Re: space without geometry


Thomas Heger wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1148729411.744243.28310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thomas Heger wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1148291119.063208.23960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

snip

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034



The properties of gravitation (working *very* far and *very* fast) let
me
think, that gravity is not mediated at all. It could only be a result
of
the
properties of space(time).

One of the *mathematical* properties of Lorenz space-time is it is
very difficult to represent a force. An object moving inertially can't
be subject to a force. Why would you pick up a strainer if you
want to measure a quantity of liquid.


Hallo Sue...
this is a very late follow-up..But maybe you find it.

The em-field is known for its ability to induce forces. These are quite
strong forces, compared to gravity.
The Coulomb field exerts forces.
If you take the field as fundamental, you don' t need spacetime to
explain
that.
The Coulomb field has been unified with the magnetic field for
over 100 years.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node26.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
you need something a bit more realistic than
QED to claim EM is more fundamental.

I didn't. I wrote in my first posting:
"... spacetime is filled with a hypotetic
field, i.e. the em-field. "
The meaning of that is: it behaves like the em-field. That doesn't mean, the
em-field is fundamental. There could be more than that, or something totally
different. I just said, there is an em-field and if we have that in space,
we should find that in spacetime too. I used the em-field to provide a
clock.
That sounds suspiciously like you found an ill founded reason
use a Cartesian system and to saddle nature with the burden
of painting the graduations. ;-)



To explain this, I tried to introduce the modell of grids, cutting
spacetime
into hypercubes. One cube is assumed internally uniform, (or of unknown
strukture). It knows only about its borders and its content. If you move
the
grid, each piece mediates the force of the neighboring cubes. Moving the
grid would change a border of a hypercube into the internal of an other.
Since the borders are of your choice, you are allowed to do this.

Cool! You have the basics of an Ewald sum.
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm


I got some headaches after trying to understand those equations.
What are they used for?

They represent a formal and repeatable way to sum the
content of non homogenous spaces so some characteristic
like Gaussian distribution is preserved over the all of the spaces.


You should make these cubes small, but not of size zero. If the size is
zero, you wipe out the field.

That makes sense. Maxwell integrates charge density over
volume so you are being consistant with that.

These (hypothetic) cubes are regarded as building blocks of all we
encounter
in the real world. They can mediate forces and have many degrees of
freedom
(stretch, bend, curl around their many axis). This is assumed to be an
energetic process.

Wouldn't it be safer to say the cubes define boundaries within which
we can evaluate some particular interaction. I can use chalk to
define a crosswalk at a busy intersection. It is not likely to protect
pedestrians without some additional mechanisms in play.

Sue...

Well, sometimes I loosen the reins. In fact, I'm thinking more about the
mechanics of relativity.

Electrons in motion sounds mechanical to me:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html

My basic problem is still to explain, where the
energy goes, that you put into a lifted body.

General relativity can't answer that because it is a mathematical
formalism, not a mechanical description. It is like asking which
arm the photon wears the wristwatch on.

The best mechanical decription may be the mechanism of
induced dipoles as in London and Casimir forces.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

Since I refuse to trust in the
idea of gravitons, there is only space(time) in one way or the other, than
can mediate this force.

That is like saying you don't belive empty boxes can hold things.

You mean Space? or (time)? or vaccum? or nothing ? or something ?

Read what space-time is:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node13.html
The only space it functions in is the space between your ears.

My picture allows, to draw nice pathintegrals. somehow the idea is based on
that principle. But there are no particles.
No particles? How do you make dipoles ?

Actually.. you shouldn't need dipoles unless you want to
represent light, London Gravity Coulomb force or magnetic
force. ;-)

If curvature is energetic, the
energy-content should be tremendous.

Well, I can't argue with that because you haven't provided any
equations to describe your space.

If curvature can carry energy, it is
possible to think of tiny ripples in that, what we would encounter as
particles. This is why I think about those cubes as building blocks. Best is
to think about them like this: you draw a lot of sinus-curves and cut the
hole bundle with a knife. Depending on where you cut and in what angle, you
would get a different picture. The cut represent the area called now. The
angle represent the speed of the observer.

Walk before you run. :o)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm

Sue...
Extra credit
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html


Thomas Heger

.

Quantcast