Re: Where is the mathematical beauty of relativity !!!

On Jul 7, 8:42 am, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
<tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 6, 3:13 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 6, 5:23 am, mst3k <dg4t...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I dont understand my brain anymore
Some days I understand relativity perfectly, while next day it makes
no any sense
Then again I understand relativity, then again not
What is going on here !!!
They impose that in order to have a theory which makes sense and is
real, it must have mathematical beauty
Where is the mathematical beauty of relativity !!!
I see no any beauty anywhere, I need some answers here
<< Since Einstein's time, we have learned to
distrust this sort of aesthetic criterion.
Our experience in elementary-particle physics
has taught us that any term in the field equations
of physics that is allowed by fundamental principles
is likely to be there in the equations. It is like
the ant world in T. H. White's The Once and
Future King: Everything that is not forbidden
is compulsory. Indeed, as far as we have been
able to do the calculations, quantum fluctuations
by themselves would produce an infinite effective
cosmological constant, so that to cancel the infinity
there would have to be an infinite "bare" cosmological
constant of the opposite sign in the field equations
themselves. Occam's razor is a fine tool, but it
should be applied to principles, not equations. >>
--Steven Weinberghttp://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml
Sue...
Why I cant understand relativity periodically?

In the last paragraph Wienberg left out that Einstein encouraged the
US to develop the nuclear bomb. In my current sight (which is not
quite hindsight) that and Zionism are errors.

LOL


It is really interesting that the symmetric tensor is mentioned in
that article and that is the topic that I mean to point to.

Relativity theory claims the usage of a tensor while creating its own
metric that clearly destroys isotropy. This is a conflict that most
people seem not to appreciate; otherwise it would have reached the
mainstream. When we consider a simplified Minkowski metric
dd = xx + yy + zz - tt
we see a bastardized form of pythagorean theorem making a play on time
which is a misunderstood arithmetic form. Regardless of this criticism
it is clear that the Minkowski metric is an instance of a structured
spacetime. The form is not isotropic. Tensors rely upon the ability to
arbitrarily choose a reference frame and so there is an inherent
conflict.

It seems not as bad as the conflict SR produced.
The hook into energy density get the theory out
of a circular reference even if it may not be
just the right reference at a scale of 10^32.

I am not sure if pseudo-tensors are invented math
or violated math but they don't seem too obscene.


Rather than taking this as a grounds to dismiss the theory why not
extend it? If we had a structured spacetime that still allowed
arbitrary reference frames then we could yield plenty of dynamics. We
have a deeper puzzle that exists which can take the simplified form

(Inertial) Reference frames of the real world are not arbitrary.
Planetes, stars galaxies and gasses establish them.

Without those, you are in search of Newton's ether.


Why spacetime?

Energy density ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor

If we suppose that an answer to this question exists then we will have
formed a spacetime basis. Having formed a spacetime basis it then
follows that physics will fit that form naturally. Especially since
Maxwell's equations are expressed on isotropic space and the speed of
light is inherently related to the constants epsilon naught and mu
naught we can anticipate that the proper form will include these
details. The structured form will support electromagnetics as inherent
behavior. Did you know that the cross product is not a general
dimensional form? It is only defined for three dimensions.

I have mentioned that previously with regard to Van der Waals
and London forces.

If we cast
doubt on this operator and attempt to recover it then we will have a
new electromagnetic interpretation. Furthermore Maxwell's equations
were developed on the assumption that a naked charge exists, but
modern theory (and experiment) expose that naked charge does not
exist; the electron carries a magnetic moment called spin inherently.
This is further support for the new interpretation. The speed of light
c, and its related factors epsilon naught and mu naught are accepted
as properties of spacetime.

Perhaps for a spacetime in the subatomic realm.


Time is a unidirectional phenomenon. We have no ability to position
ourselves in time either ahead or behind the present moment. Thus to
attribute a full dimension to time is not an accurate depiction.
Instead to satisfy the unidirectional nature of time we should
consider a one-signed number rather than a two-signed real number.
Under superposition such one-signed numbers can only accumulate. This
then poses the generalization of sign:

http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned

The facts of generalized sign expose that the unidirectional one-
signed numbers are a new definition of a zero dimensional form which
can still provide arithmetic values. Dimension itself takes on new
meaning while still supporting the usual arithmetic. If you made it to
the bottom of the first page then the progressive form
0D 1D 2D | 3D 4D
is apparent and this I propose is the proper spacetime structure that
will support electromagnetics. Notice that we see time, a real line,
and a complex plane as the well behaved portion of the basis. The form
happens to be informationally consistent with the symmetric tensor and
exposes a geometry that fits electromagnetic behavior.

Relativity theory has played with sign just a bit but has remained
within the realm of real valued mathematics. The next step will take
sign a bit more seriously as I have outlined. Thus the hope for clean
theory should not be dismissed. Existence is a highly complex form. So
we should seek a basis capable of providing such dynamics. Seeking
universal rules requires treating spacetime as a nonarbitrary form.
This means that we should not pull three dimensions out of a hat as
has been done in the past. What motivates 3D space motivates physics.
This is nearly metaphysical. It is natural. Should it really be
surprising that a pure arithmetic form provides the basis? The foreign
nature of this proposition paints the modern states of physics.

Have you given this any thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_descriptions_of_the_electromagnetic_field#Tensor_field_approach

Off the top of my head I can't see why it shouldn't hold below the
subatomic. That is where you can describe a space-time without
regard to tiny gravito-inertial interactions. (it seems
to work for particle physicists anyway)

Your chances are one to six. :o)
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/20119

Sue...


- Tim

.

Loading