|
|
 | | From: | Daedalus | | Subject: | Hopefully the easiest question you will ever be asked | | Date: | Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:08:56 GMT |
|
|
 | Let me say straight away that I am not a mathematician. Not even a shadow of
one. That's why I came here for help. I know that many of you will already
have rolled your eyes skyward and moved on. So be it.
OK ... for those of you still reading ... I am working on a theory that
requires a definition of space. Not the distinction between Earth and 'out
there', but "space", in the sense of the space-time continuum, (ie post
einstein's relativity kind of space). Now it may seem to you, as it did to
me, that this would be a simple question. However, I have put this question
to a number of physicists, astrophysicists and mathematicians. They all seem
to dismiss the question unttil pressed, at which point they start to squirm.
The best I have been able to arrive at is that a space is a volume enclosed
by at least 3 coordinates in at least 2 dimensions. I'm just not sure that
this is adequate for the kind of space that quantam theory is talking about.
I would be grateful for any considered opinions regarding whether or not
this is adequate, or inadeaquate, and/or how it can be improved. The only
condition that I would ask for is that the eventual defintion not condradict
our intuitive experince of 'real' space. (I acknowledge that this is an
imposition of subjectivity, but it is essential to the theory that I am
working on.)
Thanks in advance
D.
PS: If I ever get this nailed down, I'll start a similar exercise on the
nature of time, but let's leave that till ... later.
|
|
| | From: | Daedalus | | Subject: | Re: Hopefully the easiest question you will ever be asked | | Date: | Sat, 18 Dec 2004 05:21:02 GMT |
|
|
|
Thanks to both Greg and Anon for your comments. I will follow up on the
advice both of you provided.
I still have a suspicion that there will be some mathematical implications
on what I'm working on, but I'll try not to bore you with dumb stuff.
Thanks again
D.
"Daedalus" wrote in message
news:Y4%vd.74057$K7.49929@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Let me say straight away that I am not a mathematician. Not even a shadow
> of one. That's why I came here for help. I know that many of you will
> already have rolled your eyes skyward and moved on. So be it.
>
> OK ... for those of you still reading ... I am working on a theory that
> requires a definition of space. Not the distinction between Earth and 'out
> there', but "space", in the sense of the space-time continuum, (ie post
> einstein's relativity kind of space). Now it may seem to you, as it did to
> me, that this would be a simple question. However, I have put this
> question to a number of physicists, astrophysicists and mathematicians.
> They all seem to dismiss the question unttil pressed, at which point they
> start to squirm.
>
> The best I have been able to arrive at is that a space is a volume
> enclosed by at least 3 coordinates in at least 2 dimensions. I'm just not
> sure that this is adequate for the kind of space that quantam theory is
> talking about.
>
> I would be grateful for any considered opinions regarding whether or not
> this is adequate, or inadeaquate, and/or how it can be improved. The only
> condition that I would ask for is that the eventual defintion not
> condradict our intuitive experince of 'real' space. (I acknowledge that
> this is an imposition of subjectivity, but it is essential to the theory
> that I am working on.)
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> D.
>
> PS: If I ever get this nailed down, I'll start a similar exercise on the
> nature of time, but let's leave that till ... later.
>
|
|
| | From: | Gregory Toomey | | Subject: | Re: Hopefully the easiest question you will ever be asked | | Date: | Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:21:44 +1000 |
|
|
| Daedalus wrote:
> Let me say straight away that I am not a mathematician. Not even a shadow
> of one. That's why I came here for help. I know that many of you will
> already have rolled your eyes skyward and moved on. So be it.
>
> OK ... for those of you still reading ... I am working on a theory that
> requires a definition of space. Not the distinction between Earth and 'out
> there', but "space", in the sense of the space-time continuum, (ie post
> einstein's relativity kind of space). Now it may seem to you, as it did to
> me, that this would be a simple question. However, I have put this
> question to a number of physicists, astrophysicists and mathematicians.
> They all seem to dismiss the question unttil pressed, at which point they
> start to squirm.
>
> The best I have been able to arrive at is that a space is a volume
> enclosed by at least 3 coordinates in at least 2 dimensions. I'm just not
> sure that this is adequate for the kind of space that quantam theory is
> talking about.
>
> I would be grateful for any considered opinions regarding whether or not
> this is adequate, or inadeaquate, and/or how it can be improved. The only
> condition that I would ask for is that the eventual defintion not
> condradict our intuitive experince of 'real' space. (I acknowledge that
> this is an imposition of subjectivity, but it is essential to the theory
> that I am working on.)
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> D.
>
> PS: If I ever get this nailed down, I'll start a similar exercise on the
> nature of time, but let's leave that till ... later.
For 3 dimenional space, you are talking about a Euclidean vector space.
3 coordinates need 3 dimensions.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclideanSpace.html
If you add time, you get Einsteins special Theory of Relativity, which has 3
Euclidean dimensiona + a time dimension.
Gravity is just a warping of space time.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/sptmtop.html
For 3 dimensions you need plain vector/matrix algebra used in schools; for
relativity you need tensors (a generalisation of matrices)
gtoomey
www.ausinvestor.com Australian Investor Forum
|
|
| | From: | Anon | | Subject: | Re: Hopefully the easiest question you will ever be asked | | Date: | Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:41:16 +1100 |
|
|
| What you are asking seems to be more metaphysical than mathematical.
Mathematicians use the word "space" in many different contexts to
describe many different things, some of which are rather abstract. For
example, a function space describes a collection of functions --- in
many cases it has an uncountably infinite number of dimensions. In other
cases, the "space" many only have 1 dimension (I will avoid the
consideration of fractional dimension here).
The context of your question is about the physical world and the means
of describing and interpreting it, which is Metaphysics. Your question
is more appropriate in a Philosophy forum.
Daedalus wrote:
> Let me say straight away that I am not a mathematician. Not even a shadow of
> one. That's why I came here for help. I know that many of you will already
> have rolled your eyes skyward and moved on. So be it.
>
> OK ... for those of you still reading ... I am working on a theory that
> requires a definition of space. Not the distinction between Earth and 'out
> there', but "space", in the sense of the space-time continuum, (ie post
> einstein's relativity kind of space). Now it may seem to you, as it did to
> me, that this would be a simple question. However, I have put this question
> to a number of physicists, astrophysicists and mathematicians. They all seem
> to dismiss the question unttil pressed, at which point they start to squirm.
>
> The best I have been able to arrive at is that a space is a volume enclosed
> by at least 3 coordinates in at least 2 dimensions. I'm just not sure that
> this is adequate for the kind of space that quantam theory is talking about.
>
> I would be grateful for any considered opinions regarding whether or not
> this is adequate, or inadeaquate, and/or how it can be improved. The only
> condition that I would ask for is that the eventual defintion not condradict
> our intuitive experince of 'real' space. (I acknowledge that this is an
> imposition of subjectivity, but it is essential to the theory that I am
> working on.)
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> D.
>
> PS: If I ever get this nailed down, I'll start a similar exercise on the
> nature of time, but let's leave that till ... later.
>
>
|
|
| | From: | Daedalus | | Subject: | Re: Hopefully the easiest question you will ever be asked | | Date: | Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:13:03 GMT |
|
|
| Thanks for your reply, which does help.
Can I interpret your comments as suggesting that perhaps I have put the cart
before the horse in posing this question in a mathermatics context. (I don't
take any offence if that is the case) Would it make more sense to identify
the space, ands then use mathematics to defince or explore it's properties?
"Anon" wrote in message
news:cpqb1t$con$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
> What you are asking seems to be more metaphysical than mathematical.
> Mathematicians use the word "space" in many different contexts to describe
> many different things, some of which are rather abstract. For example, a
> function space describes a collection of functions --- in many cases it
> has an uncountably infinite number of dimensions. In other cases, the
> "space" many only have 1 dimension (I will avoid the consideration of
> fractional dimension here).
>
> The context of your question is about the physical world and the means of
> describing and interpreting it, which is Metaphysics. Your question is
> more appropriate in a Philosophy forum.
>
> Daedalus wrote:
>> Let me say straight away that I am not a mathematician. Not even a shadow
>> of one. That's why I came here for help. I know that many of you will
>> already have rolled your eyes skyward and moved on. So be it.
>>
>> OK ... for those of you still reading ... I am working on a theory that
>> requires a definition of space. Not the distinction between Earth and
>> 'out there', but "space", in the sense of the space-time continuum, (ie
>> post einstein's relativity kind of space). Now it may seem to you, as it
>> did to me, that this would be a simple question. However, I have put this
>> question to a number of physicists, astrophysicists and mathematicians.
>> They all seem to dismiss the question unttil pressed, at which point they
>> start to squirm.
>>
>> The best I have been able to arrive at is that a space is a volume
>> enclosed by at least 3 coordinates in at least 2 dimensions. I'm just not
>> sure that this is adequate for the kind of space that quantam theory is
>> talking about.
>>
>> I would be grateful for any considered opinions regarding whether or not
>> this is adequate, or inadeaquate, and/or how it can be improved. The only
>> condition that I would ask for is that the eventual defintion not
>> condradict our intuitive experince of 'real' space. (I acknowledge that
>> this is an imposition of subjectivity, but it is essential to the theory
>> that I am working on.)
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> D.
>>
>> PS: If I ever get this nailed down, I'll start a similar exercise on the
>> nature of time, but let's leave that till ... later.
|
|
| | From: | Anon | | Subject: | Re: Hopefully the easiest question you will ever be asked | | Date: | Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:06:38 +1100 |
|
|
| Yes. Defining the space first would be the first step. Then you can use
results to understand the space better.
The question of time has been argued for millenia. A good place to start
would be either a Philosophical survey or St Augustine's discussion on
time in Confessio (I think Liber XI).
Daedalus wrote:
> Thanks for your reply, which does help.
>
> Can I interpret your comments as suggesting that perhaps I have put the cart
> before the horse in posing this question in a mathermatics context. (I don't
> take any offence if that is the case) Would it make more sense to identify
> the space, ands then use mathematics to defince or explore it's properties?
>
>
>
> "Anon" wrote in message
> news:cpqb1t$con$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
>
>>What you are asking seems to be more metaphysical than mathematical.
>>Mathematicians use the word "space" in many different contexts to describe
>>many different things, some of which are rather abstract. For example, a
>>function space describes a collection of functions --- in many cases it
>>has an uncountably infinite number of dimensions. In other cases, the
>>"space" many only have 1 dimension (I will avoid the consideration of
>>fractional dimension here).
>>
>>The context of your question is about the physical world and the means of
>>describing and interpreting it, which is Metaphysics. Your question is
>>more appropriate in a Philosophy forum.
>>
>>Daedalus wrote:
>>
>>>Let me say straight away that I am not a mathematician. Not even a shadow
>>>of one. That's why I came here for help. I know that many of you will
>>>already have rolled your eyes skyward and moved on. So be it.
>>>
>>>OK ... for those of you still reading ... I am working on a theory that
>>>requires a definition of space. Not the distinction between Earth and
>>>'out there', but "space", in the sense of the space-time continuum, (ie
>>>post einstein's relativity kind of space). Now it may seem to you, as it
>>>did to me, that this would be a simple question. However, I have put this
>>>question to a number of physicists, astrophysicists and mathematicians.
>>>They all seem to dismiss the question unttil pressed, at which point they
>>>start to squirm.
>>>
>>>The best I have been able to arrive at is that a space is a volume
>>>enclosed by at least 3 coordinates in at least 2 dimensions. I'm just not
>>>sure that this is adequate for the kind of space that quantam theory is
>>>talking about.
>>>
>>>I would be grateful for any considered opinions regarding whether or not
>>>this is adequate, or inadeaquate, and/or how it can be improved. The only
>>>condition that I would ask for is that the eventual defintion not
>>>condradict our intuitive experince of 'real' space. (I acknowledge that
>>>this is an imposition of subjectivity, but it is essential to the theory
>>>that I am working on.)
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance
>>>
>>>D.
>>>
>>>PS: If I ever get this nailed down, I'll start a similar exercise on the
>>>nature of time, but let's leave that till ... later.
>
>
>
|
|
|
