Quantifying the Physical Property of Direction.

[steveupson]

The physical property of direction does not appear on any list of physical properties.

 

The reason for it not appearing on such lists seems to be unknown at this time, or least no accepted scientific source provides this reason.

 

Without speculating as to what these reasons might be, there does seem to be a practical method that can be used in order to fill in this area of physics.

 

There is a new model that illustrates the existence of a smooth function that establishes the relationship between two directions (orientated 45 degrees to one another) in three dimensions, simultaneously. It involves concurrent quantification of direction, without a metric, which can be understood as simultaneous finite rotations which commute in much the same manner as infinitesimal rotations commute in conventional plane geometry. This differs (mathematically and conceptually) from the usual (two dimensional) discrete finite rotations or infinitesimal rotations which are used to manipulate objects in Euclidean three space.

 

In the new model, the relationship between the two directions is that they are 45 degrees to one another, but a similar model can be constructed for defining the relationship between any two directions.

 

These are simply observations, not speculation.

 

The new function is here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95113-defining-a-new-function/

 

[pzkpfw]

The physical property of direction does not appear on any list of physical properties.

 

...

 

Vectors?

 

Velocity vs Speed?

[Sensei]

Vectors?

 

Velocity vs Speed?

 

He asked about quantization (rather than quantification) of velocity (space and time), and quantization of energy..

 

Quantization of space and time can be smaller than Planck length and Planck time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

 

The physical property of direction does not appear on any list of physical properties.

 

The reason for it not appearing on such lists seems to be unknown at this time, or least no accepted scientific source provides this reason.

 

Planck length and Planck time are so ultimately small ("The Planck length is about 10⁻²⁰ times the diameter of a proton.") that nobody reached this level of precision of measurement.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Sensei

[Strange]

He asked about quantization (rather than quantification) of velocity (space and time), and quantization of energy..

 

 

The first occurrence of "quantisation" is in your post. The OP specifically mentions "quantification" more than once.

 

I agree, the answer appears to be vectors. Direction is a fundamental aspect of movement, force and many other vector properties.

[ajb]

'Direction' is very noncanonical, and I think not much more than picking a local coordinate system. Basically, if we pick a rectangular coordinate system them we can speak of the x, y and z (etc) direction and this matches what we think of by direction in everyday life.

 

Or, one can think of vector fields, which give locally 'directions' in the same sort of way local coordinates do. You can find a local basis and then use that to define you directions. But again this is far from canonical.

[Sensei]

The first occurrence of "quantisation" is in your post. The OP specifically mentions "quantification" more than once.

 

I agree, the answer appears to be vectors. Direction is a fundamental aspect of movement, force and many other vector properties.

"which can be understood as simultaneous finite rotations which commute in much the same manner as infinitesimal rotations commute in conventional plane geometry."

"This differs (mathematically and conceptually) from the usual (two dimensional) discrete finite rotations or infinitesimal rotations which are used to manipulate objects in Euclidean three space."

 

If object can rotate only in discrete finite amounts, not absolutely smoothly, it's example of quantization.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Sensei

[steveupson]

If object can rotate only in discrete finite amounts, not absolutely smoothly, it's example of quantization.

 

The function itself does not seem to be understood at this time. It differs from the normal way the direction is expressed.

 

Direction can currently be expressed as either a relationship between two or more vectors (Pythagoras), or as a relationship between circle and its radius (pi).

 

In either event, direction is only expressed as a relationship that occurs in a plane.

 

The new function defines direction much differently. Three (simultaneous) dimensions are required in order to create the model. This method is completely different from the method used where three planes are stacked orthogonality to one another.

 

It isn't that the object rotates, rather the object occupies all of these rotations at once. Maybe.

[Phi for All]

The new function is here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95113-defining-a-new-function/

 

 

!

Moderator Note

If you already have a thread on this, why are you starting this one? It's against the rules to use one thread to advertise another.

 

It makes it very confusing to have two conversations about the same subject. Why do you think both are necessary?

 

Also, you're proposing a pet theory in the mainstream sections. New ideas should go in Speculations so our students don't get confused.

[steveupson]

I'm sorry, the other thread is about the math.

 

Is there a Math/Physics forum where these two topics should be posted together?

 

Edited for clairity> before making the claim that this is some pet theory, shouldn't we deal with the math? In other words, how can such a claim be made without math to support it?

 

Second edit> how can making the simple observation that direction doesn't appear on any list of physical properties be consider a "pet theory?" It seems like a reality to me. Also, the only reason that I used the word maybe in my last post is because I make childish mistakes quite frequently. In this case the jargon that I am using is jargon that I'm not fully comfortable with. Your patience will be greatly appreciated.

Edited May 16, 2016 by steveupson

[Strange]

Second edit> how can making the simple observation that direction doesn't appear on any list of physical properties be consider a "pet theory?"

 

The fact that this claim is incorrect means it belongs in the Speculations forum (along with all the other claims that are contradicted by the facts).

 

I am not sure what "lists of physical properties" you are referring to, but there are many that I can think of that include direction: magnetic dipole moment of the electron, orbital parameters of planets, etc. And of course, many fundamental laws of physics include direction: from F=ma to the Einstein Field Equations.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Strange

[Sensei]

These are simply observations, not speculation.

 

Which physical experiment is presenting your observations.. ?

 

If there is no experiment, then it's speculation, I think.

[steveupson]

 

 

 

I am not sure what "lists of physical properties" you are referring to...

 

 

I am referring to any list of physical properties. The way that I understand it, the vectors that you mention are without any inherent magnitude, ie, they are not scalars.

 

The object that I am talking about is unchanged by Lorenz transformation (it is an eqation) and therefore that would indicate to me that the quantity is a not a vector.

 

This is my best attempt at asking some seemingly simple questions about physics are deceptively difficult.

 

Try and make some allowances for my inability to convert this all to algebra, Although I have a passing familiarity with reading algebraic expressions, my ability to conjugate in that language is very limited.

 

Which physical experiment is presenting your observations.. ?

 

If there is no experiment, then it's speculation, I think.

 

Observations can be made about other's research, it doesn't have to be original experiments, does it?

 

In my particular case the research is fairly simple and consists of looking at lists of physical properties to see if they quantify a property called direction. It's simple enough, I would think.

[Sensei]

I am referring to any list of physical properties. The way that I understand it, the vectors that you mention are without any inherent magnitude, ie, they are not scalars.

Vector (Euclidean at least) that has not been normalized has magnitude.

Length of vector =sqrt(x^2+y^2) for 2D, =sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) for 3D, and so on with more dimensions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_(mathematics)

Go to Vector section.

Normalized vector has length=magnitude=1.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Sensei

[Strange]

I am referring to any list of physical properties.

 

Here is a list of physical properties:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

 

And here is another one:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

 

Some of those properties are scalars (directionless) and some are vectors (directional).

 

 

The way that I understand it, the vectors that you mention are without any inherent magnitude, ie, they are not scalars.

 

Scalars do not have any "inherent" magnitude, either.

 

The object that I am talking about is unchanged by Lorenz transformation (it is an eqation) and therefore that would indicate to me that the quantity is a not a vector.

 

If it is not a vector, then it doesn't have direction.

 

Try and make some allowances for my inability to convert this all to algebra,

 

Maybe you need to study some basic mathematics before you go any further.

 

In my particular case the research is fairly simple and consists of looking at lists of physical properties to see if they quantify a property called direction. It's simple enough, I would think.

 

And it simply shows you are wrong.

[swansont]

Edited for clairity> before making the claim that this is some pet theory, shouldn't we deal with the math? In other words, how can such a claim be made without math to support it?

 

We ask this question a lot. You are one of very few who want to deal with the math.

 

Second edit> how can making the simple observation that direction doesn't appear on any list of physical properties be consider a "pet theory?" It seems like a reality to me.

 

You are suggesting that it should be, which is not part of mainstream science. Direction is not a property of the particle, per se, since that will change with a choice of coordinate system.

[steveupson]

 

 

 

 

And it simply shows you are wrong.

 

 

Your first link has five appearances of the word "direction," none of which are in any form of table.

 

Your second link does not even include the term "direction" at all.

 

If some other word is being used instead, what is it?

 

 

Being my first day here, I'm not sure if every semantic argument requires a response. I always try and form some type of response when asked a sincere question, but I'm sure it makes a lot of sense to turn this into a discussion of what a "table of physical properties" is.

 

We ask this question a lot. You are one of very few who want to deal with the math.

 

 

You are suggesting that it should be, which is not part of mainstream science. Direction is not a property of the particle, per se, since that will change with a choice of coordinate system.

 

 

Maybe this should be asked. Is it ok to ask?

[swansont]

Maybe this should be asked. Is it ok to ask?

 

 

If you're going to raise the question, you should have some skin in the game as to why it should be.

[Strange]

Your first link has five appearances of the word "direction," none of which are in any form of table.

 

Your second link does not even include the term "direction" at all.

 

If some other word is being used instead, what is it?

 

Several of the values are vectors. For the electron, these are spin and magnetic moment. For the Earth they are things like surface gravity, orbital velocities, moment of inertia, etc.

However, if you are asking if "direction" (just direction and nothing else) is a property of things, then the answer is obviously no. Neither is position. These are entirely arbitrary properties that depend as much on the observer as the observed. (And entirely on the choice of coordinates.)

Edited May 16, 2016 by Strange

[steveupson]

 

 

However, if you are asking if "direction" (just direction and nothing else) is a property of things, then the answer is obviously no. Neither is position. These are entirely arbitrary properties that depend as much on the observer as the observed. (And entirely on the choice of coordinates.)

 

Yes, this is the question. If it isn't a property, what is it?

 

 

If you're going to raise the question, you should have some skin in the game as to why it should be.

 

I don't know why it "should be" any certain way. I'm trying my best to make sense of a geometric reality that is defined by a new function that no one seems to be able to derive.

 

As far as giving it a shot myself, such that I have a lot of skin in the game already, my attempt produced:

 

α = cot ((1 – sin E) / sin E) = cot (1/sin E – 1)

 

This makes no sense, not even a little...

 

Edited to add> I do have a .cdf file that was used to create the animation, and would post it here, but I need some help with that.

Edited May 16, 2016 by steveupson

[Mordred]

 

Yes, this is the question. If it isn't a property, what is it?.

 

It is a comparison, in order to define a direction you need a position to refer the direction compared to. It makes no sense in defining direction as a property. For the comparison requirement.

 

When we describe direction of travel you need to have a point of reference.

 

So how can you have direction as an intrinsic property when that direction value can change depending on the reference point?

 

Properties of say for example a particle are intrinsic. Every particle of that type will have the same properties. Ie all electrons will have the same rest mass, spin etc.

However the direction varies

Perhaps it may help to define how physics defines the word Property.

 

physical property - any property used to characterize matter and energy and their interactions

property - a basic or essential attribute shared by all members of a class; "a study of the physical properties of atomic particles"

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/physical+property

 

direction is shared by all members of a class example electrons.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Mordred

[studiot]

Hello Steve, I think we have been through 50 shades of the true meaning of the words direction, function and property on a dedicated maths site and established you do not refer to the conventional definition of either.

 

I have had a new thought that there is a property that might interest you.

 

Unfortunately it requires vector calculus to perform any calculations with it, but it is understandable in plain English without that.

 

It is called the circulation of a vector field and has the attractive property, from your point of view, of being a scalar that has some relation to the notion of direction.

 

 

Perhaps Mordred will explain it?

[steveupson]

So how can you have direction as an intrinsic property when that direction value can change depending on the reference point?

 

 

The way that I understand it to work, there is no "absolute" direction. I think this has been worked out already. There is the possibility of a "universal" direction instead. In other words, each particle (and position) shares a common property which determines the position and direction relative to all other particles.

 

A good stepping off point would be to look at “The Physical Origin of Torque and of the Rotational Second Law” - Daniel J. Cross. There it is argued that rigid bodies cannot transmit torque, or some such (this is a gross oversimplification.) Although their observations are accurate enough, their conclusions seem to be very speculative. The other obvious conclusion would be that rather than having non-rigid bodies where position changes when acted on by a force, there could a scenario where the future of these particles changes first thereby allowing their direction to change rather than their position.

 

Actually, because of the interaction between these two things (position and direction), both could probably be true, simultaneously.

 

This is an example of how it could happen. What the new function seems to establish is a simultaneous reciprocal (commutative) relationship between discrete directions in three-dimensional space, and because it commutes, all directions must have a common element that ties them together. Alternatively, but equally as forceful, all positions must have a common element to tie them all together. Again, see the above mentioned paper by Daniel J. Cross in order to see a much better description of the issue in much clearer, and much more rigorous terms.

Hello Steve, I think we have been through 50 shades of the true meaning of the words direction, function and property...

 

 

 

Hello studiot, Welcome to the party!

 

it's very reassuring to know someone here who understands how truly feeble I am when it comes to expressing things in standardized terms.

 

And as for the explanation of the circulation of a vector field, I hope that you're pranking me.

[Mordred]

Ok first off cosmology and universal applications involve the cosmological principle. Which essentially states no preferred direction or location.

 

This is also true for the Einstein field equations.

 

So in these examples direction is compared to a homogeneous and isotropic field from a coordinate.

 

There is however metrics that involve direction compared to a bulk flow, such as direction compared to a current.

 

Either way it doesn't change the fact that direction requires a comparison. That comparison can be a coordinate system such as a vector field, or a scalar field.

 

The example you gave can be modelled as a vector field.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Mordred

[steveupson]

The example you gave can be modelled as a vector field.

 

Thank you, Mordred. That was much less painful than I expected it to be, and it fits perfectly with my understanding, too.

 

Help me out with this, or at least let me know if anyone here can decipher what it is that I’m trying to say.

 

Let the main axis of the new object lie along a line which is coaxial with a cardinal direction. Then, let the axis that is normal to the center of the small circle lie along a line which is coaxial with an ordinal direction. In the example used in the model, the directions of these two axes are oriented 45 degrees from one another in space. Also, the lines that are coincident with these axes lie in a plane, and are oriented at 45 degrees to one another in that plane.

 

The basic underlying principle behind the new technique is to express the relationship between these two directions as a function which incorporates all three Cartesian directions (x, y, and z), simultaneously. The new function can mathematically replace the vector (two dimensional) in describing the same (almost) direction information. The new function actually appears to operate with even more ‘information’ which makes it communicative.

 

When the cardinal direction and the ordinal direction in our model are reversed, the same arithmetic relationship between the two will still exist.

 

The model that has been provided for a 45 degree relationship between two directions yields a different function from that in which this same model is used for defining a similar relationship between two directions that are not 45 degrees from one another. There is (should logically be) another additional function which will define the relationship between the 45 degree function and all of the other non-45 degree functions. An analogy would be how the trigonometric functions are used in plane geometry. A similar set of functions (as yet undefined) must exist for this geometry.

 

If someone could help me express this function of a function algebraically then I think everyone would have a much better opportunity to make some sense of my gibberish.

 

We shouldn’t have to derive the actual function in order to understand how this works. But, once these functions are derived then it should be possible to express direction in units using this method.

 

Having come this far, it may be more useful to call direction and position relationships rather than properties, although I'm not quite sure what the difference is, technically.

 

In which case, if we look at this relationship as something similar to a pointer in computer languages, then what we are talking about with this new technique would be similar to a pointer to a pointer. This new thing (the pointer to a pointer) is a quantity which is tied to the relationship between the two directions.

 

 

On edit> maybe another way to say it is that it works without any metric tensor?

Edited May 16, 2016 by steveupson

[studiot]

 

And as for the explanation of the circulation of a vector field, I hope that you're pranking me

 

Not at all I was quite serious.