O'Nero Samuel

I know I might sound stupid, but I'd wanted to know if anyone knows an author who has written a hypothetical mathematical formalism for speeds greater than that of light as an extension of the ideas of Einstein special relativity. If so please share links, 📚 or references of such ideas.

Isn't this speculation? I thought there was a section for this.

The vector resolution of velocities through space-time tends towards equations described by special theory of relativity as the velocity tends towards the speed of light.Trying to imagine a frame of reference travelling at or above the speed of light is unimaginable, or so to speak, mathematically incoherent. You can deceive yourself with any other type of innovative-beyound-speed-of-light space-time hypothesis, But that's all you'd be doing - deceiving yourself I mean. You wouldn't have the mathematical footings to back your hypothesis.

Thanks for the references, I'm looking into them. I guess my use of mathematical term is obfuscating the ideas behind my questions. Now I'm getting a first hand experience of the conundrums facing the mathematician as described by Von Neumann in his "The mathematician".

Thanks a lot. This is why I value this forum: when one thinks in isolation, he stands the chance to tend to lean more towards subjectivity when drawing conclusions from the empirical science. I think I'm beginning to understand the mathematical description of a zero. But, just not to be mistaken, would I be correct to say that the mathematical description of a zero is relative to the point of view from which the user (observer, maybe) makes his interpolations? And according to studiot, would i also be on track to say that a mathematical zero can either be an active element of a set, or an entirely null set? If so, then when the mathematicians use the word "zero" they are not talking about absolute nothingness described by philosophers using the word? Going with these trend of thought, does it mean that every algebraic interpolations are done with respect to the group of the elements of the field in consideration? And, when two fields has elements that do not intersect the commutative interactions between the elements of these fields acts as a zeros when changing frame of reference? And I think what I came looking for is in your last statement. From what i've gathered so far, numbers are interpolated with respect to the set they belong to, and a null set, allow me to use the phrase, "looks like" a zero. Is there any more information one can get out of a null set that is not relative to other sets that has element. And if I am to rephrase, is there anything mathematically described as a zero function?

My apologies then, if I misunderstood your stand. You think my point is not totally correct in formal mathematics? What do you mean by formal mathematics. I was reading Von Neumann's "Mathematician", and he tried to describe, in two or more paragraphs maybe, the ambiguity and disconnectedness of "formal mathematics" (to steal your phrase) from the empirical sciences. Here is one of his paragraphs; "There is a quite peculiar duplicity in the nature of mathematics. One has to realize this duplicity, to accept it, and to assimilate it into one's thinking on the subject. This double face is the face of mathematics, and I do not believe that any simplified, unitarian view of the thing is possible, without sacrificing the essence." Could it be this two-facedness of mathematics that makes you think I might not be totally correct? If you could only neglect the bold, CAPITALIZED SHOUTING IN RED format of the statement, you would see that I'm not speculating: I'm asking a question about zeros: its mathematical and empirical implications. Maybe Neumann was right all along. Mathematicians has to sacrifice the empiricism science and nature to grab hold of rigorous logic. Its very sad indeed. Going by Neumanns' argument, I think the two-faced ambiguous nature of mathematics makes the brief, informal comment on set theory too blurry to grab empirically. I'd appreciate if you could elaborate.What are the two mathematical interpretations of a zero? Could you give a link or recommend a text that would help be see things in your point of view? And sure, I'd like to discuss the part of the zero that corresponds to my questions. I'd be exhilarated! The zero you have been describing is one of the, so to speak, types of zero there is according to Studiot. I'm talking about an absolute zero. I wish I had better words with which to express myself. I blame this on mathematics though!

Thanks! That was a direct answer, it was really helpful. I'd look into the mathematical universe hypothesis of Tegmark. This is a forum where possibilities should be discussed and correlated with currently established theories, and you have your way of sounding condescending. I understand the fact that some words in mathematics have different meanings when used in other fields of studies, physics one of them. I'm not talking about the names used to tag these ideas, I mean their apparent significance and ways of applications. Thanks though, i'd look into the question you asked. I value the opinion of everyone in this forum, it has helped me in developing so many aspects of my theories, that is why i look forward to having more insigful opinion, and more so, criticism: i need them; but not condescension.

Relative to the fact that you have the ability to get more apples ( that would be a plus). This apple scenario sucks! I think Harshgoel1975 puts it all in a nut shell; that is an example of a relative zero. Now let me put this relative zero in a different perspective. For example we have four observers, A, B, C and D. A and B are moving at a speed of, say, Xm/s relative to observer C, whom we can assume to be stationary. The relative speed between A and B is zero. Although moving independently, the seem to each other not to be moving (in their frame, their relative speed to each other is a zero)relative to each other. But relative to to observer C, they are moving: and observer C measures a speed Xm/s for the same observation. In other words, a relative speed that was zero in A and B's frame is not zero in C's frame. To make the scenario more interesting, lets assume another observer D is moving with a speed of (X+dx)m/s. D gives an entirely different observation. Giving this example, can one assume that a zero is relative to the observer, and probably his methods of making these observations? If that is true, does this not now confirm my initial hypothesis? There are several key ideas that differ in meaning between mathematics and physics? Now that, my friend I seem to find hard to swallow. Now i have a question: DOES EVERY FORM OF MATHEMATICS DESCRIBE A PHYSICAL PHENOMENON, OR SOME JUST DESCRIBE ABSTRACT LOGICAL IDEAS THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO THE PHYSICAL DOMAINS OF LOGIC? Now be very careful with the answer to the above question; for though it may seem relativistically simple to answer, its implications are quite far reaching. To give you a clue to what i mean, lets take the possibilities of the answer being "yes, all mathematics describes a physical phenomenon". Then this would be a direct contradiction your elegant conclusion that there are several key ideas that differs in mathematics and physics; for physics tries to describe all of the physical observable universe using mathematics as a tool for elegance and simplicity, so there should be an absolute symmetry between these two studies. Good thing is that it is this absolute symmetry that we have being enjoying as physicist in finding out everything we know so far about the universe. Without the appropriate mathematics, the physics cannot be described. That was why Einstein himself got stocked on his bid for the TOE: his conclusion, if I'm to paraphrase, was "...The derivation, from the equations, of conclusions which can be confronted with experience will require painstaking efforts and probably new mathematical methods. Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved." On the other hand, if your answer is "No, mathematics does not describe all physical phenomenon but sometimes some logical ideas that are not directly related to the physical domain of logic." Then my question for you would be what domain of logic does these mathematics describe. For every mathematician would agree with me that the beauty and elegance of mathematics, which every mathematician prides their life and reputation on, is the ability to describe a phenomenon with simplicity and eloquence. Then if an abstract mathematics is not describing the physical domain, then what is it describing? Coming back to your description of a zero using the set theory, I think that was simple enough. The set theory describes multiplets and not necessarily the intrinsic manipulation of the elements of these multiplet. So the zero in the set could represent anything. For example, i can have a set such as; A={a, b, 4, 3e, boy, &, apple, 0} Now this set is a valid set. The above set means that somehow, from the point of view of the compiler, there seem to be something related with the elements of these sets. we cannot work with most of the elements of that set as a mathematical quantity. Now back to my initial argument. I'm not talking about the zero in the form of a non interactive zero you just described. Thanks with that statement! The apple didn't go into a zero, the apple just change hands. From your frame of reference, the apple is a zero, but from the person who collected the apple, there is the apple. The same apple. The zero of the apple is impossible.

I'm not a mathematician, I'm a very close cousin, a physicist. I've been comparing the idea of a zero from the mathematicians' point of view and the physicists' point of view and find both somewhat incompatible. Maybe the term incompatible seem a little extreme, so allow me to use the term inconsistent. Here goes my argument; Mathematically, if you subtract 2 from 2 what would be left is nothing. This nothingness is what mathematicians call a zero. Physically, If you take away everything, from the largest of galaxies to the smallest of particles, eg gluons, photons, bosons, etc, what would be left? The philosopher would say nothing. The mathematician would say nothing implying a zero. But the physicist would say space. Now space is not really nothing, it is something. It has its intrinsic characteristics. It can bend, it can warp and can do a lot of thing that nothing can not do mathematically. Now if mathematical nothingness and physical nothingness are inconsistent, where and how can we find symmetry? To cut a long story short, my conclusion is this; A MATHEMATICALLY ABSOLUTE ZERO (NOTHINGNESS) IS IMPOSSIBLE. Now please mind my use of words: "mathematically absolute" means a zero that is a zero in every transform. I wonder if this fact has been proven mathematically, or if this is just my hypothesis. Now, please don't be mistaken. I'm not talking about Curt Gödel's Incompleteness theorem: that is a totally different issue. If this hypothesis has been proven I'd be glad to get a reference to this proof - it would help save me a lot of time I'd spend to prove it mathematically and finish the physics I'm working on. I'd really appreciate the Ockham's riffle. But if there is not, then I guess the race can begin. Finally, and most importantly, maybe I might just be talking nonsense, eh? Please do let me know. And tell me also what is wrong with this type of thinking.

A black hole is not dead. Read about it; that is the only way you can get the clearification you seek. In the lamest terms, the issue with blackholes is that the mass to radius ratio is so enormous that even light cannot eccape its surface. And if we can not see light from it then we can not see anything from it:then its dead. So is it really dead?

"...world line of inertial observer"?! What was that supposed to mean? Relativity, if you still believe its laws, says that every initial frame is correct relative to the other. In other words, there is no, so to speak, super-correct frame of reference: if that was what you meant by world line of inertial observer. Time and the spontaneity of events depends on the state of the frame of reference from which the observer makes his observation. Time is relative and there is nothing as an absolute time frame.

"Every observer has his own clock"? I think that was too ambigous. Take for instance two observer having the same frame of reference, would they both have their own clock? I think you needed to state that every observer on a frame of reference has his own notion of proper time relative to every other obeserver in some other frame of reference moving with some relative velocity to the other. Please do correct me if I am wrong. I believe the original question of this post means to say that if an observer in a frame of reference reduces its speed to match with that of some other frame of reference, would their time synchronise? If then this is the question; then the answer would depend on whether both frame of references are moving in the same direction. If they are, then their time frame would synchronise; but if not then there would be a relative velocity, and therefore a minute laps in the time of both observer.

The confusing thing is how can an "object" be zero dimensional?

The entire idea of there existing a graviton is a conformation to the already known pattern by which other fundamental forces have been understood and described; this conformation would not lead to confirmation, not now, not ever. Gravitation as seen by Newton and Einstein has a critically important nuance that if misunderstood, could set us years behind in our quest to uncover the true nature of gravity. I believe the idea of space time warp and forces of attraction between two masses are entirely different phenomenon, and this disparity is accentuated when we go deeper into smaller particles, I mean the quantum domain. So if anyone has contributions and clarifications, please do so in the light of these discrepancy.

Thanks MigL, I meant HUP. Then I guess I was mistaken. The fact that quantum particles exist in the first place, I believe should give them momentum and an, so to speak, arbitrary position, but this we cannot measure when such particle is under observation. I get a picture of the mass now, though. Delta1212 a wise guy (Albert Einstein) once said, "If you cannot explain it to a six years old, You don't really understand it"!

No. I believe this your interpretation is wrong. What EUP was talking about was in measurement an not eigen state. When measuring the state of a quantum particle, there is a trade off in precision in measurement of its position and momentum. The range is the planks constant: this is analogous to the string used in the above cartoon; but it is really about measurement.

Are we not digressing from the truth with this nuance in the position and momentum of the EUP? I believe that it was talking about measurement. That one cannot measure to great precision simultaneously the position and momentum of a quantum particle. This, I believe, does not imply that they do not possess both at every instance, but that you cannot measure to a high degree of accuracy and simultaneously both quantities of a quantum particle. Not having position and momentum, and measurement of position and momentum are two different phenomenon and misunderstanding this could lead to great doldrums. Like the above cartoon, if you think to focus your attention on momentum, you loose accuracy in measuring its position, and vice versa.

I taught as much. Because one begins to wonder how thinking about the position of a particle interacts with the particle. The Uncertainty principle holds as long as there is a detector, since the detector would have to interact with that particle to detect it. That is the long and short of the whole story, anything added would be unscrupulous detail.

Space, in quantum meahanics, isn;t featureless but a ground state...could one call this state the zero quantum state? That is the state from which other quantum states are defined relative to? If I could, let me know...this would really mean something . Thinking in terms of space time is the foundation of the clashes between quantum mechanics and classical physics. Topology, in the quantum domains, I believe, does not use the idea of space time GR proposes. In other words, you cannot prove quantum gravitation, thats a total misnomer. And what you are discribing is heading towards that direction. Nature has unity...that is, quantum mechanics and classical physics has a point of coherence (to exergerate, call it convergence), but the path taken by most, ie the linking of GR and SR, wouuld not lead us there.

Okay then, if space, on an extremely microscopic scale, does not behave like nothingness, then how can it help in transmitting energy through EM waves? How would the topology of space interact with EM waves on this extremely microscopic scale?

Because what he is talking about is not physics. It had started out as physics but swayed very far from it in its conclusions. In physics we quantify and measure identites. Test and/or predict how they interact or would interact with each other, then draw inference that is readily transferalbe and observable by another person using the same measurements of the initial identity. How can you friend hope to measure the workers attitude in both companies, quantify them and make interactions with other identities, like say, engine piston. There is no logical, or so to say, simple mathematical route to both. He's conclusions are not testable not transferable, not consistent, not science in a nut shell. He should be talking about the psychology of engine parts, and not physics.

Even thinking about it would change your result? Then how can you tell that the result has changed when you didn't even know what is was in the first place?

Now you've totally lost me. Could you recommend a text that would help me study Topology in detail...and maybe try to see what you are describing? Thanks in asvance.

"In 1924, Stefan Banach and Alfred Tarski*** proved that it is possible to cut one sphere into five pieces that can be recombined to give two spheres, each the size of the original. Take any two sets not extending to infinity and containing a solid sphere each; then it is always possible to dissect one into the other with a finite number of cuts. In particular it is possible to dissect a pea into the Earth, or vice versa"...Motion Mountain. What is the applicable implication of this? And does anyone has a link or blog that could show the mathematics that was used?

If what you are proposing stands, then space is really an abstraction: a background created by our perception of our environment in an attempt to distinguish between objects and phase-space, images and space time. Not surprising, this is the usual way with which we tell the difference of things in our environment: tell motion from rest, tell objects from "space-time", tell images from background. The problem we are having now is reconciling the non-conforming nature of our "created space" concept to that of EM waves (another abstraction relative to space), reconciling their interactions through "space-time", and retranslating it into our world in which we understand motion and change in relation to background and object. This is why this space interaction would not seem to have a, so to speak, purpose.