The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. Time as 4D Minkowski Foam
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Time as 4D Minkowski Foam

  • 1 Replies
  • 3519 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline chimera (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Time as 4D Minkowski Foam
« on: 13/06/2005 22:30:48 »
gsmollin pointed me to this interesting article/website:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/

One of the few and rare collections of all main current scientific and metaphysical/philosophical viewpoints regarding the strange phenomenon of Time.

All the people in the piece except Mr. Stein have it wrong in my view, different reasons, some to do with mathematics, others with semantics, and Mr Stein has a problem of seeing the 'now' as one contiguous thing because this contradicts Einstein's relativity, which says things are not so linear.

In short, it boils down to comparing a lightcone of event in space-time with an empty glass, and by gradually filling it with water, you see the 'progression' of time. Wrong, because the surface is a smooth thing, while Einstein says this cannot be.

Now enter DoctorBeaver's Stella: fill the glass with beer, and the analogy is suddenly correct - the foam is the future, the 'solid' beer is the past, and that 'undecided' bit in the middle slowly rising upwards is the 'now'.

So Einstein defines the glass and the general 'level' of the beer, but quantum mechanics 'decides' how the bubbles burst, statistically speaking.

[examples of errors in the above link:
McTaggart is wrong I think because the copula 'is' can be used differently like in the examples 'it is raining' and 'seven is prime'. Unlike they do in the text where they replace 'is' with 'be' for some obscure reason , just remove the 'is' -> it 'rains' = ok, but seven 'primes' = not. You see *a* difference - one of several possible, even. Equally, a raindrop does not rain all by itself, and primality likewise is bit of a nonsensical concept when talking about one individual integer
Also there is a list of 3 examples with 'it is a fact that'. Wrong. Replace with ' it is an *observed* fact that' and you'll see why nr. 3 makes no sense.]

added: for those few interested souls, an equally rare introduction into the maths of foam, which in its pure form can be treated as (Voronoi) polyhedra.



http://www.smu.edu/math/research/foam.html
and a full thesis pdf on the same subject.
http://eprints.maths.ox.ac.uk/archive/00000034/01/breward.pdf

Not easy, don't say I didn't warn you... [:)]
« Last Edit: 14/06/2005 23:34:04 by chimera »
Logged
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.
 



Offline chimera (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: Time as 4D Minkowski Foam
« Reply #1 on: 15/06/2005 11:49:07 »
Ah, got it: seeing Minkowski space purely as a vector space is incorrect, I think:

"There is an alternative definition of Minkowski space as an affine space which views Minkowski space as a homogeneous space of the Poincaré group with the Lorentz group as the stabilizer." (wiki on minkowski space)

Now this is interesting. If there is a continous 'reality update' process going on, it's most likely a  pointwise affine transformation along the Euler line of the above Voronoi's.

http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/docs/reference/CRC-formulas/node15.html
http://www.leptonica.com/affine.html

(the last link gives a neat real-world example, and shows the diff between pointwise and sequential very well)

and fortunately, all the math involved describes processes that conform pretty neatly to what we see happening and already have puzzled out so far, and that's always nice. It's in no way contradictory to anything previously done.

Would be a nice feather in Lorentz's hat, mostly, I think. Wonder what he would think of my (upcoming) little Affine Shearing Liquid Crystal Cosmos model... [:)]

So could gravity somehow be the 'driving' engine behind time? I'm somehow convinced those two are much more involved with each other than anyone dares to think. How can a 'purely' 3d 'attraction' be involved in the happenings in another 'dimension' altogether? Yet somehow I think that's what they do. They are the only two one great 'unknowns' left, and the reason might well be our stubborn immediate dismissal of this simple relation, because of our 3D 'hangups'. We kind of separate the two immediately in our mind, and never the twain shall meet again, or something. We are mentally truly stuck in 3D, it seems. If you check the difference between pointwise and sequential affine transforms you can see that it looks like our history of things is a sequential representation of a pointwise process. That is always inferior and does not describe well what's happening, resulting in a lesser quality rendition. Our brains are not suited to see it as a pointwise process - or at least not all of the time.

Saying time 'matters' a lot might be the biggest single understatement EVER.
« Last Edit: 15/06/2005 12:03:35 by chimera »
Logged
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

Must ∞ monkeys on ∞ typewriters really write everything given ∞ time?

Started by chiralSPOBoard General Science

Replies: 28
Views: 24420
Last post 28/03/2020 11:42:26
by yor_on
We Know The Extent Of The Sun, What Is The Extent Of Space Time?

Started by TitanscapeBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 2
Views: 10981
Last post 27/04/2008 23:10:10
by turnipsock
What does "time-like" mean in the following sentence?

Started by scheradoBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 15
Views: 9052
Last post 09/02/2018 10:28:21
by Colin2B
If you could travel faster than light, could you travel in time?

Started by DmaierBoard Technology

Replies: 13
Views: 14086
Last post 19/03/2020 14:56:52
by Paul25
If the speed of light is constant, time must be constant too?

Started by Chuck FBoard General Science

Replies: 4
Views: 11713
Last post 19/03/2020 14:51:12
by Paul25
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.128 seconds with 36 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.