Skaffen

These statements don't make any sense to me. Are you just making this stuff up as you go along or do you have a reference that might explain what you mean by them?

 

The reference you do provide regarding the hypothetical Einstein-Rosen bridge is, I'm guessing, your "observation" related to the "hourglass" (6th geometrical dimension?). As far as I know, the Einstein-Rosen bridge concept doesn't invoke any extra dimensions.

 

Chris

'Dimensions', beyond the intuitive, are mathematical constructs - I have used a conserved (symmetrical) geometric illustration to try and retain a sense of intuition....hopefully to improve communications to further the discussion....a la Feynman

- Me making it up (hypothesis) - The Universe is 'conservatively connected' (Tiled) - a spherical object moving through Time traces a torus (or it's 'unstable') e.g. electrons, moons, planets, stars. Only stable systems can underpin/define 'higher' systems/dimensions/geometries/fundamental forces....take your pick...I prefer geometry

To 'conservatively evolve' spatial geometries - 1 'multiplies through division' (i.e. half it), rotate through next 'higher/spatial dimension' (e.g line - circle, positive & negative hemispheres), aka 'mathematically squared'. If we 'half n square' up to 6 times from a point we get an 'hourglass' - human observation has recently technologically observed this on a cosmological scale, however it pervades all scales IMO.

As for a prediction from my hypothesis - Dark Energy is the angular momentum of the observable Universe and will tend from current estimations of 74% to 75%.....a half squared is a quarter

Ok, so I am trying to imagine up to the tenth dimension. I am stuck on 6. I know that 4 is time, and 5 is the possible sequence of events that could take place in time. I don't really get the 6th. I know that 7 is all the possible events (infinity) considered as one point. I still don't understand 6. Can anyone help me try to understand the 6th and possiby 8, 9, and 10?

 

Any comments are appreciated!

 

Thanks!

 

Gobblewobble123

Time is not the 4th dimension - within your concept it is the 1st....without Time there can be no movement and consequently no 'space'.

Geometrically

1. Point Particle (Potential)

2. Straight line

3. Circle

4. Sphere

5. Torus

6. 'Hourglass'

7. 'Hourglass' (Wider with less height)....also known as the future.

Observation

1. Electron

2. Electron Radius

3. Electron Orbit

4. Atom - Planets/Stellar Objects

5. Galaxy (Hole orbited by Spheres)

6. http://www.physorg.com/news189792839.html

Geometrically the translations are performed by halving/dividing and rotating (maintaining conservation). Rotation is a squared function - a half squared is a quarter, which is why Dark Energy is observed to be (currently) 74%...they will find the missing 1% when the measurement improves.

Dark Energy is the spin of the observed Universe - just as matter is localised energy through angular momentum.

Time is simply potential - it does not 'require' space (it is the 1st 'dimension'). - Only our observation/measurement of it requires space.

Time is only direction, which is why we can only travel through it at varying speeds but not against/counter it. (Travel to the past)

Hume was a Reductionist - later expressed as a recognition in the field of Mathematics by Dirac as 'elegance'.

The backdrop for the Scottish Enlightenment was a shifting away from Religious doctrine, in part due to our history with the Vatican. (Vatican supported English dominance over Scotland and at one point threatened the whole nation with ex-communication!)

Scottish history is the ideal illustration of the negative effect Religious thought has on individuals and Society via it's removal.

Huh?

Complementarity - elaborated in this post:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52738-relativity-principle/

Isn't fitness defined as the capability of a certain genotype to reproduce? So, isn't it the fittest that survives? Adaptability is the ability to change to fit certain circumstances, which I think may lead to increased fitness. But, I thought it was survival of the fittest. Many things contribute to whether an organism will be relatively fit, and I believe adaptability is one of those. I don't feel like adaptability is the end all be all for survival.

 

 

 

I do agree with your point on 'all life is a composite of smaller scale organisms' though.

All life is defined by it's ability to reproduce, from the bottom up. DNA to Pimp Daddy

'Fitness' infers a purpose to be fit for - Evolution has no purpose/design. Adaptability incurs a relationship to a changing environment.

If an asteroid was going to destroy 95% of life we would live underground, we adapt to survive - I don't incur any meaningful sense of fitness in this except fit to survive which is clearly adaptability.

Many animals adapt by lying dormant through extreme drought until the rain comes - fit to sleep? (which I can relate too )

If it was physical fitness the dinosaurs would still rule but conversely it is the big ones that have the hardest time.

All life is defined by it's ability to reproduce, from the bottom up. DNA to Pimp Daddy

 

'Fitness' infers a purpose to be fit for - Evolution has no purpose/design. Adaptability incurs a relationship to a changing environment.

 

If an asteroid was going to destroy 95% of life we would live underground, we adapt to survive - I don't incur any meaningful sense of fitness in this except fit to survive which is clearly adaptability.

 

Many animals adapt by lying dormant through extreme drought until the rain comes - fit to sleep? (which I can relate too )

 

If it was physical fitness the dinosaurs would still rule but conversely it is the big ones that have the hardest time.

from wiki (Adaptation) - Main Darwinian Evolution article is terrible IMO

Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.^[1][2] This process takes place over many generations,^[3] and is one of the basic phenomena of biology.^[4]

The term adaptation may also refer to a feature which is especially important for an organism's survival.^[5] For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast and escape predators. Such adaptations are produced in a variable population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully, that is, by natural selection.

Adaptation is the heart and soul of evolution. Niles Eldredge

from wiki -

-"Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle means that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. Moreover, the principle is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics.

Consistency is not the same as objectivity, unless you reduce the Universe to a state of potential.

Einstein hinted at the "nature" of the system (Universe), however he did not like the implications and did not accept the probabilistic derivative that is QED and the essence of the Uncertainty Principle. - Key is, however, that he could not offer a better counter point.

Furthermore (wiki) -

In March 1926, working in Bohr's institute, Heisenberg realized that the non-commutativity implies the uncertainty principle. This was a clear physical interpretation for the non-commutativity, and it laid the foundation for what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg showed that the commutation relation implies an uncertainty, or in Bohr's language a complementarity.

Copenhagen Interpretation (wiki) -

In the earlier work of Planck, Einstein and Bohr himself, discrete quantities of energy had been postulated in order to avoid paradoxes of classical physics when pushed to extremes

[bold for chronological emphasis]

from wiki -

 

-"Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle means that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. Moreover, the principle is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics.

Consistency is not the same as objectivity, unless you reduce the Universe to a state of potential.

Einstein hinted at the "nature" of the system (Universe), however he did not like the implications and did not accept the probabilistic derivative that is QED and the essence of the Uncertainty Principle. - Key is, however, that he could not offer a better counter point.

 

Furthermore (wiki) -

 

In March 1926, working in Bohr's institute, Heisenberg realized that the non-commutativity implies the uncertainty principle. This was a clear physical interpretation for the non-commutativity, and it laid the foundation for what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg showed that the commutation relation implies an uncertainty, or in Bohr's language a complementarity.

Copenhagen Interpretation (wiki) -

In the earlier work of Planck, Einstein and Bohr himself, discrete quantities of energy had been postulated in order to avoid paradoxes of classical physics when pushed to extremes

[bold for chronological emphasis]

also from wiki

The results of their own burgeoning understanding disoriented Bohr and Heisenberg, and some physicists concluded that human observation of a microscopic event changes the reality of the event.

(bold: emphasis of the common misunderstanding)

This will need careful explaining. What is the uncertainty principle in Einsteinian relativity?

It is the inability to derive consistent/accurate (physical laws) from an objective frame of reference, as no such state exists. Einsteinian Relativity is the precursor to the Uncertainty Principle (you get to UP via RP). Einstein jumped off the bus but wasn't able to refute Heisenberg....and he tried. The implications of Relativity, such as the Principle of Uncertainty, and consequently QED is hard to take in a single lifetime. We know it to be accurate due to our good fortune of being told so and having it demonstrated throughout our lifetimes.

What would count as "witnessing" them? Inferring is all we ever do - we take in sensory data, and infer things about the world around us. That doesn't mean that objective reality doesn't exist, and it's not new to relativity.

 

The uncertainty principle is not based on relativity, btw.

I won't change semantics as it won't accomplish anything (re "witnessing"). It does mean that objective reality doesn't exist or if so considered can only be reconciled as a potential. This conforms to a Godlike (Infinite) viewpoint which is not evident in our Universe and is addressed in my initial post.

The Uncertainty Principle was an implication of the Theory of Relativity - an implication that even Einstein revolted against yet could not counter effectively....we are the tumbling dice that will never come to rest.

What point of view? You mean one reference frame?

 

And how is this different than anything else? You can't deduce much about anything from one snapshot. For example, it took a lot of careful observations at different times to deduce that the geocentric model of the universe was wrong.

A singular frame of reference as we must experience it at any given moment or location. It is not different from anything else it just has profound implications such as; we can only infer the dynamics but never witness them (Uncertainty Principle). The analogy is limited and only in a limited way illustrates our limits.

Thanks Sisyphus, cool diagram

Seems from that diagram that pairing occurs along the Galactic plane . It is obvervable that Galaxies are related along 'superstrings' as measured by the COBE satellite as an aspect of the Universe 'expanding'. It is the nature of this relationship between Galaxies that prompts the question.

I don't know what this sentence means.

When it is reduced to a single point of view, in this case yours, it is similar to adopting a preferred reference frame. A bit like taking a snapshot - you can see everything but the dynamics. I appreciate you can move and take a number of snapshots at different times and infer the dynamics however no single snapshot will give evidence of it.

That doesn't say that galaxies come in pairs. It says that they often group up, which they do. There is nothing special about the number 2 in particular.

I know it doesn't postulate all galaxies come in pairs - that's what I'm trying to find out. It says they often do based on direct observation, which is a limited set. Susskind says all but 1 is moving away from ours - this suggests IMO our galaxy is paired. The Holmberg Effect is a relationship between pairs, considering he was using old tech I was hoping to gain a contemporary view. Preferably building in Dark Energy and the implications it may have for eventual equilibrium.

Why? Observers in two different frames of reference will both agree on reality. That seems objective to me.

No, it implies consistent. When you define it as result between 2 points you have objectified it at the expense of all other frames of reference. This limitation is inherent in us and indeed necessary to function on the scales practical to us...it is only an approximation however. Good enough to last 300 years without anyone noticing.

Conservation of what?

 

What is it that you read about the Holmberg Effect that led you to believe that galaxies "come in pairs?"

http://www.astro.uu.se/history/holmberg.html

- "A study of double and multiple galaxies" (1937) he showed that galaxies often appear in groups and pairs and he also realized that it would be possible, using statistics, to determine the masses of pairs of galaxies knowing the radial velocities of the components and this method has been very important in extragalactic research. The observations also resulted in the discovery that satellite galaxies often move in certain orbits, the "Holmberg effect".

http://www.astro.uu....y/holmberg.html

 

 

- "A study of double and multiple galaxies" (1937) he showed that galaxies often appear in groups and pairs and he also realized that it would be possible, using statistics, to determine the masses of pairs of galaxies knowing the radial velocities of the components and this method has been very important in extragalactic research. The observations also resulted in the discovery that satellite galaxies often move in certain orbits, the "Holmberg effect".

-"Conservation of what?"-

Of the amount of space. You can stretch an elastic band, it doesn't infer there is more. Opening an umbrella doesn't increase anything because I can conserve by closing it again, it is a reconfiguration. The principle of conservation is axiomatic, when you talk in terms of more space it is due to oversimplification.

Skaffen, it seems like you are defining "objective" in a very curious and specific way. Relativity is as consistent and objective as anything else.

I appreciate that words as definitive concepts are inadequate to express Relativity. Objectivity requires a fixed frame of reference or at a minimum implies a preferred frame of reference. This viewpoint has been shown to contradict the nature of our Universe. It is the counter intuitive aspect which Heisenberg illustrated with a cat in a box - the cat is both probably alive & probably dead. Humans are discreet constructs and require discreet measurement, however nothing is discreet (absolute/objective), everything is defined by everything else. Curvature of space and Time dilation are the consequences and are evident.

Give an example of an Absolute that exists in our Universe and I will reconsider.

Galaxies do not come in pairs. Andromeda is of a similar magnitude as the Milky Way. There is also one other spiral galaxy in our local group, and about 30 smaller ones.

 

The reason all but the closest are getting farther away from us is because of cosmic expansion - the "amount of space" in the universe is increasing. At large distances, this effect is greater than any local motion towards us.

I don't like the term 'space is increasing', seems to defy conservation. 'Reconfigured' perhaps? There are after all forces we are only just beginning to encounter, never mind understand. (ie Dark Energy)

Further reading led me to the 'Holmberg Effect', which does strongly suggest a correlation (pairing/grouping of Galaxies)

Relativity predated M&M by about 300 years. The opposite of objectivity is subjectivity - which means that the law and even the information are dependent on the individual being measured. velocities being relative doesn't mean that objectivity is lost merely that observations must be understood in a certain frame of reference; as these FORs and the calculations used with them are easily defined and universally agreeable then there is absolutely no loss of objectivity. The same applies to the transformations required to deal with coordinate systems in non-flat space.

Must be consistent in all reference frames.

Don't fret though, your reaction is common when faced with the understanding there is no objectivity...pretty scary! Science illustrates the consequences on a human level by never asserting Truth....only Theory. No doubt it is the closest to truth we can achieve....absolute Truth doesn't even come into it.

Heisenberg & QED also demonstrate the correct framework (ie Probabalistc)....spooky

It is survival of the most adaptable, not fittest. This immediately confers recognition of the environment as the driving force and is why all life is a composite of smaller scale organisms. The volume of non-human dna which is responsible for our digestion is well catalogued. In this context punctuated equilibrium is a 'bolt on' attribute that fits well into the lower order (microbial) and increases adaptability on the macro scale.

Consider the Caucasian ability to digest animal milk. As humans migrated into different environments they come into contact with different microbes, due to uncertainty in environmental changes in higher latitudes this ability 'had' to be found or there would be no Caucasians....but humans would go on.

Relativity doesn't dismiss objectivity - quite the opposite in fact. AJB called it the demand that "the physics should not depend on the details of how you chose to present it" - which sums up well the idea that it dismisses subjectivity and local variations.

Relativity is the 'opposite' of objectivity. The formulation is built on recognising there is no absolute background/frame of reference (demonstrated by Michelson & Morley).

The consistency of mass and energy behaviour/interaction in all reference frames is achieved by the curvature of space and Time dilation. Which is to say they have to be there for everyone to agree.

I was watching a Susskind lecture where he pointed out that all but the nearest Galaxy to ours (Andromeda?) is moving away from us - It was a lecture on Special Relativity, which is the main context behind my question.

Do Galaxies come in pairs?

Is Andromeda of a similar magnitude to the Milky Way?

Any help much appreciated.

Rgds, Skaff.

Are you saying everything is related?

If so, you have reached the basic principle that has underpinned science for the past 100 years. Although this would put you at the start of the quest for deeper understanding...not at the end.

I'm not sure what you mean by "many refuted it." Some have attempted to refute relativity, but nobody has been successful.

Apologies you are correct. Many have tried to refute it as you state.

Point being that even those familiar with it's implications have great difficulty accepting it due to it's dismissal of objectivity.

Relativity is congruent with subjectivity, so Einstein claims the prize on this one.

That is to say if someone can potentially hear the tree fall then it will make a potential sound. Making the scenario objective (without potential observer) is where it becomes nonsensical and thus confusing.

Potential by definition is Relative (positive to negative), aesthetically everything is a shade of grey with black and white forming the absolutes/boundary.

The present is the potential/boundary between past and future, the past or future has no mass or meaning without an observer.

Objects fall to Earth at a rate of approx 10m/s/s due to its gravitational field - elephants or paper sheets have negligible gravitational attraction. Air resistance increases with velocity until balanced (terminal)

Mass = Gravity, and determines rate of fall, however it is only significant when considering massive objects like stars, planets and moons.