Re: Spacetime

Am Freitag000005, 05.07.2024 um 07:06 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

W dniu 05.07.2024 o 06:53, Thomas Heger pisze:

Am Donnerstag000004, 04.07.2024 um 18:39 schrieb gharnagel:

Thomas Heger wrote:

>
Am Sonntag000030, 30.06.2024 um 15:03 schrieb gharnagel:

>
Thomas Heger wrote:

>
I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.

>
But M-theory STILL fits that description.  Just because you don't

like

it doesn't mean it's false.

>
Sure, but dislike wouldn't proof it neither.
>
'String theory' is based on 'strings' and those are supposed to be
material objects (kind of 'superparticles').
>
But I tried to show, that the particle concept itself is wrong.

>
I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.
>

So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing.

>
Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long.  I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from nothing.
>

I had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of GR
for real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of 'pointlike
elements'.
>
That is something like a point with features and higher dimensions than
points in Euclidean space have.

>
Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.
>

These 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a certain
equation for quaternions, which is used for rotations.
>
This concept is my own invention, called 'structured spacetime' and
needs no strings.
>
It is actually relatively simple and needs only very few unusual
assumptions.
>
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than three
dimensions.

>
I think points are nonexistent.  They are a mental invention to express
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.

>
Sure: a point is actually meant as coordinate in space, hence not really real in a coordinate free space.
>
But real things are usually meant to consist of something.
>
If spacetime is real and a smooth continuum, than spacetime would consists of 'pointlike elements'.

  If you take  any of mathematically defined
spaces - it's built of 2 elements: a set
of something and some relation defined
about that set of something.
Applies also to "physical" space and to
spacetime.
 

'space' in math is something else than space in physics.
If you regard 'space' as that what is left, if all matter is taken away, then you have a dichotomy of space and matter.
No we can make it 'relativistic' and say, that matter is timelike stable.
The opposite is spacelike stable.
This 'spacelike stable' means actually some sort of influence, but with infinte velocity.
This 'infinite velocity' over the spacelike hyperplane is actually how static fields behave.
What we usually call 'space' or 'universe' is actually our own past light-cone. That lies in the middle between timelike and spacelike and has an angle of 45° towards the axis of time.
Now we canntake the massive part of an atom (the core) and declare it to be timelike stable, while the outside (the electrons) are connected through static fields with the core.
This is kind of atom, hence matter, which float through space (of physics).
The mathematical space could be 'spacetime', if we assume, that points in spacetime are certain strange numbers, which are connceted like mulitplication and division with neighboring 'points'.
I had assumed, that spacetime could be actually a quaternion field, where these quaternions are a certain type called 'bi-quaternions' which are connceted to the neighborhood by something called 'Pauli algebra'.
TH