Re: RMT Linear time

its not that big of a deal if you work it one cog at a time. it becomes rather simple then, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Unless the 'problem' revisits a 'problem'.
Meaning, just as you 'figure' out 'one cog' and move on, you must always revisit the earlier calculation and revise it's properties.
Almost a 'time machine' in itself and very complex.
A certain integer comes starkly to mind in this context.
Thinking in terms of 'forward clock cycles' may not do justice.
 
its not that big of a deal if you work it one cog at a time. it becomes rather simple then, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It sounds simple enough but in reality it isn't. You almost hit the nail on the head in a later post when you suggested looking at one billiard ball and making the others invsible.

That's precisely the problem. When looking at the universe and attempting to place it into a deterministic frame most of the universe's billiard balls are invisible. Just the extreme edge of the solar system is about 1 LY distant. The nearest neighboring system is 4 LY away. The rest goes out to over 20 billion LY. Most of what we can manage to see of the universe consists of states that existed close to the Big Bang. We can't see anything of what the state of the universe was between then and now...it's completely invisible to us. If we were able to detect a spectral class O5 supergiant star in the Andromeda Galaxy, 2.5 million LY away, we can pretty well bet that it went super nova about the time that Homo Habilis was last walking the Earth 1.5 million years ago. It no longer exists as a star. O5 stars only "live" for a million years or so. But we can't be sure about what really happened for another million years. Andromeda is our closest neighboring galaxy.
 
its not that big of a deal if you work it one cog at a time. it becomes rather simple then, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

gears in a watch are connected together. you can tell what the other gears are doing by simply watching one gear, correct?

i think that if you focus your attention on one gear, it will eventually become apparent what the other gears are doing.

of course i could be wrong. it would not be the first time.

the problem i am having is that i am thinking in 2-d. its kinda hard to understand it in 3-d. its also very hard to convey my thoughts with my limited knowledge in the subject.
 
i think that if you focus your attention on one gear, it will eventually become apparent what the other gears are doing.

of course i could be wrong. it would not be the first time.
Click to expand...

You're right. We can look at one gear, observe its actions and reactions, apply what we know of the laws of mechanics and deduce what is most likely going on with the invisible gears. It would probably be a very good guess. We just couldn't say as a matter of certainty that our guess was a model of what was "really" occuring in the invisible part of the system because we would lack a lot of detail. In many cases knowing what's happening with the one gear and guessing at what else is going on is sufficient for our purpose.

In the case of the universe we look out and see into the past about 13.5 billion years. Everything we see says that the laws of physics do not change over time, distance or location. From that we can model how the universe probably evolved over time. But what we can't do is see how the universe actually visually appears "now" in configuration space (how things are arranged) if we take the term "now" to equate to some vague notion of universal time, which is a very weird idea.
 
Angleo,

Are we going with the idea there are more dimensions then the 4th?
Click to expand...

You're still getting hung up on this idea of dimensions. Dimensions in physics, engineering and math is not a mystic, magical term. All it means is degrees of freedom.

In normal Newtonian space you have three dimensions thus six degrees of freedom of movement (change) - up, down, left, right, forward and backwards. In Minkowskian space you add a 4th dimension, time, to the space and call it spacetime. You then have eight integrated degrees of freedom of displacement. Just add + time and - time. TIme was always there in Newtonian physics. It was just treated seperately and with a somewhat different definition than in Special and General Relativity.

In string theory you add other dimensions up to 26 in order to give the strings room to displace and vibrate. These extra dimensions aren't directly observed in experimental results. They are suggested by the math underlying the theory(s) in order to give the system sufficient degrees of freedom to account for all of the particles and particle groups involved based on the experimental results.
 
For imagining this I was referencing the visual off loosely the theory from this source;
<a href="http://"http://www.tenthdimension.com/textonly.php" target="_blank">Imagining the Tenth Dimension</a>

I had watched that a few years ago and find that it shares alot of commonality in other ways some describe possibility.

I see though how there are many different ways to look at this.
Seems the whole point at times ^^ /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

(Plz note that I was not putting this forward as 'fact' or even remotely 'possible' - I just thought it would generate some interesting convo on it's plausibility in general).

I have some of my own imaginings of what it would 'look' like - kind of compared to perhaps infinitely large fishing nets layered over and over by others with the intricacies and movement not necessarily summed up in the large picture but in each and every interaction of 'knot' or interaction so to say - like fluid motion(metaphorical).
 
Angleo,

It's quite easy to imagine the "10th"dimension. Here it is:

_______________________________________________

That's it. A line of one dimension. Any forces present in the dimension can have but two results. They can stretch or compress the line or they can cause a displacement along the line. That's all she wrote.

"Living" in the 10th dimension, or any other one dimensional space, would be rather boring. If two beings lived in such a space they could never even pass each other along the line. There is no up. down, forward or backward. Just left, right, +time and -time. There are no bosons, leptons or any other particles for that "matter" (pun intended).

What purpose do additional dimensions serve? Here's one:

Consider a space that is a carboard card 16" on a side. Point A is in the middle of one edge and Point B is in the middle of the opposite edge.



We are in a 1D world and want to get from A to B. How far do we have to travel? We travel 32" from A to B. We can only travel along the edge of the board. There is no surface, just a 1D edge.

Now we extend our cardboard world to two dimensions - a 2D world. What is she shortest distance from A to B? It is now 16" because we can cut straight from A across the surface to B.

Next we extend our world to three dimensions - 3D - by folding up the edges 4" from the edge all aong the cardboard surface to make a box with a bottom, 4 sides and no top. Now what is the shortest distance between A and B? We already have a line drawn from our 2D world that goes down one wall to the floor, across the floor and up the opposite wall to B. That's how it now looks in our 3D world. But now, because the world is "curved" we can travel 8" across the space between A and B instead of 32" or 16". That 8 inches, because of additional dimensions, is now the shortest distance between the two points.

Adding dimensions changes how we can navigate space in the system. In fact, if we look at it correctly we can imagine that there are ways of traveling at sub-luminal velocities, if we are very clever, and beat a photon from A to B. We just need to have sufficient dimensions in our world.

The caveat, of course, is that we have to assume that there are physical laws that allow such navigation. But you see what I mean, yes?

That's why I harp on not getting hung up on the silliness of Internet New Age jargon like "alternate dimensions". It's a load of crap. But the real physics that might be involved is not a load of crap.
 
I appreciate the visual ^^. Do you in your opinion think something such as M-Theory is a at all a possibility in any context?
I tend to like to absorb everything and then later sort out the relevant - the way you explain it makes alot of sense /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Angleo,

I don't know much about M-Theory or string theory in general. I do know that it appears that researchers seem to be losing interest in the subject. We can see that in the number of papers submitted for string theory and the number of times a paper cites other string theory papers. Here's the stats since 2000:

Year-----Papers Submitted-----Average # of Citations Per Paper
___________________________________________________
2000----876------------------------30
2001----830------------------------27
2002----962------------------------33
2003----837------------------------31
2004----893------------------------23
2005----843------------------------20
2006----856------------------------18
2007----642------------------------12
2008----428------------------------05
2009----311------------------------02*

*2009 is an estimate. We are 2/3rds of the way through the year and there have been 249 papers submitted to date with an average of 2 citations per paper. Multiply 249 by 1.33 and you have an estimate of 331 papers.

As you can see, interest in writing new papers has dropped off steadily since 2005 and the number of citations of previously submitted papers has been steadily dropping off since 2004.

You can see the stats for yourself at SPIRES Databse (www.slac.stanford.edu/spires). In the search box type in "FIND DK STRING MODEL AND DATE = (year)". This will bring up all of the papers for that year. Next, select "Citesummary" in the Format drop-down box and hit "Display Again". That will bring up the end-of-year stats for string theory papers submitted. After that you can change the year and hit "Display Again" to see other year's stats.
 
You raise a curious point. It would be interesting to see what the majority of the original submitters seemed to focus on afterward.
It's fascinating to watch the evolution of proofs from theory.
Atlas should give alot of rewriting? If so, I'd think that would have the scientific community extremely excited.
 
Angleo,

If you want to see what the most cited articles on SPIRES (Stanford Public Information REterval System) look here:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/matrix.shtml

Remember that the SPIRES database doesn't include everything involved in what is topical in physics. It is just a database for HEP - high energy physics - which is where string theory belongs. There are many more physics topics being investigated than just HEP.

BTW: If you look at the URL for the site you see SLAC. That acronym stands for Stanford Linear (Electron-Positron) Accelerator Collider.
 
Thanks man ^^ I'd rather read something from a source I know is actual than some of the sites I digest on the web, without knowing sources or relevance.
It's starting to seem alot of the questions I have, if I had more patience, are answered with further insight.
- More I know, the less I know, but informed if receptive and intuitive /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Back
Top