(Mike Helland) wrote in message . com...

Hi Mike...

Because that would be impossible, they MUST be observing in a
fundamentally different way.

No, because we can observe the results of their interaction.
Strike a match and observe light and heat.

I don't understand your response. I am saying:

We observe things through light
Particles observe each other and then interact to create light

Therefore, particles cannot observe through light

But they do. Using the *strike match* example. I rub a
match on a friction surface and it heats the match, by
electromagetic (light) reactions at the point of contact
by inducing energy into the molecules of the match. If
the heat is insufficient, the match will not ignite, but it
will be warmer. Warmth is measured by radiation.

Therefore, particle observe differently than we do
How then, does your response (that we observe the results of their
observation/interaction as light) contradict what I say? Why do you
say "no"?

At the microscopic level, the friction in the above example,
(or just rub your hands together) cause the outer electrons
of atoms in one hand to repel the others in the the other hand,
by electromagnetic force. This electromagnetic force and
energy is conveyed by low frequency *light* in the heat-wave
band to each hand.

Exactly, where light does not exist, or cannot exist, our
definition of spacetime fails. One fellow on this NG, (I'm
sorry I can't provide a specific reference off hand), has
determined that at very small lengths, (Plancks lengths),
our macroscopic notions of spacetime do not apply,
and this argument seems reasonable.

And this argument seems very similar to mine. I however go one step
further to assert that the reason for the failure

What failure?

is because Time is
observed differently at these levels, and therefore is a distinctly
different time.

Well time is interfined by time = length./ c, and the inclusion of c,
implies the use of a photon. I think the word *time* where photons
cannot exist, could be replaced by *rate of change*, for sematic
clarity.

That is not to say that the time's are completely unrelated. One is
built on the other. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that ours
is a definite subset of the other.

Let's hold the standard definition of time to be t = length/c,
then define rates of change in small regions where photons
cannot exist by some of notion like *glitch*.
Even inside a nucleus, it is theorized that very high
frequency photon like particles exchange nuclear force
by gluons. Where sub-time = glitch = length/gluon.

It makes sense, but I would hesitate to schizophenicate the
universe into different natures. For example, at the end of
the 19th century, the radiation spectrum (radio waves to light
waves) was not unified. In the 20th century, a means was found
to unify particles with wave like radiation.

Just because they are unified, does not mean the differences are
completely erased. The Strong and Weak forces might be mechanically
the exact same particle interaction, but they can still be thought of
as different forces because they have different observable effects.
This is of course a terminology issue above anything else.

Right, that's why I introduced "glitch". (gluon time).

If I am not mistaken, it applies only to inertial frames of reference.
Nope, GC applies to everything real.

If we define something as "real" being something that exists in our
spacetime, then what I am talking about is not "real" by that
definition and therefore we have no conflict.
However, there is another conflict. Science is making the assumption
that if it does not exist in our spacetime, it simply does not exist.
This is a hasty assumption, and indeed, the discovery of another
version of time shows that there are spacetimes beyond our own where
these things can exist.

Right, coming from an electronics background, "glitch" is something
real but not experimentally verified, otherwise it is not a "glitch".
So would "glitch" replace *time* semantically for you.

Thanks, this is a productive discussion, from my observations anyways
:-)

Has me thinking, I'm hoping we can retain standard physical
definitions, for time, and discuss your time-subset idea, with the
term glitch, and then move to define glitch.

Mike Helland

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker

We observe things through light
Particles observe each other and then interact to create light

Therefore, particles cannot observe through light

But they do. Using the *strike match* example. I rub a
match on a friction surface and it heats the match, by
electromagetic (light) reactions at the point of contact
by inducing energy into the molecules of the match. If
the heat is insufficient, the match will not ignite, but it
will be warmer. Warmth is measured by radiation.

I'm dense. Are you suggesting that force carrying particles observe
radiation as heat, despite the fact that the force carrying particles
are what is creating the radiation? If that is not what you are
saying, I don't see the contradiction.

Maybe its my fault for not being clear about which particles I'm
refering to. Some people call them bosons, whatever. I'm talking about
force carrying particle in particular.


Exactly, where light does not exist, or cannot exist, our
definition of spacetime fails. One fellow on this NG, (I'm
sorry I can't provide a specific reference off hand), has
determined that at very small lengths, (Plancks lengths),
our macroscopic notions of spacetime do not apply,
and this argument seems reasonable.

And this argument seems very similar to mine. I however go one step
further to assert that the reason for the failure

What failure?

In the quoted text about you said "our defintion of spacetime fails."
I'm saying it fails because "time" is different.

Well time is interfined by time = length./ c, and the inclusion of c,
implies the use of a photon. I think the word *time* where photons
cannot exist, could be replaced by *rate of change*, for sematic
clarity.

Thats a good suggestion. However, I think it is an important
realization that they are both different "times" and that the
mechanics of observation is what makes them different "times"

Let's hold the standard definition of time to be t = length/c,
then define rates of change in small regions where photons
cannot exist by some of notion like *glitch*.
Even inside a nucleus, it is theorized that very high
frequency photon like particles exchange nuclear force
by gluons. Where sub-time = glitch = length/gluon.

Cool, I can work with that.

Right, coming from an electronics background, "glitch" is something
real but not experimentally verified, otherwise it is not a "glitch".

That is the bitch of the glitch, eh?

Mike Helland

(Mike Helland) wrote in message . com...

Ken S. Tucker

We observe things through light
Particles observe each other and then interact to create light
Therefore, particles cannot observe through light

But they do. Using the *strike match* example. I rub a
match on a friction surface and it heats the match, by
electromagetic (light) reactions at the point of contact
by inducing energy into the molecules of the match. If
the heat is insufficient, the match will not ignite, but it
will be warmer. Warmth is measured by radiation.

Are you suggesting that force carrying particles observe
radiation as heat,

Yes.

despite the fact that the force carrying particles
are what is creating the radiation?

Yes.

If that is not what you are
saying, I don't see the contradiction.

Mike, you're using to many double negatives, ie
*not*, *don't*, *contradiction*, please use direct language,
for us simple folks.

Maybe its my fault for not being clear about which particles I'm
refering to. Some people call them bosons, whatever. I'm talking about
force carrying particle in particular.

Let's stay practical and consider an H atom with a proton and
an electron. When they orbit closer electromagnetic energy
is released in the form of a photon.

Exactly, where light does not exist, or cannot exist, our
definition of spacetime fails. One fellow on this NG, (I'm
sorry I can't provide a specific reference off hand), has
determined that at very small lengths, (Plancks lengths),
our macroscopic notions of spacetime do not apply,
and this argument seems reasonable.

And this argument seems very similar to mine. I however go one step
further to assert that the reason for the failure

What failure?

In the quoted text about you said "our defintion of spacetime fails."
I'm saying it fails because "time" is different.

It's not a failure, it's a location where time cannot be
measured, and therefore excludes physical definition.

Well time is interfined by time = length./ c, and the inclusion of c,
implies the use of a photon. I think the word *time* where photons
cannot exist, could be replaced by *rate of change*, for sematic
clarity.

Thats a good suggestion. However, I think it is an important
realization that they are both different "times" and that the
mechanics of observation is what makes them different "times"

This is a circular argument. You are at once saying time=time
and time=/=time, pick one.

Let's hold the standard definition of time to be t = length/c,
then define rates of change in small regions where photons
cannot exist by some of notion like *glitch*.
Even inside a nucleus, it is theorized that very high
frequency photon like particles exchange nuclear force
by gluons. Where sub-time = glitch = length/gluon.

Cool, I can work with that.

Seems to be alot of people are thinking about time in these
very small regions. But it really can't be called time since
the order of events can't be verified, and time is defined
by order of events, ie tick-tock...tick-tock, a glitch
is defined by tock-tick. Funny as this sounds (pun intended),
a ticking clock with a regular sound of tick-tock will, once
in a billion times, go tock-tick, and when this event occurs
it would be a *glitch*. As the appartus creating the
tick-tock = smaller, glitch = glitchier.

Right, coming from an electronics background, "glitch" is something
real but not experimentally verified, otherwise it is not a "glitch".

That is the bitch of the glitch, eh?

Ha, yup...50 000 000 people blacked out, IS the
MOTHER of BITCHY GLITCHES.

Mike Helland

Regards Ken S. Tucker