First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Looking for a structure for space time
5930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17
Experiment concept:
Imagine two cubes, A and B. If the space time structure in cube A and cube B are exactly the same then technically when you enter cube A, you enter cube B at the same time, but you are still one person, just that you exist in two spaces at the same time simultaneously.

Question:
Now in reality, since this is not the case where you only exist at one space at a time. What structure does space time needs to be to support such a case? Keep in mind that not every two structures of space time must repeat. If the space time is a one dimensional string in cube A and there is also a one dimensional string in cube B that means they are the same thing, If you occupy that string in cube A, you also occupy the string in cube B. The only way for you not to occupy both strings, is if they are different.

The theory:
Alright, we agree that space time has a unit. It needs to be one dimensional since you do not repeat in any four directions. Imagine five cubes placed in a + fashion like below. The reality is 3D, but let's look at it from a 2D point of view.

xox
ooo
xox

If I enter the center cube space time, I do not show up in the other four cubes space time. So each of these four cubes has a different structure than mine.

xox
ooo
xox

Conclusion:
I still have not worked out what makes the two space time differ from each other, but if you can help me solve this problem it would be cool. If you are confused about my question feel free to post below, I'll try my best to answer it
qwueri 
24168 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17
For people like me who're not terribly familiar with the basics of quantum spacetime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_spacetime

I'm guessing you'd have to occupy a fold or other distortion in space where two or more distinct points overlap. How you would go about mathematically modeling that is well beyond me. That's also assuming spacetime is some sort of constant that is defined by more than a human arbitrarily declaring point A and point B.
2053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Valhalla
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/16/17
5930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17

qwueri wrote:

For people like me who're not terribly familiar with the basics of quantum spacetime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_spacetime

I'm guessing you'd have to occupy a fold or other distortion in space where two or more distinct points overlap. How you would go about mathematically modeling that is well beyond me. That's also assuming spacetime is some sort of constant that is defined by more than a human arbitrarily declaring point A and point B.


Even as a point, if you exist in point A, you must exist in point B. Because point A and point B are the same thing. You can rotate them in any degree in a 3D space, but they are still the same structure. So this makes no sense. If it can't be a point, it can't be anything.
20760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/16/17

fredreload wrote:

Experiment concept:
Imagine two cubes, A and B. If the space time structure in cube A and cube B are exactly the same then technically when you enter cube A, you enter cube B at the same time, but you are still one person, just that you exist in two spaces at the same time simultaneously.



27119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17
I really don't understand time as a dimensional concept. I mean, clock time? Sure, dimensional time? What the heck? I am guessing it has to with relativity.
5930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17
By the way, a line(string) has two dimensions, so how do you get a one dimensional string?
3277 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Online
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17
There's nothing wrong with having fun wondering about stuff like this; eventually humanity wondered the right things. But it's easy to come up with nonsense - especially if we're not sure what we mean when we use certain words (like structure and dimension).

I think that, if you want to say two different points in space are actually the same point, that's what happens when you have a portal: stand in it and you're in both places at the same time. I don't know enough general relativity to tell you if such a thing makes sense. The notion of stipulating that one set of points is actually the same as some other set of points is indeed a common thing in math, though: if I take a piece of paper and roll it up into a cylinder, that's basically the same as saying one edge is the same as the edge opposite it. If I say all the points on the edge of the piece of paper are the same point, I've got a sphere. I suck at topology, though, so I couldn't tell you what doing this in 3 space plus 1 time dimension looks like.


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I really don't understand time as a dimensional concept. I mean, clock time? Sure, dimensional time? What the heck? I am guessing it has to with relativity.


It does, yes. You know how you can rotate things in space, and they have the same size when you rotate them? Special relativity just says you can "rotate" space into time, and the "size" of the thing you're rotating - which has three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate - stays the same. You find the "size" the same way you do with spatial distances: you use the pythagorean theorem. Except you subtract the square of the time interval and add the squares of the distances in the three spatial directions. That minus sign is why things are weird.
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/1/17
If this were RL I might talk about this but fuck writing dimensional theory out. I'm hopping to a different world line.
5930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 6/1/17 , edited 6/3/17

auroraloose wrote:

There's nothing wrong with having fun wondering about stuff like this; eventually humanity wondered the right things. But it's easy to come up with nonsense - especially if we're not sure what we mean when we use certain words (like structure and dimension).

I think that, if you want to say two different points in space are actually the same point, that's what happens when you have a portal: stand in it and you're in both places at the same time. I don't know enough general relativity to tell you if such a thing makes sense. The notion of stipulating that one set of points is actually the same as some other set of points is indeed a common thing in math, though: if I take a piece of paper and roll it up into a cylinder, that's basically the same as saying one edge is the same as the edge opposite it. If I say all the points on the edge of the piece of paper are the same point, I've got a sphere. I suck at topology, though, so I couldn't tell you what doing this in 3 space plus 1 time dimension looks like.


It is cool that you actually know what I am talking about . Well you see, space time is around us, the desk, the building, they all have a structure built up of atoms. I speculate that spacetime, which looks invisible, also have a structure, a volume, since we live in it. The thing about space time structure is it is invisible, and we can pass through it. So I am attempting to find out such a structure for space time, it could be built up of triangles, squares, circles, or points, or squiggly line, into a volume that we can exist in.

The problem is any structure that makes out of one dimensional structure, as a unit, cannot repeat. Let's say the spacetime is built out of a trillion points to fit into a volume, even then this point would appear one trillion times and anything that occupy this point would appear one trillion times like the cube scenario.

If there is a way to scan the space time, you could map out the structure, but even then it would be quickly absorbed, so I am not sure if there is a way of telling what this structure would look like.

P.S If you are from the other side you might have an answer

From a standard cartesian point of view, you represent a 3 dimensional space with (x,y,z) making every (x,y,z) a unique space time. (0,0,0) space time is definitely not the same as (0,0,1) space time, but they leads to each other. All unit structures would repeat if you attempt to build a volume to have something more than 1, having to fill a volume without a repeating unit is my question

Space time looks the same, at least they are uniformly invisible and they are uniformly untouchable. So what makes them different?

P.S Staphen wanna give it a shot :D?
31309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17
The basic structure of space time depends on what theory your going with
"While general relativity describes spacetime as a continuous manifold, quantum field theories require spacetime to be made of discrete points. Unifying these two theories into one theory of quantum gravity is currently one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics."

No one knows for sure anyone who says they does is either a liar or a fool.
31309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/3/17 , edited 6/3/17

MasterBismuth33 wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

The basic structure of space time depends on what theory your going with
"While general relativity describes spacetime as a continuous manifold, quantum field theories require spacetime to be made of discrete points. Unifying these two theories into one theory of quantum gravity is currently one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics."

No one knows for sure anyone who says they does is either a liar or a fool.


The basics structure of space/time is a torus. Go look it up. I am right. They even have pictures on Google and videos of it on YouTube.


Those videos have no scientific basis and the pictures drawn are all artist renditions with no basis or papers/research behind them.
you are not right.

Spacetime being a torus is a theory but there is a ton of evidence against that pointing out the flaws.
it's a theory is anything just that there is no factual evidence given at this point in time.

The earth is flat they even have pictures on google and videos of it on youtube! see it works the same i can claim bullshit to.
Stick to spirituality man science isn't your strongsuit.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.