geordief

Is this theoretically possible ? Would it not need to have been more than extremely dense? More like one object? Or can "objects" be the wrong way to look at things? Can all all things be "connected" somehow even when conditions are not "extremely dense" ?

Are you familiar with how that theory goes?

An upside to the "climate change"/global warming issue is that it brings all communities around the world together in a common enterprise. This is similar to the risk of global self destruction which was felt even more keenly before the USSR broke up. Of course the obstacles to working together are so huge that the cure is almost worse than the disease (and in fact working in splendid isolation has its upsides too except for the fact that it no longer seems to be an option) The upsides such as grape harvests in France are real but beg the question whether we would be better off if they did not exist like a fly in the ointment to distract us from the pressing and urgent (time limited) task in hand.

Poor Strange. He has to share his term of abuse with Ohiolite.

Untuition,surely.

Is it important to decide whether randomness or determinism is fundamental to the working of the universe? Will this always be a chicken and eģg question? Is our understanding bound to be provisional and applicable to the domain in question?

Thanks. What if I rephrased it to specify an event "close to" the Big Bang? Is the 4D manifold "blind" to that circumstance? All events are equivalent no matter how close they are the the Big Bang. I think you have answered this studiot when you said "The introduction Minkowski spacetime as a theory predates the big bang as a theory by several decades and I think that the introductuion of the big bang requires severe modification to MST if not something else entirely."

Is it possible to ask "random in relation to what?" Is that a meaningful question? Might it be that the macro world is random and the micro world is determinant? Was that "word salad"?

I wouldn't dare to comment but I would be fascinated to know what the latest speculations are on the subject. I think you need to be abreast of the subject to a degree so as to know who might be worth listening to -and I am not.

So is the 4D event that describes the Big Bang any different from the other 4D events we can describe mathematically ? Is it just an "unprivileged" member of the set with no way to differentiate it from any of the others? The manifold merely "catalogues" all the events without laying out any "qualitative" differences whatsoever? Is there no kind of kind of "ordering" at all...? (just relationships between arbitrary pairs of events) .

Thanks Is it possible to set the values of s1 x1 y1 z1 t1 to zero? Could those values represent an event at around the Big Bang? and allow us to find the 4D distance of any event with respect to it? Am I right that the set of 4D events is increasing or does the fact that the Manifold is described as "static" preclude that possibility? Did my OP "make sense" ? Was it shot through with misunderstandings ?

Preamble: I hope I can post here (in the homework sub forum) since I am trying to "catch up" ** with the subject of Relativity in a way. If the universe is represented by a model consisting of the set of events in a 4D manifold , are there points in this manifold that have particular characteristics (or properties?) For example ,what does it say if events are separated from each other by the same 4D distance? Secondly the event that represents the Big Bang , would that be the event with the greatest sum of distances from all the other events? Thirdly would this event (the Big Bang) be considered to be at the "centre" of the manifold? Fourthly: Is there a subset of events that have the same "distance" from the Big Bang and what can be said about them that might be interesting? Can anyone provide me with a link on the internet to where these kinds of questions are answered-or put me right as to whether my questions actually make sense....? Have I badly misunderstood how this manifold model is supposed to work? ** By "catch up" I mean I am trying to learn some of the standard theory and not to challenge it.

I think I have heard that that is one of the main areas of present enquiry.

I doubt that.Quantum theory doesn't seem to require "continuums" and that is how the smallest domains are explained at the moment

In order not to cross post ,you need to work with 2 pages . With the first you check for the freshest content and with the second you write your post. I do this some of the time, not always.

I think you may have edited out your answer to the question "Perhaps MSC will let us know if we are on the right lines regarding his MO." It was "perhaps" wasn't it ? -or was that a typo?

You have to convince your audience (and then judge that your audience is not gullible). Are Ophiolite and myself on the right lines as regards your perhaps "shoehorning" your perception of reality into what would be a more scientific method of learning things ( one big step rather than lots of little baby steps)?

Yes that is very close . I remember from the days I was interested in "alternative" philosophies there was something called Gestalt Therapy which seemed to be saying that depending on how you looked at something a hidden pattern would emerge .... Perhaps MSC will let us know if we are on the right lines regarding his MO. To follow on from Oph's post it might be that there are two processes ,one internal and subjective and the other external and objective that need to dovetail for new learning to be effective (statemement of the obvious perhaps)

Is MSC just making a general observation (using a perhaps poor example) that the obvious and everyday can be hiding its secrets in the open? Sometimes you may need to look at something with the eyes of a child.(I am no expert ) Perhaps , as the others are saying there is nothing to see here .(I crossed posted,Oph )

@robinpike thanks.I do need and did benefit from that resume but I kind of take it as a given that in your earth/moon /spacecraft scenario that the distance as agreed by the 3 observers in the 3 different frames of reference is a function of the speed of light (even if I still struggle with the actual mathematics involved). My question (if I can still summarize it) was whether this is universally the case. Strange has convinced me otherwise as he has pointed out that dark matter seems to exist in isolation from the effects of em radiation and so ,presumably we might need some other mechanism to define or measure distances in that context.. Hope that clarifies my question (which I think Strange did resolve for me in a way that was quite clear) and my understanding of the answers.

Poor Robin Williams seemed to have been dealt a terrible hand. Suicide perhaps seems more comprehensible in his case. His life seems to have been disintegrating according to the latest report.

Does robinpike's line of argument belong in the thread from which this was split off ? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91940-how-fundamental-is-light-to-the-physics-of-the-universe/ In post #5 of that thread Strange said "You seem to be saying that because we can use light to measure distance, that distance must be defined by light. This seems just as illogical as the claim that because we can use change to measure time, time is defined by change. It is refreshing to see someone apply the same logic to space as to time, even if it is equally wrong." Is robinpike's argument in line (or counter to ?) to that point? I cannot really contribute as my head is below the water line but maybe robinpike could make that same point in the earlier thread ?

Thanks. I will go away and try and work my way through that (eventually I hope).

Am I being facetious.? You press the button and that involves electro -magnetism(I am just trying to tag along) I think you are being facetious but maybe I deserve it for asking questions outside my remit.

How do you measure the time in that situation? How do you know what has occurred in the muon? Is it not by the use of a beam of light? (apologies if I am wrong -I am just prodding ) Are there any situations where time can be physically counted (not inferred) without a beam of light being used at some point in the process?