Oops ... let me add a post-script.

It does at least appear that we agree that dimension 4 is not exactly the same between QM and GR. You argue it is a zero scalar for QM. I think time is scalar in both models but is only associated with the complex i in one model.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Gary,

"You argue it is a zero scalar for QM."

No, I don't argue -- time is normalized to 1 in QM, which zeros it out of the equations.

"I think time is scalar in both models but is only associated with the complex i in one model."

Right. And imaginary time is indistinguishable from space.

Just one problem: Reversibility. A model of continuous functions must have it.

Gary,

Coming from Chemical Engineering, which has incorporated a lot of Quantum Mechanical methods since WWII, the application probably begins with a given that t is scaled like moving the weight on a metronome. But theoretically, it is; [3D] t. Normalized to 1 instead of numerically zero simply so all the arithmetic properties can be symmetrical. If it were numerically equivalent within [3D] it would be zero, but you can't divide by zero. t is not an element of the QM Spin co-ordinate space, it's put in by hand. Keep looking in :-)

yellow ones is uppers, reds are downers, and ...uuhhh the blue ones I dunno

Time is a scalar dimension in mainstream science, but there are really two dimensions to time: atomic time and decoherence time. While mainstream science considers these two time dimensions the same, they are not the same. Just like charge and gravity forces differ by 1e39 power and therefore are not considered the same force, atomic time is not the same as decoherence time.

That this makes the universe work so nicely seems to not impress very many...

Tom and John,

I thank you both for your patience and persistence.

What I am struggling with in the above thread is the idea of a "coordinate free geometry" ... that sounds like an oxymoron ... like jumbo shrimp for example or dehydrated water.

Normalizing time to be one in a coordinate system I can understand though. Although I don't see how that allows time to be removed from the governing equation ... unless it is present on both the left hand and right hand sides and is also normalized on both the LH and RH sides resulting in a scalar one on both sides which is then cancelled. If this is what is done then I have some relevant mathematics to present which will challenge the thinking.

I had not thought of space as being complex time but now that I think about it as such it makes quite a bit of sense. Thanks for the insight.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Gary,

"Co-ordinate free geometry" isn't that abstract. Before industrialization made business interests politically powerful enough to impose 'Railroad Time' on everybody, Noon in every little town was when the sun was overhead. Our modern sophistication has made clockwatching the societal common denominator, and for 28 years now you have been connected instantaneously to others in "real" time which has become so normal that if transmission delays exceed a narrow nanosecond window of synchronization, your screen stutters (oh! frown face). Yet if all computers operate on the same physical laws everywhere and are connected to each other synchronously at best, at light velocity; then just the distance differences have to be adjusted relative to the ubiquitous Normalized time increment. Not so difficult to understand, when the sun is overhead, it's noon. :-) jrc

Tom, Gary and others,

I studied physics at university. But I'm not suggesting for one moment that that gives me the right to comment, and that others who didn't study physics at university don't have the right, others who are concerned with different aspects of the nature of reality to me.

But I challenge those who take the philosophical stance that reality is like an idealized mathematical system to understand that they have in fact taken a philosophical stance.

They have chosen the philosophical stance that Vietnam was inevitable: none of the many millions of individual "choices" and outcomes could have ever been different. They have taken the philosophical stance that individuals don't matter because they have no ability to make a skerrick of difference to this idealized mathematical system: the rigid mathematical structure has no structural opportunities or openings whereby individuals could ever make any difference to inevitable outcomes in physical reality.

Lorraine,

I've copied your post and used it to start a new thread ... I'm pretty sure that was my choice:-) My question was simply about the difference between dimension 4 in QM vs dimension 4 in GR.

"Tom, Gary and others,

I studied physics at university. But I'm not suggesting for one moment that that gives me the right to comment, and that others who didn't study physics at university don't have the right, others who are concerned with different aspects of the nature of reality to me.

But I challenge those who take the philosophical stance that reality is like an idealized mathematical system to understand that they have in fact taken a philosophical stance.

They have chosen the philosophical stance that Vietnam was inevitable: none of the many millions of individual "choices" and outcomes could have ever been different. They have taken the philosophical stance that individuals don't matter because they have no ability to make a skerrick of difference to this idealized mathematical system: the rigid mathematical structure has no structural opportunities or openings whereby individuals could ever make any difference to inevitable outcomes in physical reality"

My personal objectives at the moment are simply to understand better the geometry of Hamilton and if possible extend that geometry to physical reality. The issue that you present is quite a bit beyond that. I tend to avoid subjects wherein I consider myself to be not competent.

I will simply ask one question and give my interpretation. Is there an experiment that can be performed that will distinguish between determinism and free will? I don't think there is. Remember, we can only empirically prove that something is false by presenting contrary evidence

If determinism were true then it would always produce the same result that 'free will' produces since 'free will' would be an illusion. Is there any experiment that can prove that determinism is false? I think science does not have the methodology to falsify the hypothesis of determinism.

If free will were true, then a choice must have a measureable effect on the outcome of an experiment. Any experiment must still produce a result that is consistent with physical laws. So it would be necessary to conduct an experiment and make more than one choice. The difficulty is that we do experiments with inanimate things that don't make choices. So somehow the experimenter must become part of the experiment. And the experimental outcome must falsify the free will hypothesis. So basically, an experiment with random choices must produce the same result as an experiment where the experimenter uses his or her free will as a part of the experiment. If these two experiments produce the same result then the free will hypothesis would be false.

To me, any other approach is not science.

Also, keep in mind that sometimes it really does not matter what choices you make, the outcome will be the same irrespective of your choices. For example, if a high school football team plays the super bowl champion, it makes no difference what choices the high school team makes, the outcome will still be a defeat for them. This does not mean the high school team does not have free will. It simply means that their free will (if they have it) will not affect the outcome of the game.

That's my two cents ...

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

    Hello ,

    Dear Ms Ford,

    It is a catastrophic global reality.The vanity and the competition and the lack of generality imply an ocean of probelms on this earth.Just due to bad go ernances andthese parameters.The problem is nor the global economical system,nor the ideologies, nor religions.....The problm are just due to some fondamentals problems.The vanity and the notoriety also.Sciences are there to imrpove and to harmonise,we are catalysers of our environments.But apparently several prefer the false detials just to satisfy their own vanity.That has not meaning and sense.If this planet is in this state, it is just due to these parameters.Sciences are there to help the globality, not to ponder bizare things.A real scientis, universal and sterministic is general and global and must act for this planet with adapted solutions;I am suggesting that instead to focus on stupidities for this notoriety, they focus on sglobal solutions, if they are real scientists, passionated so they know maths, physics, chemistry,biology......The others aren't really globalist scientis, universal understanding entropy.It is rare to have these parameters;I am asking me how many persons understand really this relativity.It is ironical and the word is weak.You know Ms Ford, the world changes and the net is revolutionary.This planet will change with or without our approvements.You know sometimes I read the maths of some pappers and I say me, oh my god how is it possible that physicists can say these stupidities.Maths are a Tools permitting to physics to be explained.I class maths also and I am laughing because it is my passion also the maths.Like if they are going to give a course ,no but frankly??? I am waiting the essays, and this year the maths shall be anaysed in détails :) I have my books near me and my crazzy brain.I beleive simply that vanity is the problam and the fat to not critic the worksof friends with determinism.I have seen people agreeing even if they know that it is false??? The problem is very serious there.This planet is finished in these conditions.If now monney are given in the bad hands utilising this monney tool without globalisation, it is sad and serious.This pale blue dot cries and the sufferings is arrived at its paroxism.It is not acceptable.The responsabilities of entreprenors and scientists are so important at this moment.Altruism, universalism,humanism are essential and is the realmeaning of a scientist,a searcher,a thinker.This planet dies Ms Ford and money is bad utilised.Good or bad governances.Vanity or humility in front of this immensity.To be or not to be, that is the question! I prefer the calm and serenity of vegetals ...:)ps several can lie to a majority with maths, not to all! A minority sees the generality,the majority does not understand physics and maths.But it is the life.Sad in all case.But we evolve also Ms Ford :)

    Hello ,

    Thanks Gary.

    Dear Ms Ford,

    It is a catastrophic global reality.The vanity and the competition and the lack of generality imply an ocean of probelms on this earth.Just due to bad go ernances andthese parameters.The problem is nor the global economical system,nor the ideologies, nor religions.....The problm are just due to some fondamentals problems.The vanity and the notoriety also.Sciences are there to imrpove and to harmonise,we are catalysers of our environments.But apparently several prefer the false detials just to satisfy their own vanity.That has not meaning and sense.If this planet is in this state, it is just due to these parameters.Sciences are there to help the globality, not to ponder bizare things.A real scientis, universal and sterministic is general and global and must act for this planet with adapted solutions;I am suggesting that instead to focus on stupidities for this notoriety, they focus on sglobal solutions, if they are real scientists, passionated so they know maths, physics, chemistry,biology......The others aren't really globalist scientis, universal understanding entropy.It is rare to have these parameters;I am asking me how many persons understand really this relativity.It is ironical and the word is weak.You know Ms Ford, the world changes and the net is revolutionary.This planet will change with or without our approvements.You know sometimes I read the maths of some pappers and I say me, oh my god how is it possible that physicists can say these stupidities.Maths are a Tools permitting to physics to be explained.I class maths also and I am laughing because it is my passion also the maths.Like if they are going to give a course ,no but frankly??? I am waiting the essays, and this year the maths shall be anaysed in détails :) I have my books near me and my crazzy brain.I beleive simply that vanity is the problam and the fat to not critic the worksof friends with determinism.I have seen people agreeing even if they know that it is false??? The problem is very serious there.This planet is finished in these conditions.If now monney are given in the bad hands utilising this monney tool without globalisation, it is sad and serious.This pale blue dot cries and the sufferings is arrived at its paroxism.It is not acceptable.The responsabilities of entreprenors and scientists are so important at this moment.Altruism, universalism,humanism are essential and is the realmeaning of a scientist,a searcher,a thinker.This planet dies Ms Ford and money is bad utilised.Good or bad governances.Vanity or humility in front of this immensity.To be or not to be, that is the question! I prefer the calm and serenity of vegetals ...:)ps several can lie to a majority with maths, not to all! A minority sees the generality,the majority does not understand physics and maths.But it is the life.Sad in all case.But we evolve also Ms Ford :)

    You imagine dear thinkers if allthe scientists were focusedon global priorities.We must solve our global problems.Soon we shall be 10billions and the exponentials are at our doors in several foundamental centers of interest.If we don't change our global system, never we shall arrive to adapt us.The future is not really good if we continue like that.The earth can be harmonised and even we must already think about Mars and the life in space.Perhaps that earth will be climatomogically chaotic soon furthermore.Water,food, soils,energy,ecosystems,jobs,number of humans..........that is why composting at big global scale and vegetal multiplication more increasing of mass of ecosystems andd harmonizations of these ecosystems are foundamentals on earth and on space and on mars also.The hour is very serious dear scientits, global and and universal and altruist.What are our jobs in fact dear thinkers? Have we a respinsability ? Yes because the solutions exist, the energy is not a probelm.We could nourrish our planet and colonisations with one water drop during the eternity.The problems are psychological and humans dear scientists.All must be rethought in fact for the well of all.The town and architecture also must be rethought,the walls must have this compost and vegetals and animals, if not we shall die all Jedis of the sphere.Can we accept the disorders and chaos knowing that universe is harmony in its pure entropical evolution, physical on this Arrow irreversible of time.We cannot accept that our planet, this pale blue dot ,this splendid blue sphere having created an ocean of lifes and diversity.The complemantarity is essential and foundamental,we are linked with these interactions between animals,minerals and vegetals.Since the beginning we are linked with these ecosystems.In a handle of compost, it exists a number so important of lifes.All is linked with this ecosystems , évolutifs.Darwin and Lamarck ....permit to see this evolution of mass and complexification.Without a correct global complemantarity between all animals and vegetals ,never we shall evolve in harmony.The chaotical sphères can appear soon and it is sd knowing that the solutions exist.The world needs to be reasured also, this planet is in depression.A global psychological depression due to an ocean of sufferings.It is not accptable for an universalist it seems tome.A small effort of the global sciences community is necessary.It is time to stop to play.The points of equimibrium can be reached.Regards

    Gary,

    Proton Diameter. I agree that near values should not be dismissed as coincidental, but admit I have had trouble following your arguments. It is an essentially QM methodology and while we cannot fault success, it has to be noted that QM makes no real attempt to actually explain near values beginning with the near value of the mass of an electron as an even ratio of the chemical weight of a simple hydrogen atom. I find it interesting that in the same year Maxwell published, Walter Seimens solved the problem of deformation of field windings in electric motor/generator construction, making possible mechanical production of electrical current at greater than several horsepower. The reliance on sacrificial chemical cells had been cost prohibitive to development of electrical appliances, and Seimen's caged winding design opened the way for the age of electromagnetic experimentation and theoretical inquiry. Physics was no longer the poor cousin of chemistry. But the advances in physics led to the determination of mass in an atomic model that differed from the chemical weight. We have had a 'fudge factor' ever since. And Classical physics has not redressed that with a volumetric rationale of distribution in a spherical volume which can explain the electrical, magnetic and gravitational fields. So we are still stuck with the Standard (non-rationalized) Model.

    I don't know if you have a viable quantum solution, or not. I don't know enough about QM to understand how it argues. I admit I am skeptical of zero point particles, but also the classical massless particles. Thanks for the papers, anyway, and good luck. jrc

    Tom,

    Any wrinkle in spacetime would not be compatible with Newtonian space time, of course. And not explicable by rationale in that regime. All should at least accept that Relativistic physics is not simply a different take on absolute space and time.

    But for the sake of clarification, as your choice of words is often a challenge to others to learn a new thing, when you state that 'Rigid transformations are only helpful in a Euclidean --- Newtonian --- context.' an illustration would be helpful for those whom might except the challenge. Isn't a 'rigid transformation' more simply stated as a difference factor? The pedagogical role cannot assume a perfect reader. :-) jrc

    Hello dear friends,

    I discussed with a professor on LinkedIn.Do you know the 1660 circles per second Tom,Gary,Mr Agnew...." Joseph Weber 1660 circles per second, as Max Planck calculated approximately 660 wavelength for constant in vacuum for the speed of light 3 multiply 10 of exponent 8 meter per second square. The absolute speed of light, is absolute because it is uniform in all colours of the Spectrum"

    what is its meaning in deeper analyses?

    Best Regards

      the fréquences of resonance in fact to detect the gravitational waves of weber.I have seen on wikipedia.LIGO has found with interferometry.The collusion of BH implying these waves.

      John,

      You're thinking of the difference between Galilean transformation -- where time is the same for all observers -- and Lorentz transformation, where this is not necessarily true. Galilean transformation is an approximation of the Lorentz.

      Because space is mostly Euclidean, length and time are preserved under uniform motion. This is the case with special relativity:

      Relative observers imply pairwise correlation. In relative uniform motion, two observers both see each other's clock running slower, compared to their local time. According to special relativity, each is correct. Each frame is valid. And all physics is local.

      For accelerated frames (general relativity):

      If one of the two observers leaves the inertial frame, and later comes to rest in the same frame as initially, her clock shows lost time compared to that of her partner, the relatively stationary observer. This shows (and is experimentally validated) that accelerated transformations do not preserve time.

      Return to the source cannot be exact, however, because massive particles are prohibited from occupying the same space -- and the reverse metric cannot trace the exact path back, because it must decelerate in curved spacetime -- so the return path must either be a very wide circle or a very thin ellipse. In either case, length is preserved from the source, but time is dilated. This suggests to me that the presence of curved spacetime (caused by mass) and variable velocities argues for simply connected space and nonlinear time.

      Tom,

      Thanks for that reply, that was what I was getting at. And yes most definitely as pertaining to invariance between inertial frames, and covariance within a single inertial frame. I'll have to read more closely the section specific to accelerated frames (GR) but couldn't help recognizing a similarity in geometric properties we see in conical sections. One doesn't even need to do any math to recognize that to rotate the parabolic plane onto a hyperbolic plane and be able to have the two couple through a circular base of a cone, the hyperbola would have to prescribe a larger base than the parabola. And on the parabola we find the acceleration of gravity and on the hyperbola we find the sinusoidal wave and the Lorentz curve. There has got to be that gravitation through change in spherical volume to unify electromagnetic wave:particle duality...somewhere.

      I've got errands, and a lot of study of bureaucratic politics to see if I dare proceed trying to qualify for Medicaid. Ohio, you know. Oh Boy! balance the State budget and run for President, but never mind ripping off County and Municipal authorities whom administer Federally mandated programs to do it. JRC

      John,

      Thank you for the time and effort looking at hose papers. If nothing else, at least I have given you something to ponder.

      I think that I have either found an alternate interpretation of the wave function, or found a second coincidence that is dependent upon the first coincidence. I do not presume to know which. I am really uncomfortable with coincidences though.

      Best Regards,

      Gary Simpson

      Tom and Gary, I'll combine replies,

      G. yeh, not to prejudice things but that coincident doublet nagged me, too. I'd go with seeking what the terms of the wavefunction come from. I think it was Feynman who said they came from Schrodinger's mind. I can't follow things like that, I see geometry first and math has to fit that. If you wonder about what's next, rest assured that the 'rubber sheet' illustration of GR is about as counter productive of comprehension as anything that 'pops' up, and deserves being stuck to the frig with one of those little magnets.

      T. "This suggests to me that the presence of curved spacetime (caused by mass) and variable velocities argues for simply connected space and nonlinear time." That looks right to me. We are tracing velocities to witness change of time, and it might be arguable that it is that nonlinearity of changing time that keeps space connected.

      Onward through the fog! :-) jrc