# Deriving space-time in four-dimensional Euclidean space with no time and dynamics

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
• 2020-Apr-13, 07:39 PM
PetersCreek
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
Yes, deriving (x,t) from (x,y) is key point.
I already shown how it can be derived.
You have not shown any errors in that derivation, not wrote any arguments against that derivation, but repeating it was not done.

Ans,

1. You've said quite about how others
"have not shown any errors in that derivation, not wrote any arguments against that derivation". They don't have to. They can if they want to but they are not required to do so. It is entirely up to you to demonstrate the validity and utility of your claims.

2. You've been asked for you're derivations. If you have them, provide them. This thread has 19 days left before closure.
• 2020-Apr-13, 07:40 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
I could do the same error for classical physics where GR definitely does not exist and "derive" the EFE !
1. S = Sm + Sg in a flat Euclidean spacetime.
2. Substitute Sm and Sg from a mainstream textbook (L.D. Landau, E.M. Lif****z, Field theory, vol II, izd. 7, Moscow “Nauka” 1988), ignoring that the textbook presumably states that it is using a curved spacetime/Riemann manifold.
3. Apply the action principle and of course the EFE will appear.

No, you cannot. There is error right in first step.
In a flat Euclidean spacetime S = Sm, because Sg=0
Also, if you would write action for any field in flat spacetime as
S = Sm + Sf
it also means obvious error, because you miss Smf part.
You have to postulate that Smf=0. And it was done and it works for gravity only, in curved spacetime.
As for my hypersurface - it is also curved spacetime.
• 2020-Apr-13, 07:45 PM
PetersCreek
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
Crazy formatting. I see the forum support latex, but there is no option in menu to insert latex.

It's not in the post formatting controls but you can insert the tags manually. Start here.

If you have further issues, questions, or complaints about how the forum operates, please post in
Forum Inroductions and Feedback.
• 2020-Apr-13, 09:39 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
No, you cannot. There is error right in first step.....

Which is my point - that is the error you make as I explained in the part of my post you did not quote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Why you do not derive the Einstein Field Equations in "Gravitational Field Equations" is simply that you have an action S in a vague "certain curved hypersurface and the corresponding space-time". That is not the S in the Einstein–Hilbert action. That S is in a Riemann manifold. The Ricci scalar is a curvature in a Riemann manifold. Plugging GR action components into your action is obviously wrong. I could do the same error for classical physics where GR definitely does not exist and "derive" the EFE !

A Riemann manifold is not a curved hyperplane. You do not have any Riemann manifold in your theory. You do not have any Sg in a Riemann manifold. You also have Sg = 0 (or undefined).
This is a hyperplane. Note that it is embedded in an ambient space. Curvature may only be defined by that ambient space
This is a Pseudo-Riemannian manifold as used in GR. Note that there is no mention of an ambient space. That is why in the Einstein Field equations, there are indexes that go 1, 2, 3 ,4 (3 space dimensions and a time dimension) but not 5 for an ambient space. The curvature in GR is intrinsic and does not refer to any ambient space.

Just in case:
IF04: Give your source that states the Riemann manifold used in GR is a curved hyperplane, Ans.
• 2020-Apr-13, 09:44 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
I already shown how it can be derived.

No you did not and I stated your errors. Imagining that time appears is not deriving that time appears. Wanting observers to have to have real bodies is not knowing what observers are and still did not give time.

IF01: Give your definition of velocity that has no time, Ans, or derive the definition of velocity that we use that has time from your theory.
IF02: How can your observer who is in a space with no time measure a change in x (the dx in velocity) when all you have is 2 unchanging points, Ans?
• 2020-Apr-13, 09:55 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
With easy. ...

I have read your PDF before and you do not show that your "c' is the speed of light c. "Space-Time Direct Transformation in the Hypothesis Framework.".
You do a calculation that cannot get the Lorentz transformation, with that you have not established exists in your theory. You end by asserting that your vt is c just because you get an equation that looks like time dilation.
This is the Lorentz transformation which is more than time dilation. It is impossible to get the Lorentz transformation from a rotation of a Euclidean space. The [Lorentz transformation is a boost or rotation or both in a Minkowski space.
• 2020-Apr-15, 06:51 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Which is my point - that is the error you make as I explained in the part of my post you did not quote:

A Riemann manifold is not a curved hyperplane. You do not have any Riemann manifold in your theory. You do not have any Sg in a Riemann manifold. You also have Sg = 0 (or undefined).
This is a hyperplane. Note that it is embedded in an ambient space. Curvature may only be defined by that ambient space
This is a Pseudo-Riemannian manifold as used in GR. Note that there is no mention of an ambient space. That is why in the Einstein Field equations, there are indexes that go 1, 2, 3 ,4 (3 space dimensions and a time dimension) but not 5 for an ambient space. The curvature in GR is intrinsic and does not refer to any ambient space.

I use not hyperplane, but curved hypersurface. And the curvature results in intrinsic curvature of spacetime, for observer. It can be easily checked, if consider my derivation of time in timeless space.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Just in case:
IF04: Give your source that states the Riemann manifold used in GR is a curved hyperplane,

Hmm. In mainstream science it is not curved hyperplane or curved hypersurface, I remember courses on general relativty and on differential geometry.
In my theory it is, and I shown it results in same equations as EFE.
• 2020-Apr-15, 07:00 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
No you did not and I stated your errors. Imagining that time appears is not deriving that time appears. Wanting observers to have to have real bodies is not knowing what observers are and still did not give time.

Arguments which I see, for me sounds as “It is not so because it cannot be so”.
It is not scientific argument, it is philosophical argument.

I think I already provided answers to both questions.
In order to understand answers, it is necessary to really consider derivation of (x,t) from (x,y).
If anyone can do it, he may either understand answers or find some error in them (if it exists).
• 2020-Apr-15, 07:07 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
I have read your PDF before and you do not show that your "c' is the speed of light c. "Space-Time Direct Transformation in the Hypothesis Framework.".
You do a calculation that cannot get the Lorentz transformation, with that you have not established exists in your theory. You end by asserting that your vt is c just because you get an equation that looks like time dilation.

You may look again and check. I get not only time dilation, but also same equations for space transformation. And the equations looks exactly as Lorentz transformation if assume vt=c
So, I have good basis for the assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
This is the Lorentz transformation which is more than time dilation. It is impossible to get the Lorentz transformation from a rotation of a Euclidean space. The [Lorentz transformation is a boost or rotation or both in a Minkowski space.

It is easy to notice that I get the transformation in some limit case, not for generic case for rotation in Euclidean space. And reason for usage of the limit case was well explained and justified.
• 2020-Apr-15, 08:53 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
I use not hyperplane, but curved hypersurface. ...

I made a mistake but you are still wrong. A vague "curved hypersurface" is still not the mathematically defined pseudo-Riemannian manifold.
This answer to IF04: Give your source that states the pseudo-Riemann manifold used in GR is a curved hyperplane hypersurface, Ans. makes your ATM idea wrong.
This is the Einstein–Hilbert action of general relativity, defined on a pseudo-Riemann manifold (R is the Ricci scalar and "In Riemannian geometry, the scalar curvature (or the Ricci scalar) is the simplest curvature invariant of a Riemannian manifold.").. It cannot be used if you do not have a pseudo-Riemann manifold. You do not have a pseudo-Riemann manifold. Thus you did not derive the EFE which are defined in a pseudo-Riemann manifold.

As I pointed out before, this is as invalid as substituting the Einstein–Hilbert action into a classical action in Euclidean space and you agreed. We could do the same fro Minkowski space and it would still be invalid. Dosing the same for a vague "curved hypersurface" is still invalid.

A minor point: A curved hypersurface is still embedded in a higher space like its flat hyperplane and thus definitely not a pseudo-Riemann manifold. Your "and the corresponding space-time." would be a 5D space. GR is a 4D space.
• 2020-Apr-15, 09:04 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
I think I already provided answers to both questions.
In order to understand answers, it is necessary to really consider derivation of (x,t) from (x,y).
If anyone can do it, he may either understand answers or find some error in them (if it exists).

You start with an (x,y) plane with 2 fixed points because you have no time.
• You have not derived (x, y, t) or (x, t) or anything similar.
• You have not shown how an observer without time measures an x1 and then (i.e. after time has passed) a x2 and subtracts them to get a change in x.

You imply that you have not and cannot do this. That invalidates your current ATM idea because you cannot connect it to the observed world which has time. You need to throw away all of the "no time, energy, dynamics" stuff and start again.
Is that your actual answer?
• 2020-Apr-15, 09:18 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
...

It is impossible to get the Lorentz transformation from a rotation or any other transformation of a Euclidean space because it and SR (and us!) exist in a Minkowski space. You transform a Euclidean space. You cannot get the Lorentz transformation regardless of somehow getting equations that look like it.
• 2020-Apr-15, 09:25 PM
PetersCreek
Quote:

Originally Posted by PetersCreek
2. You've been asked for you're derivations. If you have them, provide them. This thread has 19 days left before closure.

Repeated for emphasis. Please post your derivations. If you do not, you risk thread closure and infraction.
• 2020-Apr-17, 06:44 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
It is impossible to get the Lorentz transformation from a rotation or any other transformation of a Euclidean space because it and SR (and us!) exist in a Minkowski space. You transform a Euclidean space. You cannot get the Lorentz transformation regardless of somehow getting equations that look like it.

You contradict to yourself.
Either I get equations that look like it, or it is impossible to get Lorentz transformation in Euclidean space.

For rest of posts, I would answer tomorrow, I have only few minutes now.
• 2020-Apr-18, 12:00 AM
Hornblower
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornblower
My bold. Then go ahead and test it. Choose a representative broad spectrum of phenomena with which the mainstream theory is in good agreement. Demonstrate the calculations as done in the mainstream theory and for comparison demonstrate the analogous calculations with your theory. Then give us a convincing reason to embrace your theory as a scientifically useful alternative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
While it is quite strange but doing that you propose is meaningless as of now. Because journals not accepting article with the theory, they would not accept article with predictions of the theory. So, check of the theory for logical correctness is more useful than predictions.

Then perhaps you are in the wrong forum. Testing theories against observations is what we do in astronomy and cosmology. My educated guess is that picking the brains of mathematicians who specialize in purely abstract thought exercises in higher-dimensional spaces would be a good idea.
• 2020-Apr-18, 06:53 PM
Ans
Looking at questions, it is clear that they represent absence of understanding of ideas of my theory.
Without understanding of ideas of any theory, it is not possible to really consider it except check its claimed predictions for correctness.
In presented article, I claim I derived SR and GR in the article. It is mainstream theories, so it is meaningless to test SR and GR as predictions. Check for logical correctness of derivation cannot be done without understanding ideas and framework of the theory.
So, here I would try to explain the ideas.

First, let’s consider system without time and dynamic.
What the system should have, at minimum? It should have space. Without space, we can talk only about empty set, and I have no idea how build any non-trivial system on basis of empty set.
If there is space only, again I have no idea how build any non-trivial system on basis of space only.
Let’s add some field to the system, and make the field defined in each point of space. Because the system have no time and dynamic, value of the field at each point of the space cannot be changed.
We are talking about physical system. So, it looks logical to expect what value of the field at each point is defined by value of the field in surrounding points. So, it is possible to say that the field should be described by some partial differential equations.
What is simplest possible model for described system? For field, simplest possible field is scalar field. Value of the field belongs to set of real numbers. For space, most simple case is Euclidean space. Note – the scalar field is not same as in textbooks for QFT. It has no any quantum properties and no dynamic.
While scalar field and Euclidean is most simple choice, it is possible to consider more complex fields and more complex spaces. For most that I wrote below, there is no difference in consequences.

Example of system without time: two dimensional plane in Euclidean space with defined on the plane field f(x,y)=x+y. Obviously, there is no time and no dynamic in such system.

Next step is find time and dynamic on system which have no time and dynamic. We feel passage of time, see dynamic, so in order to try to consider model without time and dynamic for physics, it is necessary to find time in the model.
Because the system have no time and dynamic, it not possible to use usual time. Usual time is some fundamental phenomena. In model without time and dynamic, time cannot be fundamental phenomena. So, it must be derived from something else. What time is in equations of physics? It is parameter of evolution for equations. So, if derive something as parameter of evolution, it can be consider as time. Let’s name such parameter of evolution as emergent time, to distinguish it with time as fundamental phenomena. Here comes evolution. But there is no evolution in system without time and dynamic. So, it is necessary to find what can be used as evolution.
Split space of system into parallel hyperplanes. The hyperplanes should not intersect, and they should completely cover entire space. I taking hyperplanes with number of dimensions as n-1, where n is number of dimensions for space of entire system. Hyperplanes should be build in such way, that it should be possible to predict values of field on each following hyperplane, if know value on previous hyperplane. Instead of predicting values of field on each following hypersurface, it is possible to predict values of some part of the field, if projection of the field on hyperplanes can be splitted into separate parts. As parameter for equations to predict value of field on following hyperplanes, it should be possible to use distance between hyperplanes. I consider only fields, which allow to do described above.
If look on above, is it look as evolution and time? There are changes on hyperplanes, and there is parameter of evolution, as it exists in physics. So, it looks as evolution of projection of field on hyperplane. I would name it emergent evolution. Hyperplane here act as space where evolution happens. So, it is possible to talk about emergent space.
What prevents us from use it as time, space and dynamic? We think our consciousness requires time to think.
So, in order to try to apply the found emergent time, emergent space and emergent evolution to physics, it is necessary to somehow find ability for consciousness here.
So, I add postulate to the theory: system without time and dynamic can contain intelligent observer on basis of emergent space, emergent time and emergent evolution.
Note – the postulate say that intelligent observer can exists in system without time and dynamic on basis of emergent space-time and emergent evolution, but it not say that intelligent observer exists in every system without time and dynamic.
What if some system is not allow intelligent observer to exists? In example above, with field f(x,y)=x+y it is clear that observer cannot exists in the field, the field is too simple to support states for body of intelligent observer. If system is not allow to exists for intelligent observer, the found emergent space-time can be considered simply as mathematical abstraction. That bring the emergent space-time into being is intelligent observer in the spacetime. So, observer in the model is necessary for existence of Universe. Here was derived anthropic principle.
It is quite fundamental result, because it was derived from scientific model. It means that for models without time and dynamic, anthropic principle is not philosophical principle, it is inevitable scientific consequence of any model without time and dynamic.
And another result here: there is no free will for intelligent observer. System witjout time and dynamic means superdeterminism.

Next step. Any model of intelligent life, known to me, requires fulfillment of principle of causality. Intelligent life is necessary for existence of Universe (if time and dynamic are not fundamental), so principle of causality is consequence of anthropic principle. Here was derived principle of causality.

Next step. Let’s say there is some intelligent observer in some emergent spacetime. It exists on some set of hyperplanes. Next, let’s consider hyperplanes which are at some angles to hyperplanes of mentioned intelligent observer. And let’s consider such hyperplanes, where exists another intelligent observer. Should it observe same events as first observer? May be it should be possible to look on events, observed by first observer, and predict events observed by second, and vice versa?
Why it should be so? There is no such requirement in model. Intelligent observers in different emergent space-times are independent from each other. The events should become same in limit of very small angles, but it is one only requirement.
Here comes another fundamental result of the theory: events may differ in different spacetimes on same system.

Next, where is events in the system?
Events happens in spacetime only. So, in order to talk about events, it is necessary to add spacetime for events.
If look at example with plane (x,y) and field f(x,y)=x+y, it is possible to split the plane into parallel lines and predict value of field on following lines if know value of field on some line and know distance between lines. The distance act as emergent time, line act as emergent space. Together. They form emergent spacetime. So, ii is not correct to ask: which events happened between points (1,1) and (1,2)? It is necessary to provide emergent spacetime where they happens.

And next, question of speed become quite trivial: speed is v=s/t, there s is distance in emergent space, and t is emergent time.
• 2020-Apr-18, 07:09 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornblower
Then perhaps you are in the wrong forum. Testing theories against observations is what we do in astronomy and cosmology. My educated guess is that picking the brains of mathematicians who specialize in purely abstract thought exercises in higher-dimensional spaces would be a good idea.

I want to note that there is no mainstream scientific theory in area where I propose my theory. My theory is unification of GR and QM. And there is no mainstream theory in the area. All BSM theories either have no gravity or have big problems with gravity and only promise to resolve them. Theories with quantum gravity have own set of problems.
So, I not trying to replace any existing mainstream theory with my theory, because nothing to replace. Main result, which I trying to achieve, it is synthesis of GR and QM in one model with one field. And, so far, it looks good.
So, I have no need to prove that my theory doing something better than existing mainstream theory, it is enough to prove it do that it claims to do.
Main result for my theory would be simply ability to have both GR and QM in same model. So, it requires mostly test of logical correctness of theory. Test of additional predictions of the theory would be necessary, but only after test of logic of the theory.

That I challenge in mainstream is realism. If my theory would be proven, it would means scientific refute of realism, most core concept of modern mainstream in philosophy.
• 2020-Apr-18, 09:12 PM
PetersCreek
Closed pending moderator discussion.

Thread reopened.
• 2020-Apr-20, 08:54 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
You contradict to yourself.
Either I get equations that look like it, or it is impossible to get Lorentz transformation in Euclidean space.

I was very clear. You got equations that look like the Lorentz transformation. The equations are not the Lorentz transformation because the Lorentz transformation does not exist in Euclidean space. The Lorentz transformation exists in Minkowski space. This is textbook special relativity. Newtonian mechanics exists in Euclidean space. SR exists in Minkowski space. Minkowski space is not Euclidean space.
• 2020-Apr-20, 09:00 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
Looking at questions, it is clear that they represent absence of understanding of ideas of my theory. ...

My questions are based on the simple fact that time exists and you still have not derived time from a (x,y) plane with 2 fixed points or in any other way. Your ATM idea thus falls at the first hurdle and the rest is almost moot. I pointed out a couple of other obvious errors.

The "intelligent observer/emergent space-time" story in this post did not derive time.
• 2020-Apr-21, 07:42 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
I was very clear. You got equations that look like the Lorentz transformation. The equations are not the Lorentz transformation because the Lorentz transformation does not exist in Euclidean space. The Lorentz transformation exists in Minkowski space. This is textbook special relativity.

Thank you for reminding to me textbooks, but I think I know the textbooks very well.
Also I remember that it is not possible to build Lorentz-like transformation in Euclidean space, by exactly same reason as Lorentz transformation. Difference between Lorentz-like transformation and Lorentz transformation is only in unknown value of speed in Lorentz-like transformation.
If take all postulates of SR, remove postulate about maximum value of speed is equal to speed of light, we would get same transformation of spacetime as Lorentz transformation except value of speed would be unknown.
However, if remove key assumption of that prove of impossibility to build Lorentz transformation in Euclidean space, that prove would not be applicable. I already wrote about it, just several posts above.
And, after removal of requirements for events exists in all frames of references, it is possible to build Lorentz transformation in Euclidean space. As I already mathematically proved.
• 2020-Apr-21, 07:43 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
My questions are based on the simple fact that time exists and you still have not derived time from a (x,y) plane with 2 fixed points or in any other way. Your ATM idea thus falls at the first hurdle and the rest is almost moot. I pointed out a couple of other obvious errors.

The "intelligent observer/emergent space-time" story in this post did not derive time.

Am I understand correctly that you ready to consider only time as fundamental phenomena and nothing else?
• 2020-Apr-21, 09:00 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
Am I understand correctly that you ready to consider only time as fundamental phenomena and nothing else?

You are to understand that time exists in the real universe but not in your ATM idea. That makes you ATM idea not applicable to this universe unless you can derive time and show that an observer with no time can measure changes as in my questions.

IF01: Give your definition of velocity that has no time, Ans, or derive the definition of velocity that we use that has time from your theory.
IF02: How can your observer who is in a space with no time measure a change in x (the dx in velocity) when all you have is 2 unchanging points, Ans?
• 2020-Apr-21, 09:04 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
Thank you for reminding to me textbooks, but I think I know the textbooks very well.
Also I remember that it is not possible to build Lorentz-like transformation in Euclidean space, by exactly same reason as Lorentz transformation. Difference between Lorentz-like transformation and Lorentz transformation is only in unknown value of speed in Lorentz-like transformation. ...

You need to review the textbooks again. SR and the Lorentz transformation exist in Minkowski space. That is why it is impossible to derive the Lorentz transformation in Euclidean space. Whatever equations you get in Euclidean space are not the Lorentz transformation and not anything to do with SR.
IF05: Cite and quote the textbook that states it is "not possible to build Lorentz-like transformation in Euclidean space" (when that is what you do in your PDF!), Ans.

You are making an analogous error as in my IF04 question:
IF04: Give your source that states the pseudo-Riemann manifold used in GR is a curved hyperplane hypersurface, Ans.
SR needs a Minkowski space. GR needs a pseudo-Riemann manifold. You cannot derive either from things that are not the appropriate mathematic space. The GR error is slightly worse because you do not even have a mathematical definition of your hypersurface with the fundamental properties needed by GR.
• 2020-Apr-22, 07:47 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
You need to review the textbooks again. SR and the Lorentz transformation exist in Minkowski space. That is why it is impossible to derive the Lorentz transformation in Euclidean space.

No, reason is different. It looks as you need to read textbooks…
More below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Whatever equations you get in Euclidean space are not the Lorentz transformation and not anything to do with SR.
IF05: Cite and quote the textbook that states it is "not possible to build Lorentz-like transformation in Euclidean space" (when that is what you do in your PDF!), Ans.

With easy. It is enough to just copy-paste first reference from article: S. Hawking, J. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime, published by Mir, 1977
If you would find English version, look at chapter 5 (if I remember number correctly). In that part, there is prove that it is impossible to have inscribed hypersurface with signature of metric different from signature of space metric.
Signature of metric for 4d Euclidean space is (1,1,1,1). Signature of metric for Minkowski space, for Lorentz transformation, is (1,1,1,-1). Signature of metric for Lorentz-like transformation is (surprise-surprise) (1,1,1,-1)
So, it is impossible to build hypersurface in Euclidean space with metric (1,1,1,-1) , and it affect both Lorentz-like transformation and Lorentz transformation. Lorentz transformation is just one of Lorentz-like transformations

By the way, if ask how I do that is proven as impossible to do – I already answered it.
• 2020-Apr-22, 07:58 PM
PetersCreek
Both of you stop telling each to read text books and discuss this politely.
• 2020-Apr-22, 08:06 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
You are to understand that time exists in the real universe but not in your ATM idea. That makes you ATM idea not applicable to this universe unless you can derive time and show that an observer with no time can measure changes as in my questions.

So, you say that time exists in real Universe and looks as you assume it is fundamental phenomenon.
Hmm. I see time is really exists and it is observable, but I have not seen proves that time is fundamental phenomenon.
And it looks as you assume that time is fundamental phenomenon. It was never proven.
Second positivism (mainstream) says that information derived from sensory experience, interpreted through reason and logic, forms the exclusive source of all certain knowledge. But looks as you say that time is fundamental phenomenon without any evidence for it.
So, seems as it is your ATM idea. Using ATM idea against another ATM idea to protect mainstream looks quite strange.
• 2020-Apr-22, 08:11 PM
PetersCreek
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
So, seems as it is your ATM idea. Using ATM idea against another ATM idea to protect mainstream looks quite strange.

Ans,

If you don't provide some real, substantive support for your claims, this thread will be closed. Get to work. Derivations, please.
• 2020-Apr-22, 08:27 PM
Ans
Well.
As example, I can use thermal time hypothesis of Rovelli, one of authors of LQG.
Is time in the hypothesis fundamental or no is quite fuzzy. He use automorphism to build time. And the paper is published, quite well known, and considered as scientific.
Another example is M.Tegmark, with his mathematical universe. Again, question of time in his hypothesis is quite fuzzy. Quite famous work, again is time fundamental or no is questionable.
So, based on examples above, it is clear that there is no prove that time is fundamental phenomenon. It is in mainstream, no doubt. But it was not proven.
• 2020-Apr-22, 09:02 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
So, you say that time exists in real Universe and looks as you assume it is fundamental phenomenon.

No. I say time exists in real universe. Full stop. Period. But in your ATM idea there is no time. Thus your idea does not apply to the real universe until you can derive that time exist. Thus my questions.
• 2020-Apr-22, 09:26 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
....With easy. ...

You wrote: Also I remember that it is not possible to build Lorentz-like transformation in Euclidean space, by exactly same reason as Lorentz transformation
I asked:
IF05: Cite and quote the textbook that states it is "not possible to build Lorentz-like transformation in Euclidean space" (when that is what you do in your PDF!), Ans.

It is obviously possible to build an equation that looks like the Lorentz transformation in Euclidean space because you did it. The obvious error still is the textbook physics that the Lorentz transformation exists in a Minkowski space. A Euclidean space has a signature of (+ + + +). A Minkowski space has a signature of (+ + + -) or (+ - - -) depending on an author's preference. They are different.
• 2020-Apr-22, 09:35 PM
Reality Check
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
Well.
As example, I can use thermal time hypothesis of Rovelli, one of authors of LQG.

You cannot use a hypothesis that is irrelevant to your ATM idea. The Thermal time hypothesis is about the different concepts of the flow of time in QM and GR and how to reconcile them. Rather than having an assumed physical time-flow in QFT, they propose that the physical time-flow will emerge from the thermodynamics.
Von Neumann Algebra Automorphisms and Time-Thermodynamics Relation in General Covariant Quantum Theories (1994) by A. Connes, C. Rovelli.
• 2020-Apr-23, 06:16 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
You cannot use a hypothesis that is irrelevant to your ATM idea. The Thermal time hypothesis is about the different concepts of the flow of time in QM and GR and how to reconcile them. Rather than having an assumed physical time-flow in QFT, they propose that the physical time-flow will emerge from the thermodynamics.
Von Neumann Algebra Automorphisms and Time-Thermodynamics Relation in General Covariant Quantum Theories (1994) by A. Connes, C. Rovelli.

I read the work, years ago.
I use the hypothesis not in support of my idea, but to show that question of what time is, not so obvious as some may think.
• 2020-Apr-23, 06:24 PM
Ans
Yes, I did it, and it is one of fundamental results of my theory.
I not know any other theory that allows to build Lorentz-like transformation in Euclidean space.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
The obvious error still is the textbook physics that the Lorentz transformation exists in a Minkowski space. A Euclidean space has a signature of (+ + + +). A Minkowski space has a signature of (+ + + -) or (+ - - -) depending on an author's preference. They are different.

Really, you asking again? You think that signature for metric for Lorentz-like transformation is (+ + + +)?
• 2020-Apr-23, 06:41 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
No. I say time exists in real universe. Full stop. Period. But in your ATM idea there is no time. Thus your idea does not apply to the real universe until you can derive that time exist. Thus my questions.

There is time in my theory, and I already shown it.

For that example with plane (x,y) with defined on the plane field f(x,y)=x+y
How to transform it from timeless 2d plane (x.y) to one dimensional space z with time t: (z,t):

Take vertical line x=2.
Value of field for any parallel line at point y at distance l from x=2 (x=2+l, y=y) would be f(x,y) = (2+y) +l
Next, I set z=y, t=l
I use the distance l as time.
What is value of field at point z at time t? f(z,t) = f(z, t=0) + t
You may see, field is changing over time.
Equation of evolution looks as it should look: time is parameter of evolution in equation.
So, (x,y) was transformed to (z,t), where t is time.

I see only several possible outcomes from the derivation of spacetime:
1. There is some error in the derivation. But the derivation is so simple, that I not see where one can find error
2. “There is no time here” – for the case, with shown above math, it would be simply rejection from considering the proposed time as time on basis of philosophical beliefs. It have no relation to science.
3. Yes, there is time here, and it can be considered for consequences.
• 2020-Apr-23, 09:04 PM
Reality Check
• 2020-Apr-23, 09:06 PM
Reality Check
• 2020-Apr-24, 06:37 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I not understood. Is IF05 your question or you not asking question?
If it is your question, I already answered it, three posts above.
Also, it is not clear for me why you asking it. You think that signature for spacetime for Lorentz-like transformaion is same as for Euclidean space?
Look at signature for spacetime for Lorentz-like transformation. Its signature can be derived in second, just from glance. Compare its signature with Euclidean space, and see result.

By the way, idea to build Lorentz-like transformation in Euclidean space is obviously against mainstream. It must be clear for anyone, who consider himself as physisist.
• 2020-Apr-24, 06:48 PM
PetersCreek
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
If it is your question, I already answered it, three posts above.

If you did answer, please provide a link to the post in which you cited a textbook that states it is "not possible to build Lorentz-like transformation in Euclidean space."
• 2020-Apr-24, 06:50 PM
Ans
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
A distance between points in Euclidean space is never a time.

Any prove for your statement? I see only philosophical belief in response to my mathematical derivation of spacetime.

No, it was answered. In response to my math, I see only words, not backed by any scientific evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Epic question.
First, I have answered right after you asked:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ans
Hmm. In mainstream science it is not curved hyperplane or curved hypersurface, I remember courses on general relativty and on differential geometry.
In my theory it is, and I shown it results in same equations as EFE.

Second, it is one of results of my theory. So, in order to prove my against mainstream theory, you asking where in mainstream literature the theory was proved? Fantastic.
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last