geordief

I am very much subject to correction but Is the information encoded in the whole environment? Is that what the gravity field is ? Every point in spacetime has "instructions" as to where a macro level body should go and this set of instructions is provided by the global distribution of mass-energy wrt that point.

When you say that"strictly speaking time does not dilate" is that very close to or equivalent to saying that proper time is the same for every frame of reference ? (1 sec per sec is how I think it has been described) And "Time dilation" is only a function of the relationship between two moving frames -how they each measure the time interval (as a component of the space-time interval ) in the other's frame of reference?' Or are you saying something different?

I followed Einstein's simple derivation a few years back http://www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html It took me about 3 or 4 weeks but ,as you hint I think I would may find greater satisfaction in understanding and picking through the maths and the physics behind Maxwell's equations and the "invariance anomaly " as perhaps it is described. Someone said that Maxwell would probably have worked out SR if he had not died too soon......

A bit mischievous but it is not possible is it that this whole "hole versus particle" question might be the basis of what defines the world of ideas against the world we live in? Could all our thoughts be like the rabbit holes-or at least take advantage of the dual nature of things and their borders? I am sure I am entirely wrong of course but the relationship of ideas/physicality seems like one that will remain mysterious (at least to me) long after we have found a way to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and GR.

I was always a very slow learner. Even now I am just learning that Maxwell's equations are not invariant under Galilean transformation........so not even up with the 19th century yet

This is a consequence of Special Relativity and ,although it has been empirically demonstrated it still seems "unreasonable" to common sense. It seems like it is a fact of life nonetheless and I was just wondering can we generalize from the result or do we just take it "as is" and just apply it to such circumstances as it applies to directly. I realize this question must have been asked on countless occasions. I don't think I have an agenda but hopefully I may learn something if anyone has a view;

In either Newtonian gravity or Geometric gravity it seems that mass is essential. The Higgs field ,so I hear is a mechanism that gives mass to other particles. Does the Higgs field therefore need to be understood before a deeper understanding of gravity can be achieved?

Very much . In fact I appreciate all kinds of response I get to my posts whether positive or negative. But it is true ,sometimes the exchanges go well over my head and my levels of concentration and so I do not always follow a thread all the way through even when the OP was my own.... It is embarrassing to be caught out that way if I post as if I have been following all the replies (also rude). I am under the impression that many of the posters here are able to read and take in most of the entire thread (provided it is not too long or goes back too far) but that would be beyond me for the most part- having more of an eclectic character perhaps. chin-chin

OK . No I failed my 6 tests for many different reasons but never for that one. Thankfully all that is behind me now.(7th time lucky). By the way, Tim88 I do indeed "leave the room" (post#57) in this and other threads from time to time even though I am the OP . That can be because I recognize when I am out of my depth as I surely am when it comes to quantum mechanics-and many other subjects. If I do not resist the temptation to post about matters of which I am ignorant I will end up confusing myself and annoying others.

Yes I saw you were giving that example earlier. But the transitions are all gradual aren't they? And the "states " are mental constructs aren't they? I took it as an analogy for the quantum states (which are beyond my understanding ).

If you are talking about something that is not in the quantum realm there is no such thing as the "same state" is there? Don't all such states evolve all the time?

If I have understood this right we cannot observe classical motion at the quantum level. Is it fair to say that the quantum level is more fundamental than the classical level and so it is "bye bye" to "motion" when we come to the nutty gritty or do we leave the door ajar for its re emergence at what might be called a sub quantum level at some point (never?) in the future? Is there enough work to be going on with understanding quantum effects without " going backwards" to bring in ideas that have currency in the classical arena? Are such classical ideas an impediment (or a complete irrelevance) to our understanding of quantum theory?

This may be my second time of asking this but might there be a sense in which massive bodies and space are two aspects of a same thing? If mass/energy curves spacetime and the curvature of spacetime cause mass to follow a particular path (its geodesic) are they somehow "joined at the hip" or do we have to work with the idea of spacetime as simply being a mathematical model and nothing in any sense physical (which is what massive bodies are) is being curved?

Does that increase in mass depend on relative velocity (between 2 frames I suppose) or does acceleration have any bearing on the question? Thanks.

Well was my initial attempt quite close then? "So we are talking "simply" about extra spatial dimensions that are interchangeable and orthogonal?" (post#14) You said the wording was bad but was the description more accurate ? (it might not be difficult to be more accurate than my chessboard"analogy" The extra dimensions posited in these 2 theories are similar in character to the 3 spatial dimensions we are used to.? I thought "orthogonal" was a term widely used as a definition for extra dimensions although the precise definition of "orthogonal " is not one that I know. Does "orthogonal" mean symmetrical wrt to a particular axis at any point along that axis in its increasing /decreasing directions?

Well you are very indulgent to even respond to what is no doubt a silly idea. To try and explain what the analogy might be (in my mind) , in Chess the Rook moves (has freedom of movement in one defined way and one move is 2 squares in any direction followed by one square in a diagonal direction. All the other characters have their "units" and direction of movement defined differently. This can be referred to as a "freedom of movement" but ,as you may be suggesting the analogy may (=surely does) begin and end there. I was "fishing" as well as "shooting the breeze" in that I was hoping that my guess bore some resemblance to the actual theory (with which I only have the slightest acquaintance and which i am sure would be outside my ability to learn about in short order)

As they say ,I am "shooting the breeze" here but could those spacial dimensions be described in an analogous way to the way the different characters on a chessboard move? You cannot "mix and match" dimensions ,can you? The movement of those pieces could be referred to as "freedom of movement" which is the terminology employed frequently to describe dimensions.

Are those putative /posited extra dimensions interchangeable in the way that our 3 spacial dimensions are? So we are talking "simply" about extra spatial dimensions that are interchangeable and orthogonal? And the +1 is the same time dimension as in our everyday 3D+1 spactime ?

Have you been following the Lake Balaton thread? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98386-laser-curvature-test-on-lake-balaton/page-10 A bit (lot) technical for me but is the subject area a bit similar at all to what you are talking about ? A trivial detail ,perhaps but the water surface is apparently described as "level" ,not flat. Perhaps the level of detail (no pun intended)in that thread will interest you. .

I may have been ill advised to use the word "conceive". I would not personally be interested in a deductive/logical answer to the question (I did make an apology for posting under philosophy) I am more interested in the practicalities such as they can be to the question . What do current physical observations tell us about this connection? I was taken aback to learn recently that atomic decay which is used to measure time does this without what I would call movement or motion. In post#3 Strange said "I don't think it is possible to have motion without time. But there can be time without motion." and that seems to sum up what I have learned or think I know so far. It is a bit inconvenient as the two phenomena do not thus seem to be symmetrically /mutually interdependent as I might have expected before I learned about atomic decay. I have been familiar with the expression Time is what we measure with clocks" but I never imagined these clocks might not rely on movement (as apparently they have been doing behind my back all the while )

Which are the particles without lifetimes? I am fairly comfortable now with the idea that no motion is required for the decay to take place. On the other hand can it be said that the creation of the particle in the first place requires motion ? If that is true can we say that the decay is a function of the creation and so the decay ultimately and indirectly does depend on the fact that motion is fundamental to the physicality of the universe? On the " third" hand I have heard that particles can be created spontaneously but are these virtual particles? Does it matter that they are virtual ? Does it mean that particles are also created "without motion" ? Btw I am not sure what you meant by "if.... there is a path to get there" . Do you just mean if circumstances permit? There is surely no actual "path" as I would think of one is there ? No "Hampton Court Maze" here ??? "path" has a specific meaning in this context ,does it?

If they do not run down why do atoms and subatomic particles have life times at all ?(I am out of my depth but I hope the question is valid) Do these particles simply never decay unless there is a collision with another particle? Are these particles fully described by a standing waves or do they have any attributes that can be desrcibed differently?

Well you were right .It was not in response to your post. It was off topic ,as I said . I could expand but it might clutter up the thread further. I liked Earrnshaw's theorem. Clergymen seem to figure quite a lot amongst mathematicians of the 19th century. There was also Lewis Carroll I think who was something of a reactionary in the discipline (I can't remember the details but I seem to remember reading he fought a rearguard action against the modern mathematical ideas of the time)

What kind of particles can be entangled? I see that it is not only pairs but groups where this is possible. Do these pairs ,say have to be the same kind of particle (eg 2 photons) or is it enough that they are created from the same event ? There is no such a thing as degrees of entanglement is there?

i hope you are not getting twitchy I take your point . I could not have been expected to anticipate that fact but I will ,if I am able to try and incorporate it into a new understanding. Was it hard for you to "digest" this information the first time you came upon it? It certainly seems like an aspect of quantum mechanics that bears comparison with other better known features in terms of packing a conceptual punch.(like I say it is completely new to me) Thanks also for the second part of your reply . I will look at that in a while.