[guest39538]

Let the vector space be 0 , an empty matrix

[]


How can we expand the matrix if there is no pre-existing vector space to expand the Matrix into?

My answer <[]>    =  light intensity

p.s the ''arrows'' are span tags 

[petelamana]

I have been asking a similar question for a while.  I just followed the convo at https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72234.0, titled Can 2 opposite polarities occupy the same space?

At any rate, I have a question before I jump into this pond...

How can we expand the matrix if there is no pre-existing vector space to expand the Matrix into?

My answer <[]>    =  light intensity

"If there is no pre-existing vector space to expand the Matrix into", then how is the light intensity being observed, let alone measured?  If I shine a flashlight, and the beam is passing through nothing, can I observe and thereby measure its intensity?

If I am "missing the boat," please forgive my ignorance.  I strive to learn.  It is my drug of choice.

[petelamana]

Upon further consideration, I am going to "jump in."

I agree.  There, I said it.

Now, my question is the same as yours - What is the universe expanding into?  The closest I have been able to come to a rectification of this dilemma, and this happened within the past day or two, is to consider the isotropic nature of the universe.  Then the only answer that I can make fit is that the universe is expanding into itself.  So, you ask what is <[]> expanding into?  I'm going to go out on a branch and pray it doesn't break on me... it is expanding unto itself.

Mathematically, and I will need something stronger than Tylenol to chase down those constructs, I'm not exactly sure how that would look.  I have a few ideas, but I need to iron them out before I post them.

Thank you, again, for a great topic.

[guest39538]

 If I shine a flashlight, and the beam is passing through nothing, can I observe and thereby measure its intensity?

If I am "missing the boat," please forgive my ignorance.  I strive to learn.  It is my drug of choice.

You can only observe the light of an object,  the light passing through space is invisible, the intensity is object and light source distance apart related.    Space itself is neither light or dark, it is transparent , but I think the intensity  can be measured because it   is detectable by device such as a radiometer.

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

[petelamana]

Yes, I agree.  However, in order to detect the intensity would there need to be something beyond the expanding array.

[guest39538]

Yes, I agree.  However, in order to detect the intensity would there need to be something beyond the expanding array.

To detect anything you would have to have something that is emitting ,   so if you was detecting something that was external of the expanding array, you can pretty much be guaranteed there is something emitting it or reflecting it.

[evan_au]

Let the vector space be 0 , an empty matrix
[]
How can we expand the matrix if there is no pre-existing vector space to expand the Matrix into?

Mathematicians just define however many dimensions they think they might need.
Many years ago, I did a course on the rather obscure computer language APL. It even has an operator to expand a matrix into any number of dimensions you want: "A⍴B" takes the data in B, and puts it in the shape of matrix A.

If you want to put the universe in The Box, how do you know that "[]" is a sufficiently big box?

Most matrix arithmetic is done with linear algebra.
But Einstein says that there are nonlinear operators in the universe, eg gravity, which has an inverse square law.

I think you are trying to mash a non-necessarily Euclidean universe into a square box : []...

[guest39538]

...

Quite the opposite, I want to create an infinite box  [∞] from no box [] at the speed of light.   My box manifests from a 0 point , two opposite poles manifesting simultaneous occupying the same point. (N-field)

Emitting from the N-field is the n-field which has infinite length and is directly proportional to the inverse.


p.s My box [ab] explains 0 point energy.

In my terms inversely field density =  1→0   

transversely field density = 0→1

and of course 1=ab

[guest39538]

Euclidean universe

In a universe with zero curvature, the local geometry is flat. The most obvious global structure is that of Euclidean space, which is infinite in extent. ... The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as that of an open universe. A flat universe can have zero total energy.

Curvature is a result of velocity, not a result of gravity, gravity is just the ''rope'' the  ''ball'' spins around.  Following a curved  path is not the same as a curved space,  a curved field density (c.f.d) at r1   is not the same as curved space.

ok?

[guest39538]

I drew it you, this is what Einstein was ''saying'' space-time curvature is my Q.F.S



c.f.d.jpg (41.13 kB . 627x335 - viewed 2936 times)


That is our Universe, that is how we see, that is the max limit we can see. That is the curvature of field density,( c.f.d.)

Inverse curved law? do we have one of them?   

[petelamana]

Curvature is a result of velocity

Perhaps you are implying acceleration? 

Consider an airplane flying.  In general, the acceleration forwards or backwards has to do with changes in velocity, and that acceleration sideways has to do with curvature.

However, if the object is traveling at a constant v, then the dv/dt=0.  So, wouldn't anything traveling at the speed of light have no dv/dt, and therefore no curvature?

[guest39538]

Curvature is a result of velocity

Perhaps you are implying acceleration? 

Consider an airplane flying.  In general, the acceleration forwards or backwards has to do with changes in velocity, and that acceleration sideways has to do with curvature.

However, if the object is traveling at a constant v, then the dv/dt=0.  So, wouldn't anything traveling at the speed of light have no dv/dt, and therefore no curvature?

I was referring to orbits, the velocity of an orbiting body is speed and a linear path x (direction),   the curve of the path is the hold of the ''rope''.  The ''rope'' is a linear always.

I am not 100% sure what you were asking about light, but light is emitted in a linear path,  all the radius's from a central point of a sphere to the ''surface'' of the sphere are equal, the sphere's surface is curved because the outputting body is curved.

I am not sure if that answers your question? 

[guest39538]

r111.jpg (26.2 kB . 683x451 - viewed 2949 times)

[petelamana]

Thank you, it does clear things up for me.

My point with light was simply to say that, in the absence of a significantly massive object, light cannot curve.

I suppose that in the presence of a significantly massive object, any curvature is due to gravitational forces affecting the local spacetime.  Would those forces be perpendicular to the vector of travel, as in your rope - ball example?

[guest39538]

Thank you, it does clear things up for me.

My point with light was simply to say that, in the absence of a significantly massive object, light cannot curve.

I suppose that in the presence of a significantly massive object, any curvature is due to gravitational forces affecting the local spacetime.  Would those forces be perpendicular to the vector of travel, as in your rope - ball example?

The impression of gravitational curvature of light is a bit of an illusion.  The light shows the curvature of something rather than the curving of the light.  Light is absorbed and reflected at all angles, but it always keeps it's linearity in my opinion, although it can wave and be a linear wave . 

I do not ''see'' eye to eye with science on Photon's, they 'see' a photon to be like a grain of rice where I see the Photon to be a  perturbation in fields.  A field ''particle''. 

[petelamana]

I see the Photon to be a  perturbation in fields.  A field ''particle''.

Interesting.

[guest39538]

I see the Photon to be a  perturbation in fields.  A field ''particle''.

Interesting.

My thought's on this are that I first considered an ether and to cut along story short, I consider the field produced by a body was the self mechanism of energy transfer, energy transferring and passing through the bodies field, without a field a body would have noway to ''ebb'' and ''flow'' the energy between bodies.   So I considered Photons to be like little energy spikes travelling ''up'' and ''down'' a field.  Fluctuations in the field rather than a grain of rice.  Seems more plausible to me.

[petelamana]

I'm going to need to ponder that one for a bit, but on the surface, I agree that it seems plausible.

[guest39538]

I'm going to need to ponder that one for a bit, but on the surface, I agree that it seems plausible.

I like to consider the blue sky , I consider the blue sky is directly proportional to the invert , rather than a scattering , because surely a scattering would have a lesser frequency than ''blue''?

[guest39538]

I drew it


invert11.jpg (42.97 kB . 683x451 - viewed 3465 times)