Dimensional Reduction in the Sky

Hi Georgina,

You wrote, "Even if the communication happens instantaneously, there will be a delay between that observed event."

No. "Instantaneous" means that the two events are observed to be simultaneous. It doesn't happen, because all physical influences are communicated at less than the speed of light, making all events observer-dependent; i.e., there is some spacetime separation between any two events, such that observers in each inertial frame interpret the time of each event incident differently, and each interpretation is valid. There is no lapsed time for simultaneous events, just as there is no lapsed time between the endpoints of a beam of light.

Tom

Tom maybe I'm confused. How can *images* be -both- separated in (space-) time and observed to be -simultaneously- affecting each other i.e. happening at the same time?? I don't think they can but that doesn't mean there definitely isn't faster than light communication between the *objects*. It seems to me the separation of the images is more of a problem than the communication speed between the objects.

A question that comes to my mind is; Can the shape of the (medium of)space be changed faster than light can travel through it? If it can then there is the possibility that a phenomenon could be communicated faster than light speed.

Georgina,

You ask, "A question that comes to my mind is; Can the shape of the (medium of)space be changed faster than light can travel through it?"

What medium? Light propagates in a vacuum.

"If it can then there is the possibility that a phenomenon could be communicated faster than light speed."

That's how the worm creatures in Herbert's *Dune* series traveled faster than light -- they 'folded' space under the influence of some chemical. In the real world of relativity, however, space is not a physically real phenomenon independent of time; length contraction and time dilation guarantee that proper time seems to pass at the same rate for every observer everywhere in the universe, such that the laws of physics are uniform. One way to look at it, is that between photons at antipodal points of the universe, there is no duration.

Tom

I thought the first part explained my problem with the idea of seeing something simultaneous when what is seen is also separated by space-time.

The question was just a sort of by the way. I can accept that in the space-time image there is no medium depicted between the images seen. However there is something in space, which it seems is now called the Higgs field (as the Higgs boson I have heard referred to as the quantum of ubiquitous resistance). If there is resistance, and I think there must be to account for inertia, there has to be -something- that resists i.e. not a vacuum.

Thank you so much Marcel-Marie..

I appreciate the insights and the time taken to comment. I'll look at the Unruh paper and I think I need to read your essay too, as I saw you are in the contest, and what you say sounds very interesting. I hope you find my essay of interest as well, but I will comment here after looking further. The Gravity Wave detector idea is VERY MUCH of interest, especially to a colleague Dr. Beckwith.

There are some very good clocks now, and that definitely opens up the possibility for some exciting new Physics. I'll comment more on this page, after looking at the above.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

That absolutely appears relevant Yuri.

It could all boil down to whether light travels as photons or plasmons, but I think there is more to it. From what I recall of your research, there are definitely tie-ins of your work to these new findings,and as Giovanni says above, things are developing quickly in a productive way. Maybe some of the roadblocks to understanding are being removed, and important work that has been held back can get the recognition it deserves.

I will try to get to reading your essay too, and I thank you for leaving your comment here.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

I have developped a scale-invariant 2D theory. It is very basic (I am not a theoretical physicist) but it might give you some ideas. I hope it helps.

You can also find my essay here .

Cheers,

Patrick

Georgina,

"If there is resistance, and I think there must be to account for inertia, there has to be -something- that resists i.e. not a vacuum."

No, there doesn't have to be something else. Petkov's badly neglected essay in the last competition elegantly explained that bodies do not resist their motion. If you re-read it, you should understand why.

Tom

OK Tom, thanks for the suggestion.

Thanks for the great reference!

Jonathan

This is additional confirmation of 2D World

http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0030

Yuri

Jonathan

This is additional confirmation of 2D World

http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0030

Yuri