Re: Uniqueness of physical objects in the universe.

From: Lefty (Ye_at_h.Right)
Date: 11/06/04 

Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 03:02:43 GMT

"Tron99" <drstrangeglove99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5751a31e.0411050819.5d2956@posting.google.com...
> "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:<hKVgd.336355$MQ5.286075@attbi_s52>...
> > OK fellas, last time I was in here it was a veritable bloodbath of
> > back-and-forth mathematical snippets of highbrowed humor and cutting
edge
> > sinicisms. I was forced to accept utter defeat at the hands of superior
> > intellects, but I have not forgotten my disgrace, and I am back with a
> > vengeance to regain my tattered dignity - to wit :
> >
> >
> > In our last episode I attempted to prove that "No two objects in the
> > physical universe are identical". Apparently, this may be reducible to
a
> > tautology. I am not sure that being a tautology matters much, because we
are
> > talking about physical properties of real objects in the universe. If
you
> > demonstrate a physical property of an object in the universe, then it
dosent
> > matter how you did it - tautology or not. A physical property is a
physical
> > property, and it matters not how you arrive at the proof of that
property,
> > as long as the demonstration is valid. Tautologies are trivial within
the
> > framework or abstract logical systems. If I say that "It is a "fast
photon"
> > because it is a "fast photon"" - then at least you know that you have a
> > "fast photon". Tautologies are not neccesarily trivial when you're
talking
> > about real objects.
> >
> > However, it seems that the original statement might be reducible to a
> > question of uniqueness. So, I have the following statement to work with
:
> > -----------------------------------------------
> > "Every object in the physical universe is unique"
> > -----------------------------------------------
> >
> > So, I would like to prove that statement. It is not possible to compare
> > every single physical object in the universe in a physics lab, so it
must be
> > proved mathematically.
> >
> > Definitions:
> > Physical object.
> > Any object in the physical universe which exists. This can be a
person,
> > place or thing. A region of space/time is an object. A region of empty
space
> > is an object. Locations are therefore objects. Events are objects, as
per
> > relativity theory. If it exists in the physical universe then it is an
> > object.
> >
> > Unique
> > A physical property of an object in the universe such that if an
object
> > is unique, then there is no other object which is identical to that
object.
> > There is a physical difference between objects which are distinct, and
there
> > are no physical differences between objects which are identical.
> >
> > Most uniqueness proofs require 2 things, first you demonstrate
existence,
> > and then you demonstrate uniqueness. However, in this case, I cannot
prove
> > that a physical object exists, it must be assumed (possibly via an
axiom).
> > So, lets assume that objects really exist in the physical universe, and
try
> > something like this-
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > "Every object in the physical universe is unique"
> >
> > Proof
> >
> > Suppose not
> > Let O1 and O2 be distinct objects in the physical universe which are
> > identical.
> >
> > There are 2 possible cases,
> > 1) O1 and O2 are in separate locations
> > 2) O1 and O2 are in in the exact same location
> >
> > Case 1)
> > If O1 and O2 are in two separate locations, then they are not
identical,
> > and therefore they are both unique.
>
> Replace 01 and 02 with point1 and point2. In Hilbert's geometry he
> says between any two points there exists a unique line. If point1 and
> point2 are the same, and further every point is the same as point1 and
> point2, then there are no lines, because the assumption is that the
> two points are different (the between statement). If all points are
> the same then there is nothing between the points, and you have no
> lines.

This is very useful information. I suspect that this whole idea is very old
stuff, and I'm just rehashing something which has probably been abandoned
long ago - but I dont know enough science history to be sure. I wish that
there were a comprehensive compendium of kooky ideas somewhere !

Was Hilbert talking about spacetime, or R3 ? I must research this further.
Maybe an interlibrary loan - not much on the internet surprisingly, except
in sci.math.

I have my own ideas regarding time, and a very simple derivation that the
universe is finite. It really makes me wonder what it means to have a
"point" in spacetime. The following explanation is so simple even a
gradeschool student could understand it. This is short.

---------
1) Time is measured or observed in terms of repeating cycles which we
observe in nature. Tides, planets, etc.

2) Universe is so vast that large-scale-motion becomes very near zero, hence
no observable cyclical behaviour (relative to an observer).

3) Time is therefore unmeasurable & unobservable simply because the universe
is so vast, and so spacetime simply ceases to exist (relative to an
observer).

Existence is relative. It seems so incredibly simple.
---------

I actually believe this.

I also think that this is true of the quantum world, but cant quite grasp
what it might implicate in terms of whether points exist in the spacetime.
There must be a sensible justification !

Thanks for the Hilbert info - but I suspect that he was working in R2 or R3.
I have abandoned these completely, and contemplate only spacetime itself.

And, even if it is true that "all physical objects are unique", then what
are the implications in a universe where existence is relative ? Could be
some wierdness for the quantum world if existence is relative on the quantum
level. Maybe universe is really grainy afterall, due to reletavistic
effects. I'd like to see some convincing reasons one way or the other.

Einstein was a genius. He was definately on the right track with his
analogies regarding observations.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Two EPR questions
    ... >> must arise whenever one wants to ask whether an observer will ... Is its Markov model an ontological theory? ... There's a psychological problem which has led theoretical physics ... >> Lorentz invariance and relativity are important when one needs to ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... >>>The observer doesn't have this effect. ... The theory of relativity ... >This is essential to the difference between physics and mathematics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Connes & Marcolli paper on renormalization
    ... Are you saying that momenta of particles are not observable in different ... > it is impossible for a physical observer to know the present anywhere ... > It has no direct physical meaning, but nevertheless general relativity ... >>My feeling is that theoretical physics is already in the dead end. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR.
    ... existing in the universe. ... What two observers perceive is different according to relativity. ... different speeds relative to the ether. ... deliberately confused in physics text books. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sample of my SR model"s interpretation - first paradox
    ... relativistic effects with no counterparts in classical physics, ... It is obvious you understand little or nothing of relativity - it has ... By making the moving observer physically different, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)