Re: SpaceTime

On 06/02/2024 05:48 AM, gharnagel wrote:

Thomas Heger wrote:

>
Am Samstag000001, 01.06.2024 um 15:35 schrieb gharnagel:

>
Tom Roberts wrote:

>
Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships observed in
the real world.
>
Tom Roberts
I tend to think of physics that way, too, but I was watching this

episode of How the Universe Works called "The Mystery of Space Time"
and had a few issues with it:

"Space-time is the fabric of our reality"
"The universe is made of space-time"
"Whatever the substance is, time and space bound together, that's

expanding
and creating the universe we see around us.  It's everything.

Space-time

is what the universe really is."

>
Well, sounds good!

>
Since we don't really understand what "space-time" is, we're not nailed
down to a particular mindset.  I believe that the equations of GR are
more
correct than the notion of space-time.
>
“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something
quite
different.” – Steven Carlip
>
That's not saying GR is absolutely correct, either.
>

I had written kind of 'book' about this idea and called it 'structured
spacetime'.
>
This can be found here:
>
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
The idea behind it is quite simpel:
>
if GR and QM are somehow valid, there must be a way to bring both
systems into a consistent relation.
>
My own approach was: start at the GR side and with some sort of real
existing spacetime.

>
Or one could start from the QM side.  Might the virtual particle sea be
the basis of space-time?
>

The observed world is then the local 'subchapter', which is seen from
where we (or any other observer) are placed.
>
This world has to have fewer dimensions than spacetime.

>
Aren't dimensions just a human way of looking at reality?  Anyway, I
have a hard time dispensing with them :-)  I would say that our
description
of reality probably needs more than four dimensions.
>

Spacetime must also be coordinates free and having no beginning and no
end.

>
If you look at the Schwarzschild metric:
>
ds^2 = (1 - 2GM/rc^2)c^2 dt^2 - dr^2/(1 - 2GM/r) - r^2 dOmega^2
>
and apply it to the whole universe, rs = 2GM/c^2 is MANY orders of
magnitude
larger than the purported size of the universe.  So the notion that
space-time
is limited to how far the expansion has proceeded is ludicrous.

First of all, "zero dimensions" is just a sort of amorphous whole,
yet it's whole, it's monist, and it's "the thing", "Space-Time a thing".
Then, a linear continuum, you can fold up infinities and infinitesimals
to encode two other linear dimensions, about why three space dimensions
are exactly what there are.
Then that a ray of time falls out of that is just least, yet non-zero,
action, and a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials is the thing.
So, the continuous manifold sitting on space-time, 3 + 1/2, is just
a vector space in the tuples of quantities, about the contracting
and relaxing, and the torsions and vortices, all sitting on and
attached to space-time, the Space-Time, a field-number formalism
these vector-tuples, those sitting on "The Continuum", again!
So, _more_ dimensions, just make room for book-keeping and
the mathematical formalism of geometry for conformal mapping
above the mathematical formalism for geometry of a 3-D Euclidean
space with Cartesian origins everywhere.
I.e., it's just perspective and projection, about a fuller dimensional
analysis, while at the same time, the mere mathematical resources
of a "The Continuum", have for this sort of _hologram_, this can
help explain why it's so totally natural and has an explanation
exactly why there are three-dimensions everywhere and there's
a ray of time the universal gradient and parameter, and that's it.