0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Would you agree that a dimension is a mental construct used to analyse, describe and compare observed phenomena?
[/1]Uncertainty as a dimension has no useful meaning in physics! [/2]So the order of accuracy has no useful meaning in classical physics?
Have you considered the work of Ilya Prigogine? In 1997, he published "The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos and the New Laws of Nature". New York: Simon & Schuster.
Have you ever wondered why identification of the fifth dimension has proven so elusive?
The two statements are incompatible. The first was a reiteration of Peppercorn's assertion.
The second is an example of uncertainty being used as a dimension.
Ilya Prigogine - great philosopher and scientist - nobel autobiog here
The 'tolerance' ... is being measured, even if that measure is only an estimate.
Tolerance is a limit to measurement not measurement in of itself. It has no meaning without knowing what is being measured and in what units.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle serves to demonstrate that uncertainty cannot be avoided. It is inherent in nature.
[HUP] is an essential quality of a fifth dimension of similar order to space and time.
Probability is a measure of uncertainty. The mathematics are well developed.In a way, I agree with you that there is not a dimension missing FROM space-time. The problem is that space-time is an inadequate paradigm because it does not include uncertainty as a dimension. We need a new paradigm that does include it.
The irony is that including uncertainty in a broader paradigm means that there is no ultimate truth or endpoint.
Ahem! Personally, I think uncertainty might simply be a consequence of "time jitter".
Quote from: Geezer on 10/08/2010 19:33:20Ahem! Personally, I think uncertainty might simply be a consequence of "time jitter".Ooooo, tell us more about this 'time jitter', Geezer.It could be the most illuminating so far in this thread!
Quote from: peppercorn on 11/08/2010 02:03:51Quote from: Geezer on 10/08/2010 19:33:20Ahem! Personally, I think uncertainty might simply be a consequence of "time jitter".Ooooo, tell us more about this 'time jitter', Geezer.It could be the most illuminating so far in this thread!er, well [] it's probably baloney, but, if time were to be jittery at subatomic scales, it might account for the uncertainty we observe in the position of subatomic particles. For example, electrons might have quite specific positions relative to the time frame of an atom, but because we can't properly "synchronize" with that time frame, we can can only assign a probability of an electron being at a position.That's about as far as this "theory" goes []