Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Like Tree3Likes
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 21st 2019, 10:44 AM   #21
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 63
how is a dimension the goes inward different than being one that is negative?
pittsburghjoe is offline  
Old May 21st 2019, 11:10 AM   #22
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 63
Is gravity the negative dimension we have been talking about? Is there something preventing gravity being more than just a force? It blows my mind that we haven't tried the double slit experiment on the international space station.

Last edited by pittsburghjoe; May 21st 2019 at 11:24 AM.
pittsburghjoe is offline  
Old May 21st 2019, 12:25 PM   #23
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,681
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
how is a dimension the goes inward different than being one that is negative?
A negative dimension would reduce the dimension of space-time to 3. Either this is going to be a 2+1 Lorentz space-time, which has very different properites than 3+1 space-time and we have never seen those properties by experiment, or to a 3D Euclidean space "time" where the time component is missing, and we know that a time dimension exists. Again by experiment.

Once more: There is no process that can be seen as a "negative" dimension!

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
Is gravity the negative dimension we have been talking about? Is there something preventing gravity being more than just a force? It blows my mind that we haven't tried the double slit experiment on the international space station.
Perhaps it should be done but consider: computers are built and work by QM. If the double slit experiment didn't work up there then neither would the computers.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline  
Old May 21st 2019, 12:25 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Somerset, England
Posts: 1,035
Well I would take issue with this presented as it is as gospel.

The ensuing discussion rests on the assumption that the creation of the universe is foremost based on the principle of duality. Duality is at the very root of the existence of both space and time as well as the concept of relativity. Duality requires finiteness of all physical entities and processes. The cosmos does not contain anything infinite. Without duality, none of the (finite) building blocks that comprise the cosmos could exist. Any observation of a planet in the sky requires that this object exists relative in 3D space and time with respect to the observer.
studiot is offline  
Old May 21st 2019, 12:33 PM   #25
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 63
My claim is that objects that are in wave format had their dimensions reduced. This negative dimension is already co-existing with our 3+1 space-time.
pittsburghjoe is offline  
Old May 21st 2019, 12:40 PM   #26
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,681
Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe View Post
My claim is that objects that are in wave format had their dimensions reduced. This negative dimension is already co-existing with our 3+1 space-time.
The dimension you are refering to is in a kind of probablity space. It doesn't reduce any dimension.

Please take my advice and go over the basics.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline  
Old May 21st 2019, 12:45 PM   #27
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 63
It's going to take something dramatic but that's been in-front of our faces the whole time to solve unification.
pittsburghjoe is offline  
Old May 21st 2019, 12:50 PM   #28
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,681
I have finished reading the paper in the link. I don't agree with some of the points but that is not really an issue. (Actually I enjoyed reading it.) What is an issue is that it doesn't support any of your contentions, which I had assumed it would. I am left with the question of why you would post it?

I find little evidence that you know what you are talking about and the paper doesn't do anything for you.

I again urge you to spend some time with the basics. There are many Introductory Particle Physics texts you can get on Amazon. Some are better than others but any will probably do for a decent introduction.

Thread closed.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline  
Closed Thread

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
declare, dimension, due, em or light or waves, past



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Radio waves are nothing but light avito009 Physics 4 Oct 12th 2017 08:30 AM
Ghost Dimension (Energy, Waves, Superposition, Hidden Variables) pittsburghjoe Philosophy of Physics 12 Jan 17th 2017 08:53 AM
Light Waves And Time Nwobuseffect General Physics 18 Dec 28th 2015 11:01 AM
Past, Which Past? MBW General Physics 4 Nov 2nd 2014 05:04 AM
constancy of the speed of light or electromagnetic waves mars shaw Special and General Relativity 1 Sep 14th 2009 10:08 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed