Space and time (final)

[OneSpace]

Space and Time.

 

Everything is said to exist in the fabric of space-time, but is this really an acurate saying? Did time exist before space? In a 3D graph of the universe IF space is only acting on two of the axes, then that which is acting on the third axis would have to be time. As we turn and angle our view of the universe could it be what we are really doing is turning and angling all of 2D space relative to this particular view? To find a point in space we need three points, but if by the act of turning and angling our view we are always perpendicular to the 2D plane of space, then what we are seeing as depth is really a component of time. If we look at a 2D space on a graph it is acting along the x and y axes, this 2D plane could be parellel to all other 2D planes like the pages of a closed book along the z axis relative to the observer, to travel from one 2D plane to the next is then a matter of time.

 

"There is no such thing as past and future, it is always right now".

 

If correct, the view of 3D empty space is one part 2D plane and one part 1D time, if you move perpendicular to this plane you will feel like you are moving through space but what could be really happening is that you are moving through 1D time on this z axis, as though you are moving through the pages of a closed book, leaving behind the 2D past, moving toward the 2D future, but always in the 2D right now.

If this is a more acurate view of the universe it could suggest, based on a different view of the evidence, that dimensions are not arbitrary but they are all built from a combination of the first dimension.

In QM the wave is described as a single thing yet at the same time is every thing, if dimensions are built and evolve from a single dimension then this suggests to me that this QM wave is the same thing as the 1D thing, that from which all other things and dimensions evolved.

Relativity says all dimensions can become one another, so everybody has seen this as evidence that dimensions are arbitrary, but this is a view of the evidence only, what i am saying is just a different view of the same evidence, i am not changing what relativity has expressed.

This view of relativity that i have is that all dimensions can become one another because they all evolved from a single thing, that at the quantum level things still behave as a single thing, the more this single thing combines the less it can be seen acting like a single thing.

 

Add Edit>-To examine what makes up 2D space alone.-

To find a point in 2D space you will use the x and y axis only,

The movement in any direction on a 2D plane will be along a map line between two points. Just like moving from one 2D plane to the next as described above, could moving from one map point to the next along this line also be a single function of 1D time, if you could move through this 2D plane you would feel like you are moving through space but what could be really happening is you are moving through 1D time along a map line, leaving behind a point, the 1D past, moving toward a point, the 1D future, but always in the 1D right now.

 

So with both the description of 3D and the description of 2D together, moving in any direction within a 3D space is always a matter of moving in 1D time.

 

To assume time began at some point, (big bang or whatever) this description shows how a "Quantum 1D Time Wave" could act in every direction along all axes to create the 3D space we experience.

 

Just time alone follows the QM principle that it is in one place and every place at the same moment of right now, so i would think everything made from a "Quantum 1D Time Wave" would act the same way and that is just what the evidence from QM describes.

 

Could this "Quantum 1D Time Wave" also "SPIN" some way within it's own 3D space to create the more rare 3D particle? Would this not also agree with the evidence from QM where every 3D particle is both a particle and a wave?

Would it not be that the more of these 3D particles that combine, the less they would behave like the raw thing they were made from?

 

GOOD LUCK.

[Klaynos]

OK, ignoring all my previous comments about this.

 

Why are we limited to 4D?

[thedarkshade]

It sounds absurd to be out of space and time. It would be like you're never and nowhere.

 

And did time exist before space? Well time couldn't have existed on its own. I mean, who for? Time showed up together with matter, as a manifestation of one and other.

 

*feeling sleepy*

[OneSpace]

The Theory

 

The universe starts as a 1D point of time and moves away (*multiplies in every direction at a rate of "c") from this point in all directions as a 1D time wave originating from that 1D point of time. A 1D point of time anywhere in the universe is any other 1D point of time anywhere else in the universe.

A 3D space (graphed on x,y and z axes only) is created from this 1D quantum wave. The 1D time point at the center are the same 1D's of time *moving away from the center; it is the same time, IT IS ALWAYS RIGHT NOW, everwhere in the universe.

 

There are only 3 dimensions, this is the limit, because this is every direction there is to take. *Moving in any direction is moving in 1D time. Time is not a seperate dimension, it is the first one, 2D and 3D are structures of 1D.

 

This follows scientific principles:

QM- the wave

Relativity-1D is every other D

Time- it is always right now, everywhere.

Special relativity-speed limit of "c"

[Klaynos]

But why is there only 3 directions to take? +time.

 

And It's NOT A Theory!

 

And I can show you mathematically where the "speed limit" of c comes from, or experimentally that photons are waves and particles.... With your ideas you have done neither.

[thedarkshade]

The Theory

You mean, the thought (hypothesis)!?

 

The universe starts as a 1D point of time and moves away (*multiplies in every direction at a rate of "c") from this point in all directions as a 1D time wave originating from that 1D point of time.

Why do you keep saying that? I mean, you could say this because you like it ,but what basis back up this what you are saying? From this sentence I understand that first, there was time and then it came matter.

 

There are only 3 dimensions, this is the limit, because this is every direction there is to take.

This is our limit, but this does not send down the possibility of more dimensions.

 

Relativity-1D is every other D

I don't understand what you mean by this:confused:

Special relativity-speed limit of "c"

You mean: c, the speed limit!

[OneSpace]

Theory?

 

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation,

or

a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

 

1.

Time is logically 1D, it moves from one point to another along a single axis on a graph in 1D, it is not 2D and it is not 3D or an imagined 4 or more D.

2.

The universe logically starts when time starts and the momentum would logically be in all 3D directions. (space/time)

3.

Nothing can go faster than time, logically this is impossible and could therefore be what is setting a universal speed limit.

4.

Logically, there is no such thing as past and future, it is always right now.

5.

Logically the three spatial dimensions are the x, y and z axes you might see on a 3D graph, this is logically every direction, there is no proof of any other dimensions.

6.

Even if you remain 3D stationary, logically you are still moving in 1D time.

 

Darkshade, a quote from Klaynos.

03-27-2008' date=' 05:49 PM #38

 

Relativity shows us that the dimensions can all turn into each other... [/quote']

 

Trial by fire, fire away.

[ajb]

Theory?

 

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation,

or

a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

 

In physics a theory is more or less your second definition.

 

In mathematics a theory is a "collection of knowledge" about something. It should be self-consistent.

 

1.

Time is logically 1D' date=' it moves from one point to another along a single axis on a graph in 1D, it is not 2D and it is not 3D or an imagined 4 or more D.

[/quote']

 

I think you are saying something that is correct in a non-standard way. As in my other posts, you should be thinking about a path parametrised by "time".

 

[math]\gamma : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow M[/math]

[math]t \mapsto \gamma^{*}x^{a} = x^{a}(t)[/math]

 

This is what you mean by "time moving from one point to another".

 

2.

The universe logically starts when time starts and the momentum would logically be in all 3D directions. (space/time)

 

This seems a sensible definition of the "beginning of the universe". You should familiarise yourself with the big bang model' date=' how we don't really understand the big bang singularity and attempts using quantum gravity to examine the very early universe.

 

3.

Nothing can go faster than time, logically this is impossible and could therefore be what is setting a universal speed limit.

 

Don't know what this means.

 

4.

Logically' date=' there is no such thing as past and future, it is always right now.

[/quote']

 

Define "past", "future" and what you mean by "no such thing".

 

Mathematically we can define what we mean by past and future of a point in space-time.

 

 

 

5.

Logically the three spatial dimensions are the x' date=' y and z axes you might see on a 3D graph, this is logically every direction, there is no proof of any other dimensions.

[/quote']

Ok, we have 3 spacial dimensions. As for higher dimensions, I would be open to the possibility. Even your "theory" does not explain why 3. I am not sure what things like loop quantum gravity say, but for sure string theory predicts the number of dimensions. In fact it gets the right order of magnitude even if there is only 4!

 

6.

Even if you remain 3D stationary' date=' logically you are still moving in 1D time.

[/quote']

 

Ok.

[mooeypoo]

A scientific theory needs to be supported by *facts*, otherwise it is a hypothesis.

 

There's nothing wrong with a hypothesis, it's just an earlier stage of a stable theory. Scientific theory explains groups of facts and observations. Your hypothesis, interesting as it may be, has no actual fact, nor does it have any observations.

 

Check this out about the scientific method:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

Now, I have to ask something.. as far as I know, 4D/3D/1D are not "changeable" variables, they are different "points of view". It's not that the universe "grows" in dimensions, it always existed in these dimensions, just "moving" differently relative to each one.

 

1D is a point. No line, no movement -- point. It's ONE dimension. As such, there cannot be movement... not in time, not in space, not in both, not in neither. It's a point. it's a SINGLE dimension. You cannot see movement in a single-dimension point of view.

 

2D is a line, or a movement (left-right up-down *only*). The XY-Axis is a 2D point of view. Either a movement, or a line. You can measure the "effect" of time (not time itself) - by movement (movement is the change of location in relation to time).

 

3D is a shape with volume, or a surface - to our "movements" (rockets / missiles / viewing the stars / etc) , the universe is *observationally* 3-dimensional. We see up, down and all around; it's also growing in all directions.

 

 

All dimensions after that are more and more POVs that affects our observations (otherwise we would have never "noticed" them). Time (considered to be the "Fourth Dimension") is a good example; we cannot observe time itself, we can observe its EFFECT on us. Things move. Things grow old. That's the EFFECT time has on us. We can't actually "intercept" things through the 4rth dimension. We evolved to only intercept 3D.

 

Example:

y=2x

 

in 1D is a dot.

in 2D is a diagonal line.

in 3D is a diagonal surface.

 

It's still the same equation, and the surface *always existed*, we just choose different methods of observing the same "phenomenon" (equation) and so we see it in different shapes.

 

Here's a more SPECIFIC analysis for your post:

 

Theory?

1.

Time is logically 1D, it moves from one point to another along a single axis on a graph in 1D, it is not 2D and it is not 3D or an imagined 4 or more D.

Nope, there's no movement on 1D. There's a point. Only. That's the meaning of 1 dimension.

2.

The universe logically starts when time starts and the momentum would logically be in all 3D directions. (space/time)

Some scientists believe the universe is a result of a collision of two other universes (universi?) in the larger cosmos.. I am not sure what i feel about that, but the point is that we're not sure what happened before the big bang.

It is right to assume, and vastly supported at the moment, as far as I know, that time started with the big bang (therefore there's no meaning to "before the big bang" - 'before' is a word for time). But that supports the fact that space and time are interlaced.

 

Think about it as if you "zoom out". You look at 1D, you see partial picture. You look through 2D, you see a bigger, and partial picture. 3D, bigger bigger partial pictures... 4D, bigger bigger partial pictures.. and so on and so on.

 

3.

Nothing can go faster than time, logically this is impossible and could therefore be what is setting a universal speed limit.

 

That means nothing. Time doesn't "go", time is. time affects movement, it's not speed, so "faster" is not a word for time,ti's a word for speed.

 

Time expands and changes with space. We know this for a *FACT* by testing synchronized atomic clocks at different speeds. This is a fact. Why it happens? Einstein has a pretty good explanation.

 

 

4.

Logically, there is no such thing as past and future, it is always right now.

Again, this is vague. We do NOT intercept time, we intercept its EFFECT on us. "Past" and "Future" are words we invented to relate to the effect time has on us. For us, humans, who evolved with a brain that intercepts certain speeds and certain sizes, and 3-dimensions only, time is "now only" in the sense that we cannot (so far) control time.

 

But if you go faster, you move through time. Again, the synchronized atomic clocks *proved* it. So... if the "Now" depends on speed, what is it, really?

 

5.

Logically the three spatial dimensions are the x, y and z axes you might see on a 3D graph, this is logically every direction, there is no proof of any other dimensions.

 

Yes, there is. Again look up the synchronized atomic clocks. Also, the reason we found those "hidden" dimensions is because we observe them indirectly. Read up what I wrote about time; the rest of the dimensions weren't just made-up out of nothing. We see effects that have no origin in the regular 3D we intercept; after careful research, we understand there are more dimensions in effect here.

 

6.

Even if you remain 3D stationary, logically you are still moving in 1D time.

Again.. 1D has no movement, it's a point.

Perhaps you mean 2D, but then - if time was 2D, we could control it (we move forward, backwards, up and down, through 3D space, quite freely. If time was one of those "free" dimensions we should have been able to manipulate time. We can't. That means something.

 

Okay I just remembered a very good analogy-story for the entire "intercepting dimensions" deal. Bear with me here:

 

Imagine a very big stretch of rubber sheet, stretched so far to all sides that for a little ladybug it's infinite. (It's theoretical, remember ). So. We spread on that sheet a lot of perfectly spherical metallic balls with different sizes and different densities.

 

Each sphere creates a different-depth "hole" in the rubber sheet.

 

A lady bug supposedly only "intercepts" 2 dimensions. That means it doesn't see spheres, it sees CIRCLES. Perhaps with different colors that indicate densities. It doesn't see the little 'hole' either, no matter how deep it is. It just has no concept of the third dimension.

 

 

The lady bug puts a scientist robe on and goes around to explore its surroundings. It notices that the closer it gets to a circular object (our metal spheres), the harder it is for it to walk away.

 

For us, we see that it just, very simply, "falls" into the hole, and needs to exert more force to climb out of it. But the lady bug has no concept of depth. It doesn't know that it needs more force to "climb", it doesn't understand what "climb" is.

 

but it DOES notice the effect. It even notices that different colors circles (different densities) have different effect. So the lady bug calls this the "Circular Force", and even devises a formula that shows how hard it is to walk away from circles in relation to their size and color.

 

 

 

We look at these nice ladybugs and don't understand how can they not SEE why the have a problem walking away?? it's a HOLE. So obvious. But the lady bug has no concept of 3D.

 

It's *affected* by it. So it KNOWS there is another "thing" that affects it, even if it doesn't observe it compeltely. At first, it may call it a force, and centuries later, with better observation and testing, it might switch to call it "another dimension".

 

It's the same with us, 3D, 4D, 11Ds and time.

 

We don't see or intercept those other dimensions, but we do intercept their effect on us. Saying that they're imaginary is just not true.

 

~moo

[ajb]

mooeypoo , a point is zero dimensional not one dimensional.

 

A line/curve is one dimensional.

 

You seem to be out by 1.

[Klaynos]

mooeypoo , a point is zero dimensional not one dimensional.

 

A line/curve is one dimensional.

 

You seem to be out by 1.

 

Heeh, I was going to post that, I like working from the other direction.

 

Each lower dimension is a description of the projection of the original object in those dimensions.

 

4D a diagonal plane that is evolving with time.

3D a diagonal plane that does not change.

2D a diagonal line.

1D a flat line along only the 1D axis.

0D a dot.

 

Or we could leave in time, and then you are specially restricting but allowing for the system to change. So 3D would become a diagonal line that moves.

[mooeypoo]

mooeypoo , a point is zero dimensional not one dimensional.

 

A line/curve is one dimensional.

 

You seem to be out by 1.

 

You're right.

 

That would make my y=2x example:

0D --> point

1D --> line

2D --> shape

3D --> surface

 

 

still, the shape *EXISTS* even when we look from a 1D point of view, we just don't "see" it in that POV.

 

so, yeah, I got the 1D wrong by 1, but don't let that negate my main point

 

Thanks for the correction.

 

 

~moo

[stevo247]

The point, or zero-dimension, is a curious idea. Would that be a dimension that possessed infinite possibilities? Is that the origin of mathmatics? Does time exist in zero-dimension?

[mooeypoo]

The point, or zero-dimension, is a curious idea. Would that be a dimension that possessed infinite possibilities?

Dimension is not like it is in "Sliders", it's a pointof view. So no, it doesn't possess infinite possibilities. It possesses a point.

 

Is that the origin of mathmatics? Does time exist in zero-dimension?

 

Time exists in zero-dimension, you just can't see it. Just like it exists in 3Dimensions and you can't see it. You see the effect it has.

 

 

Seriously, I think we need to separate between the meaning of dimension as this "new possibility / new reality" thing (like in "Sliders" - parallel universe) and a dimension as it is in Physics and Mathematics, where it just is another point of view to look at our surroundings.

 

We don't change what exists by 'moving' through dimensions, we just see a different PICTURE of what exists.

 

 

~moo

[ajb]

You're right.

 

That would make my y=2x example:

0D --> point

1D --> line

2D --> shape

3D --> surface

 

Your terminology is not standard, but ok.

 

 

 

still' date=' the shape *EXISTS* even when we look from a 1D point of view, we just don't "see" it in that POV.

[/quote']

 

The algebraic curve define by y=2x still exist if...?

 

 

I don't quite follow what you are trying to say here.

 

 

so' date=' yeah, I got the 1D wrong by 1, but don't let that negate my main point

 

Thanks for the correction.

[/quote']

 

What is your point?

 

 

The point' date=' or zero-dimension, is a curious idea. Would that be a dimension that possessed infinite possibilities? Is that the origin of mathmatics? Does time exist in zero-dimension?

[/quote']

 

The point is the origin of set theory, which then includes topological spaces and manifolds. So yes, a lot of mathematics is in the category of set. However, not everything is in this category. For example supermanifolds are not set theoretical objects.

[mooeypoo]

I don't quite follow what you are trying to say here.

It seems to me that there's a problem understanding where dimensions over the "regular" 3D (that we 'see') come from. My point is to try and show that the fact we don't see, or intercept, more than 3dimensions, does not mean that the other dimensions are "made up". Also, it doesn't mean that by saying that something "exists in the 4th dimension" it does not exist in the other dimensions.

 

Time is considered to be the 4th dimension. However, it *does* exist for us, even though we only intercept 3Dimensions ---> saying that time is the 4th dimension isn't meant to say that as we "go up in dimensions" we create new substances/forces; it means that we are able to explain phenomena better by defining it as extra dimensions that we cannot intercept.

 

All dimensions above the third one are representations of things that affect us but we cannot intercept or control or "see" -- the ladybug story I posted is meant to put this in a better context. The fact that the lady bug does not "see" or "understand" the third dimension (for that matter, "depth") does not mean that the concept of depth does not exist in its universe, or that depth doesn't affect it.

 

It just cannot see, feel or intercept it. It can only analyze its EFFECT on it (the effect that occurs when it is "falling" into the hole created by the spheres, which it sees as flat circles). After analyzing the effect, it can start devising what this effect is, where it originates from and how to "deal" with it. And as time goes on and on, and its observational data increases, it devises more complicated theories to manifest the space around it, knowing that there are more than what it can intercept biologically/physically.

 

So my point is that these "extra dimensions" *EXIST* in all dimensions, they just aren't "seen" - "exposed" - "intercepted" - when you move to 'lower' dimensions..

 

Time EXISTS in three dimensions, even though it is considered to be a fourth dimension.

 

 

The point is the origin of set theory, which then includes topological spaces and manifolds. So yes, a lot of mathematics is in the category of set. However, not everything is in this category. For example supermanifolds are not set theoretical objects.

Yes, you're right, and I made that mistake too. I was trying to bring an example from math (and screwed it up a bit with my mistake about 0d/1d) to show my point.. I don't think that was successful too much hope this explanation is better?

 

Read the story about the lady bug again.. it's the best example to what I am talking about.

 

~moo

[OneSpace]

0D is a point at the center intersection of x, y and z axes.

If it did not move out from this point the axes are not needed, 0D could be said to be time itself paused, represented by a dot.

 

1D is a 0D point/dot moving out from this intersection, it can move in any and all 3D directions but it is a continuious movement (a wave in all 1D directions) and can be mapped as a line or curve, ok the hypothsis is it is time itself.

 

Time still exists in 0D, it is the only thing that can, all dimensions, all forces, all particles and everything derived from these things (e.g. space, gravity, consciousness) cease to exist or could be said to be paused (in time) in 0D.

 

Something has to be there, logically something (the universe) does not come from nothing. I don't think i just like the idea or have some personal attachment to it, it just follows the evidence. Time could exist as every dimension even if it is paused as a 0D dot.

 

If time is the only thing in 0D, exists in all movement up to "c" in 1, 2 and 3D then dimensions are not arbitrary they are sequential.

 

The hypothsis is time is the quantum wave, every point you observe from is the beginning (the intersection of any 3D graph) of a quantum wave.

 

 

 

An explaination of the observer's role in Young's double Slit Experiment.

Based on:

There is no past or future, there is only right now. At any point.

 

********************************************************************************************************************************************

 

Young's double slit experiment is supposed to show that photons or electrons act like both a particle and a wave. In the following hypothsis i will attempt to show that they only ever act as a wave and predict a recurring result.

 

In the double slit experiment a measuring device is placed near the opening of one slit and the electrons are fired one at a time at the slits; before measuring they act as a wave, but when measured they appear to act as a particle.

 

The same "particle result" however would be achieved by a wave if the electron was fired from the position where the measuring took place. i.e. a wave fired through a single slit produces a single band.

 

What i suggest could be happening at the point of measurement is the distance travelled from "firing to measuring", is one wave, and from "measuring to hit", is another wave. The distance travelled from firing to measuring is the "past" relative to this new "right now" measurement of the same electron, from this later observed point, a new wave begins.

 

If time is a 1D expanding point and moves out from this point at"c" in a wave like an expanding sphere, any point in that sphere, relative to a particular observed point, is where the wave starts from.

 

If the sun disappeared (the event) Newton logic says the planets should immeadiatly leave their orbit, but from our planet, "our particular right now"; the sun is still there and it should take time travelling at "c" for you to see the light go out and gravity to let go.

 

Form an observed point at the sun it takes 8 minutes for light and gravity to reach you, the hypothsis is it is time that moves at "c" from a "right now" point at the sun, this is where the wave starts from..the relative "right now" point of the event i.e. The wave's result will be relative to this observed point if you are at the sun.

 

If you were half way between the sun and earth you see the light from the sun go out in 4 minutes from the past event on your up held palm, but you are now the last observed point, a new wave starts for you from your "right now", (imagine dropping a pebble in water at this half way point), a new wave starts from this "right now" point relative to this observer, the light from the sun is now a smaller/newer wave than a wave that has already been travelling for 4 minutes from the sun. This newer/smaller wave is relative to the last observation point.

 

So if you think of the electron only as a wave in young's experiment you will observe the hit of the wave starting from the point of your last measured observation, if that observation is at the opening of one slit this is where a new wave starts, it travels through only the slit it is in front of and hits as a single band, giving the same single band result as if it were assumed it had turned into a particle.

 

************************************************************************************************************************************************.

[Klaynos]

0D is a point at the center intersection of x, y and z axes.

If it did not move out from this point the axes are not needed, 0D could be said to be time itself paused, represented by a dot.

 

I don't see how you can say that.

 

1D is a 0D point/dot moving out from this intersection, it can move in any and all 3D directions but it is a continuious movement (a wave in all 1D directions) and can be mapped as a line or curve, ok the hypothsis is it is time itself.

 

How could that be true, to state something like that with no maths or evidence is meaningless.

 

Time still exists in 0D, it is the only thing that can, all dimensions, all forces, all particles and everything derived from these things (e.g. space, gravity, consciousness) cease to exist or could be said to be paused (in time) in 0D.

 

OK, you have a quantum dot, a 0D confined electron, in your stationary frame of reference, it can evolve in time so has 1 time dimension and no spacial dimensions.

 

Now I am in my space ship travelling at 0.75c relative to you and your dot, I do EXACTLY the same experiments as you on your dot in your frame and I find that it's not 0D but is infact 1D in the direction of my travel.

 

How can that be if the dimensions are just time?

 

Something has to be there, logically something (the universe) does not come from nothing.

 

I don't really follow this logic.

 

I don't think i just like the idea or have some personal attachment to it, it just follows the evidence.

 

What evidence?

 

Time could exist as every dimension even if it is paused as a 0D dot.

 

That's just because we as beings are not good at confining time dimensions...

 

If time is the only thing in 0D, exists in all movement up to "c" in 1, 2 and 3D then dimensions are not arbitrary they are sequential.

 

But the other dimensions still exist in 0D they are just confined so that no movement in that direction is allowed.

 

The hypothsis is time is the quantum wave, every point you observe from is the beginning (the intersection of any 3D graph) of a quantum wave.

 

This doesn't make any sense to me.

 

An explaination of the observer's role in Young's double Slit Experiment.

Based on:

There is no past or future, there is only right now. At any point.

 

********************************************************************************************************************************************

 

Young's double slit experiment is supposed to show that photons or electrons act like both a particle and a wave. In the following hypothsis i will attempt to show that they only ever act as a wave and predict a recurring result.

 

No, the young double slit experiment shows that things act as waves... That's why he did the experiment. The measurement method used in modern experiments can show that the objects

 

In the double slit experiment a measuring device is placed near the opening of one slit and the electrons are fired one at a time at the slits; before measuring they act as a wave, but when measured they appear to act as a particle.

 

The same "particle result" however would be achieved by a wave if the electron was fired from the position where the measuring took place. i.e. a wave fired through a single slit produces a single band.

 

What i suggest could be happening at the point of measurement is the distance travelled from "firing to measuring", is one wave, and from "measuring to hit", is another wave. The distance travelled from firing to measuring is the "past" relative to this new "right now" measurement of the same electron, from this later observed point, a new wave begins.

 

The experiment has been conducted with C-60 bucky balls, these things are massive. Do you understand the concept of a probability wave in quantum mechanics?

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/wvfun.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html#c1

 

There is alot of evidence for wave-particle duality...

 

If time is a 1D expanding point and moves out from this point at"c" in a wave like an expanding sphere, any point in that sphere, relative to a particular observed point, is where the wave starts from.

 

If it's an expanding sphere then there is a set centre.

 

If the sun disappeared (the event) Newton logic says the planets should immeadiatly leave their orbit, but from our planet, "our particular right now"; the sun is still there and it should take time travelling at "c" for you to see the light go out and gravity to let go.

 

That's because gravity takes time to propagate.

 

Form an observed point at the sun it takes 8 minutes for light and gravity to reach you, the hypothsis is it is time that moves at "c" from a "right now" point at the sun,

 

Time moves? How can a dimension move?

 

this is where the wave starts from..the relative "right now" point of the event i.e. The wave's result will be relative to this observed point if you are at the sun.

 

If you were half way between the sun and earth you see the light from the sun go out in 4 minutes from the past event on your up held palm, but you are now the last observed point, a new wave starts for you from your "right now",

 

How are the waves absorbed and re-emitted.

 

(imagine dropping a pebble in water at this half way point), a new wave starts from this "right now" point relative to this observer, the light from the sun is now a smaller/newer wave than a wave that has already been travelling for 4 minutes from the sun. This newer/smaller wave is relative to the last observation point.

 

This should be trivially measurable, if you put an object in a light bean....

 

So if you think of the electron only as a wave in young's experiment you will observe the hit of the wave starting from the point of your last measured observation, if that observation is at the opening of one slit this is where a new wave starts, it travels through only the slit it is in front of and hits as a single band, giving the same single band result as if it were assumed it had turned into a particle.

 

************************************************************************************************************************************************.

 

You must also consider other experiments, and if you are discussing the particle nature of electrons you need to discuss the exact measurement technique.

[OneSpace]

I really need to explain this hypothsis more simply I think.

 

*To graph this in 2D - (for simplicity only)*

 

Draw a line>(1D time), Then draw a 2D circle>(a particle) with this line passing through the center of this circle. Draw a larger 2D circle>(the universe), around the first circle. Imagine the line is being pulled through the center of both circles together at "c".

 

The line moves from past to future and the center is right now, the future line is every possible direction but will be a straight line if no force is applied.

 

On a similar graph draw two random lines>(1D time lines) and a 2D circle>(particles P1 & P2) on each line. Draw a large 2D circle>(the universe) but imagine this universe circle is infinite and therefore the center can be anywhere even two places at once relative to seperate objects.

 

The 2D particle circles P1 & P2 each have their own time line being pulled through at "c". The 2D universe circle has it's center at the center of both particle circles relative to each particle. The infinite universe has no set boundary and therefore has no set center, it can be anywhere along any 1D time line at any 0D point.

 

Because, on this graph, the 2D particle circles are on different 1D time lines they can interact with one another, P1 pulls it's 1D time line reeling in P2 as a reaction to reeling in its new center of the universe. In this instance P1 can reel in any possible center in any possible direction at any possible speed up to the limit of the speed time is "reeling" at which is "c".

The 2D particle circles P1 & P2 never move, the 0D centers of there relative universe move along a 1D time line moving all things within the 2D universe circle with it.

 

In a 3D world-

 

Infinite 1D time line moves through all finite 2D & 3D particles, the particle does not move through a stationary 1D time line, It is all relative how it seems. You observe the land go by on a boat and you observe the boat go by on land, relative to an observer or any observable thing they could be said to be stationary, a 0D point, and everything moves relative to them.

 

The center position of the universe is relative to every individual particle and the universe is made of infinite 1D time lines propagating from this center.

 

I hope this answers your questions.

[Royston]

Umm, a circle is 1D, the area of a circle would be 2D, and I can't see that you've mentioned area. Also I'm not convinced you understand why a point particle is 0D, a point particle is a reference...nothing more. How can a reference have dimensions ?

 

I realize you've stated a point particle as 0D, but your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. Without meaning to be patronizing, I'd suggest you get to grips with the basics, before trying to attempt some new derivation of spacetime, or whatever it is you're trying to prove. Again, please don't take that as patronizing, it's really the reason why you're slipping up, and why it's tricky to follow what you're attempting to show.

[Klaynos]

I hope this answers your questions.

 

Not really :|

[OneSpace]

Snail.

 

A circle is a 2D shape, it would seem I am not the only one who thinks shapes are 2D. Are you kidding, i didn't mention area? A circle has area i thought this was already understood.

 

I respect everyone's opinion so i did look it up anyway and i think i know what you mean, a circle is just a simple closed curve made from a 1D line. Well this is exactly what i am saying anyway, that 2D shapes and 3D objects are made from 1D lines. I am saying there is in existance, only infinite1D lines seen in QM as the probability wave that is everything. That any 0D reference point is the center of the universe relative to that point.

 

0D is zero, it is not a dimension because it is zero, even time (which i am saying is every infinite 1D line making the universe and everything in it), is paused in 0D to give stillness to the center of the universe relative to a point, a 0D reference point rides the 1D line from still to "c" by exerting a force in any possible 1D direction. For every 0D reference (say you), every possible 1D line (time) is already there, it is seen as 3D space and you can ride time (by exerting a force) in any possible direction in this space made of infinite possible 1D lines. This is the hypothsis. You may say you don't think it works like that but you can't say it doesn't work like that without a logical explaination, or maybe it just really doesn't make any sense to you at all, i can't tell from what you have said.

 

It is a reference only? Wait that is what your saying i am not saying when this is exactly what i am saying. Your reference 0D, your observation point 0D, an observable point of reference 0D, yep i am pretty sure this is the exact thing i have been saying all along. Nothing more? Well consciousness is only a reference point for thought so you are right but this is a whole other chapter and i don't want to get into it right now.

 

This would be the second time you have tried to move the goal posts. I don't understand why expressing a new idea meets such resistance, evidence or logic should be the only resistance without going on about every piece of terminology and reinterperting what i say to mean the opposite(or just not bothering to read it properly). It is just that i would prefer to see posts that actually discuss evidence, logic or why it doesn't make sense rather than battling this kind of resistance all the time.(not everyone, not all the time anyway)

 

Klaynos.

 

Young's experiment infered wave properties by the evidence of an interference pattern when firing single electrons at the double slits and infered particle properties by the evidence of a single band when an observer was placed near the opening of one slit. I used the same evidence but infered the observer was the last point of reference in the experiment and this is where the wave began, hence the same single band which is the same evidence.

 

You asked what evidence, the same evidence, just what is being infered by that evidence changes.

 

To answer your statement:

If it's an expanding sphere then there is a set centre.

 

The only set center is the point of reference' date=' the last observed point of the double slit experiment is the measuring device, a wave could give the resulting single band hits in the experiment if it started at the measuring device. I also explained that the universe is an infinite expanding sphere, without a set boundary and without a set center. The center of the universe is relative.

 

Time moves? How can a dimension move?

 

Time is the only thing that moves, dimensions are a way to describe that movement.

Like the 3D universe is expanding.

Ok i hope i answered a few more questions.

Goodnight.

[mooeypoo]

Time is the only thing that moves, dimensions are a way to describe that movement.

Time doesn't move, we experience time without controlling or directly intercepting it, so for us it 'goes forward', but there is no movement in it at all.

 

In fact, the existence of time DEFINES movement (= change of location in relation to time).

 

Time itself doesn't move.

 

~moo

 

btw...

 

I am just watching "COSMOS" again, and Sagan is explaining dimensions in this episode really nicely:

 

He shows a clear cube, how it casts a shadow on a flat sorface. Flat creatures don't see the CUBE, they only see its shadow, and as such, they don't quite see the cube itself, so their definition of it is different.

 

That's a very good visualization to what happens in terms of time (4 dimension) and us (3 dimensions) -- we don't "see" or "perceive" time, we only see its effect on us ---> it's "shadow" on OUR dimensions.

 

Does that sound better?

[Klaynos]

This would be the second time you have tried to move the goal posts. I don't understand why expressing a new idea meets such resistance, evidence or logic should be the only resistance without going on about every piece of terminology and reinterperting what i say to mean the opposite(or just not bothering to read it properly). It is just that i would prefer to see posts that actually discuss evidence, logic or why it doesn't make sense rather than battling this kind of resistance all the time.(not everyone, not all the time anyway)

 

The burdon of proof is on you to show you're right, not us to disprove you, you have provided NO evidence or logic, just some wobbly unclear handwaving.

 

Klaynos.

 

Young's experiment infered wave properties by the evidence of an interference pattern when firing single electrons at the double slits and infered particle properties by the evidence of a single band when an observer was placed near the opening of one slit. I used the same evidence but infered the observer was the last point of reference in the experiment and this is where the wave began, hence the same single band which is the same evidence.

 

You asked what evidence, the same evidence, just what is being infered by that evidence changes.

 

Then I'm afraid the existing theory holds over yours as it's predictive and uses maths.

 

To answer your statement:

 

 

The only set center is the point of reference, the last observed point of the double slit experiment is the measuring device, a wave could give the resulting single band hits in the experiment if it started at the measuring device. I also explained that the universe is an infinite expanding sphere, without a set boundary and without a set center. The center of the universe is relative.

 

No to see the particle nature you need to actually understand how the detector works. You cannot apply universe scale ideas to macroscopic, or quantum scale events.

 

Time is the only thing that moves, dimensions are a way to describe that movement.

Like the 3D universe is expanding.

Ok i hope i answered a few more questions.

Goodnight.

 

You have not shown this, restating your position does not make you correct.

[OneSpace]

The burdon of proof is on you to show you're right, not us to disprove you, you have provided NO evidence or logic, just some wobbly unclear handwaving.

 

I am not trying to show i am right (your shifting the goal posts). I am trying to show what i am saying is possible and therefore build on that.

The evidence is not in question, what is infered from that evidence is.

You infer wave/particle daulity where i am infering just the wave, i put foward the case for you to show how it could not possibly be the way.

 

Then I'm afraid the existing theory holds over yours as it's predictive and uses maths.

 

Your wobbly logic seems to be you can infer wave/particle daulity is absolute proof. You seem to have made up your mind on this and any other way needs to not only be shown to be possible but needs to be proved.

Also:

I believe that the maths and predictions only use the wave.

 

My hand waving says if you wish (and it is completely up to you) to help show it's not even possible then the burdon is yours.

 

No to see the particle nature you need to actually understand how the detector works. You cannot apply universe scale ideas to macroscopic' date=' or quantum scale events.[/quote']

 

The purpose of the detector is to show which slit the electron actually goes through, the final results show the nature of the electron, i.e. wave-particle.

 

You would not think you can apply universe scale ideas to quantum scale events because you have already made up your mind and that's a shame.