Deriving spacetime in four-dimensional Euclidean space without time and dynamics

[Ans]

imagine we had the technology and resources to achieve very high energies or speeds.
can you describe in detail a specific experiment that can test your hypothesis? what would the results expected to be from your hypothesis vs mainstream and why?

Good question.
So far, I mostly concentrating on deriving existing widely accepted theories in scope of model of my hypothesis. So, there are no any new numerical predictions for any phenomena, which differ from existing theories. However, from the hypothesis it is possible to see areas where such predictions will arise after full development of the hypothesis. The areas includes, but not limited to:
* Origin of Universe. They theory allows to avoid singularity at beginning of Universe.
* Cosmology. The hypothesis belongs to class of superdeterministic theories. It allows different areas of Universe interacts without exceeding maximum interaction speed. As result, homogenity of observed Universe on large scales may have different explanation.
* Black hole singularities.
* Possibly, some new quantum effects for particles with very low energy.

As of now, best what the hypothesis allow - it allow to explain causality principle, fine tuning problem, maximum speed of interactions and related effects, gravity, much more simpler than SR and GR (but with same equations) and with less postulates. Accoring to Occam Razor, it is good argument in favor of the hypothesis.

 

[Ans]

IMO, it is a semantic problem.
Time is a human invention to identify and measure "duration between start and finish of chronological events". No change of any kind can happen without duration of the functional process, including quantum itself.

My hypothesis is somewhat close to static interpretation of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_interpretation_of_time
It have some specific, different than what is described on wiki.

 

[Ans]

Erm, that's not a contradiction? I pointed out that the two postulates you have there are equivalent to SR's in this context, not that they are equal in general. So you being able to derive more from them only would mean your postulates could be more general/broader, not that they are not the moral equivalent to SR's.

It is possible to derive SR and GR from hy hypothesis. And it is possible to derive postulates of SR and GR from postulates of my hypothesis. I never wrote it is not possible.

And as I pointed out, you literally assume the first postulate with your Minkowski diagram, and you literally assume the second by having a maximum velocity and arbitrarily setting it to the speed of light.

And, as usually, you wrong. Postulates are only in "Model of the hypothesis" section of my article. First postulate of SR was derived from postulate anbd model of my hypothesis, but it was not literally written as additional postulate.
For second, about setting Vt to speed of lght - it is not postulate, it is about usage of observerd facts. I derived Lorentz transformations, next I need to set value of Vt to match experiments. If set it to c, it would means it would satisfy to all known experiments.

No, it's turning more and more into an example of you not knowing that a velocity is a velocity.

Look, I thought you wanted MSc-level talk? You don't know that the speed of light is a (scalar) velocity, even after it having explicitly been pointed out to you!

I know what Vt have units of velocity. Problem is - seems as you read article very briefly. In model of the hypothesis, it is not possible to set Vt to infinity, it must be finite. As for velocity, it is defined in same units but defined differently.

So you confirm you are indeed unable to do that. Great; let's indeed have the readers decide for themselves.

I remember you wrote what there is error in my equations, and they are not match to Lorentz transformations? I have not seen prove of it. So far, you is unable to confirm your words.

 

[NotEinstein]

It is possible to derive SR and GR from hy hypothesis. And it is possible to derive postulates of SR and GR from postulates of my hypothesis.

But for the first, you've already assumed it with your Minkowski diagram, and during the derivation of the second, you have to assume arbitrary things in order for it to work out. You've simply used SR's postulates to get SR's postulates. Your postulates are thus the moral equivalent.

I never wrote it is not possible.

And neither did I, so I don't know why you'd bring that up?

And, as usually, you wrong. Postulates are only in "Model of the hypothesis" section of my article.

Are you saying your Minkowski diagram is something that you didn't assume? Please provide the complete derivation from first principles that led you to it then. Right now, as your article stands, it's pure assumption.

First postulate of SR was derived from postulate anbd model of my hypothesis, but it was not literally written as additional postulate.

I'm not talking about something being "literally written as additional postulate". As I said, you've assumed SR's first postulate with your Minkowski diagram, so it's no wonder you can then derive it. If you assume something, being able to derive that same thing isn't spectacular at all.

For second, about setting Vt to speed of lght - it is not postulate, it is about usage of observerd facts.

So... all your complains about me pointing out you using "maximum velocity" were nonsense? Great!

Also, no, the speed of light being a maximum speed is not observed fact, so you are wrong.

I derived Lorentz transformations,

By exploiting a mathematical mistake.

next I need to set value of Vt to match experiments. If set it to c, it would means it would satisfy to all known experiments.

So you now acknowledge that Vt is a velocity. Great! So why were you arguing it wasn't one before?

I know what Vt have units of velocity.

So... it's a velocity. In fact, you equate it to one, so that's only more confirmation it is one.

Problem is - seems as you read article very briefly.

If a brief read is enough to find so issues, a closer look is unnecessary.

In model of the hypothesis, it is not possible to set Vt to infinity, it must be finite.

That's only a limitation of your mathematical abilities. In SR, for example, it's easy to set it to infinity.

As for velocity, it is defined in same units but defined differently.

I don't care you define it differently: you setting it equal to a velocity proves it is one.

I remember you wrote what there is error in my equations, and they are not match to Lorentz transformations? I have not seen prove of it.

No, you've ignored my proving of it. If you haven't seen that, you've just admitted to another case of intellectual dishonesty.

So far, you is unable to confirm your words.

No, you ignoring my words doesn't mean they are not proven.

 

[globali]

Good question.
So far, I mostly concentrating on deriving existing widely accepted theories in scope of model of my hypothesis. So, there are no any new numerical predictions for any phenomena, which differ from existing theories. However, from the hypothesis it is possible to see areas where such predictions will arise after full development of the hypothesis.

To my understanding you don't have a concrete solid new hypothesis yet, but you might have some interesting ideas in the form of speculations on to how to move forward. In other words, you are thinking out loudly your thoughts.

I think this is very good because somebody out there might find something useful in your thoughts and you might help him build a nice model, that is well formulated and mathematically solid that will generate hypotheses than can be tested.

My concern is, that person can then easily claim that he was not influenced by you whatsoever, and so you will get zero credit out of it (unless his conclusions are EXACTLY identical so in this case you can claim priority, but then again you don't have something solid out yet to defend your claim and win the dispute).

Oh well!! But i guess its fine because getting the credit is not everything

 

[Write4U]

Oh well!! But i guess its fine because getting the credit is not everything

It is only if you make a living at scientific research. I am no scientist, but if I can contribute just a new perspective or idea, I don't need the credit. The knowledge that I contributed to the conversation (even in a small way) is sufficient for my satisfaction.
When I get a like, I'm a happy guy......

 

[Write4U]

Time is necessary for existence of Universe. But what is necessary for time? My hypothes is answer it.

You cannot measure the time of time, it does not exist independent of duration or outside of the universe,IMO.

You can only measure time as an emergent result (duration) of a physical chronology.
Spacetime is the chronological measurement of the existence and history of universal geometric space.

Chronology,
(from Latin chronologia, from Ancient Greek χρόνος, chrónos, "time"; and -λογία, -logia)[2] is the science of arranging events in their order of occurrence in time. Consider, for example, the use of a timeline or sequence of events. It is also "the determination of the actual temporal sequence of past events".

Chronology is a part of periodization. It is also a part of the discipline of history including earth history, the earth sciences, and study of the geologic time scale.

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

If there is no space there is no time. Take an example we experience time because of space between us, if there is no separation(space) between us then we can't talk out time

according to relativity time is not absolute, it means in different parts of the universe the rate of flow of time may not be same, time is affected by gravity and speed,as we know when we move fast enough to approaching speed of light time slows down for us, same in case of high gravity area like near black holes. This is called time dilation, but it is not right to say because space is also effected by gravity and speed and hence space and time are related. Therefore we can experience relativity in time because of space.

https://www.quora.com/Does-time-exist-5

Time is not a constant, it is dependent on the space configuration.

 

[river]

You cannot measure the time of time, it does not exist independent of duration or outside of the universe,IMO.

You can only measure time as an emergent result (duration) of a physical chronology.
Spacetime is the chronological measurement of the existence and history of universal geometric space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology https://www.quora.com/Does-time-exist-5

Time is not a constant, it is dependent on the space configuration.

True

Disagree

Time is not dependent on space configuration

Empty space gives zero time

 

[river]

Write4U

Why would you go from time being a chronology of things

To time dependent on the configuration of space ?

 

[Write4U]

True

Disagree

Time is not dependent on space configuration

If you want to measure it. We even have a name for a spacetime measurement, "spacetime coordinate", which includes a time reference.
The problem always is with reference to human observation. Space has no names, numbers, or any other symbolic representation other than its expressed physical spacetime patterns which require time to form and evolve, emerging (along with time) from dynamic fields.

Empty space gives zero time

No, I disagree. Empty space is a misnomer, space is not empty by definition. It is a geometric object with measurable mathematical properties which does require time for it's continued chronological existence.

All physical things in space experience the effects of entropy "over time".
From Wiki;

Time is also "the determination of the actual temporal sequence of past events"

Outside of space there is no time, there is no existence of any kind, thus no time.
The question "was time before the BB"? is moot. Without chronology, infinite time = 0, or

Void (t = 0) --->BB (t = 1) ---> ST (t = 2) ---> ST (t = 3) ---> ST (t = "now" everywhere)...

 

[river]

river said: ↑
True

Disagree

Time is not dependent on space configuration

If you want to measure it.

Why wouldn't you , measure movement ?

The problem always is with reference to human observation. Space has no names, numbers, or any other symbolic representation other than its expressed spacetime patterns.

Room is a name for space

 

[Write4U]

Why wouldn't you , measure movement ?

Oh, I would. Movement happens in space and therefore has several associated relative timeframes. One of them would be the measurement of duration of movement over distance. i.e. 60 miles @ 60 mph = 1 hr time

Room is a name for space

It's a human symbolic word for space (which is itself a symbolic alphabetical pattern). It indicates a geometric structure with measurable properties. Enough room for a piano.

The universe has no words or symbolisms other than generating recurring physical patterns which humans have codified into scientific symbolic languages, including the symbolic assignment of the term "time", for measuring chronological duration and/or changes in existence.

The universe makes stuff and making stuff requires sufficient time to complete. The universe has a necessity for time and a greater permittive dimension allows for "sufficient time".

Necessity and Sufficiency.

In logic, necessity and sufficiency are terms used to describe a conditional or implicational relationship between statements. For example, in the conditional statement "If P then Q", we say that "Q is necessary for P" because P cannot be true unless Q is true. Similarly, we say that "P is sufficient for Q" because P being true always implies that Q is true, but P not being true does not always imply that Q is not true.

The assertion that a statement is a "necessary and sufficient" condition of another means that the former statement is true if and only if the latter is true. That is, the two statements must be either simultaneously true or simultaneously false.

In ordinary English, "necessary" and "sufficient" indicate relations between conditions or states of affairs, not statements. Being a male sibling is a necessary and sufficient condition for being a brother.

IMO, being a permittive condition is a necessary and sufficient condition for emergent time along with spatial and physical change.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U,
Why would you go from time being a chronology of things
To time dependent on the configuration of space ?

The continual reconfiguration of dynamic ever changing space creates a necessity for time and, as a consequence for humans, a measurable chronology of spacetime. Spacetime is a "durable" thing.

 

[river]

↑
Why wouldn't you , measure movement ?

Oh, I would. Movement happens in space and therefore has several associated relative timeframes. One of them would be the measurement of duration of movement over distance. i.e. 60 miles @ 60 mph = 1 hr time

I don't look at the measurement of movement as you do .

You understand movement in terms of being on this planet or any planet

I look at measurement of movement as being based on energy and matter, physical things .

Inotherwords it is things that ultimately matter , to understanding what time actually means and the essence of time .

Without the understanding of the essence of time , time becomes mistakenly a real dimension . Which is wrong thinking .

 

[Write4U]

I don't look at the measurement of movement as you do .

You understand movement in terms of being on this planet or any planet

No, I don't.
I see David Bohm's Pilot Wave model of the universe as a dynamic everchanging aspect of the geometric thing (permittive condition) we have named spacetime itself.

I look at measurement of movement as being based on energy and matter, physical things .

Sure.
Check out Bohm.

In other words it is things that ultimately matter

Sure.
Check out Bohm.

In any case change, movement, duration, distance, all require time for the "physical function" itself. Measurable time for duration is granted by the greater permittive condition which permits the physical function in the first place.

At Planck scale, this equation becomes fuzzy and unmeasurable according to Copenhagen Interpretation. Bohmian Mechanics solves several apparent paradoxes contained in Copenhagen and offers a purely deterministic universe, without "uncertainty".

Is really good stuff because he was an eminent physicist as well as a deep philosopher.
He was discarded for awhile by the scientific community, but there is a concerted swell of renewed interest in several aspects of Bohmian Mechanics and Metaphysical mathematical projection.

"Wholeness and the Implicate order" has been praised by many colleagues. Below is link to .pdf file.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation (see download PDF)

 

[river]

↑
I don't look at the measurement of movement as you do .

You understand movement in terms of being on this planet or any planet

No, I don't.

I see David Bohm's Pilot Wave model of the universe as a dynamic everchanging aspect of the geometric thing (permittive condition) we have named spacetime.

Neither space nor time is a geometric physical thing

 

[Write4U]

Neither space nor time is a geometric physical thing

Spacetime IS a geometrical construct. The 3 spatial dimensions create a geometry.

The metric satisfies a few simple properties.

Informally:
the distance from a point to itself is zero,
the distance between two distinct points is positive
the distance from A to B is the same as the distance from B to A, and
the distance from A to B (directly) is less than or equal to the distance from A to B via any third point C.

A metric on a space induces topological properties like open and closed sets, which lead to the study of more abstract topological spaces.

Euclidean space

The most familiar metric space is 3-dimensional Euclidean space. In fact, a "metric" is the generalization of the Euclidean metric arising from the four long-known properties of the Euclidean distance. The Euclidean metric defines the distance between two points as the length of the straight line segment connecting them. Other metric spaces occur for example in elliptic geometry and hyperbolic geometry, where distance on a sphere measured by angle is a metric, and the hyperboloid model of hyperbolic geometry is used by special relativity as a metric space of velocities.

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

And Minkowsky space; what is Minkowski space?

In special relativity, the
Minkowski spacetime is a four-dimensional manifold, created by HermannMinkowski. It has four dimensions: three dimensions of space (x, y, z) and one dimension of time. ... General relativity used the notion of curved spacetime to describe the effects of gravity and accelerated motion.

Hilbert space;l

Hilbert space,
A Hilbert space is an abstract vector space possessing the structure of an inner product that allows length and angle to be measured. Furthermore, Hilbert spaces are complete: there are enough limits in the space to allow the techniques of calculus to be used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space
This goes into more depth on the metrics of spacetime.

Stuff that makes up space have spatial "values". How stuff interacts are the spatial "functions".

 

[river]

↑

Neither space nor time is a geometric physical thing

Spacetime IS a geometrical construct. The 3 spatial dimensions create a geometry.

Yes

Three spatial dimensions create geometry , BUT not an energy and matter , physically . Which is what geometrics is fundamentally based on . Energy and matter , forms .

 

[Write4U]

↑
Three spatial dimensions create geometry , BUT not an energy and matter , physically . Which is what geometrics is fundamentally based on . Energy and matter , forms .

Yes, geometrics is about patterns of all possible configurations, including matter.

The geometric difference between dead and alive is the patterns your molecules are forming......chew on that.

Point, Line, Plane and Solid;

A Point has no dimensions, only position
A Line is one-dimensional
A Plane is two dimensional (2D)
A Solid is three-dimensional (3D)

https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/

and;

spatiotemporal, adjective,
Of, concerning, or existing in both space and time.
Of or concerning spacetime.

Synonyms
geotemporal * temporospatial * chronospatial

Derived terms
* spatiotemporal continuity * spatiotemporal database * spatiotemporal gene expression

https://wikidiff.com/geotemporal/spatiotemporal

Add movement or measurement and spacetime patterns become dynamic four dimensional geometric patterns or "fields".

All possible dimensional pattern configurations can be classified as fundamentally geometric.

 

[river]

Yes, geometrics is about patterns of all possible configurations, including matter.

The geometric difference between dead and alive is the patterns your molecules are forming......chew on that.

Point, Line, Plane and Solid;

A Point has no dimensions, only position
A Line is one-dimensional
A Plane is two dimensional (2D)
A Solid is three-dimensional (3D)

https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/

and;
https://wikidiff.com/geotemporal/spatiotemporal

Add movement or measurement and spacetime patterns become dynamic four dimensional geometric patterns or "fields".

They don't become dynamic in the real world unless they can be transferred into the real world . The physical Universe .