Fallacy , Space can be bent , warped or contorted .

[Write4U]

Aaaaand we're back to spamming threads with random giant articles with no explanation or tie-in that merely obfuscate the topic.

Princeton spamming? We are talking about warped spacetime and a fractal spacetime suggests curvature, this is pertinent.
What exactly is the problem with this article? You failed to explain your objection to the content.

 

[Pinball1970]

e. Even Einstein dismissed spooky action at a distance. Dismissal of new theory has always happened through history.

He did not dismiss QM, he accepted it's powerful predictive power and recognised the young geniuses coming through like Dirac and Pauli.
He challenged certain aspects including the implication that spooky action would involve FTL speed.
He asked the right questions and the EPR paper led to Bells inequality which led to the Nobel only a few years ago.
Even when Einstein was wrong he was right! Kind of.

 

[exchemist]

Princeton spamming? We are talking about warped spacetime and a fractal spacetime suggests curvature, this is pertinent.
What exactly is the problem with this article? You failed to explain your objection to the content.

No, you spamming, nitwit. This has nothing to do with space or spacetime. It’s a graph of energy vs magnetic field strength, showing the ranges of energies taken up by electrons in a particular material. Utterly irrelevant to anything that has been discussed in this thread.

 

[Pinball1970]

Princeton spamming? We are talking about warped spacetime and a fractal spacetime suggests curvature, this is pertinent.
What exactly is the problem with this article? You failed to explain your objection to the content.

A gravitational field can bend light, you pointed that out. You noticed a mistake in the graphics, they (not me I missed it) pointed that out.
Learn to take the W.

This is not about fractals dude.

 

[DaveC426913]

You failed to explain your objection to the content.

No, you failed to explain the relevance of the article you posted to the thread topic. "This might be of interest".

Once again, it's like you are triggered by keywords to post random articles with zero explanation as to what dots we're supposed to join between what you posted and the subject under discussion.

And, once again, it really looks like you don't comprehend what you read or what you post beyond keywords.

Today's trigger-word appears to be 'quantum' (Can you say 'quantum'? Sure you can!).

You saw Niccodeamus and Exchemist using the word in their messages and you went out and found an article that contains that word. No tie-in - no thought of your own, no nothing - except "This might be of interest" - like you're throwing cracked corn in front of chickens - like you hope to take credit if any of the chickens eat your offerings.

Don't do this. It's obnoxious and it shows you as an uncomprehending fool.

 

[Write4U]

No, you failed to explain the relevance of the article you posted to the thread topic. "This might be of interest".

Apparently nobody read my post #85, which is a current hypothesis that yields a curved spacetime "fabric", due to a fundamental fractal nature of spacetime itself.

This is not about fractals dude.

Do you have an alternate explanation for a curved spacetime?

Quantum geometry​

In theoretical physics, quantum geometry is the set of mathematical concepts that generalize geometry to describe physical phenomena at distance scales comparable to the Planck length. At such distances, quantum mechanics has a profound effect on physical phenomena.

In an alternative approach to quantum gravity called loop quantum gravity (LQG), the phrase "quantum geometry" usually refers to the formalism within LQG where the observables that capture the information about the geometry are well-defined operators on a Hilbert space. In particular, certain physical observables, such as the area, have a discrete spectrum. LQG is non-commutative.[1]

It is possible (but considered unlikely) that this strictly quantized understanding of geometry is consistent with the quantum picture of geometry arising from string theory.

Another approach, which tries to reconstruct the geometry of space-time from "first principles" is Discrete Lorentzian quantum gravity.

Quantum geometry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(Redirected from Discrete Lorentzian quantum gravity)

To here:

Causal dynamical triangulation (CDT), theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that, like loop quantum gravity, is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space) but, rather, attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

There is evidence [1] that, at large scales, CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.
more.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

And this seems to represent a pattern of quanta?

Physicists have discovered fractal-like patterns in a quantum material, which exhibits strange electronic or magnetic behavior due to quantum, atomic-scale effects. Fractals are patterns that repeat themselves on different length scales. Physicists believe that fractals also exist in the quantum world, and now a group of researchers in the US has shown that this is indeed the case.
Science News+2


AFAIK, all fractals eventually yield a curved space. Does that not directly address the OP?

A fractal pattern is a mathematical curve or geometric figure that retains the same general pattern of irregularity regardless of how high it is magnified12345. Fractals are self-similar and are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop4.

And this does not adress the OP? I guess we look at reality in a little different way...

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Apparently nobody read my post #85, which is a current hypothesis that yields a curved spacetime "fabric", due to a fundamental fractal nature of spacetime itself.

"Causal dynamical triangulation" is rapidly becoming another of your fixations. You regularly bring it up, despite having approximately zero understanding of what it's about. It's clear you think fractals are cool, and you googled up somebody's hypothesis that mentioned the word "fractal". And now you're blowing your trumpet for another idea you don't understand even a little bit.

Do you have an alternate explanation for a curved spacetime?

An alternative to what? To "causal dynamical triangulation"? The general theory of relativity is doing just fine without CDT, thanks very much.

Or are you asking for alternatives to the General Theory of Relativity? Aren't you already aware of such alternatives? After all, you keep mentioning some of them by name in your posts. Of course, do don't know why an alternative to GR is needed. And certainly you can't explain why any of those other hypotheses you name should replace GR.

Physicists have discovered fractal-like patterns in a quantum material, which exhibits strange electronic or magnetic behavior due to quantum, atomic-scale effects. Fractals are patterns that repeat themselves on different length scales. Physicists believe that fractals also exist in the quantum world, and now a group of researchers in the US has shown that this is indeed the case.

This has nothing to do with space being warped or contorted, which is what this thread is about.

AFAIK, all fractals eventually yield a curved space. Does that not directly address the OP?

As far as you know.

Tell he how you know that "all fractals eventually yield a curved space", Write4U.

You're just back to making shit up again, aren't you?

And this does not address the OP? I guess we look at reality in a little different way...

You need to stop trying to hijack threads with your irrelevancies.

 

[exchemist]

Write4U:


"Causal dynamical triangulation" is rapidly becoming another of your fixations. You regularly bring it up, despite having approximately zero understanding of what it's about. It's clear you think fractals and cool, and you googled up somebody's hypothesis that mentioned the word "fractal". And now you're blowing your trumpet for another idea you don't understand even a little bit.

An alternative to what? To "causal dynamical triangulation"? The general theory of relativity is doing just fine without CDT, thanks very much.

Or are you asking for alternatives to the General Theory of Relativity? Aren't you already aware of such alternatives? After all, you keep mentioning some of them by name in your posts. Of course, do don't know why an alternative to GR is needed. And certainly you can't explain why any of those other hypotheses you name should replace GR.

This has nothing to do with space being warped or contorted, which is what this thread is about.

As far as you know.

Tell he how you know that "all fractals eventually yield a curved space", Write4U.

You're just back to making shit up again, aren't you?

You need to stop trying to hijack threads with your irrelevancies.

James, I apologise for moaning about moderation policy but, for the love of God, why don't you just cut these irrelevant, hijacking posts of Write4U's out of the thread and send them to the cesspool? That's what mods do on stricter forums, and you've warned Write4U about this habit about a million times already. Maybe then he'd learn, finally. He's shown us he can, and sometimes does, read the stuff he posts, as in his video misrepresenting the bending of light.

Sorry, rant over.

 

[Write4U]

Tell he how you know that "all fractals eventually yield a curved space", Write4U.

Do you know that fractals do not eventually yield a curved space?

I believe these narratives suggest that fractal patterns will eventually yield a curved space, which does not conflict with GR or QG

Fractals and Space-Filling Curves

An equally captivating idea is that of the Space-Filling Curves and Fractals. Mathematically speaking, A Space-Filling Curve is a curve whose range contains the entire 2-dimensional unit square. In simple terms, a curve that is capable of filling a given particular area (like a square grid), i.e. it passes through all the points that lie in that given space. It does seem quite fantastic when we find out that this continuous curve possesses infinite perimeter but doesn’t occupy infinite area.

Fractals and Space-Filling Curves

mathshansraj.in

and

Fractal curves in nature

Fractal curves and fractal patterns are widespread, in nature, found in such places as broccoli, snowflakes, feet of geckos, frost crystals, and lightning bolts.[3][4][5][6]
See also Romanesco broccoli, dendrite crystal, trees, fractals, Hofstadter's butterfly, Lichtenberg figure, and self-organized criticality.

Self-organized criticality

Self-organized criticality (SOC) is a property of dynamical systems that have a critical point as an attractor. Their macroscopic behavior thus displays the spatial or temporal scale-invariance characteristic of the critical point of a phase transition, but without the need to tune control parameters to a precise value, because the system, effectively, tunes itself as it evolves towards criticality.

Self-organized criticality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An image of the 2d Bak-Tang-Wiesenfeld sandpile, the original model of self-organized criticality.

Self-organized criticality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[exchemist]

Do you know that fractals do not eventually yield a curved space?

I believe these narratives suggest that fractal patterns will eventually yield a curved space, which does not conflict with GR or QG

Fractals and Space-Filling Curves

Fractals and Space-Filling Curves

mathshansraj.in

and

Fractal curves in nature


Self-organized criticality

Self-organized criticality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 6731

An image of the 2d Bak-Tang-Wiesenfeld sandpile, the original model of self-organized criticality.

Self-organized criticality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This refers to the filling of a mathematical 2D space, i.e, the "line" passes over and over the space and eventually fills it up so no gaps are left. It has nothing at all to do with physical space or spacetime. It's abstract mathematics.

It's yet another irrelevant hijack.

 

[Pinball1970]

Do you know that fractals do not eventually yield a curved space?

The bending of space time as per OP is explained by GR published in 1915 and demonstrated in 1919. you do not need fractals.

 

[Write4U]

The bending of space time as per OP is explained by GR published in 1915 and demonstrated in 1919. you do not need fractals.

I don't dispute GR at all. My question is if GR is fundamentally fractal in geometry.

Gravity can exhibit fractal nature due to the interplay of gravitational forces, resulting in basins of attraction around cities with fractal boundaries1. Additionally, Newtonian Fractional-Dimension Gravity extends standard laws of Newtonian gravity to lower-dimensional spaces, including those with fractional dimensions2.

A wild study suggests that gravity can exist without mass, potentially eliminating the need for dark matter3. The texture of space and strong nonlinear physics may give rise to intrinsic fractalization on different levels4. Variations in the metric from its Euclidean form could lead to nontrivial fractal topology, potentially affecting curvature5.

As I am trying to keep any quotes to a minimum, please open some of the links via the numbers following the synopses. This particular summation contains 5 references to what appear to be reliable sources.

 

[billvon]

The bending of space time as per OP is explained by GR published in 1915 and demonstrated in 1919. you do not need fractals.

Oh don't tell him that; he'll bring in microtubules next.

 

[exchemist]

Oh don't tell him that; he'll bring in microtubules next.

Or quorum sensing……

 

[Pinball1970]

I don't dispute GR at all. My question is if GR is fundamentally fractal in geometry

Why not explore what Einstein's Relativity is first?

 

[exchemist]

Why not explore what Einstein's Relativity is first?

Because fractals are the new microtubules!

 

[Write4U]

Why not explore what Einstein's Relativity is first?

I have no quarrel with GR. And I don't think GR has a problem with fractality.

A fractal universe is new science. And it appears to agree with the cosmological principle of uniformity.

Fractals agree with the cosmological principle

Fractals agree with the cosmological principle12345. The fractal universe asserts that the universe appears identical from every point in space, a consequence of its fractal nature1. The majority of astrophysicists accept the validity of the cosmological principle3.

exchemist:
Because fractals are the new microtubules!

They are.

Plant microtubule cytoskeleton complexity: microtubule arrays as fractals​

Plant microtubule cytoskeleton complexity: microtubule arrays as fractals - PubMed

Biological systems are by nature complex and this complexity has been shown to be important in maintaining homeostasis. The plant microtubule cytoskeleton is a highly complex system, with contributing factors through interactions with microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs), expression of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Look at all the beautifully curved flora. AFAIK all fractals in nature are self-organizing. That ought to count for something.

Natural fractals are the result of self-organization​

Natural fractals are the result of self-organization, where different scales of complexity come together to form self-similar structures2. This self-organization process is also related to the concept of "fractal intelligence"1. The emergence of nonequilibrium critical phenomena, such as self-organized criticality, is also observed in natural systems5.

If that is true, then there must be some fundamental ordering taking place at all levels of expression. This is what intrigues me.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Do you know that fractals do not eventually yield a curved space?

I'll answer that in a moment. But why are you avoiding answering the question I asked you and trying to distract from your non-answer by asking me a question? Can't you just answer the question I asked you about your claim? Is it because you can't justify your claim that you're avoiding answering my question?

Look. You wrote this:

AFAIK, all fractals eventually yield a curved space.

"AFAIK" means "as far as I know", which implies that you believe you know something about how all fractals eventually yeild a curved space.

My question to you was simple: "Tell he how you know that all fractals eventually yield a curved space".

If you claim to know something, doesn't that imply you can explain why you believe it, why you think your belief is justified and why the thing you claim to know is true?

If you can't explain why you believe that it is a truth that all fractals eventually yield a curved space, then I am forced to draw the conclusion that you just believe it because you want to believe it, for no particular reason, or that somehow you just became convinced that it is true but you have no conscious understanding of what it was that made you so convinced. Either way, neither of those explanations for why you believe is going to do anything to shift the dial of whether I'm going to become more likely to believe what you believe. What would shift the dial for me would be if you could give me at least one cogent reason why I should accept that what you have claimed is true.

Of course, you haven't done that. Instead, you've just tried to avoid giving any reason for your belief, and you've asked me about my belief.

Moving on...

Your question to me is "Do you know that fractals do not eventually yield a curved space?". I will do you the courtesy of actually answering your question, rather than trying to dodge it like you did with mine.

My answer comes in three parts:
1. I'm not sure what "yield a curved space" even means. Are you saying you think that a fractal can somehow cause physical space to curve? Are you saying that a fractal can somehow produce gravity, like gravity described as curved spacetime in the general theory of relativity? Or what? What sort of "curvature" are you even talking about?
2. I don't know how a fractal - a mathematical abstraction - could possibly "yield" a curved physical space, because I can't think of a way that any abstraction can create anything in the physical world.
3. The more fundamental answer is: I don't claim to know that fractals do not eventually yield a curved space. But I'm not the one who is making claims to knowledge about this. That would be you. You said that you know that fractals do this. If you actually know, and can justify your belief, then maybe you can convince me to believe what you believe. Until you do that, I'm going to be skeptical, not least because of reasons 1 and 2.

Answer 2 should be very familiar to you by now, given our previous discussions about Tegmark and his "mathematical universe" and the map-territory problem and all that.

Now, will you answer the question I asked you?

I don't dispute GR at all. My question is if GR is fundamentally fractal in geometry.

GR isn't about fractal geometry. It's a theory of gravity.

Fractal geometry is a sub-field of pure mathematics. In contrast to GR, it is not a physical theory.

I have no quarrel with GR. And I don't think GR has a problem with fractality.

GR is not a theory of fractals. It is a theory of spacetime. Similar, fractal geometry is not a theory of gravity. It is a study about mathematical geometrical structures.

A fractal universe is new science.

What's a fractal universe?

And it appears to agree with the cosmological principle of uniformity.

What's the cosmological principle of uniformity, and why is it important to fractals?

Look at all the beautifully curved flora. AFAIK all fractals in nature are self-organizing.

No. Mathematical abstractions do not "self-organise". Humans organise mathematical concepts.

I don't know what you mean when you claim that nature "self-organises". If all you're saying is that the "laws of physics" can help explain why natural systems look the way they do, then okay. But that's just the core assumption of all the sciences.

If that is true, then there must be some fundamental ordering taking place at all levels of expression.

What's a "level of expression"? How many levels are there? What is a "level", anyway, in this context?
What do you mean by "fundamental ordering". What is being ordered?

Can you give an example of one "natural thing" that has "fundamental ordering" at "all levels of expression"?

 

[Pinball1970]

I have no quarrel with GR. And I don't think GR has a problem with fractality.

A fractal universe is new science. And it appears to agree with the cosmological principle of uniformity.

Fractals agree with the cosmological principle


They are.


Look at all the beautifully curved flora. AFAIK all fractals in nature are self-organizing. That ought to count for something.

View attachment 6737 View attachment 6739

Natural fractals are the result of self-organization​

If that is true, then there must be some fundamental ordering taking place at all levels of expression. This is what intrigues me.

Yes you have posted these again and again. Fractals are NOT required to explain GR. They are not relevant to the bending of space, tensors are.