'ter Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO POINTS IS A STRAIGHT LINE – OR IS IT? Being men of Science I feel confident that you will be more than pleased to hear of one of my more recent scientific postulations, a postulation that I have submitted to the world's scientific communities. Their response is as yet lacking and I can well imagine that this is due to the fire I have lit under various highbrow Scientific Royal and less ennobled Societies around the world. I daresay that deep mulling and great concern is underway. I thought it only just to lay before you my postulation and allow you to dwell upon it and who knows, should you wish to share this with former and current scientific colleagues, well please feel free. My scientific postulation takes into account of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the maxim concerning straight lines and points, the cosmos and human fallibility in general. As an afterthought, it might be as well for you to also know that when at school I took General Science and tended to more concentrate on the social sciences at that time. Law as a first degree; Engineering degrees followed later and only then after altering my O and A level certificates. The degree of understanding the word “alters,” being somewhat subjective and metaphysical in nature as far as I’m concerned. Anyway, here goes: Let us accept that we are hardly, if at all, ever right about anything and that inaccuracies abound around us; take Heisenberg’s scientific uncertainty principle as just a foundation point. Let us also take a moment to consider two fundamentals such as the straight line and the shortest distance between two points. Considering Heisenberg’s principle, Heisenberg basically said that there is a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties can be precisely defined or clearly understood. An example is given concerning a moving particle and its momentum. The less precisely its momentum is known, the more precisely the particle’s position can be known and vice-versa. "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line" we are told by modern day highbrow scientists and mathematicians. We can consider that distance and points are essentially physical properties. But we are also told that both the Earth and Space is curved, and additionally that both space and time aren’t constants. Therefore, looked at in terms of the above, that the Earth and Space are curved, wouldn't it be more correct to say, "surely that apparent straight line would in fact be curved," or put another way, appearing straight it is actually "bent," but that at the same time and given our more modern day approach to many things where we must apply greater human tolerance in our thinking and in our general mode of behaviour we could say: "Well yeah alright, we'll say he's straight but let's face it, we all know that in reality he's as bent as a nine bob / nine euro note." And hence Heisenberg is once again proved correct. The more he insists on saying he’s straight, the less we believe him. However, one must admit that the vice versa is still open to question but then we’re never really accurate about anything, are we?
pavelcherepan Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 If this is your own theory it belongs in Speculations section, not in the forum where accepted physical science is discussed. You say that we can never be right about anything which contradicts itself, since in that case we can never define what is 'right'. The idea that shortest distance between two points is not always a straight line is accounted for in general relativity in the form of geodetics that represent the curvature of spacetime to to presence of mass or energy. "And Heisenberg is once again proved incorrect" I see no proof here and why is it 'again'?
ajb Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line" we are told by modern day highbrow scientists and mathematicians. We can consider that distance and points are essentially physical properties. Okay, depending on what you mean by straight line exactly. On a Euclidean space this is absolutely true. But we are also told that both the Earth and Space is curved, and additionally that both space and time aren’t constants. Again, okay. Not sure why you would think space and time are constants anyway. I think you mean the measurements of duration and length are frame dependant. Therefore, looked at in terms of the above, that the Earth and Space are curved, wouldn't it be more correct to say, "surely that apparent straight line would in fact be curved," or put another way, appearing straight it is actually "bent," but that at the same time and given our more modern day approach to many things where we must apply greater human tolerance in our thinking and in our general mode of behaviour we could say: On small enough patches of the Earth or indeed space-time, everything looks flat. Locally one has that straight lines are the shortest distance between two points. One can mathematically make this more precise, but the idea is simple. "Well yeah alright, we'll say he's straight but let's face it, we all know that in reality he's as bent as a nine bob / nine euro note." I am not quite sure what you mean here. And hence Heisenberg is once again proved correct. The more he insists on saying he’s straight, the less we believe him. However, one must admit that the vice versa is still open to question but then we’re never really accurate about anything, are we? I don't see the link with quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle. Are you asking about 'quantum trajectories' or something else? Edited March 20, 2015 by ajb
'ter Posted March 20, 2015 Author Posted March 20, 2015 I said "CORRECT" and not 'incorrect' in my piece - may I suggest a new pair of spectacles and that you lighten up a bit? -1
ajb Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) If this is your own theory it belongs in Speculations section, not in the forum where accepted physical science is discussed. I don't see the theory here, just maybe some misunderstanding of local and global, the notion of geodesics and the uncertainty principle. All of which are part of physics. I would wait and see what the response is to our relies before requesting that this thread get moved to speculations. I said "CORRECT" and not 'incorrect' in my piece - may I suggest a new pair of spectacles and that you lighten up a bit? You have not 'proved' the uncertainty principle here at all. You can do that using standard methods of quantum mechanics; operators, probabilities and expectation values. This is well-understood. What you cannot prove is if the principle can be applied everywhere in nature; observations and experiments verify quantum mechanics as a good framework for describing nature and so we expect the principle to be a rather generic feature of the Universe. Edited March 20, 2015 by ajb
'ter Posted March 20, 2015 Author Posted March 20, 2015 I think you boys need to lighten up a bit !!! -1
ajb Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 I think you boys need to lighten up a bit !!! So, you don't want to discuss physics? If so then why have you posted on this forum? My though was that you wanted some feedback on your thoughts to help you improve your understanding of the Universe. Was I wrong?
hypervalent_iodine Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 ! Moderator Note 'ter, this isn't your soap box. If you want to post your ideas, fine, but you need to be prepared to discuss them. You also need to stop with the insulting language. 1
'ter Posted March 20, 2015 Author Posted March 20, 2015 "Insulting" - waddaya mean insulting - where's the insult? Telling someone to "lighten up a bit" could hardly be called insulting - can it? I think you'd be better off considering "lighten up a bit" as a challenge to the science behind gravitational forces mate? -1
ajb Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 "Insulting" - waddaya mean insulting - where's the insult? Telling someone to "lighten up a bit" could hardly be called insulting - can it? I think you'd be better off considering "lighten up a bit" as a challenge to the science behind gravitational forces mate? This is completely off topic and it is not usual to respond to a moderators note in this way. To put it simply, do you want to further discuss your ideas or not? I am willing to engage with you, but it has to be a two way thing. With this in mind, do you have anything to say about my initial reply to your opening post?
'ter Posted March 20, 2015 Author Posted March 20, 2015 Well that would depend on your views on Riemannian geometry and its impact on positive scalar curvature? In particular on the injectivity radius and ones view on diffeomorphism?
ajb Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 Well that would depend on your views on Riemannian geometry... I am familiar with Riemannian geometry so we can discuss this. In particular the Riemannian structure is used to define geodesics which are 'the shortest distance between two points'. ...and its impact on positive scalar curvature? I don't quite follow. The Riemannian structure is needed to define the Ricci scalar. You can define curvature tensors of a connection quite independently of the metric, but the Ricci scalar requires the metric. Moreover, one usually restricts attention to the scalar curvature related to the Levi-Civita connection. In particular on the injectivity radius and ones view on diffeomorphism? What about the exponential map and the injectivity radius? You want to discuss geodesic completeness or something related?
'ter Posted March 20, 2015 Author Posted March 20, 2015 And not forgetting that the Ricci tensor in 3 space time dimensions implies the vanishing of the Riemann curvature tensor but that in higher dimensions, that aspect doesn't hold true.
ajb Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 And not forgetting that the Ricci tensor in 3 space time dimensions implies the vanishing of the Riemann curvature tensor but that in higher dimensions, that aspect doesn't hold true. Counting the degrees of freedom for the Riemann tensor and the Ricci tensor you see that they coincide in 3 dimensions. Moreover, you can write the Riemann tensor in terms of the Ricci tensor in 3-d. Anyway, how is this related to your opening post?
'ter Posted March 20, 2015 Author Posted March 20, 2015 I think I just got taken up with the flow of general abounding enthusiasm.
ajb Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 So how did you want to apply the uncertainty principal to geodesics? I don't think it is very clear how you would do this. The problem is that the notion of a trajectory in quantum theory is not so straight forward.
'ter Posted March 20, 2015 Author Posted March 20, 2015 It seems that someone, albeit incorrect, is at least somewhere, generally on the right line !!!! Bon soir Gentlemen - I have homework to do for my Nursery School teacher. See ya - 'ter
studiot Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 on the right line Was this a quote from Euclid or Newton Or..............?
ajb Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) Was this a quote from Euclid or Newton Or..............? Galileo, please let it be Galileo Edited March 20, 2015 by ajb
studiot Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) ajb Galileo, please let it be Galileo Well I was referring to the connection between straight lines and geodesics in Newton's First Law. I don't know if Galileo ever referred to the important concept of The Right Line Edited March 20, 2015 by studiot
Recommended Posts