Posted on 05/05/2016 6:53:04 PM PDT by MtnClimber
I agree I don't believe in change, it's an illusion. Rather, there are only successions of causally-linked immutable values, and time is derived from the perception of these successions.
Causally-linked means the future is a function of the past; life applies reality to us to derive a new immutable us and we assign identity to these chains of values, and perceive change where there is none.
I'm going to bed
I believe that theory has mathematical errors from line one could be wrong but I think thats all proven junk.
You got that right: bigbang is based on red-shift, i.e., galaxies appear redder than they ought to, which would indicate they are receding from our perspective. “Redder than they ‘ought’ to be”? In whose lexicon?
The premise was, when I read it in 1963, that the assumption was, that the most prevalent metallic element in all galaxies ought to be, iron; therefore, its characteristic orange-ish glow should be orange-ish; but in distant galaxies, the glow was redder than that, hence those galaxies (by Doppler-ish contexts) must be receding, hence an expanding universe, hence, there must have been an initial point, hence, big bang.
Critical variable, unexplained yet assumed, who says galaxies should glow one color or another?
See 95
At the beginning of the linked vid they were discussing a theory of Entropy as simultaneous creation and destruction (matter vs anti-matter) of the space between the nucleus and electrons of an atom.
The way it was pictured in my mind (I’m listening while reading FR so I don’t know what they were using as visuals) was that there is two simultaneous things existing in the same space and time, energy used to balance is slowly consumed which is Entropy.
I am not a Scientist I just love watching and listening to these shows and was a fan of Feynman back in the day.
Reminds me of Abbot’s Flatland
I could be wrong I believe it was the 26- dimension theory that failed. I understand that the 11 dimension model remains viable (the 10 original string theory dimensions plus one more spatial dimension to incorporate gravity into the model). Maybe a better expert can add more than me, though. Thanks.
So say you, Sebastian Cabot
Because you need space for atoms to bounce around? What kind of question is this?
Actually, I made a big mistake. I forgot Forward and Back.
The way this problem is related to non-integer dimensions (maybe only in my mind) is that crazy math and crazy physics somehow support each other.
I believe that the concept of non-integer dimensions is crazy math, and if physicists claim that there was a time when there were non-integer dimensions then that is crazy physics.
Crazy math is OK because it is all hypothetical. However, crazy physics seems counterproductive. It no longer gives us insight into how things are, it just makes it easy to solve physics problems.
You will never know as much as you don’t know.
You may quote me.
Ahhhh, another quote from the Great Book of Python.
:)
bfl
If you look at it that way, in order to measure something, there must be a beginning and endpoint to each directional axis: (x1-x2), (y1-y2), (z1-z2), (t1-t2). That does not introduce extra dimensions, but only blocks off sections of essentially infinite properties.
[Yes, I do understand fractals.]
Thanks!
“Crazy math is OK because it is all hypothetical. However, crazy physics seems counterproductive. It no longer gives us insight into how things are, it just makes it easy to solve physics problems.”
History shows that explorations into new realms of math have revealed truths (as far as we know) about nature. It was math that led Einstein to his theories. This, to me, is miraculous.
I suppose I’m not sure what qualifies for “crazy.” Sometimes math and the world are both crazy and they happen to match. Sometimes they don’t. I’m not yet prepared to write off fractional dimensions.
Good discussion! ;)
That’s what I said.
In Tony's article he persists in saying that the series is the Reimann zeta function, even for s=-1, which is plain wrong. The analytically continued function zeta* spliced onto the domain of convergence (of the series) does have the value -1/12 at s=-1, but it is no longer that sum in the new domain; the two functions differ substantially in that domain extension. If the physicist wants to use analytic continuation to change the result that the original mathematical model gave, which had already shown that the model didn't work for the situation that it attempted to describe, then there needs to be a justification for the change, instead of just saying "Oops, my prediction is outside its domain of validity, so I must change the rules to flatten the function out in a way that violates my actual model, while pretending that the model hasn't changed."
In layman's terms, there are rules that must be followed to do infinite sums, and the physicists violate those rules to make the sum "work" with their theory.
Thanks MtnClimber.
The hypercube you display is a perfect example it's a 4 dimensional object meaning all angles are 90 degrees but when projected down to 2 dimensional screen the best we can do is map it to a 3-dimensional object.
Three dimensions may be a physical constraint of our universe but since all are equations were developed to explain 3 dimension results from experiments why would we expect thermodynamics to predict anything else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.