A simple question about space-time

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

A simple question about space-time

Postby QualifyingQualia on September 28th, 2014, 8:50 pm 

I have a question for physics: why does it treat time as a fourth dimension and not simply a modification of the “ordinary” three dimensions? It seems the idea of space-time treats time as something separate from normal three dimensional space and not just the periodicity (or change) of that space. In other words, why do you treat time as if it's an object and not a process? I could never figure this out. Cheers.
QualifyingQualia
 


Re: A simple question about space-time

Postby Marshall on September 28th, 2014, 11:14 pm 

QualifyingQualia » Sun Sep 28, 2014 5:50 pm wrote:I have a question for physics: why does it treat time as a fourth dimension and not simply a modification of the “ordinary” three dimensions? It seems the idea of space-time treats time as something separate from normal three dimensional space and not just the periodicity (or change) of that space. In other words, why do you treat time as if it's an object and not a process? I could never figure this out. Cheers.


Maybe it is not as bad as you think. You have to distinguish between the words people use and what they actually do. If you've read GR stuff extensively you've seen it said over and over again "coordinate time is not anybody's real time" or words to that effect: it does not, as a rule, correspond to any real physical clock.

You'll never be able to explain this to your friends: the 4th dimension is just a convention. They won't believe you until they've taken a college course in GR.

So the GR people are already doing what you want, in a sense. You have a whole lot of 3-geometries and you pile them up, to show the CHANGE. To represent the PROCESS like you say. And naturally if you stack all those 3-geometries up you get a 4-D thing.

but the 4th D is not a representation of real time it is just a conventional "coordinate" parameter

And there is more. You can forget the original slicing and make a new slicing. A slicing is called a "foliation" after the latin word for LEAVES. Like you leaf thru a book, you leaf thru the changes in geometry.

And GR allows you to go over to a new slicing or a new foliation. Its equation and its solutions are "foliation invariant". So you KNOW that the 4th coordinate is meaningless because you can change it more or less at will, in a prescribed manner which also adjusts the solutions so they remain solutions.

Actual TIME time comes into GR when you have an observer and his life follows a "world line" threading thru the 4D thing, going here and there fast and slow into strong gravity curvature and back out into weak curvature, and he carries a physical CLOCK, some device with a reasonably reliable process going at some frequency that we compare ...

Damn,I have to walk the dog...Well that was quick, she did her job in our garden right by the front door.


So it is not maybe how you were thinking. There is, in GR, a puzzle called "the problem of time" which not finally solved to everyone's satisfaction. It seems to many GR experts that GR (which is our basic theory of matter interacting with geometry and from which we get our most accurate time-predicitons) is itself a TIMELESS THEORY. This shows itself in many ways. The "Hamiltonian" of the theory if you know of that, a basic tool in standard dynamics, is identically zero on solutions. There is the foliation invariance, you can reparametrize the 4trh at will, it is physically meaningless, etc etc, and the quantum GR equation (the so called Wheeler DeWitt equation) has no time parameter in it at all! Despite this people get along fine because they just take a particular solution, and run an observer through it, and then use that observers clock (for whatever limited purposes they need it for). Processes go along their merry way (along many separate paths of time)
This is the so called "many fingered time"picture people often refer to.

By radical simplification you can FORCE the existence of a global time in one particular solution, as is done in cosmology. But as a rule there IS NO GLOBAL TIME in General Relativity.

===========
Also people confuse the 1905 SPECIAL theory, SR, with the 1915 GR theory which superseded it. SR has time as a coordinate, so time is a "4th dimension". But SR does not have gravity. Space cannot expand, no curvature it is a really primitive dumb theory, but it is very useful as a LOCAL APPROXIMATION. It is approximately right in weak gravity over limited periods of time. the 1915 GR theory was developed BECAUSE of the severe limitations of the 1905 SR, and to include gravity. And it is at that point that this puzzling timelessness came in, and this foliation invariance, and this "many-fingered time" picture came in.
then the 4th dim became a conventional arbitrary parameter of change not corresponding to a reading on a clock. It became "coordinate time", the height of the pile when you stack up 3D geometries, like the height of a stack of plastic cups or plates. Not real physical time anymore.

The moment you try to explain this people will not believe you and they will start talking about 1905 SR, whose "time is the 4th dimension" cliché has crept into everybody's mind and into our common language, so it is a knee-jerk mental prejudice. I don;t have time to make this an orderly post. Too much other stuff to do. Hope you get something out of it anyway.
Marshall
 


Re: Dimensions

Postby Faradave on September 28th, 2014, 11:44 pm 

QualifyingQualia wrote:...physics: why does it treat time as a fourth dimension...In other words, why...treat time as if it's an object and not a process?


Structurally, time can be seen as doing the same kind of job that we attribute to spatial dimensions. They all provide for separation of events.

Two classical particles can't occupy the same place at the same time but
they can occupy different palaces at the same time or
they can occupy the same place at different times.

Event separations in spacetime can be quantified geometrically by the interval formula.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: A simple question about space-time

Postby QualifyingQualia on September 28th, 2014, 11:59 pm 

Thank you both for your replies, but I was hoping for something a bit less jargon-y. Any chance you can explain it to someone whose only knowledge of GR is from a non-maths course on special relativity? Thanks again.
QualifyingQualia
 


Re: A simple question about space-time

Postby Marshall on September 29th, 2014, 12:14 am 

QualifyingQualia » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:59 pm wrote:... Any chance you can explain it to someone whose only knowledge of GR is from a non-maths course on special relativity? Thanks again.


Well maybe you can teach me how, or help me learn how, to explain what I just said (in that long rambling post) to someone with no knowledge of GR, or minimal.
How about you paraphrase in your own words what you think I was trying to say.
Marshall
 


Re: A simple question about space-time

Postby Marshall on September 29th, 2014, 12:26 am 

Here is alternative way to answer your question that is more concise and avoids all jargon.
QualifyingQualia » Sun Sep 28, 2014 5:50 pm wrote:I have a question for physics: why does it treat time as a fourth dimension and not simply a modification of the “ordinary” three dimensions? .


You are laboring under a misconception :^)

The ruling physics theory of time* (and of space geometry interacting with matter) is GR. Other stuff like SR is a simplification or a useful approximation that works in limited setting but not the real thing. Like a flat map of a patch of the surface of a sphere.

TIME Physics, exemplified by the predominant theory that deals with time, does NOT treat time as a fourth dimension.

So your question evaporates. The question itself was based on a mistake.

the way to resolve your question is for you to just forget it because it is not a sensible one to ask.

*If you want to make ANY PREDICTION or accurate calculation about time--like the behavior of an atomic clock in an orbiting satellite, or the timing of a pulsar, or the delay of a signal between two spacecraft when the signal passes close to the sun, or atomic clocks on two different floors of the same building--you have to use GR. For really accurate 6 decimal accuracy about TIME there is at present no other theory to use.
Marshall
 


Re: Separation

Postby Faradave on September 29th, 2014, 1:17 am 

QQ wrote:...I was hoping for something a bit less jargon-y.

There is a separation between where you are right now and where you were 9 hours ago. That involves separation not just in space but in time. Because space and time coordinates (axes) allow separation, they're each considered indicative of dimensionality.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: A simple question about space-time

Postby chapolin on November 1st, 2014, 5:23 pm 

Given that people already tried to answer your question and it seemed that it, in particular, did not help you. I could try to say a few more words if you are willing to. First, I should ask you if you could say more about what do you mean by process, since it is implicit in your question that you think this is the 'natural way to treat time'.
chapolin
 


Re: A simple question about space-time

Postby recursionscenario2 on May 10th, 2016, 1:39 pm 

I am introducing a model I call the Recursion Scenario.

I have posted 2 times on this forum.

I am drawing attention to mirror-to-mirror principles as an effective means to reconcile the quantum reality to a holographic one.

If any would choose to read the only two comments I have posted, to date, then they may be able to understand my post to this thread. Namely;

When two mirrors face each other and as reflecting the same real object between then we can appropriately deduce that the information existing on both sides represents both reflected and recursive information. ( All reflected and recursively propagated images are NOT the real object) All membranes of RECURSION existing on both sides are explicitly derived from 3 necessary prerequisites.

1) the existence of the real object
2) the images first implanted on the surface of the real mirrors
3) the entanglement of the mirrors

Faradave was very insightful and intuitive when he stated the following:

“Structurally, time can be seen as doing the same kind of job that we attribute to spatial dimensions. They all provide for separation of events.

Two classical particles can't occupy the same place at the same time but
they can occupy different palaces at the same time or
they can occupy the same place at different times.

Event separations in spacetime can be quantified geometrically by the interval formula.””

I will add to his description of time-ambiguous utilizing tangible observable and measurable phenomenon (principles, functions, mechanisms) related to the mirror to mirror analogy.

If two mirrors face each other and reflect the same real object then, necessarily, a recursive function emerges in their virtual interiors. These recursive matrices represent merely the propagation of information from the surface. If one studies the system they will see many layers/membranes of recursion (apparently infinite) as derived from a real body of reflected information existing on the surface. We can describe the state of the information on the surface as a two-dimensional representation of the real object it is reflecting. This surface state of information merely expands or contracts smoothly and uniformly across the surface of the dimensions of the mirror- proportional to the distance the real object is from either or mirror at any particular time. This surface state of information spread across the plane is separate from the corresponding flow of information in the recursion. The recursive sub-flow represent linear time lines ( running two opposite directions) or the progression of information down a virtual arrow of time. This virtual time-continuum flows perpendicular to the flow of information on the surface. This recursive mechanism is what results in a 3-D manifestation of the 2-d quality of information existing on the surface. ( I will get to the so-called 4th dimension of time) As a result of the infinite propagation of the symmetry of the information on the surface this recursive lattice represents the matrix. This matrix is defined as a suppersymmetric translation of a finite symmetry that resides on the surface. The symmetry on the surface undergoes self-replication, and, this virtual layering or membraning effect ( as in M-Theory) continually copies the finite symmetry of the surface.

In the recursion we have an infinite lattice of self-similar and repeating membranes, where all membranes are symmetrically the same. We are realizing a fabric of space ‘time’ defined as the weaving of or patterning of same information forming the entirety of the virtual space-time continuum. Where does time exist in this system?

Time, or the operation of time, exists in the virtual phase space between the membranes . This phase space is defined as the distance between any or all membranes existing in the interior of the matrices (right and left mirrors). However, the experience of time within the virtual matrices is contingent upon motion. How so?

If the real object is motionless and the mirrors are fixed/stationary and not moving themselves, then all membranes on both sides (both arrows of time) will not move. This means that the distance between all membranes is fixed and is not changing. The only way to move the system is by increasing or decreasing the distance between membranes. This implicates the phase space as the very phenomenon of or moving of time. Time represents the changes in the distance between membranes. No membranes will move if something does not occur in this phase space. The membranes cannot move independent from the increase or decrease in the phase space between all membranes. If the system remained completely motionless (real object and mirrors fixed) no time could be measured as occurring because no relative motion is occurring. However, if we increase the phase space between membranes this dictates that we have pushed the membranes one direction. (toward the future). If we decrease the phase space between membranes then of necessity we draw the membranes closer and thus push the recursive arrow of time toward the surface ( past of the system..) Note: We cannot move the membranes nor increase/decrease the phase space distance between them without moving the real object toward/away from the mirror surfaces or moving the mirrors toward/away from each other. The entire matrix as in a state of motion, momentum, speed and direction is contingent upon variables existing OUTSIDE the matrices.

Time is the increase or decrease of the distance between virtual symmetries existing inside the recursive function. Time can only be felt, perceived or experienced if these distancial changes occur. Time is not found on the surface because there is no 3-d aspect to this surface aspect of information. The information on the surface merely contracts or expands across a plane where any length or depth is precluded as existing. However the virtual distance occurring via the recursion mechanism allows the perception of time due to the relative motions, directions speeds etc…of the membranes existing in the virtual 3- D interior. I can only increase/decrease the distance between membranes of recursion by drawing the real object toward or away from the mirrors, respectively. If I increase the distance of the phase space at a rate of 1 unit per second then the membranes ( observable measurable data) will move one unit per second- as in the hands of a clock, moving either clockwise or counterclockwise. If I move the real object faster or slower toward or away from one of the mirrors all membranes will be observed and measured as moving faster or slower relative to each other (time sped up or slowed down). Time is no more than the motion of a VISIBLE (the membranes) virtual system relative to the INVISIBLE ( the phase space) virtual space existing in the system as separating the membranes from each other. The distance between membranes is always proportional to the distance between the real object and either or mirror at any given point in the experiment. The virtual phase space existing between all membranes is actually merely the reflection of the distance or space between the real object existing outside the planes to the planes. This demonstrates that time as it occurs, exists or changes in the matrix is dictated by the real object existing outside the planes. Whatever the real object decides to do determines all variables or potentials, as to the experience of time, that is felt or occurs in the virtual space-time continuum’s.

Time is not a thing. It is a condition that is dictated by distance and the increase or decrease of distance as experienced in a virtual system.

Indeed, time and the motion of or perception of time is a qualitative spatial dimention that resides right alongside the actual membranes themselves. This phase space MUST move in order for the membranes to move. No membrane of recursion can move from one point to another or any direction unless the phase space moves first. Time for our universe would stop ( be suspended) if the real quantum reality and distance between the quantum reality and static virtual systems came to a halt. Time as experienced in the virtual matrix can be sped up or slowed down only due to the prerogatives of the real object as either decidingly moving toward or away from the surface of our black hole.

It is the virtual phase space that allows for all recursive separations of events that occur within the virtual interiors of black holes. Every membrane existing within the virtual interior represents a present state, (event) as well, is part of an infinite chain of future events. The past present and future exixt on the same time line and simultaneously. That which creates the demarcation between the past and all other present future events is defined as the separation from a real body of reflected information on a surface and the virtual reality lying beyond this real surface and due to the explicit entanglement of two reflective surfaces. There is an explicit separation between all present and future events ( virtual=recursion) and THE past event.

The past event exists solely on the surface and is NOT really part of the recursive matrix. The real image on the surface of a mirror is separate from all other virtual copies of itself. This past event ‘began’ when information was first implanted on a real reflective surface. When this information on the surface of the plane came into relativity to another reflective surface ( reflecting the same information between ) then, instantly two virtual recursive matrices emerge ( representing the extention of the past toward present and future events existing in the interior). Therefore, the past of the system dictates that information exists on manifolds. As well, any potential for the past to be extended into virtual arrows of time is dictated by the recursion mechanism. The recursion of information dictates that two reflective mediums, planes or surfaces must be relative to each other, and thus ENTANGLED, in order for time to emerge and any present or future potentials to exist. All recursive membranes, and the phenomenon of TIME that exists within the matrices, ( defined as the phase space in motion or changing), and all potentials, as far as present and future events, is entirely hinged upon the information on the surfaces remaining there. If the real object ceases to reflect to the surfaces, and if the entanglement of surfaces is lost- ALL present and future events will vanish.

If I have a real object stationed in front of ONE mirror only an event occurs with no ability to extend this event to future events. However, if this one mirror event ( information first reflected to the surface) is followed by another event where one places another mirror relative to the former mirror, then, we have the ability to reflect a past event into an infinite sum of present and future events. The event horizons of both mirrors is where the first event occurred whereby information was implanted on their surfaces. So long as these mirrors are isolated from each other then no time or event continuum from these surfaces can occur. However, when they first are able to reflect to each other then it is RECURSION that dictates that two alternate fields of information can now be extended into virtual arrows of time AND…. how that time is experienced on either side matrice can be molded, changed, manipulated by the real object between the mirrors and the changes in its position relative to the static closed reflective/recursive matrices on both sides.

No membrane of recursion can occupy the same place at the same time. The virtual phase space ( = the reflection of the real distance between the real object and the mirrors-infinitely) dictates the separation between membranes. However, the membranes do occupy different places at the same time and do occupy the same place at different times. This occupying is dictated by moving the arrow of time forward or backward thus moving the membranes forward or backward. What is true is that , while the membranes cannot occupy the same place at the same time the membranes can be added into or deleted from the matrix. This adding into the matrix or deleting from the matrix membranes is entirely dependent upon the motion of the real object toward or away from the surfaces. If any membranes are added into the system this means that the real object is going farther from one surface. If membranes are observed or measured to be deleted from the matrix this means that the real object ( all membranes are reflections of this quantum state/real object) is coming closer to the reflective field or medium surface. This dictates that information can both get into and out of black holes. For more elaborations on the model I am presenting I would invite those in the room to consider my Youtube series of videos. Thomas Martin- Grand Unified Theory. Or send me a friend request on Facebook.

Phase space= Interval formula
recursionscenario2
 


Re: A simple question about space-time

Postby bangstrom on May 10th, 2016, 8:45 pm 

I started to read your discussion but quickly got lost in the weeds.

In prerequisite 3 you say the mirrors are “entangled.” What do you mean by entangled? The conventional view is that two separate mirrors are independent. They are not entangled in QM sense. Any event at one mirror has no instant, non-local effect on the other mirror.

recursionscenario2 » May 10th, 2016, 12:39 pm wrote:
Faradave was very insightful and intuitive when he stated the following:

“Structurally, time can be seen as doing the same kind of job that we attribute to spatial dimensions. They all provide for separation of events.


I don't think Faradave and I share quite the same view about the structure of space and time but that quote sounds exactly like my point of view. Looks like I have found another quote worth stealing.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 798
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Restart?

Postby Faradave on May 11th, 2016, 12:22 am 

Hi RS2,

Welcome. I'm glad you liked my quote, though I don't think there's any new revelation there. (I give that all the time, in other threads!)

As someone who has recently been accused by a "Resident Expert" of spewing "word salad", I feel qualified to say that's what I find a lot of in your posts (here and redundantly elsewhere). Too many terms, such as "entanglement" (as noted by bangstrom) are treated in a non-standard way, suggesting mystical, rather than concrete association. I'm not saying you're insincere but care must be taken, especially in the Physics section.

Entanglement involves spacelike correlations which are non-traversable and thus not subject to universal speed limit c (i.e. nothing is being transmitted). By contrast, mirror reflections of light are entirely subject to (and prototypical of) speed limit c. Further, entangled properties represent a shared state, not two identifiable separate states. Breaking entanglement is to update the shared state to individual states. Mirror reflections, like the oft cited two sides of a coin, represent two definite states not a single entangled state.

My advice:
1. Start a new thread in Personal Theories (after reviewing the guidelines). That's where we expect to see material such as this.
2. One step at a time. If you want constructive criticism, you mustn't make the burden on readers so large. Post a few paragraphs and see how it goes. Think of us as folks you might meet at a cocktail party. You may have an interesting topic, but no one will stand there for an entire speech. How would you introduce your topic if you only had 45 seconds?
3. Be prepared to offer references to back up some level of your rationale.

For example, mathematical recursions may be infinite. But actual recursive mirror reflections aren't. The reflected image loses information (atomic pixels) on each reflection in proportion to its shrinking size. At some point the size gets down to one reflecting atom and then gone.

You may well rebut or clarify that reply. That's the point. Then we're having a discussion.

I'm not sure how to respond to:
"The recursive sub-flow represent linear time lines ( running two opposite directions) or the progression of information down a virtual arrow of time."
or
"Time, or the operation of time, exists in the virtual phase space between the membranes . This phase space is defined as the distance between any or all membranes existing in the interior of the matrices (right and left mirrors). However, the experience of time within the virtual matrices is contingent upon motion."

That seems like word salad. Most won't be willing to risk it as an entree but some may try it as a small side dish (even better, as an hors d'oeuvre).
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: A simple question about space-time

Postby recursionscenario2 on May 11th, 2016, 8:37 am 

Bangstrom

Firstly I believe that ‘our’ descriptions and inferences (some more intutionistic(higher order logical) than others. Some derived from a higher mathematical abstractification verses predisposition) as it regards this peculiar relationship called “entanglement” may or may not accurately and fully define the phenomenon.

As the standard model is inefficient in really extending the definitions (related to entanglement) or refining them- more robust models such as string theory and the holographic scenario are affording to us more understanding into the strange relationship(s) between energy and so-called mass.

It is my endeavor to demonstrate how solid principles and processes, extracted from my model the Recursion Scenario, can more accurately describe this quirky concept called entanglement. Ultimately I will follow faradave’s advice to start a new thread- with the objective of articulating the observable and measurable aspects of the mirror to mirror model I am espousing. As it is, I have studied this system for upwards of two decades and can present a myriad of “proofs and axioms” necessary to strengthen the arguments innate to the model itself. This will represent my theorem. Theorem’s, by their very nature are typically extremely descriptive and verbose (verses so much “word salad” in the opinions of others) – I hope others will indulge me. As well, I welcome all critiques or challenges to the statements (as well bone-fide observable measurable and experimental attributes of the model) that will accompany the comprehensive theorem.
recursionscenario2
 


Re: A simple question about space-time

Postby recursionscenario2 on May 11th, 2016, 9:04 am 

As it regards the comments of this room, worthy of response/retort, suffice to say:

I will define entanglement as referring to aggregates that form relationships whereby a whole system is described as having parts. The whole of the system is defined as two ( or more) disparate locales( vectors) that share an explicit/implicit affinity due to being linked via information. Furthermore, these separate points, though linked due to ‘a/the’ coupling constant ( related to new cosmological constants I will introduce/propose) are in a very real sense “interacting” with each other and, therefore, simultaneity is implicated as evident/occurring. The ‘operations’ (dynamical, harmonic, oscillatory, corresponding) occurring at one location is entirely a product of the existence of the other side. That is to say, nothing can happen on the one side independent from the actions occurring on the opposite side.- And where all changes to the one side is EXACTLY the opposite of, and inseparably a result of, the proportional actions on the other side. The information existing on one sides of the “string” are both complimentary to and contingent upon the information existing on the other side. As well, all of the information contained within the whole of the static parts of the string are derived from the existence of a preexisting and higher ‘dimensional’ part of the string. This higher condition of information, residing separate from the two closed parts of the string, can appropriately be referred to as the ‘open’ part of the string- the quantum reality. Simply and elegantly put: The open part of the string represents the REFLECTOR reality. All closed strings both emerge and exist as reflective/recursive systems.

I have described the relationship between the surfaces of two mirrors as reflecting ½ the quality of a real object positioned between them. I have stated that when this relationship is established, INFORMATION can be exchanged from one side to the other side. I will expand these descriptions in my own thread. However, it will become more clear that this ability for two disparate vectors to reflect the ‘same’ information AND to share their information to/from each other via the recursive mechanism, bespeaks the PRINCIPLES of….. entanglement! I say principles because that is all we have to work with at this point; as the terms and definitions of entanglement have not yet defined the phenomenon in any substantial way.

I stand by my observations and measurements ( and 15 years of experimentation with the mirror to mirror model) and therefore reiterate: When two mirrors face each other, and as reflecting a real object, the recursion that ensues (recursion of information) points to the principles of entanglement as bona-fide established and occurring.

It is true that all recursive representations of the image on the surfaces of the mirror are contingent NOT upon an isolated mirror but the relationship ( entanglement- interaction- relativity) between two mirrors. All recursive copies would not be there ( on both sides) if the relationship between the two mirrors is lost. This dictates that all membranes in the virtual interior “cannot be described independently.”- ( this is reinforced by the reality that no individual membrane can move contrary to the movement or direction of all other membranes. And that, no membranes on the one side can move contrary to or independent from the movement of the membranes on the other side). Furthermore, no membranes would exist on EITHER side if they were not derived from the definitive relationship between two reflective surfaces relative to each other ( no recursion can occur unless this relationship between two mirrors is established-as opposed to an isolated mirror with no relativity to another mirror).

The reflected images on the surfaces of the mirrors could not be described ( would not exist so as to be defined through observation and measuring) independent of the real object between them.-( if the real object was not there no images would be observed or measured on the surface of the planes, respectively- right and left). Any measurements of the so-called “physical” properties of the one side can be mathematically deduced ( verified/veracious) to be appropriately and actually ‘correlated” to the “positions, momentum, spin, polarization et., of the other side. I spoke in brevity to these realities in my posts. I would challenge anyone here to contradict those statements or prove that it isn’t the case. Note: This is one predictive aspect of my model: If we could determine that our universe is a product of this mirror to mirror phenomenon, and, therefore, discover that the information of our universe is contingent upon reflecting from/to an alternate universe; (reflective surface- or the theoretical black hole surface(s)) We could predict, with mathematical certainty, what is occurring both on the surface of our alternate universe as well what is occurring in the interior of the alternate black hole- simply by measuring our universe at any given stage (membrane or layering of information in a matrix) and knowing that the exact opposite ( direction, momentum, motion, spin, revolution etc..) must be occurring on the surface of and down the arrow of time of the other ‘universe.’ I know these represent highly abstract postulates/conclusions! Nevertheless, verified by my model if indeed such reality were the case.

All present descriptions as to entanglement, regardless of what reference you use, will categorically be proven as expressed in these mirror to mirror ‘analogies’-(the reality?) I allude to, and, as a means of reinforcing my arguments that the Recursion Scenario can refine and/or remove the standard model from the intellectual landscape and replace it with solid holographic principles/realities. I am referring to a new mathematical language that will force an about face away from the present paradigm.
recursionscenario2
 


Re: A simple question about space-time

Postby recursionscenario2 on May 11th, 2016, 9:28 am 

For the sake of not being too lengthy ( I know I have failed in that intent) at this point I will quickly and respectfully respond to other comments made by you two- in brevity

Yes two separate mirrors are independent in the sense of being at two different locations at the same time. However, this does not preclude their entanglement so long as they reflect to each other- resulting in recursion on both sides where they become linked due to the information on their surfaces and within their virtual interiors.

I will argue against the assertions that: “They are not entangled in QM sense. Any event at one mirror has no instant, non-local effect on the other mirror.- I will inflect my arguments relative to a future thread that I will start.
I value the higher logics that many times result from taking a non-orthodox approach to the problems and paradox innate to physics. I feel no shame, and actually take it is a compliment when one perceives that I am taking a less predisposed approach to these problems. However, make no mistake (as a serious consideration of the model I speak to will indicate) I take no meta-physical, esoteric or mystical approach to science. Although many times when such terms as “spooky action at a distance” and “it seems that we are being watched ( two –slit evaluations and interpretations) it may be hard for others to remain resolved to take these expressions as they are meant/intended. I assure all who take the time to consider all proofs and axioms I will present that they will represent “concrete associations” – I challenge all to contradict this statement at any time during my theorem presentation- so as to prove they are not so solidified and observable and measurable- mathematically and scientifically authentic. I am sincere and have devoted my life to mentally and honestly (free from predisposition and hyper-belief in theories) separating the wheat from the chaff as it concerns data verses interpretation or theorizing.

Faradave: “Entanglement involves spacelike correlations which are non-traversable and thus not subject to universal speed limit c (i.e. nothing is being transmitted). By contrast, mirror reflections of light are entirely subject to (and prototypical of) speed limit c. Further, entangled properties represent a shared state, not two identifiable separate states. Breaking entanglement is to update the shared state to individual states. Mirror reflections, like the oft cited two sides of a coin, represent two definite states not a single entangled state.”
I agree that entanglement is NOT limited are constrained by speed limit c. Conversely, reflections of light on a surface ( and the time it takes for light to reach a plane) it not relevant to the virtual recursion of INFORMATION that ensues due to the entanglement of reflective surfaces. As far as whether or not entanglement is speaking to “, entangled properties represent a shared state,” or “not two identifiable separate states.”- the burden of proof is on you to validate this concusion. I will present evidence that these two definitions are not irreconcilable. I propose that the “shared state” exists due to the relationship of surfaces as reflecting the real object. I assert that the “individual states “ ( derived from this prime relationship – special relativity) are correlative to and a virtual product of the prime relationship expressed on the topology. (general relativistic). I will elaborate in my thread.
Yes two mirrors separate from each other represent two definite states of information. If these two mirrors are NOT reflecting to each other they will remain ISOLATED (as in an isolated system(singular) as opposed to entangled systems(plural)) separate states with no ability to interact or affect… proportional… change to each other. However, when these two reflective vectors come into relativity to each other the whole of the relationship is defined as a single entangled state – two sides of a reflective string that interact quite completely and NEVER independently.
My primary reference will be to refer others to the tangible model itself. I would encourage those interested to merely (perhaps indulgently) examine the relationships I will categorically describe by taking two mirrors and placing a real object between them and observing, measuring and experimenting with the proofs and axioms dwelling therein.
I will strive to prove that 1) “mathematical recursions may be infinite.” Proportional to 2) “ actual recursive mirror reflections- ARE infinite.’ I will relegate your argument for the moment; that: “The reflected image loses information (atomic pixels) on each reflection in proportion to its shrinking size. At some point the size gets down to one reflecting atom and then gone.”…. and allow the model and descriptions to stand on their own merits as either supporting your opinion or refining/contradicting the premise.
“"The recursive sub-flow represent linear time lines ( running two opposite directions) or the progression of information down a virtual arrow of time."

If you shine a light onto the surface of a sole mirror and move the light source toward or away from the mirror the reflected light ring will expand and contract smoothly and uniformly across the surface area of the mirror. The light ring cannot be extended any further than the surface of the mirror- as in the case if you place another mirror parallel to the former mirror thus resulting in an “infinite” propagation of the light ring on the surface to “rings” in the recursion. The recursive flow is a flow regime that occurs due to the relationship between the entangled mirrors. It is a VIRTUAL flow ( it does not literally/actually extend beyond the real surface) that is not confined to merely expanding/contracting horizontally across a surface, rather; is a virtual distance ( a virtual time-line or linear (lie algebraic) succession that flows perpendicular to the flow of information on the surface. The virtual time line adds virtual distance, and, this recursive flow is evidentiarily able to travel back and forth , up or down the z-axis ( where all membranes are centered with the information on the surface). This shows that the recursive flow of information, though derived from the surface flow of information, represents an arrow of time that extends the system into a 3-dimensional matrix.-
"Time, or the operation of time, exists in the virtual phase space between the membranes . This phase space is defined as the distance between any or all membranes existing in the interior of the matrices (right and left mirrors). However, the experience of time within the virtual matrices is contingent upon motion."

The virtual Phase space, (as defined and described relative to my explanations) and as related to TIME, were self explanatory and hard to refute. Time can only be observed and measured due to a ‘continuum’ whereby one can measure it ( distance or events) in an ordered sequence- where one measures one point at a particular moment and then measures the same point ( or relativity to other points) at another moment. If a/the system is NOT moving no determination of time can be made from one point to another point- as no changes are occurring. However, when motion or momentum or direction (or many other variables related to entropy) is occurring one can make these determinations. I am saying that it is the motion, momentum or rate/speed of the changes in the distance between membranes that allows one to both observe and measure (or perceive or experience)---time. The changes in the positions of the recursive “bodies” exiting in the matrix is contingent upon the first/preceeding action of the change to the phase space. The CAUSE of the system changing is confined to the change in the distance between the membranes. The EFFECT of this change in virtual phase space is the movement of the membranes. Only by having these two necessary prerequisites (the phase space and the membranes), ‘moving or changing’ relative to each other can one observe, measure or perceive experience time.

“That seems like word salad. Most won't be willing to risk it as an entree but some may try it as a small side dish (even better, as an hors d'oeuvre).”--

Acknowledged
recursionscenario2
 


Re: A simple question about space-time

Postby recursionscenario2 on May 11th, 2016, 9:47 am 

On a lighter note: I see that you are 6th Dan in Taekwondo. I have limited marticl arts experience. My brother has been training (3 years) in Louden County, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, MMA fitness with the famous Royce Gracie. He recieved his blue belt promotion from Royce himslef + 1 stripe) He also has belts in Aikido (2nd kyu), Kempo, Hwardo (2nd degree black).
recursionscenario2
 
Faradave liked this post


Re: Victory?

Postby Faradave on May 11th, 2016, 10:43 am 

RS2,

You still seem a bit out of control to me. I'm sure you've put a lot of work into your personal theory and have done considerable reading to pick up the vocabulary but much of it is used in non-conventional ways. That means the reader has to keep track of your special definitions (e.g. redefining "entanglement").

If it is your intent to declare victory for your theory by drowning your readers, rather than by persuasion, perhaps you're succeeding. But to what end? You already believe your own theory. The point here is to engage and convince others, or to learn how your theory can be improved.

SPCF does provide blog space, where epistles are not unexpected. Readers who go there, usually allow a bit more time. Even there, if you persist in this mode, it might be a good idea to offer subject headings and a glossary post.

I'll try to get back and slog through a bit more when I have time. As it is, the posts are so long, I have trouble keeping track of the number and locations of my objections.

If you want to communicate, you need to understand your audience and the dynamics of the situation you're in. Have you ever heard of an "elevator pitch". You imagine yourself having stepped on an elevator with the person (physicist) you would most want to address. You have until the elevator arrives to capture his/her attention and deliver a core message. What would you say? That makes a good original post to a thread here.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: A simple question about space-time

Postby recursionscenario2 on May 11th, 2016, 3:07 pm 

faradave,


In your martial arts training are you able to adapt to the occational unconventional (unpredictable but effective) moves of an unorthodox fighter. Or would you ask for a pause in the match so as to appeal to your opponent to perform martially in the way that you are accustomed to?
In any discussion we must be adaptable.
While I understand that you are not familiar with my unique style and model I would request that you not try so hard to confine me to orthodoxy.
My vocabulary is clear. I have put more than 2 decades in the pursuit of studying both the orthodox scientific approach( standard model) as well as the intutionistic and abstractification approach(models). I am versatile in both styles and methodologies. In my opinion the later is more efficient in gaining the effective intellectual and logical techniques for scientific discussion/ debate. A competent person, who is sure of their own scientific and reasoning prowess can only add to such by being patient and keeping track of the others arguments. While I may be using terms in an unconventional way you will discern that I explain why/how I am extending the definitions quite sufficiently.
I have neither spoke of victory or defeat- such is not my intent. You impute this motive to me. I merely offered extemporaneous and articulate alternative ways of reasoning on the matters at hand. We are discussing relationships and phenomenon that in no way are disambigous. I encourage you to take the time to “keep track of the number and locations of my objections” so as to either agree with them, contradict them or add/take away from them. Only through such respectful and indulgent reciprocation can science progress.
I agree that all too often people are narrow minded and only interested in their own point of view. I do not understand why you would get that impression of me. I’m sorry you feel drowned. Howeve, as far as my persuasiveness- unless you can demonstrate flaws in my logic and/or show where my descriptions are deficient ( or my revisions farcical) then my explanations should be more apparently persuasive than not. I welcome those respectful refutations. I am asking for any person who does not find my arguments to be valid to suggest “how my theory can be improved.” Up to the present I have not received such feedback.

Granted, my model is hard to contradict. However, I have the hope that you will devote a little more attention to the model as I am explaining it – if only to accept the challenge of finding areas within it that would require or necessitate revision or improvement.

Yes I believe in my model. However, such conviction is not so much self-referential as it is a confidence that has resulted from arduously extracting from MANY models those logical ideas and statements that I feel are appropriate while dispelling those models or theories that are lacking in substance.
I do understand the dynamics of these type of forums. I am a member of many forums like this. For the most part- the people ‘on the elevator’ with me can be characterized as being open-minded and considerate of others models and explanations, to the opposite side of the spectrum-mockers and scorners. I will reserve the right to speak on your character until it manifests itself with more ‘pixel resolution.’
Suffice to say, usually those who expect/demand a quick statement (as if such could in any significant way fully and sufficiently expound on complex problem) in the form of a few seconds are asking of someone else something they cannot accomplish themselves. Such double standard usually implicates the person as closed-minded. – or incurably orthodox.
Are there certain aspects of my descriptions that you disagree with or feel contradicts the orthodox standards or descriptions. Simply extract those statements from my comments and explain to me what you perceive is incorrect- in 45 sec or less..lol.
Yes..perhaps a good place to start would be the question(s) I posed to you, namely:

Do you disagree with by unconventional definition of Entanglement? Why?
recursionscenario2
 


Re: A simple question about space-time

Postby recursionscenario2 on May 11th, 2016, 3:08 pm 

so as not to clutter this room, I took your advise and started a thread. Feel free to post your responses to that room. Thank you.
recursionscenario2
 



Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests