Jump to content

Two Plus Two Dimensional Spacetime


NumberlineA

Recommended Posts

Proof of 2 + 2 Spacetime corresponding to the two (approximate) inverse square laws:

1) In Special Relativity the transverse directions are not contracted

2) The Coulomb Force doesn't contract spacetime

3) The amplitude of light is contracted in Special Relativity

4) In the Schwarzchild Metric the transverse directions are not contracted

5) The Advancement of the Perihelion of Mercury stays in the orbital plane

6) The Speed of Light equals the Speed of Gravity

7) Kepler's Laws of Ellipses and Coulomb's Law of outer surfaces map spacetime

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NumberlineA said:

Proof of 2 + 2 Spacetime corresponding to the two (approximate) inverse square laws:

1) In Special Relativity the transverse directions are not contracted

2) The Coulomb Force doesn't contract spacetime

3) The amplitude of light is contracted in Special Relativity

4) In the Schwarzchild Metric the transverse directions are not contracted

5) The Advancement of the Perihelion of Mercury stays in the orbital plane

6) The Speed of Light equals the Speed of Gravity

7) Kepler's Laws of Ellipses and Coulomb's Law of outer surfaces map spacetime

Firstly, welcome, secondly, congratulations for actually posting in the correct forum...we often have newbies with new ideas, that immediately post in the mainstream sciences sections, thirdly I'm only an amateur, and can't really offer any validity or otherwise to what you are claiming. Does it have anything to do with, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/420717/why-spacetime-on-the-tiniest-scale-may-be-two-dimensional/ noting that that article came out in 2010 and I havn't heard anything re this 2x2.

 

ps: Remember also, scientific theories are not about, and never have been about proof, although obviously, the longer a theory matches newer and newer observations and is making the correct predictions, they do grow in certainty over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NumberlineA said:

Proof of 2 + 2 Spacetime corresponding to the two (approximate) inverse square laws:

Macroscopic spacetime being (2+2)-dimensional can be ruled out on a number of observational grounds (over and above the obvious fact that there are evidently three spatial dimensions that we can observe). To give just one example - in such a spacetime, electrons would not be stable particles, and would decay rather quickly. This is evidently not what we observe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Macroscopic spacetime being (2+2)-dimensional can be ruled out on a number of observational grounds (over and above the obvious fact that there are evidently three spatial dimensions that we can observe). To give just one example - in such a spacetime, electrons would not be stable particles, and would decay rather quickly. This is evidently not what we observe.

As distinct from  https://www.technologyreview.com/s/420717/why-spacetime-on-the-tiniest-scale-may-be-two-dimensional/  or microscopic spactime? Any thoughts Marcus?

[speculative obviously but could it be observed theoretically one day?]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NumberlineA said:

Proof of 2 + 2 Spacetime

You haven’t proved anything. You haven’t even explained the relevance of the statements you list. 

4 hours ago, NumberlineA said:

corresponding to the two (approximate) inverse square laws:

The inverse square laws are good evidence for three spatial dimensions, not two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one on earth can explain quantum jumps or distant quantum entanglement without two plus two dimensional spacetime.

By the Bohr Correspondence Principle 3+1 trajectories are 2+2 quantum jumps

Einstein's final Unified Field Theory was Distant Parallelism but he was too wed to Minkowski's 4D spacetime continuum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NumberlineA said:

No one on earth can explain quantum jumps or distant quantum entanglement without two plus two dimensional spacetime.

It is explained fine by existing theory (which is based on 3+1 spacetime).

Perhaps you can provide some mathematics and evidence to support your idea?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NumberlineA said:

Not gonna quibble over what proof means.

No one asked you to.

3 minutes ago, NumberlineA said:

That's like saying it's just a theory.

Only people who know nothing about science say that.

3 minutes ago, NumberlineA said:

Geometry is Mathematics. See top post.

Nothing in your top post provides any support for your claim. As you are unwilling/unable to provide any support for your idea (and it contradicts known physics) we can just assume it is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NumberlineA said:

We can go line for line on the top post.  Special Relativity contracts x and dilates t.  Special Relativity doesn't contract y and z. Therefore we separate the dimensions into two and two components.

Ah, I see what you mean. That's the trouble with being cryptic: people are likely to misunderstand you. I though you were claiming that there are two spatial dimensions and two time dimensions (I suspect others did two). But it seems that all you are doing is separating the two dimensions affected (in a specific case) from the other two.

But what if the object is not moving in just the x direction? What if it moving in x, y and z? Then it is contracted in all three spatial dimensions and lengthen in the time dimension.

And what difference does your model make? Is the mathematics different? Does it make different predictions from SR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A three dimensional vector is a coordinate rotation to a two dimensional vector.

What's the geometric picture of quantum jumps and distant quantum entanglement.  EPR says that its non locality and non realism. Non locality is a feature of two plus two spacetime.

Back to the top post 1,2, and 3.  Once we have SR doesn't contract y and z, well electric charge doesn't contract spacetime.  But SR does have the amplitude of light (y and z) contracted. That shows Coulombic components of spacetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NumberlineA said:

Not gonna quibble over what proof means. That's like saying it's just a theory.

The point I was making was that sometimes people do use it as a means to decry science.

 

Quote

That's like saying it's just a theory.

That's the  point I am making. A scientific theory or model is the top rung of science, and as best as it gets...eg: SR/GR Theory of evolution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's stay focused on the top post that is convincing the world of 2+2 dimensional spacetime:  (t,x) (y,z)

Quantum Jumps and Distant Quantum Entanglement are only applications of the theory.

Up above I explained points 1, 2, and 3 after being told they are cryptic.  Does points 4, 5, 6, and 7 need explicated?

Once more, Geometry is Mathematics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NumberlineA said:

Let's stay focused on the top post that is convincing the world of 2+2 dimensional spacetime:  (t,x) (y,z)

Quantum Jumps and Distant Quantum Entanglement are only applications of the theory.

Up above I explained points 1, 2, and 3 after being told they are cryptic.  Does points 4, 5, 6, and 7 need explicated?

Saying something is so, and making claims on a public science forum without any real evidence, will not convince the world or even the thinking members of this forum.

Quote

Once more, Geometry is Mathematics

And  spacetime is four dimensional geometry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NumberlineA said:

Let's stay focused on the top post that is convincing the world of 2+2 dimensional spacetime:  (t,x) (y,z)

No, let’s stay focussed on the need for mathematics and evidence. 

3 hours ago, NumberlineA said:

Quantum Jumps and Distant Quantum Entanglement are only applications of the theory.

Of what theory?

And as we can observe them, and even use them in technology, they are not just theoretical. 

3 hours ago, NumberlineA said:

Up above I explained points 1, 2, and 3 after being told they are cryptic.  Does points 4, 5, 6, and 7 need explicated?

They are all too brief to be meangful as support of your claim m without the mathematics and evidence. 

3 hours ago, NumberlineA said:

Once more, Geometry is Mathematics

Obviously. But hard to see how this is relevant. 

Symmetry groups are mathematics, too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/10/2018 at 6:48 AM, beecee said:

As distinct from  https://www.technologyreview.com/s/420717/why-spacetime-on-the-tiniest-scale-may-be-two-dimensional/  or microscopic spactime? Any thoughts Marcus?

[speculative obviously but could it be observed theoretically one day?]

Yes, dimensional reduction on small scales is a distinct concept. I don’t know what - if any - observable consequences would arise from such a small scale structure, on macroscopic scales. Note that dimensional reduction is not what the OP suggests here, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Yes, dimensional reduction on small scales is a distinct concept. I don’t know what - if any - observable consequences would arise from such a small scale structure, on macroscopic scales. Note that dimensional reduction is not what the OP suggests here, though.

Yep, that's why I made the distinction. Thanks Marcus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

top post points 1, 2, and 3 is explained above.

Number 4 says that the two spherical angles are not contracted separating the dimensions in two and two

Number 5 says that Mercury stays in a 2D plane

Number 6 shows the two coincide

Number 7 shows how to map 2D discs and 2D surface

This is all geometric mathematics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NumberlineA said:

top post points 1, 2, and 3 is explained above.

Number 4 says that the two spherical angles are not contracted separating the dimensions in two and two

Number 5 says that Mercury stays in a 2D plane

Number 6 shows the two coincide

Number 7 shows how to map 2D discs and 2D surface

This is all geometric mathematics

You have yet to convince this forum, let alone the world. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NumberlineA said:

This is all geometric mathematics

So are special and general relativity. 

What is your point? Are you saying relativity is wrong? Do you have a better model?

On 27/10/2018 at 6:51 PM, NumberlineA said:

We can go line for line on the top post.  Special Relativity contracts x and dilates t.  Special Relativity doesn't contract y and z. Therefore we separate the dimensions into two and two components.

So, in some cases you can reduce a problem to two dimensions. But not always. For example: Inverse square law,  Schwarzschild metric, frame dragging, inspiralling black holes and gravitational waves, ...

So still not seeing your point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People read the top line of the top post (t,x) (y,z), dismissed it, and hit the reply button.

The statements 1-7 are standard physics that can be found in a thousand textbooks.

All that the top post adds is a parenthesis (t,x) (y,z). That's clerical bookkeeping.  It says 10th grade geometry is for real.

(t,x,y,z) trajectories equal (t,x) (y,z) Quantum jumps.  No standard physics has been rejected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NumberlineA said:

The statements 1-7 are standard physics that can be found in a thousand textbooks.

But you failed to explain how they were relevant to your idea.

You have also failed to address the many other aspects of physics that cannot be treated as 2D problems. What about the inverse square law? Or gravitational waves? What about the Lense-Thirring effect?

4 minutes ago, NumberlineA said:

All that the top post adds is a parenthesis (t,x) (y,z). That's clerical bookkeeping. 

It's not even book-keeping. It is just arbitrary and meaningless grouping of the dimensions. It changes nothing and explains nothing.

5 minutes ago, NumberlineA said:

(t,x,y,z) trajectories equal (t,x) (y,z) Quantum jumps.

You need to explain this. You know, with the appropriate mathematics. (You could start by explaining what you mean by "quantum jumps".)

6 minutes ago, NumberlineA said:

No standard physics has been rejected.

And no new physics has been introduced. You don't appear to have done anything useful. Or, if you have, you have spectacularly failed to explain it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three dimensions and the inverse square law.

  The man from the flooring company came over to measure the rooms for carpet. He measured the length and width of all the rooms. I said to him, you didn't measure the height of any of the rooms. You are only considering two dimensions. He said that he's not denying the existence of the ceiling heights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.