does require, however, is an adherence to rigor in the methodology of inquiry. If you have a new idea, and can back it up with sound reasoning and supportive experimental data, then you will be taken very seriously indeed. If all that you can do is spout nonsense then you will be dismissed out of hand. Thus far in this thread, no meritorious new idea is evident.
Actually Newtonian mechanics is also based on a 4-dimensional spacetime. Einstein simply showed us that the the geometry of that spacetime is rather different from that of Newton and that the notions of time and space, rather than being absolute, are locally dependent on the observer.
The speculative theories of the present time may have higher dimensional settings, but the extra dimensions are all spatial. We know what the uniits are (pick you favorite unit of length, say the meter) if it turns out that these ideas represent reality.
Yes, i know that they are only "possible" hypotesis... but all mainstream science starts with an hypotesis.... viable but...to be proved...
Buy also we have no reason to assume that the laws of physics don´t vary across the "different sacales" of universe. E.g. QM is very different to GR and SR...we are trying to join by M-Theory...but what will happen in a SCALE of 10^+1000 meters? ... and in a SCALE of 10^-1000 meters?... Which model, pattern-FRAME will work there?
While mainstream science may start with a hypothesis, that hypothesis must be consistent with the mountain of experimental evidence that supports existing theories. And because it must be consistent with that body of data, it must also be consistent with existing theories within their established domains of validity. So, to be taken seriously anyone proposing new theories must first be thoroughly grounded in the existing theories, understand the basis for those theories, the mathematics attendant to their formulation, the experiments that support them and limitations of them.
Imagination is not enough. All good researchers possess imagination in abundance. Research is the highest form of imagination. But it is imagination that is tightly constrained by logic and by knowledge of the data base of carefully contrived and carefully controlled experiment.
Imagination ihallucinationatioin. And an open mind is not an empty head.
We have every reason to believe that the laws of physics do not vary from location to location. Spectral analysis of stars is quite successful and would not be so if the physics that governs the distant stars and galaxies were different from the physics that we see in our laboratories.
We also have reason to believe that the laws of physics are the same at all scales, though the effects that dominate at very large scales may differ from the effects that dominate at atomic scales. Gravity, for instance, is quite clearly a dominant force at the scale of the very large. Gravity is not very important at atomic scales. However, what happens at scales substantially smaller than the atomic scale is pretty much a mystery, and there is responsible speculation that gravity may become again a dominant effect at unimaginably small scales. At atomic and nuclear scales we have viable theories of the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions. The weak and strong interactions seem to be finite extent, but the electromagnetic force is infinite extent, and we are fortunate that such is the case, else we could not penetrate the universe with our telescopes.
But, while effects of scale may determine what physics is dominant at some scale, in principle the laws of physics operate at any and all scales. There is no clear-cut separation of scales at which this or that approximation is the proper model. The whole point of string theory, for instance, is to develop a single unified theory that includes all of the four forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, weak force) and at all scales.
What is apparently limited by scale are our current models, which are generally recognized as being only approximations to the actual laws of physics. Thus general relativity is not compatible with quantum mechanics, and therefore is not a good mathematical model when one must deal with fundamental particles at the atomic scale and below. Similarly quantum field theories, since they are formulated on flat space-times, are not good mathematical models when dealing with scales of the very large in the presence of significant quantities of matter/energy which cause curvature of spacetime. These are limitations of our mathematical models for the laws of physics and out imperfect understanding, but neither necessarily nor probably limitations of the laws of physics themselves.
I agree with most of your comments...Any new idea or proposal to be accepted by mainstream... has to be proved and/or demostrated.
But just some points of disagreement:
But before any new idea can be proved or demostrate...it is required:
- To accept that could be a good hypotesis (that it is coherent and possible)
- To define and to describe how it could be proved and demostrated (maths analysis or experiments)
Does the present forum accet ideas and proposals at this first stage of development..or you only accept proved and demostrated ideas?
Is this forum a platform to guide to new proposals to be developed (proved and demostrate) in team work?... Obviously after being accept that could be a good hypotesis .
You only have into account the scales we know....Why do you accept that there are only four field fprces?... Just 100 years ago only there was two..and 200 years ago one....and 500 years ago no one !!!... How many forces fields we wil know in 100 years?.
Nowadays we know since 10^-35 to 10^+26 meters.... how this spectra will be extended?... M-Theory could be good for this known spectra...but what will happen beyond these limmits?
That depends on what you mean by "accept".
An idea is "accepted" in science when it is clearly described, when it is supported by ALL valid experimental and observational data, and when it provides insight by means of making predictions that are eventually consitent with future experiments.
That is different meaning of the "accepted" then what it means for an article to be accepted by a journal for publication or even less formally for a post to be accepted by a forum.
In the case of this particular forum, which is set aside for "new ideas", as far as I can see there are no criteria beyond legality, civility, and absence of pornography.
However, NO public forum is a viable venue for a collaboration on any genuinely new research concept. Nor, given the current state of physics, is it reasonable for any layman to believe that he is in any position to contribute to the theories that lie at the heart of theoretical physics. There are just too many professionals, trying (without much success of late) to develop theories that go beyond general relativity and the standard model (e.g. string theories) and the tools required are of a level of sophistication that one requires several years of post-graduate study simply in order to be able to understand the statement of the problems at the frontiers of research.
Moreover, anyone who would actually make advancements at this level would find a public forum to be the very last place in which such work would be announced. That is the purpose of professional journals and ArXiv.
There are four known forces (more properly called interactions at the level of quantum fields), three of which are described by the Standard Model, and one of which is the province of general relativity. It may be that there are other forces. Rumors of such being discovered have occurred in the past and have turned out to be dead ends, but it could happen. On the other hand there are NO hints of any such additional interactions at this time, in proposed theoretical models such as string theory or in any experimental data. That might change, but don't hold your breath.
You obviously have little concept of what "scale" means. As you have been told, there is a difference between the physics that is important at different scale levels, and the laws of physics themselves.
M Theory might well be good for somethiing, but no one knows what. In fact there is no one on the planet who can even define what M-theory is. Witten gave a talk in 1995 and subsequently published a paper suggesting that the various viable string theories of the time might in fact be different aspects of a single theory. He called it M Theory. He offered a plausibility argument for that suggestion, but provided no proof. A proof would likely be in the form of a "dictionary" translating among the string theories in question. No one has since produced the necessary dictionary. No one knows what M-theory actually is. In fact the question "What is M Theory ?" is the central question in the subject.
Ed Witten is a roaring genius, and he has been unable to push either string theory or M Theory to the point of being well-defined formulated in the mathematical sense, or to the point of making any testable physical predictions. A layman has zero chance.
Nobody has a clue what the limitations of M Theory might be. How could they, since no one knows precisely what it is ? Many string theorists hope that it will be a final non-perturbative theory that has no a priori limits and encompasses ALL of the fundamental forces of nature. On the other hand string theorists tend to have high hopes and produce little or no real physics. Only time will tell.
What is clear is that you need to learn one hell of a lot more about that physics that is known, the basis for those theories and their limitations before you can talk intelligently about what is not yet known and the research that is being conducted to push back the frontiers.
It is corious that internet (and forums,...) has find a lot of new applications (discuss, link, people simultaneous engineering, online business,...)... but not develope new physics Hypotesis... in team work.
Everybody is still waiting as many years ago a genious (Witten,...) who makes the job..and then everibody accept and defend it ...But time change...and nowadays TEAM WORK is the future !!!!... and internets (and some forums) could help on it.
Nowadays is necessary multi-disciplinar work and knowledge... and ONE only person cannot do it !!!
And also is required very expencives instruments and equipment to prove and experiment (CERN, HUBBLE, ...)
I heve very clear what "scale" means....and it is different to "distance" ..that it is why you confuse both!!!!...Please, think just a moment on it !!
As I said ...nowaday multidisciplinary knowledge is required.
And some times ...the trees doesn´t let you see the whole forest !!!
Yep. In this case mathematics (particularly differential geometry, algebraic geometry, and functional analysis) and physics (particularly quantum field theory and general relativity).
Go learn some, then you might be able to comment from a basis of a bit of knowledge.
No one ever developed a viable theory by babbling. What is required is imagination butressed and constrained by a firm grasp of what others who came before you have established, and the limitations of those theories.
I have spent quite a bit of time in the forest, and am more than capable of spotting the bewildered doe hiding in the brush as well as being able to note the features of the landscape which certainly includes the forest. In fact I recently completed instructing a class and certifying successful students so that too could purchase the requisite permits to indulge in the same pastime.
What is blatantly clear is that one cannot properly understand the forest if one is oblivious to the trees. It also helps a bit to have knowledge of the fauna so that does not find oneself being eaten by the local dominant predator (or in scientific terms making a blunder in contradiction to that which is well established and the mountain of experimental data that supports it).
Last edited by DrRocket; 02-27-2013 at 05:03 AM.
OK..so there is no any possibility of discussing and work about ideas beyond mainstream....I´ll be witing for genious news!!!... I hope they will be more lucky than me and find people to discuss and improve !!!
We are not restricted to make observations,deductions,hypothesis.etc by nature,we are only given a boundary by ourselves. To what extent would you go if all you have been able to hypothesize was proved to be flawed by a good physics student? The professionals do not waste their time to listen to what a layman says. Often,what a layman says is off the chart,and 1% of laymen would have something meaningful. So why waste your time listen to 99%garbage?
First of all... I´m not a layman.
Second...till now I have not find here any genious or first level expert... sure they would understand what I am saying...it is not so strange !!!!
Third what I say is not against the mainstream ...it is only BEYOND !!!
And Fouth... I believe in team work ....and not only with individualities,,,,nowadays it is the only way to go on....
So you are that guy who believes in working together. Study,research,etc. Am the opposite though. And since you are not a layman why not show us your ability by bringing up a new thread that may stand the chance of answering an unsolved question. We do it like this: we work for just one goal. Solve the problem.
Yes. You have yet to reach that level of education.First of all... I´m not a layman.
I think you're not the best person to talk about education.
It would be better that you learned to talk and respect the opinions of others ... and not go belittling people ..
I have yet to see anything you've posted on this or any forum that would in any way command any respect.
Come on guys,see who is talking about belittling people. Dapifo you remember you telling me to give my cv at thescience forum? That i should show my level of qualification. It was about your 3d universe,or rainbow universe.whatever it was you should remember. You are the one who is proud,belittling people. Have known alex from thescience forum as well. He is far better than you,speaking of humor and humility. Go and get moral up bringing dapifo.
Oops! ... If you say yourself that your cv is negligible .. is not I who will tell otherwise ... I do not even remember what was ... can you remind to me?
AlexC, your lack of education and respect is known by all members of this and other forums ... I just ignore you.
Along with logic, established science. empirical data ,...
Perhaps you should do more studying and less ignoring.
Dapifo,i clearly cannot remember your idea but it was a thread rainbow universe or so. It added nothing to my life,thats why it left no prints
It's amazing that a thread which was talking about new ideas in science (FRAMES!!) ... finished in disqualifications ...
When there is no arguments ... usually happens ...
Time to close this thread.....At least for me.
What do we do when confronted by an unwanted post? I dnt think theres anyone talking about frames any more
Please note that there has been of change of forum rules - with immediate effect, The Physics Forum no longer permits the presentation and discussion of personal theories which are not based on current scientific understanding :
http://www.thephysicsforum.com/annou...e-changes.html
This thread is therefore now locked.
| « Moved : Farsight's QM question | Is the Speed of Light Governed by Negative Feedback? » |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks