On 30 Aug 2003 13:42:30 -0700, (anonymous)
wrote:

Why would energy be an extra dimension?

E=MC squared, where it matters...

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:27:50 -0700, Jeff Relf
wrote:

Hi J. , Speaking of Google you say :
" It will find your meta tags on the main page
but I believe those with the ~ are hidden . "


But none of my tags have tildes .
One tag is intentionally commented out .

eh, I started doing that during delerium, in 1996

that sorted the memory of real reality from delusion and
allocated for the introduction of concepts of the alternate
realities, supported by asstd. ether/quantum mechanix

oh boy...

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:36:27 -0700, Jeff Relf
wrote:


Even Niels Bohr would Never claim that
the randomness was anything but perceptual .

perception, by itz nature, isn't random


woo...

Hi anonymous , You say :
" You are making unjustified assumptions .
Nature can be as spooky as it wants to be ;
it doesn't care about your prejudices . "


Spookiness is intrinsic to the mind ... Not to nature .
The less we know about nature the more spooky is seems .

I wrote :
" So genuine nature is most likely to be a
static five-dimensional block of spacetime and energy . "

You ask :
" Why would energy be an extra dimension ? "


If you think of gravity as negative energy
Then everything else is an equivalent amount
of positive energy .

But we can only directly perceive this
at cosmological scales .

At other scales it may be assumed .
Scales greatly effect our perceptions .

So these energy deficits and surpluses would be
yet another infinite spatial dimension
along with regular spacetime .

^.^ wrote in message ...
On 30 Aug 2003 13:42:30 -0700, (anonymous)
wrote:

Why would energy be an extra dimension?

E=MC squared, where it matters...

Do you understand what a dimension is? Right now, I can go up & down,
left & right, forward & back, forward in time (unfortunately I am
unable to go backward), or in combinations of these motions. Please
explain to us how to go energy. The fact that energy is equivalent to
mass (E=mc^2) is irrelevant, unless, of course, you can tell us how to
go mass...

Jeff Relf wrote in message ...
Hi ghytrfvbnmju7654 , You ask :
" How long is a joule , in meters ? "


Another great question ! Thanks .

First , To define length and time ,
The SI ( The Systeme International , The metric system )
uses a very specific laser frequency .

snip

So the SI can't define the kilogram or the joule
the same way it defines the second or the meter .

But this is merely a measurement problem
and I'm talking about pure nature ,
not artificial perceptions of it .

You're missing the point. All distances in space and time can
be measured in meters. One second = about sqrt(-1)/(3*10^8) meters.
Distances between points at different places and times can thus
be calculated using the conversion factor and the Pythagorean Theorem.
How would one calculate the distance between two points at different
places and energies?

You ask :
" Explain why objects with different energies
don't pass through each other . "


That the quantum level we " Perceive "
probabilistic positions and even probabilistic energies .
( This is really more of a Lack of perception . )

According to QM, the probability for two electrons, with the same
spin, to be at the same position at the same time is zero. If energy
is a dimension, it should be possible to put one electron at one
energy, and one at another, but both at the same place and time. But
this can't happen. So you haven't addressed the issue.

At cosmic scales everything is thought to be flying apart
at accelerating rates .

Extrapolated out to about 10 ^ 100 years ,
Our observed universe is projected to lose absolutely
all of it's energy ... all of it's heat .
See :

What is your point? How does this relate to the issue?

But again we're talking about artificial perceptions
and ****-poor measurements .

And when you talk about " Objects "
you're introducing the artificial notion of scale ...
This is obviously not part of pure nature .

If you don't talk about objects, you're not talking about
anything observable, and you're just babbling. If you
want the things you say to have meaning, they should be
statements whose truth or falsity could conceivably affect
anyone in any way.

While the concept of what we call an "object" is artificial,
your objection does not relate to the issue. The reason
two bricks cannot be at the same place at the same time while
remaining intact is the exclusion principle, which says that
the probability that two identical fermions will be at the
same place is zero. This is fundamental.

So a static energyscape at each point in time and space
is still a fairly reasonable presumption .

By analogy, so is the presumption that you live in a red house
in Idaho. So is the presumption that your mother's maiden name
is "Emory." So is the presumption that you set your alarm clock
to 7:15 AM, except on Sundays. None of these presumptions is
known to me to be false, but I have no substantiating
evidence for them, either. But you haven't given a single valid
reason why energy should be considered a dimension. In fact,
I'm not sure you know what a dimension is. Perhaps you could
enlighten us. What do you think a dimension is?

You say :
" Just because a quantity is meaningful everywhere
doesn't make it a dimension . "


The energyscape is more basic than even the timescape .

Einsteinian spacetime asserts that :
There can be no perceived time without a perceived energy .
( Again , where gravity is negative energy . )

Please read a _real_ textbook on relativity before you go
around telling people what it "asserts."

Even if what you are saying was true, which it isn't, it
has no relevance to the argument. Energy could be "basic"
whether or not it was a dimension.

You say :
" You can rotate objects in the x-y plane and the x-t plane .
How can an object by rotated in the x-E or t-E plane ? "


At cosmological scales
the red shifts suggests that our perceived universe
is a perfect balance of negative and positive energy .

And the magnitude of these two energies
seems to have gone from zero to our current size ...
and it seems to be it's going back to zero again .

Doesn't that sound like a rotation to you ?

Once again, you make meaningless statements about subjects you
obviously haven't studied. But that's beside the point. No,
that does not sound like a rotation. If I were to rotate you,
your height would become your length before your head was on the
ground. Up would go to left, which would go to down, which would
go to right, which would go back to up again. So you see that
a rotation involves two dimensions. You can turn a height into
a length, but you can't turn an energy into a length.

Here's another question for you: The energy of an human is
approximately the sum of the energies of the atoms that make him
or her up. The height of a human is nowhere near the sum of the
height of his or her constituent atoms.

It is difficult to address you because what you are saying about
energy being a dimension is not only wrong, but _meaningless_.
Do you suggest that in order to locate something (in an approximate
manner, of course) that you need five numbers: x, y, z, t, and E?
Break it in two! The energy of each part is very different from
the energy of the whole. All of a sudden, just because we now are
considering one object as two, it is located at a very different energy.
So, according to your idea, an object is far away from its parts.
You yourself have admitted that pure nature shouldn't depend on
what we choose to call an object. But your own idea yields wildly
different results depending on at what scale one looks at things.

(ghytrfvbnmju7654) wrote in message om...
You're missing the point. All distances in space and time can
be measured in meters. One second = about sqrt(-1)/(3*10^8) meters.

Oops! Correction: One second = about sqrt(-1)*(3*10^8) meters.

Jeff Relf wrote in message ...
Hi Jim , [ ghytrfvbnmju7654 ]
You ask " If you don't talk about objects ,
you're not talking about anything observable ,
and you're just babbling .
Do you suggest that in order to locate something
( in an approximate manner , of course )
that you need five numbers :
x , y , z , t , and E ?
Break it in two !
The energy of each part
is very different from the energy of the whole .
....
But your own idea yields wildly different results
depending on at what scale one looks at things . "

You are not being at all clear on what you mean by saying
that energy is a dimension. The obvious interpretation of
this statement would be that to locate a particle, you need
the following information: its x-, y-, and z- position, the
time, and its energy. I have clearly demonstrated this
interpretation of your statement to be false. I think you
need to clarify your statement. If the coordinate for your
energy-dimension is something other than energy, then calling
it an energy-dimension is misleading.

Except at cosmic scales ,
where the total gravitational energy
is perceived to vary ,
the energyscape is hard to perceive .

Gravitational energy is a tricky concept to define and thus
probably has little significance in the fundamental laws
of physics.

But that's what intrigues me ,
the reality versus the perception .

Hawking's book " Universe in a Nutshell "
also uses a fifth dimension .

Imagining spacetime as embedded in a fifth dimension is a
tool often used in cosmology. But this tool only works because
of the assumptions that the universe is homogenous and
isotropic, which are only true on average. General, real-world
spacetime curvature cannot be explained by only one embedding
dimension.

I would advise you to read real textbooks instead of
popularizations. Hawking co-authored a real textbook about
the field he was working in titled _The Large-Scale Structure
of Space-Time_. This would probably explain these sort of
ideas better. You might have to study some general relativity,
as well as some other subjects, in order to understand the
book.

Jeff Relf wrote in message ...
Hi Jim , [ ghytrfvbnmju7654 ]
I said " Einsteinian spacetime asserts that :
There can be no perceived time
without a perceived energy .
( Where gravity is negative energy . ) "

Time can exist without energy, according to general
relativity. Einstein himself had a philisophical
prejudice against time existing without matter, but
that wasn't incorporated into his theory. And his
theory has held up to many tests, while his
prejudices have not.

You then replied " Please read a _ real _ textbook
on relativity before you go around telling people
what it ' asserts ' .
Even if what you are saying was true ,
which it isn't ,
it has no relevance to the argument .
Energy could be ' basic '
whether or not it was a dimension . "

You also asked : " What do you think a dimension is ? "


There are different types of perceived spacetimes .
General relativity uses Einsteinian spacetime .
Special relativity uses Minkowskian spacetime .
( See MTW's " Gravitation " page 296 , Box 12.2
Thank you Pete [ PMB in Sci.Physics.Relativity ]
)

I have read much of this book and found it very interesting.
It's probably not the best introduction to general relativity,
but it does cover a lot of more interesting, advanced topics.
Conveniently, I had a copy on loan from the library already,
so I could see what was stated on the table you reference.

It is clear you have not read this book, or you would know
something about general relativity. You probably haven't
even seen the book. You might benefit from reading it, if
only you could understand it. The table you reference compares
and contrasts Newtonian, Minkowskian, and Einsteinian spacetime.
At no point does it substantiate or even suggest your claim that
time cannot exist without energy. In fact, on this particular
page, the word "energy" never occurs once. If you don't
believe me, check out a copy yourself.

So what's your point? I know the difference between special
and general relativity. And there really is only one spacetime:
ours. Our universe is Einsteinian to an excellent approximation.
The others are just sloppier approximations.

" Einsteinian Spacetime in the Universe :
- There is no space beyond the universe ,
and there is neither time before
nor after the universe .
- Spacetime and its local and global features are
properties of the universe . "
( See Physics. GMU. EDU
http://www.Physics.GMU.EDU/classinfo...ce/tsld030.htm )


Obviously spacetime doesn't change just because
some dolt is using a microscope instead of a telescope .
The only thing that's changing is
the dolt's perception of it .

What's your point here? No one said otherwise, except you,
by implying that energy is part of something's position.

Personally , I'm intrigued by pure nature ,
and how that contrasts with artificial perceptions .
( Of course this may not be of interest to you . )

Of course I am interested in pure nature, or I would not
be posting on a physics newsgroup. But you keep missing
the point: The only way we can learn about pure nature
is through our perceptions.

At the quantum level things are moving so fast that
the notion of " Velocity " is not even meaningful .
( e.g. High energy physics , stochastic QM . )

Once again, you make claims about subjects you haven't
studied. The stochastic distribution of velocities in
a wavefunction can be easily defined.

At the cosmic level things are moving so slow that
most things seem almost frozen in time .
( e.g. Frozen stars , Black holes . )

The thing that ties these two levels together ,
a theory of everything , if you will ,
is relative momentum and how we react to it .

That isn't a "theory of everything"; it's just a
practical way of doing calculations. It's
certainly not the description of "pure nature"
you claim to be looking for.

By the way, just a little bit earlier, you said
(incorrectly) that velocity was undefined in QM.

A spatial dimension is a direction of " Freedom " .
With absolute material determinism , a.k.a. Fatalism ,
i.e. Pure nature devoid of artificial notions :
You have the Eastscape , the Northscape ,
the Upscape , the timescape and the energyscape .

1) A degree of freedom means any meaningful quantity. This
is just the same idiotic definition of a dimension I've
been pointing out to you was wrong all this time.

2) Energy and time are not independent degrees of freedom
according to QM.

At the cosmic level ,
The energyscape is composed to two equal elements ,
positive and negative engergy ,
gravity and everything else .

Saying that a spatial dimension is composed of two things
is meaningless. If you're talking about the length of the
universe in the energy-dimension, remember how I pointed
out that length and energy don't add in the same way. Your
energy is the total of the energy of each of your components.
Your height is not.

From the big bang with no negative energy ,
to the now with 10 ^ 80 particles ,
to the big freeze with no negative energy again ...
We perceive that we're moving through
not just through a timescape but also an energyscape .

Lots of quantities change. More quantities change than don't.
Not every quantity is a spatial dimension. Come back when
you've studied some geometry. You'll need to study Euclidean,
then Minkowskian, then Einsteinian geometry. Then if you want
to make guesses about what the real geometry of the world is like
(Einsteinian is an excellent approximation, but it has conflicts
with QM that would only be observable with _small_ scale
measurements.), you can guess in at least an educated manner.

Hi ghytrfvbnmju7654 ,
You say " If the coordinate for your energy-dimension
is something other than energy ,
then calling it an energy-dimension is misleading . "


What are the coordinates of the progression from
the big bang with no gravitational energy to
now with 10 ^ 80 " Particles " to
the projected big freeze with , once again ,
no gravitational energy ?

That coordinate system is the Spatial energyscape
and it's the fifth dimension .

It's basic cosmology , Why can't you see this ?

It's very likely that this fifth dimension exists
regardless of how our perceptions change
as when we zoom our instruments .

Absolute material determinism makes it spatial .
And Stephen Hawking does a good job of explaining it.