Mind and Spacetime

[Graviphoton]

Quantum physics job, is to provide answers to every system that requires an answer. One of these systems which many physicist has put sweat, blood and tears into, is to resolve the paradox of the mind.

 

There is not a definate mathematical model of consciousness, or the network of the mind, simply because we are unsure to how to procede into such a system with mathematics.

 

PhD, Goswami, Tipler, Penrose, Wolf among others have all studied the world of psychophysics, provided the paranormal mind with a platform created by the new physics. One thing i want to do before i die, is create a mathematical model of the mind which agrees well with experience and quantum physics.

 

One thing that i am tending to do, is provide an understanding of this bubble of perception with hard physical laws. I ask, ''Somehow, space and time is recreated in the dimension (or bubble) of perception. This imaginary dimension then can be applied to the same kind of mathematics we ascribe to space and time external of the mind.''

 

It is possible that consciousness is in fact under perfect conditions to be integrated against a mathematical model from the legendary Pythagorean theorem,

 

a^2+b^2=c^2

 

and in any standard course of geometry, you solve it for c, so that c^2√a^2+b^2. Of course, this equation led the way for vector calculus, and describing space as such a vector with three dimensional coordinates.

 

The human beings mind is an extraordinary instrument. It can quite literally ‘’recreate’’ a three-dimensional world, but somehow, doesn’t exist in it. In fact, no matter how much we deny the latter part, it is well known that what we ‘’observe’’ is not of the outside world, but a representation of it.

 

There is not many mathematical models of consciousness existing in physics today because of two reasons. One being that string theory has stolen so much time out of the academic world, and two that its not really known how. How do you make a mathematical model of consciousness?

 

One start, is by describing the ‘’recreated’’ three dimensional phenomenon with similar vector calculus used to describe space. When we do, we can even treat both types of vectors are as totally separate systems… why? Because the mind doesn’t exist in any unique time or external space. What we see, or sense, is purely imaginal.

 

||V||=√x+y+z,

 

For a normal three-dimensional space vector calculation, but I am wanting to describe space as well as something ‘’separate’’ to the external dimensions of the human mind, so it would be best to associate imaginary values as well real.

 

i=x+y+z

 

And under normal calculative vector products, we can state that the coordinates be described as a row vector with increasing values (a_1, a_2…)

 

||V|| =i√a_1+a_2+a_3

 

Giving each increasing value with an imaginary product. But as we introduce a four-vector condition, with one time dimension also acting as an imaginary space dimension, it’s already unique with the human perception, because already, time is an imaginary product of relativity. In other words, time is an imaginary dimension, so we aren’t really going to need to change any condition of the time dimension as seen from a Minkowski spacetime.

 

Some scientists have gone as far as to claim that perhaps time and mind are two different sides of the same coin, so by making a spacetime model for the mind, under the impression it is ‘’separate’’ from the external world, may not be entirely correct or truthful. But can instead become an excellent tool in bringing consciousness and spacetime together.

 

η = (0,0,0,1) is the row vector describing a four dimensional vector space under a Poincare Group, with one time dimension, and as many of us will have already seen, is put into a Minkowski Matrix:

 

….1000

….0100

η =0010

….000-1

 

Remember, even though this is used to describe spacetime at large, they are so very similar to how can describe the imaginary vectors of what we come to observe and sense. What is great about doing this, is that we can integrate similar concepts of timelike and spacelike qualities to consciousness, when we undergo some chemical or neural change, so that the operators don’t run normally.

 

What do I mean? Simply that we experience also a spacelike η(v,v,)<0 and timelike η(v,v)>0 condition, so normally, in everyday life [[we usually]] experience the correct flow of time and space (1)… we sense time moving forward without recourse, and we sense our movement in three dimensions through space (2). When does space and time not move accordingly? The answer turns out to be when the mind is not fully aware. When we dream, it is possible that the spacelike conditions and timelike conditions do not operate normally when we are awake (3).

 

Moving on, there are other ways to describe consciousness. We can totally ignore the fact we observe a three-dimensional vector space, and only focus on the one time dimension, and describe ‘’normal’’ spacetime with an extra time dimension uniquely attached to spacetime. In other words, using the normal Poincare Group and adding on the vector we experience I will describe as Tdi, simply, so that a row vector is given as η =(0,0,0,1,Tdi), so that I can state the following:

 

a^2 + b^2 + c^2 + tdi^2 - Tdi^2

 

With the normal time vector described as tdi. I solved the real part of the equation by allowing i^2 = i *k^2 so that the result is

 

a^2 + b^2 + c^2 - i^2*k^2^2 = 0

a^2 + b^2 +c^2 + k2^2 =0

 

Solving it normally through algebra, giving a final solution of: a=b=c=k^2=0. There is one last way to integrate this, and that is simply by treating the normal time vector of space as [the] dimension of the mind:

 

a^2 + b^2 + c^2 + tdi^2

 

So there is no need to add any extra time dimension at all, so we can allow the one time dimension to have two functions, and would fit in nicely with the postulation that time is somehow mind, made by many scientists over the years.

 

I now speculate on the math that links the vectors of spacetime (0,0,0,1) with the vectors we know about through the psyche which I have shown can be described as having its own row vector of (0,0,0,1) or by linking the one time dimension as somehow the same thing…

 

So, we can relate the function of both vector rows into some mathematical notation now, linking the two together. This can be done a number of ways… I would presume.

 

a^2= i^2=(√(a_1^2+a_2^2 + a_3^2 ))^2= √a_1^2+a_2^2 + a_3^2

 

Where the right hand side refers to an equality with the left.

 

Which can be reduced to:

 

a=|a|= √i – a

 

The mind is a subreality, a subdimension that in this interpretation is inextricably linked to space and time. This is similar to what physicists have been trying to inform the academic world for years, and it has been recently explained that we need some kind of definate model of consciousness, if we are to attempt any grand unified theory.

[Bignose]

OK, I'll bite.

 

Please use your theory and mathematics to make one testable prediction. Describe one test that can be made completely objectively and will be completely Boolean -- that is, will be clearly confirming or falsifying your theory -- nothing wishy-washy where the experiment "sort of" matches your idea.

 

Because, unless there is something that your extra mathematics can predict that the old theories cannot, all you have here is word and symbol salad. So, let's see something besides just words and equations (some of which are just wrong, BTW -- the 2-norm of a vector is [math]||\mathbf{v}||_2 = \sqrt{v_1^2 + v_2^2 + v_3^2}[/math] you forgot the squared on each of the terms on your second equation and your notation is a little confusing because usually there are components in the x, y, z directions, not actually x,y,z themselves which is why you usually see the components as [math]v_1, v_2, v_3[/math] or [math]v_x, v_y, v_z[/math] and not as [math]x, y, z[/math]. But the big problem is that your vector norms are just wrong. The general form of vector norms are [math]||\mathbf{v}||_n = (v_1^n + v_2^n + v_3^n)^\frac{1}{n} [/math] where n is usually limited to some integer. You have n equal to 2 and 1 in the same equation which just isn't right. )

 

Let's see your theory demonstrated in some clear cut fashion.

 

p.s. if you learn to use this forum's LaTeX math typing system, your equations will be much, much, much easier to read. LaTeX is pretty easy really and well worth a few minutes to learn

[zule]

We know very little about the mind, so we have not enough data to try and do a mathematical approximation about its working. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I neither think that we get to know enough about the mind during your lifetime to be able to create a mathematical model.

 

Speaking about the mind as the mere object capable of representing dimensions is for me almost a sacrilege.

[Graviphoton]

experimentation... hum...

 

... Is it enough i ask, that we observe three dimensions and sense a forth, which is independant from the external world?

 

The answer is of course ''yes''. Therefore, the proof is in the observer. Every one of us experience a three-dimensional bubble of existence and including a pyschological arrow of time, then the equations describing the external world of (3+1) dimensions can be described to map the mind.

 

Then -- there is the proof.

 

The use of it? There may be no use at all, or perhaps the notion of mind-vector equations would be very useful. This is the way it always is in physics.

[Bignose]

The use of it? There may be no use at all, or perhaps the notion of mind-vector equations would be very useful. This is the way it always is in physics.

 

No, No, a thousand times No. This is NOT the way it always is in physics. Physics is about prediction pure and simple. Physics predicts how much energy is needed to get satellites into orbit. Physics predicts the corrections due to relativity that is needed so that those satellites give us accurate GPS data here on the ground. Physics predicts the internal workings of the sun, the internal working of quasars, etc. Physics tells us how a golf ball flies through the air, how airplanes fly through the air, how blood flows through out capillaries, how to manufacture swimsuits so that Olympic swimmers eek out extra milliseconds in competition.

 

Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

Physics is all about the experiment and prediction. Sure, some experiments cannot be performed yet -- we admittedly aren't 100% sure what is going on in the sun, but we can use the best data we have to data to make predictions and in the future if we do have the ability to gather data from the sun itself, then the models may have to be refined.

 

But, if you don't make predictions, you are NOT doing physics. I'm sorry, without predictions, you are doing metaphysics or -- as where this thread got moved to -- pseudoscience.

[Graviphoton]

There is an infinite avatar of predictions of the psyche, and there is no renormalization process... so there is mutually an infinite amount of outcomes to a model of the brain, as there is predictions. But because we don't know yet many of them, we resolve this by speculation from a quantum physical viewpoint. This is the way anything starts out.

 

So much for the notion of psuedoscience. No one can debunk my claims other than ''show proof its true.''' And even at that, i kinda have by saying... ''We observe everyday our own vectors that cannot be external in any sense according to science.... so we do experience our own unique vectors.''

 

... I rest my case.

 

mmmm... It seems that, from a web pages titled ''Consciousness and the new physics,'' the notion of consciousness tied to spacetime in a mathematical sense, has already been lightly touched on with the added notion of dimensions...

 

''Sirag's model of consciousness, as presented in the Appendix, could be called a Pythagorean approach to consciousness, since Sirag's strategy is to look to mathematics for an appropriate structure to describe the relationship between consciousness and the physical world. He finds that unified field theories of the physical forces depend fundamentally on mathematical structures called reflection spaces, which are heierarchically organized in such a way that an infinite spectrum of realities is naturally suggested.

 

This situation is natural because mathematicians have discovered that the hierarchical organization of reflection spaces also corresponds to the organization of many other mathematical objects -- e.g. catastrophies, singularities, wave fronts, and contact structures, error correcting codes, sphere packing lattices, and, perhaps most surprisingly, certain regular geometric figures including the Platonic solids.

 

 

It is generally believed by physicists working on unified field theory that space-time is hyperdimensional, with all but four of the dimensions being invisible. The reason for this invisibility is a major subject of reseach. Beside space-time dimensions, there are also other internal (or invisible) dimensions called gauge dimensions. The reality of these gauge dimensions is also a topic of controversy and research. In Sirag's view both the extra space-time dimensions and the gauge dimensions are real. This provides scope for considering ordinary reality a substructure within a hyperdimensional reality. This idea has, of course, been suggested before -- e.g. it is implicit in the Cave Parable of Plato. The difference in Sirag's approach is that the structure of the hyperspace is defined directly by the properties of physical forces.

 

 

A further innovation in Sirag's approach is that his version of unified field theory embeds both spacetime and guage space in an algebra whose basis is a finite group. This group, which directly models certain symmetries of particle physics, is a symmetry group of one of the Platonic solids -- the octehedron. Thus it is a mathematical entity contained in the reflection space hierarchy. In fact the reflection space corresponding to the octehedron is seven-dimensional and is also a superstring-type reflection space, so that a link with the most popular version of unified field theory is provided.

 

The central postulate of Sirag's paper is that this seven-dimensional reflection space is a universal consciousness, and that invidivual consciousnesses tap into this universal consciousness. This implies that the high level of consciousness enjoyed by humans is due to the complex network of connections to the underlying reflection space afforded by a highly evolved brain.

 

Moreover, the hierarchy of reflection spaces suggests a hierarchy of realms (or states) of consciousness. Each realm would correspond to a different unified field theory with different sets of forces. In fact, the seven-dimensional reflection space is contained in an eight-dimensional reflection space, and contains a six-dimensional reflection space, so that there would be a realm of consciousness directly "above" ordinary reality, and a realm of consciousness directly "below" ordinary reality. In principle the relationship between the different forces in these different realms could be worked out in detail, so that precise predictions could be made.

 

Sirag believes that this hierarchy of realms of consciousness is analagous to the spectrum of light discovered in 1864 by James Clerk Maxwell in his electromagnetic theory of light, which unified the forces of electricity and magnetism. Maxwell had no way of directly testing his theory, which proposed the reality of frequencies of light both higher and lower than that of ordinary light. He boldly proposed the existence of invisible light, simply because his equations contained the higher and lower frequencies.

 

Similarly, in the unification of all the forces, we can expect something new to be described, which could be the analog of light. Sirag proposes that this new thing be consciousness, and that since the mathematics of the unification gives reflection space a central role, the hierarchy of reflection spaces suggests a hierarchy of realms of consciousness.''

 

And there was this i found from wiki

 

''Space-time theories of consciousness have been advanced by Arthur Eddington, John Smythies among others. The concept was also mentioned by Hermann Weyl who wrote that reality is a "...four-dimensional continuum which is neither 'time' nor 'space'. Only the consciousness that passes on in one portion of this world experiences the detached piece which comes to meet it and passes behind it, as history, that is, as a process that is going forward in time and takes place in space".

 

In 1953, C. D. Broad, in common with most authors in this field, proposed that there are two types of time, imaginary time measured in imaginary units (i) and real time measured on the real plane.

 

Different types of time are introduced in these hypotheses because they can interact mathematically in the equation of spacetime to produce no separation between two points. The equation of spacetime gives the spacetime separation (Δs) between two points as:

 

Δs2 = Δx2 + Δy2 + Δz2 − c2Δt2

In recent years this has been interpreted as a dynamical equation but when it was first formulated it was interpreted as a geometrical equation, specifying actual separations. The geometrical interpretation arose because it was proposed that the minus sign was the result of multiplying ciΔt by ciΔt where i is the square root of minus one (See Einstein (1920)). It can be seen that for any separation in 3D space there is a time at which the separation in 4D spacetime is zero. Similarly, if another coordinate axis is introduced called 'real time' that changes with imaginary time then historical events can also be no distance from a point. The combination of these result in the possibility of brain activity being at a point as well as being distributed in 3D space and time. This might allow the conscious individual to observe things, including whole movements, as if viewing them from a point.

 

It should be stressed that, although not impossible, the simple geometrical interpretation of spacetime using imaginary numbers is no longer widely accepted in physics. It is however often used to simplify calculations and is implicit in the Wick rotation.

 

John Smythies proposes that there are extra dimensions for arranging things that form a separate "phenomenal space of consciousness". The phenomenal space would be a physical instantiation of Descartes' Res Cogitans, the point from which he proposed things in the brain were seen.''

 

I find it encouraging now to continue mathematical work the way i have. It seems i might have been on the right track afterall.

 

And maybe the mod who sent my work here, will consider the following by wiki

 

''Proponents of the "Space-time theories of consciousness" assert that they make predictions, and are thus to be distinguished from pseudoscience. These predictions are not known to have been tested specifically.''

 

EXTENDED MATHEMATICAL RESEARCH

 

"If consciousness is in fact defined (and different) at every moment of time, it should also be related to points in space: the truly subjective observer system should be related to space-time points." from "Quantum Theory and Time Asymmetry", Zeh (1979).

 

An Attempt to Prove the Model

 

I now speculate on the math that links the vectors of spacetime (0,0,0,1) with the vectors we know about through the psyche which I have shown can be described as having its own row vector of (0,0,0,1) or by linking the one time dimension as somehow the same thing…

 

So, we can relate the function of both vector rows into some mathematical notation now, linking the two together. This can be done a number of ways… I would presume.

 

A)

a^2= i^2=(√(a_1^2+a_2^2 + a_3^2 ))^2= √-a_1^2+ -a_2^2 + -a_3^2

 

 

Where the right hand side refers to an equality with the left, and the negative signs resemble which vector we are talking about. In this case, the negative signs resemble the vectors of the mind.

 

Which can be reduced to:

 

a=|a|= √i – a

 

The mind is a subreality, a subdimension that in this interpretation is inextricably linked to space and time. It really is the extra dimension string theorists missed out. Now even though equation A) explains that the vectors of one side are equal to the other, how are they connected?

 

First we establish that the time dimension internal and external are in fact one thing only: As explained as a possible model before. So we first say that:

 

tdi^2=Tdi^2

 

Then we can unite the fabric of spacetime with consciousness through the expression:

 

a^2 + b^2 + c^2 + (tdi^2- Tdi^2)

 

*where (tdi^2- Tdi^2) just means proportional to…

 

But space and time on the relativistic map, is invariant, so that they play the same roles. For instance, a change in time Δt must also indicate a change in space. If time is a human aspect, and there is a change in our vector, then this would instantly determine a change in all the other variables:

 

Δa^2 + Δb^2 + Δc^2 + (Δtdi^2- ΔTdi^2)

 

So instantly can we assume that this model is flawed, because in no way have we ever had any experience that a change in how we perceive time, alters the external world of clocks. This immediately renders the equation tdi^2=Tdi^2 flawed one might think.

 

But, with some careful thought and deduction, relativity does say that a conscious observer will experience time change in for instance, time dilation. This experience alone can excite tdi^2=Tdi^2, and allow it to work. So simply put into math,

 

Δa^2 + Δb^2 + Δc^2 + (Δtdi^2- ΔTdi^2)

 

The change in ΔTdi^2, is the experienced change in time dilation. We have now linked the two together, with logic and math, and a little understanding from relativity. If there is any change in the external time dimension Δtdi^2 then there is a change in the internal dimension ΔTdi^2 since we can experience the change itself. Whether this makes our time dimension the same as the external time dimension, is up for debate.

 

The great thing about all this, is that relativity, most importantly special relativity is observer-dependant. Physicists have known this for a while. The equations that describe SR require the presence of an observer, and thus make’s distance also observer-dependant from a relative view. So… can we use relativity to integrate a mathematical model of consciousness? I think we can.

 

‘’ The general theory of relativity brought with it a decisive change in this point of view [the 3D world]. Space-time and matter were found to be interdependent, and there was no longer any question which one of the two is more fundamental. Space-time was also found to have its own inherent degrees of freedom, associated with perturbations of the metric-gravitational waves.

…Is it possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete?’’

 

The Square Root Integrates a Relationship

 

A part of me wants to investigate a relationship using √-1, but we already use that kind of math describing imaginary time which is real space. Perhaps though, we can switch the coordinates around from complex to ordinary, depending on the systems environment?

 

We already do something similar for particles. We can create a path for a photon that moves through real time or imaginary space, then make it move through real space or imaginary time, depending on the conditions. Perhaps we can create a model to link the vectors using √-1, and then, when imaginary time is being used in the equations, take away the complex nature to make √1. Weird? Perhaps. Perhaps also totally un-needed.

 

Perhaps too weird for now. For the moment, let’s just keep on track by saying the square root of minus one can integrate some kind of mathematical design that can explain consciousness. It turns out that the idea has been given some special thought already by Zhenming Zhia, who writes under ‘Square Root of √-1 as a Consciousness factor’, July14 1996, that

 

“In Einstein's special theory of relativity there is a Lorentz transformation that leads to Minkowski's four-dimensional space. But the fourth dimension is obtained by replacing time, t, with the imaginary [square root of √-1 multiplied by the speed of light, c, and by t itself]. After this, the temporal dimension becomes totally symmetrical with all other three dimensions of space…”

 

Zhia continues: “That means that time is itself one more dimension of space but is perceived by our consciousness as different and uniquely temporal. The modification with the imaginary square root of √-1 therefore corresponds to the unique involvement of consciousness in the process.”

 

He adds that, “Surprisingly, in Quantum Mechanics, the Schrodinger's wave function also involves the same square root of 1 when the spatial locality breaks down and a conscious observer gets involved in the process of measurement.”

 

He goes on to speculate that consciousness be some kind of sub-dimension – the same argument I have made for years. I must admit myself a bit disappointed that someone else have the same idea, and mine to be not original, but I am also glad that the conceptual construct of the theory is certainly attainable. Either way, I have integrated a negative quality already to describe the superdimension of the mind:

 

a^2= i^2=(√(a_1^2+a_2^2 + a_3^2 ))^2= √-a_1^2+ -a_2^2 + -a_3^2

 

So if there are any qualities to be assumed from √-1, this model I am designing can be applied to it. So lets move on.

 

Is Consciousness Just an Extended Time Dimension?

 

The best way to begin a set of equations that describe a system, is by attempting to find relevant links to simple equations. Einstein did this, from equating values like G_ab=T_ab… the idea is simple, and can lead one into all sorts of new thoughts.

 

Consciousness seems to be a dimension that is very timelike in nature. Why, we can only assume is because we are helpless to the timelike nature of the psyche. If this is true, then perhaps a simple deduction, using the original variables can describe the passing of time relative to our passing of time:

 

Δtdi^2=ΔTdi^2

 

tdi ~ is external time

Tdi ~ is internal time

 

Its very probable that the idea of treating some kind of passing of time in seconds or nano-seconds with spacetime has already been proposed. If the conscious realm is a negative subdimension, then something keeps arising to my postulations. Funny thing is, is that for some reason, the idea of some negative sub-dimension added onto the vectors of spacetime would give a zero total, much like how we equate a positive particle in the vacuum with a negative particle (E=Mc2 + E=-Mc2=0), or even considering adding up spin (x,y=½+x,y=-½=0)… Is the following equation true?

 

Δtdi^2 + ΔTdi^2 = 0

 

If it is, then the following would also be correct:

 

a^2= i^2=(√(a_1^2+a_2^2 + a_3^2 ))^2= √-a_1^2+ -a_2^2 + -a_3^2=0

 

I speculate carefully, that perhaps there might be a renormalization process in this kind of vector addition?

 

I'm surprised no one has asked why the expression:

 

a^2 + b^2 + c^2 + tdi^2 - Tdi^2

 

isn't represented as

 

a^2 + b^2 + c^2 - tdi^2 - Tdi^2

 

Intead

[Graviphoton]

My investigation was more than speculation. We certainly do experience a time dimension, and that time dimension must be inextricably linked to the external time dimension… I’ll provide more reasons into this soon.

 

We also experience spatial dimensions, and it has been proposed by well-known spacetime theories to advocate dimensions for the mind as well, since we know very well we see three dimensions… but what we see isn’t of real space, so what we are observing are naturally created dimensions inside the mind.

 

Can this be refuted?

 

I applied the following mathematical conclusions from Pythagorean geometry:

 

[math]Tdi[/math] – Internal Time Experience

[math]tdi[/math] – External Time Experience

a, b and c are the spatial coordinates

 

[math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+tdi^{2} - Tdi^{2}[/math]

 

I allowed a solution if you plugged in [math]i^2=i*k^{2}[/math] so that the result is

 

a^2+b^2+c^2-i^2*k^2^2=0

 

[math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+k2^{2}=0[/math]

 

And solve normally through algebra:

 

[math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+tdi^{2}[/math]

 

Explained either

 

1) Two time dimensions don’t need to exist, or we can keep the notion that the expression [math]tdi^{2}[/math] is naturally taken for granted [math]tdi^{2}=Tdi^{2}[/math]

2) Or there are two time dimensions

 

I settle with the former discipline. I prefer the idea that the asymptotic time we all experience, and cosmic time are two different sides to the same coin.

 

[math]a^{2}=i^{2}=(\sqrt{(a_{1}^{2}+a_{2}^{2}+a_{3}^{2} ))^{2}}=\sqrt{a_{1}^{2}+a_{2}^{2}+a_{3}^{2}}[/math]

 

The equation above, was my attempt to describe the spatial dimensions we see, as being dependant on the external spatial dimensions, where the right hand side refers to an equality with the left.

 

Now… I went on to show how [math]Tdi[/math] and [math]Tdi[/math] are related. I explained:

 

‘’ [math]tdi^{2}=Tdi^{2}[/math]

 

Then we can unite the fabric of spacetime with consciousness through the expression:

 

[math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+(tdi^{2}- Tdi^{2})[/math]

 

*where (tdi^2- Tdi^2) just means proportional to…

 

But space and time on the relativistic map, is invariant, so that they play the same roles. For instance, a change in time Δt must also indicate a change in space. If time is a human aspect, and there is a change in our vector, then this would instantly determine a change in all the other variables:

 

Δ[math]a^{2}+[/math]Δ[math]b^{2}+[/math]Δ[math]c^{2}+([/math]Δ[math]tdi^{2}-[/math]Δ[math]Tdi^{2})[/math]

 

So instantly can we assume that this model is flawed, because in no way have we ever had any experience that a change in how we perceive time, alters the external world of clocks. This immediately renders the equation [math]tdi^{2}=Tdi^{2}[/math] flawed one might think.

 

But, with some careful thought and deduction, relativity does say that a conscious observer will experience time change in for instance, time dilation. This experience alone can excite [math]tdi^{2}=Tdi^{2}[/math], and allow it to work. So simply put into math,

 

Δ[math]a^{2}+[/math]Δ[math]b^{2}+[/math]Δ[math]c^{2}+([/math]Δ[math]tdi^{2}-[/math]Δ[math]Tdi^{2})[/math]

 

[[Just going to add here, that there is some speculation among scientists that without the mind, time would become obsolete of meaning… and therefore, obsolete of existence]] ‘’

 

When Things Get Complex

 

It’s quite a difficult job dealing with a change in our time, and external time, when both are the same, because we know fine well that we can loose mental seconds, but not a second disappears on the clock on the wall. This is where quantum physics comes into play. There is no perception without perception, so whilst time can flux, and we change with it, it still requires our existence to allow it to be measured, and therefore created.

 

Using the equation Δ[math]Tdi^{2}=[/math]Δ[math]tdi^{2}[/math] to describe the following event:

 

ΔTdi=tdi_1 – tdi_2

 

where we would be using a change in time between two points in reference to it being actual experience, is actually a notion well used in special relativity, and we are hardly ever noticing it. Special Relativity is observer-dependant in a relative sense, because humans are required to make measurements, AND, this is why the observer is important in physics. It’s ok to describe the quantum system, but not the system measuring it?

 

Some Deduction of Logic

 

Today, when sitting comfortably with a cig in one hand, and a coffee in the other, I decided to rewrite [math]Tdi^{2}=tdi^{2}[/math] into a simpler algebraic formula, and run it from there. If you follow my logic through, you will see how I derive the final conclusion –

 

[math]Tdi = a[/math]

[math]Tdi = b[/math]

 

Now…

 

[math]a=b[/math]

Which gives;

[math]a^{2}=ab[/math]

Which reduces to;

[math]a^{2}=b^{2}[/math]

 

The latter conclusion allowed me to speculate that [math]Tdi[/math] is the conjugate of [math]tdi[/math] because

 

[math]a^{2}=b^{2}=a^{2}+b^{2}i^{2}[/math]

 

So… (where J represents the conjugate)

 

[math]J=a+bi[/math]

[math]J=a-bi[/math]

 

Gives the form:

 

[math](a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b})=a-b=x[/math]

 

So that the squaring of the variables gives a real constant of [math]x[/math]. In physics, we often multiply conjugate parts together to create a single answer. In fact, some theories suggest that a collapse in the wave function happens when two complex-conjugates like this square.

 

I like this idea better than some of my previous ideas. This way, [math]Tdi[/math] and [math]tdi[/math] take on new forms with each other mathematically. They may very well act together as conjugates to produce the very phenomenon of time (but of course, this is major speculation on my behalf).

 

The final solutions naturally give:

 

[math]Td-tdi=Td+tdi[/math]

 

Because

 

[math]a-bi=a+bi[/math]

 

and

 

[math]a=b=i=-i[/math]

 

(There where two reasons i kept the two seperate... but never mind)

[Bignose]

Can this be refuted?

 

<snip>

 

The final solutions naturally give:

 

[math]Td-tdi=Td+tdi[/math]

 

Because

 

[math]a-bi=a+bi[/math]

 

and

 

[math]a=b=i=-i[/math]

 

(There where two reasons i kept the two seperate... but never mind)

 

The second to last statement, [math]a-bi=a+bi[/math], is just wrong except for one special case, [math]b=0[/math].

 

The last statement is completely meaningless, especially the last equation: [math]i=-i[/math]. Again, unless [math]i=0[/math], but [math]i[/math] is the imaginary unit. You can't have the negative of something be equal to itself unless it is a zero.

 

I didn't read the middle stuff, but if these are the final conclusions/results, you've done something quite, quite wrong. Unless you plan on completely re-writing the laws of mathematics, what you've written here is 100% meaningless.

 

Like I said above, this is all word/equation salad until you can show some practical demonstrable test and application.

[Graviphoton]

It is wrong? I was under the impression it was right... Two conjugate answers must come together to create a single answer. Even if the second last equation is not correct, i take it you do agree:

 

[math](a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b})=a-b=x[/math]

 

Which is really important, and anything after this, can allowed to be wrong, though i honestly thought it wasn't.

 

Now, you can excite the word salad if you like. What i have done above is meaningful, despite what you say. The irrefutable fact is that internal time and external time must have some kind of reference to each other, and i have tackled a mathematical idea for it. If this is salad, then i would like to ask exactly what is salad for doing that?

 

Psychophysicists often refer to internal and external properties, dealing with both seperately. I have joined them together into a simple mathematical base, describing one as a conjugate of the other. The experimental (side) to this, lies in the same experiments as explained by wiki... spacetime theories, in short, are not considered a psuedoscience as such, but rather a protoscience, because they can predict experiment.

 

Now... i am not an experimentalist, so i will leave that as something to be done by someone else. My work might be salad to you, but spacetime theories are not considered as such.

 

But off the top of my head, my equation Δ[math]Tdi=[/math]Δ[math]tdi[/math] means... a change in our time, equals a change in external time... and that can be testable through special relativity. Is that enough?

[Klaynos]

A correction:

 

[math]

(a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b}) \neq a-b

[/math]

 

 

[math]

(a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b})=a^2 \mp b

[/math]

[Bignose]

I agree with Klaynos' equation, not yours Graviphoton.

 

If your basic mathematics aren't even right, how can the conclusions you draw based on that math be right?

 

Look, I'm not trying to put down your creativity and thinking about these ideas. More than anything, I am trying to look at it from a practicality standpoint. That is, what can this math be used for? I know what Newton's laws can be used for... calculating the flight of a golf ball for example. I know what Kepler's laws can be used for, predicting where Mars will be when we want to land a probe on it. I know what the Navier-Stokes equations can be used for, predicting the pressure drop when flowing through a pipe. Etc. etc.

 

Those mathematics weren't performed just for the sake of performing them. They were performed with a specific application in mind (as I listed above).

 

So, unless you can show what your math can be directly applied to, it becomes meaningless. There is no discussion possible either. What's to stop me from telling you that you are wrong, that there are really 4 times that are important, Tdi, tdi, tDi, and TDi? Nothing at all, because your math doesn't describe something and my math won't describe something either.

 

It isn't a question of doing experimentation and whether you want to do them or not. How about this: can you simply describe an experiment that would either confirm or destroy your ideas? I'm not even asking you to perform it, I am just asking you to think of some test could possibly one day be performs that would test your ideas. If you can't, then, I'm going to stick with calling it word salad.

 

Look, you are 1 step ahead of most people who claim to have brand new ideas, you've at least attempted to provide some mathematics to describe what you are trying to say. The math has some fundamental errors in it, but, at least you've tried. I'm trying to get you to take a few more steps in the right direction, but thinking about how you can test your math and ideas. Just having math itself is not enough. Like I said above, the math is performed in order to describe something -- or, to put it another way, to make predictions with. So, describe a situation where your ideas can be tested to see if your math matches what actually happens or whether your theories are wrong. That's what I'm asking.

[Graviphoton]

No, there is no need to plug the variable ≠ in. If i am wrong, fine, its not the first time.

 

In fact, i'm positive its not wrong in this concept.

[Klaynos]

You are wrong, it is trivial to expand the brackets to show that I am correct.

[Graviphoton]

Again, i don't think so.

[Klaynos]

You're wrong, it's simple mathematics, let me explain:

 

 

[math]

(c-d)(e+f)= ce + cf - de - df

[/math]

 

If we subsitute c = e = a and d = f = sqrt(b)

[math]

ce + cf - de - df=(a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b})=aa+a\sqrt{b} - \sqrt{b}a -\sqrt{b}\sqrt{b}= a^2 - \sqrt{b}\sqrt{b} = a^2 \mp b

[/math]

 

Which part of this do you disagree with?

[Graviphoton]

Nothing, but your making the equation more complicated. If it is the concept of [math](a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b})=a-b=x[/math], then this is also allowed, and might make more acceptable mathematical expression:

 

[math](a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b})=ab=x[/math]

 

Agreed?

 

Big Nose.. you said i couldn't do

 

[math]a-bi=a+bi[/math] unless b=0... not true according to wiki, which plugs in actual values:

 

[math](3-2i)=3+2i[/math]

 

which is of the form [math]a-bi=a+bi[/math]

 

Also, wiki has the equation finalised:

 

[math]7=7[/math]

[math]i=-i[/math],

 

something which you also claimed to be wrong.

[ydoaPs]

[math](a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b})=a^2+a\sqrt{b}-a\sqrt{b}{\mp}b=a^2{\mp}b[/math]

It equals neither (a-b) nor ab.

 

You messed up simple math.

[Klaynos]

Graviphoton, I am not over complicating it, you said you dissagreed with me, I explained how I found the answer, you can see nothing wrong with how I found my answer and yet it clearly shows that your answer is wrong.

 

Also could you show where in wikipedia it says that:

 

[math]

(3-2i)=3+2i

[/math]

 

As the second one would appear to be the complex conjugate of the first. And therefore the above statement is not true.

[Bignose]

Nothing, but your making the equation more complicated. If it is the concept of [math](a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b})=a-b=x[/math], then this is also allowed, and might make more acceptable mathematical expression:

 

[math](a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b})=ab=x[/math]

 

Agreed?

 

Big Nose.. you said i couldn't do

 

[math]a-bi=a+bi[/math] unless b=0... not true according to wiki, which plugs in actual values:

 

[math](3-2i)=3+2i[/math]

 

which is of the form [math]a-bi=a+bi[/math]

 

Also, wiki has the equation finalised:

 

[math]7=7[/math]

[math]i=-i[/math],

 

something which you also claimed to be wrong.

 

If you are looking at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_conjugate

 

You are missing a huge part of the equation. The overline that denotes the complex conjugate.

 

It is NOT [math] 4 + 8i = 4 - 8i[/math]

 

it is [math]\overline{4 + 8i} = 4 - 8i[/math]

 

You cannot, cannot, cannot just remove the overline. The overline denotes performing a specific operation -- the operation of taking the complex conjugate. Without the overline, your equations are just plain wrong.

 

Note the overline in the following equations:

[math] \overline{7} = 7[/math]

 

[math] \overline{i}= -i[/math]

 

The overline is an absolutely critical part of the equation that renders the equations meaningless when left off. I cannot stress that enough.

 

Neverthemind the larger issue that wiki isn't a definitive source anyway. Any fool can edit wikipedia to make it say what they want it to say. But, the definition of complex conjugate is in many mathematics texts, and you have to denote it somehow. The overbar is common, a superscript asterisk is another. But, you cannot just not put anything on it, because it is wrong.

 

Finally: regarding [math](a - \sqrt{b})(a + \sqrt{b}) = a(a+\sqrt{b}) - \sqrt{b}(a+\sqrt{b}) = a^2 + a\sqrt{b} - \sqrt{b}a -\sqrt{b}\sqrt{b} = a^2 \mp b [/math]

 

you are just wrong unless you are redefining mathematics.

[Graviphoton]

No, i don't see anything wrong with your math. I'll state i made a mistake.

 

I missed the overline too...

 

Let me alter the equation. I guess modifying the equations can be done.

 

[math](a-bi)(a+bi)=a-bi^{2}=a-b(-1)=a+b=x[/math]

 

Can be how they finally reach a single answer. This should be acceptable. Or i can keep the original notational idea:

 

[math](a-i\sqrt{b})(a+i\sqrt{b})=a-bi^{2}=a+b=x[/math]

 

Now. Is that acceptable? I believe it is.

[timo]

[math](a-bi)(a+bi)=a-bi^{2}=a-b(-1)=a+b=x[/math]

I have not read any post in this thread but you should probably still try (a+bi)(a-bi) = a² + b².

[Graviphoton]

Hi

 

I am trying to compose a single answer from two values. The equation you highlighted, was the most simplest way i could, after making a previous algebraic error.

 

Right, so here is the new conclusion:

 

[math]a=b[/math]

Which gives;

[math]a^{2}=ab[/math]

Which reduces to;

[math]a^{2}=b^{2}[/math]

 

The latter conclusion allowed me to speculate that [math]Tdi[/math] is the conjugate of [math]tdi[/math] because

 

[math]a^{2}=b^{2}=a^{2}+b^{2}i^{2}[/math]

 

So… (where J represents the conjugate)

 

[math]J=a+bi[/math]

[math]J=a-bi[/math]

 

Gives the form:

 

[math](a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b})=a-bi^{2}=a-b(-1)=a+b=x[/math]

[ydoaPs]

Do you know how to multiply binomials?

[Klaynos]

[math]

a^{2}=b^{2}=a^{2}+b^{2}i^{2}

[/math]

 

Would appear to be wrong, what could be correct is:

 

[math]

a^{2}=b^{2}=\frac {a^{2}-b^{2}i^{2}} {2}

[/math]

[Graviphoton]

yes