Re: Spacetime

W dniu 06.07.2024 o 07:15, Thomas Heger pisze:

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.

Still most of properties apply. Otherwise
we would have a different word for that.

 If you regard 'space' as that what is left, if all matter is taken away,

But I don't. I'm a professional.