Frostedwinds

On 8/8/2019 at 5:53 AM, studiot said:

 

I am making a effort to respond to what you say,  I hope helpfully.

None of your last post responds to mine.

In particular I said

 

Now I am just trying to make beter communication between us.

Here is an example

 

I think the correct word here is a region of space.

'Area' has a particular specialist meaning in Science and I do not think you mean that.

 

Before you asked specifically about the relationship or the connection between the coordinate axes (if any) and I am trying to work through that.

But I am receiving no indication if you are following this or not.

 

 

When we have laid the groundwork I propose to explore your very interesting suggestion that travelling (I won't call it motion or movement as they again has specific meanings in Science)

in time requires multiple time dimensions.

 

But can we lay that aside until we have discussed axes, dimensions and the relationships between them first?

 

I live in America and yes English is my first and only language. So with words like Area, Motion, or Movement what are the specifics requirements of their use. I’m only using these words as general references to what I mean. Thank you again for the help with this.

9 hours ago, studiot said:

A very good question.

In order to discuss this let us try to simplify and just use x;y coordinates for the moment.

Are these unique representations?

No they are not, but they have certain desirable characteristics.

Notably that the physical dimensions of x and y are the same.

So when we consider a (differential) variation with time, these differentials have the same form of physical dimensions (they are both velocities)

x˙=dxdt;y˙=dydt

This allows us to combine the two to form a vector describing the overall change over time.
That is they are the components of that vector.

BUT CONSIDER

If we use polar coordinates, r and θ then these refer to the same point and their time derivatives to the same change

but they do not have the same physical dimensions.

r˙=drdt;θ˙=dθdt

So we cannot combine these directly to establish the overall change.

The angular derivatives are not components of a vector.

 

I see you are in a very different time zone from myself so I guess that English is not your first language.

If this is true we can help you choose the correct English words for what you want to say.

Just ask.

 

 

How about describing it as a direction and not a vector particularly. Direction through three dimensional space makes up x,y,z so let’s say directions through time makes up t1,t2,t3. They work in contrast to each other playing a part as equal parts space and equal parts time.

Space = Time

x,y,z = t1,t2,t3

direction through time we can state as a change in momentum from a point in time

direction through time we can state as a change of perspective from a point in space

now that would mean that we have to quantify space without time and time without space

the place of intersection being the an area where a point in space and a point in time exist together

now take as example the ability to preform motion as kinetic energy that energy is yet to choose a direction (a point in time)

now take as example matter as being an object with mass and volume (making up an area of space)

Matter with kinetic energy has yet to chose a direction but is an area in space that is at a point in time.

a point in space has zero dimensions, so a point in time also would have zero dimension (or no direction)

the intersection would be at that zero dimension as well then

then matter that expends the kinetic energy moves into the first dimension of time (or moves in one direction through time)

if there is only one direction through time then the system is unbalanced and x,y,z=t1

momentum measured as a direction through time would allow kinetic energy being a point in time to move in multiple direction

such as: you have two apples on a table, before you decided to pick one up you the potential to pick all three up meaning there are two options of the direction for you to chose from

the potential energy is a point in time and the two directions are t1, and t2

now let’s say you chose apple one or apple two, they are both motions of a t1 direction through a plane of t2

that would suggest that you can also rotate the plane of time (t2) perpendicular again and create and area of time (t3) that makes up all the possible directions your hand could have traveled including towards apple one or apple two

that would create a balance system where x,y,z=t1,t2,t3

That would also state that space(x,y,z) is matter and that time(t1,t2,t3) is energy in all directions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

1 hour ago, Strange said:

So, again, what testable predictions does your model make?

Therefore, you do not have a scientific theory. 

Also, when you copy and paste text you should provide a source. Otherwise it is plagiarism. 

You haven’t read any of the things I cited earlier have you. The contain all the information you would need. But regardless I’m going to state one last time. The question adheres not to whether or not you agree with how the system functions with three dimensions of time but instead what order the system functions with three dimensions of time. Please just leave the chat.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

 

A vector space is a mathematical generalisation of the idea of a plot or graph with axes and a function connecting or detailing (your explaining?) the relationship between the axes.

In this terminology, the axes are called 'basis vectors'.
In truth they are just lines like any other lines on the graph and we could plot the graph relative to any pair of non parallel lines.

What I was trying to gauge was what is the relation between the two parts graphing out space and time. How would you label them in an order that fits the function of a balanced system? Does it even matter what order they are in to create a balance and etc.

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

If we can only observe / measure  one dimension of time, how is that different from there being only one dimension of time?

if these other time dimensions are not detectable then they may as well not exist. 

You seem to agree that your idea is not testable and therefore it is not science. 

 

It is testable because it works in a system of mathematics. It’s not observable at the moment. Observable science is always changing. We use to think the earth was the center of the universe or that it was flat because we couldn’t observe otherwise. Also it was posted under a theoretical physics page not a applied physics page.

A theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking. The process of contemplative and rational thinking often is associated with such processes like observational study, research. Theories may either be scientific or other than scientific (or scientific to less extent). Depending on the context, the results might, for example, include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several related meanings.

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for, or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,^[1] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis).^[2] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and from scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of the way nature behaves under certain conditions.

Theories guide the enterprise of finding facts rather than of reaching goals, and are neutral concerning alternatives among values.^[3]:131 A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.^[4]:46

The word theory or "in theory" is more or less often used erroneously by people to explain something which they individually did not experience or tested before.^[5] In those instances, semantically, it is being replaced for another concept, a hypothesis. Instead of using the word hypothetically, it is exchanged for a phrase "in theory". In some instances the theory's credibility could be contested by calling it "just a theory" (implying that the idea has not even been tested).^[6] Hence, that word "theory" is very often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for doing, which is opposed to theory.^[6] A "classical example" of the distinction between "theoretical" and "practical" uses the discipline of medicine: medical theory involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.^[a]

In reality, there is a long and a thorny process for an idea or hypothesis to become a theory. And even after it becomes one, it is constantly being tested for validity. Among notable and long discussed theories are Darwinism(or other related to Creation–evolution controversy), flat Earth and others.

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Thank you.

This suggests (to me) you are trying to describe some sort of vector space as the construct.

Are you aware of the conventional rules relating to vector spaces vis a vis dimensions and bases ?

I’m suggesting both spatial and temporal vectors being define mathematically in a system as a dimension. To answer your question, no would you elaborate. Also thank you for having a genuine conversation with me.

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

As comical as our comments are, these are the repercussions, I think.

It’s good to break tension with humor. An elevated mood makes for a better conversation. Discussions that are stiff can create a stress that impacts the quality of the exchange of information. Such as if time is bidirectional and not multidimensional then I could say “I’m gonna go meet you at the bar yesterday” if we had already done that, and I could say “I’m gonna have to meet you at the bar tomorrow” where we have a predetermined meet up because time doesn’t have a multitude of depth making it an absolute construct with a predetermined direction. 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. Do what quantitatively testable predictions does your model make that would allow it to be tested and compared to current theories?

What current theories are you referring to. Those theories that I quoted and functioning current theories. They can’t be tested in applied physics because we only observe one dimension of time in applied physics so we can quantitate mathematical expressions in the direction we are currently traveling through time. If I was only to move in one direction of space I wouldn’t be able to express a field of applied physics in two dimensional space but it doesn’t stop two dimensional space from existing or playing a role in a controlled system of effects. Also I have to mention again that question pertains to a system in which relevance to other theories is excluded because we are only working within that system that has already been defined by three dimensions of space and three dimensions of time.

38 minutes ago, Strange said:

What evidence do you have for your theory?

What quantitatively testable predictions does your model make that would allow it to be compared to current theories?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_time_dimensions

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Regardless of that information. The question pertained to a system where the statement of three dimensional time was already true.

39 minutes ago, studiot said:

When I last went to school they taught that a question was signified by placing a question mark at the end.

Is this no longer the case?

However I'm glad you consider it a good question and since this is your thread what is your definition of a dimension?

I don't wish to argue with you over definitions, just to understand the context in which you are employing the term in order to reply in that context

You are right that the topic statement was a question. I was trying to discuss how dimension make up time and space in the confines of the system I first stated. As for how I define a dimension. It would be a vector of sorts that explains the function inside a system.

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

So, general and special relativity are the main physics theories that are based on spacetime having four dimensions. Thee have both been extensively tested and so have a lot of evidence for them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

If you are proposing an alternative theory, then it is up to you to provide some evidence for it.

Thank you for the references. What I am proposing is a different theory than those at work but the discussion was to be focused around the question that if time has three dimensions that work the same as spaces three dimensions what order would they be seated in to form a balanced system.

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

At least that's unidirectional, and could imply a duration. How about we meet at 7, 5, 3, 11 o'clock?

Unfortunately, I have to meet Frostedwinds at the pub at 7,8,9,10 o'clock simultaneously, since he insists on multiple time dimensions. Very unpredictable.

Lol that’s a good one man.

31 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Please explain why this is true even though it isn't what we observe.

In the system at question it isn’t possible for time to be singular because motion through time wouldn’t function because a point in time is being referenced as a dimension so for motion to function you would need at least a line, and a point creating at least two dimensions of time.

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

This question and the subsequent discussion depends crucially on what the participants consider a dimension to be and also what properties it posses and its relationships to any other dimensions included in the discussion.

Is a dimension more than just a succession of numbers?

That is the topic statement not the discussion question. Still a good question as to what people are considering a dimension.

35 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well, none of them, obviously. 

 

This is a forum on modern and theoretical physics. Not just applied physics. The question was pertaining to a system of relevance that the theory in question if functioning within a system where time is explained by three separate dimensions in the same way that space is. Also you have no evidence to prove to me that time is a stationary factor with only one singular dimension making it a line in a system where factors of motion through time are only forward and backwards. If your going to refute someone you should at least reference some form of material information or cite some reputable source of information. Like Ghideon did.

11 hours ago, Strange said:

Times a fourth dimension. You can tell, because you need to specify four bits of information: where (3 spatial coordinates) and when (1 time coordinate). For example, two men meet on a street corner and decide to meet up again later for lunch at a restaurant,  on the tenth floor of a building 5 blocks East and 7 blocks North of where they are, in 3 hrs.

A point in space becomes a line in spacetime. A line in space becomes a plane in spacetime. And so on.

That’s only in applied physics because we only perceive one dimension of time. We are three dimension beings in space traveling through time in a direction. Time itself can’t be singularly dimensionally otherwise motion trough time would be impossible. You still didn’t answer the actual question I asked. I asked which system seems most likely to be the system functioning in our universe.

If space is defined as the first three dimension would you then define time as the next three dimensions also running perpendicular to each other in the same way as space does? If so would it create a system that works as:

dimension zero (a point in space) 

dimension one (a line in space),

dimension two (a plane in space),

dimension three (an area in space),

dimension four (a point in time),

dimension five (a line in time),

dimension six (a plane in time),

dimension seven (an area in time),

or a system that works as:

dimension zero (a point in space) 

dimension one (a line in space),

dimension two (a plane in space),

dimension three(an area in space) 

dimension four (a line in time),

dimension five (a plane in time),

dimension six (an area in time),

dimension seven (a point in time),

or a system that works as:

dimension zero (a point in space) 

dimension one (a line in space),

dimension two (a plane in space),

dimension three(an area in space), 

dimension four (an area in time),

dimension five (a plane in time),

dimension six (a line in time),

dimension seven (a point in time)?

On 7/20/2019 at 3:28 AM, Strange said:

You are talking about vacuum as if it were a thing; it isn’t, it’s just an absence of stuff. 

You are talking about a cubic foot, so it has 3 dimensions. The presence or absence of matter doesn’t change that. 

Your comparison with an event horizon doesn’t really make sense. 

Beecee was talking about how a perfect vacuum would most likely be perfectly flat and display effects similar to an EH. I was questioning why he stated that. Your question would probably be better suited for Beecee.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Sorry, I've been a rather busy little beaver. Others have explained the BH, EH and GR correctly. Secondly all matter/energy warps or affects the geometry of flat spacetime, [it curves, warps, twists spacetime] and we feel that geometry as gravity. So any perfect vacuum, that is space without any light or any form of energy would be perfectly flat. 

The only possible perfect vacuum state I think [willing to be corrected on this] is inside the EH of a dormant BH, that has obtained perfect temperature equilibrium with the outside.

And while this is certainly curved by the collapsed mass at the core, it does not  "no gravitational influence of its own" to pinch the phrase from Phi for All.  

If an area of perfect vacuum has no mass or energy, how does that affect the relativity of how many dimensions it posses. Also if it did change the amount of dimensions the area of perfect vacuum would have, wouldn’t it be more likely that it would lose all dimensions and become a singular point instead of infinitely flat. That would also be closer to the effects of EH displays no gravitational influence of its own. Considering a perfect vacuum an area of space without matter would suggest that while in practice it may be closer to and EH with less dimensional properties, but in an isolated system it would be able to be any space within the three dimension of space that matter and energy doesn’t exist.

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Mass and energy are two properties that are in essence the same thing. Consider  that mass is resistance to inertia change. Energy is the ability to perform work. Then further consider [latex] e=mc^2 [/latex]. One can readily see the two are readily interchangeable. 

If you combine an over dense region into an underdense region then the two regions will reach an equilibrium state  the sum of the two parts.

 However blackholes also has extremely strong gravity so this process could take longer than the age of our universe. See black hole evaporation via Hawking radiation.

That’s what I was first assuming. That an area without matter being a density of 0 and an area with absolute matter being a density of ♾ then the interaction would be a state of equilibrium. Just like mass and energy in a system together such as e=mc^2 are in opposition but essential the same. They create a balanced system. 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Pressure, as commonly understood, is not easily related to General Relativity.

However, if we think of space-time as a coiled spring, it is easy to understand that if you compress that spring, you increase its energy, and the curvature of space-time around it.
An easy to understand excerpt from
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth3.html
explains the relationship between pressure, energy density, space-time curvature ( gravity ) and expansion/inflation.

"THE PRESSURE OF THE FALSE VACUUM can be determined by a simple energy-conservation argument. Imagine a chamber filled with false vacuum, as shown in the diagram below.

 

For simplicity, assume that the chamber is small enough so that gravitational effects can be ignored. Since the energy density of the false vacuum is fixed at some value u_f, the energy inside the chamber is U=u_fV, where V is the volume. Now suppose the piston is quickly pulled outward, increasing the volume by dV. If any familiar substance were inside the chamber, the energy density would decrease. The false vacuum, however, cannot rapidly lower its energy density, so the energy density remains constant and the total energy increases. Since energy is conserved, the extra energy must be supplied by the agent that pulled on the piston. A force is required, therefore, to pull the piston outward, implying that the false vacuum creates a suction, or negative pressure p. Since the change in energy is dU = u_fdV, which must equal the work done, dW = -pdV, the pressure of the false vacuum is given by

p = -u_f.

The pressure is negative, and extremely large. General relativity predicts that the gravitational field which slows the expansion of the universe is proportional to u_f + 3p, so the negative pressure of the false vacuum overcomes the positive energy density to produce a net repulsive gravitational field. "

So a perfect vacuum would be a state of negative pressure inside a system. Still considering it to be neutral while isolated outside of a system. Inside a system it would create a negative gravitational field. Absolute mass would then generate a state of positive pressure inside a system. Which brings to question if it also is neutral while isolated outside of a system. Inside of a system it creates a positive gravity field. So a perfect vacuum and absolute mass are resting in perfect opposition to each other.

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I would change "no gravity" in this instance to "no gravitational influence of its own". If you had such a vacuum, and suddenly introduced matter into it, it would still be affected by spacetime curvature from any nearby massive objects. I'm being nit-picky, but "not generating any gravity in the area of a vacuum" is different from "gravity doesn't affect the area inside a vacuum", so I wanted to make sure of what you meant by "no gravity".

If a perfect vacuum is an isolated system the effects of its interaction with mater isn’t possible because it no longer would stay a perfect vacuum. So a perfect vacuum, being unable to interact with matter without undergoing a state change to an imperfect vacuum, would by its self have no gravity inside of its system. It would be neutral space without any gravitational field or any ability to interact with gravity.

4 hours ago, Strange said:

The water would rush to fill the empty space. This would be an extreme form of cavitation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavitation

There is no negative state, in terms of mass or energy (or the presence of matter).

No. A (perfect) vacuum is zero mass (and energy). There is nothing less than that.

If there is no negative state of mass and energy than a balanced system would display an area of absolute mass and energy to be the contrast to a perfect vacuum. What effects on a system would result from combining these two.

8 hours ago, Strange said:

Black hole.

Event horizon

Gneeral relativity

The vacuum would create no gravitation (because it has no mass). The cubic foot of matter would create a gravitational field depending on its mass: 1 cubic foot of hydrogen has much less mass (2.5 grams) than 1 cubic foot of osmium (640 kg).

If it is a gas at higher pressure than its surroundings, Male. But not in general.

Massive objects attract one another.

Although it is not quite that simple. A completely even distribution of mass will either expand or contract.

It depends on how it is measured. It is only negative if you use a relative pressure gauge. When I did a little bit of vacuum physics, a perfect vacuum was a pressure of zero. The pressure we actuallyachieved would be positive.

Thank you for the explanation of BH, EH and GR. So if a perfect vacuum is a completely neutral state with no gravity, then what kind of physics are still present in a perfect vacuum if any. I’ve seen people talk about what happens when you introduce matter to a vacuum but what about if you introduced an area of a perfect vacuum into a pre existing system like a tank of water. Also a perfect vacuum is a neutral state so then what is a negative state. Also is there any existing area where a vacuum wouldn’t have relative negative pressure in the universe. Even outer-space still has more matter in it then a perfect vacuum.

51 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

It might seem like it, but a vacuum or any region of lower pressure, doesn't create any inward force. Rather air or water at some higher pressure is pushing its way into the region.

Outside of pressures due to gravity, like atmospheric or seawater, the two are not really related.

Why is a vacuum measured in a negative pressure then? Doesn’t that mean there is an inward force being generated by the need to balance the pressure variance of the space around a vacuum and the space inside a vacuum?

49 minutes ago, Janus said:

One cubic ft  of perfect  vacuum would just not produce any gravity field. The cubic ft of matter would produce a gravity field with a strength depending on just how much matter there was.

There is no negative pressure involved  in making a vacuum.

A vacuum is measured in negative pressure. Wouldn’t that suggest it’s creating an opposing force to that of a gravitational field generated by solid matter?  

3 hours ago, beecee said:

A BH in actual fact is nothing but critically curved spacetime, with the mass squashed at the centre at or below the quantum/Planck level. To speak of BH density is not really a valid concept.

Let me add to that, while certainly never ever being able to observe what is inside the EH of any BH, GR does tell us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached [which is the EH] then further collapse is compulsory. We can logically then accept that due to GR's excellent track record, that the mass continues to collapse, at least up to the quantum/Planck level where our laws of physics and GR fail us.

Explain BH, EH, and GR please. Also let me rephrase the question them. If a perfect vacuum is space without matter. Would 1 cubic foot of a perfect vacuum act in opposition to 1 cubic foot of pure mater? Assuming you could fill one cubic foot of space with mater until it is completely full. Would they create opposing gravitational fields? Such as one inward and one outward. Negative pressure is used to create a vacuum and positive pressure is used to create condensed matter. Condensed matter creates an outward force wanting to rebalance the pressure difference and a vacuum creates an inward force wanting to rebalance the pressure difference. Gravity on the other hand seems to move matter away from a vacuum such as outer-space and toward dense matter such as a planet or sun.

A perfect vucuum is the absence of matter in an area of space. A black hole is a super dense mass. Would you say these are the opposite of each other and if so how would you properly define their relationship? Could they be used to explain gravitational effects on a system? Would they cancel Each other out? And so on.

Referenced to listed pages

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole