LEFTY wrote:
Thanks for responding Lefty. I certainly don't know a damn thing, but
as you say, we're just sitting here wondering about this stuff...

What's the best thing you ever scored from the garbage? Me: the Koss
sound system currently hooked up to my computer.



I dunno know - just the thought of playing with dimensionality as if it
were a toy - kinda tickles my funnybone.

Well, I've never found a thought in the garbage, though most of the
ones my dimestore brain generates belong there. I guess the sound
system was a pretty good score after all.

Here's a thought: when trying to figure *things* out, the only
nonexistence that counts is the nonexistence of *things*. No thing has
ever been observed to not exist - we have only extant concepts and
extant ideas about things which have not been observed. Only exsistence
has been observed.

...now where's that can?

p

Sue... wrote:
LEFTY wrote:
I dont think that there is a single physicist alive today who has'nt
contemplated "spooky nonexistence".

The problem is that it dose'nt make any sense in some ways. Or that
spacetime actually becomes 3-dimensonal - this just violates
differential geometry.

Are you using the term spactime to mean a coordinate system
or an 'aether' ?


A 4-dimensional cannot be homeomorphic to a 3-dimensional manifold.

Invariance of Domain theorem


Nonexistence makes no sense if Planck time is an absolute bottom. And
there's a great lack of clarity as to what nonexistence means anyway.
In math, existence is abstract, and so possibly nonexistent in a
physical sense. These ideas can really get scrambled, and alot of the
confusion is due to a poor lexicon which confuses the abstract and the
tangible.

Then, compounding the problem, I'm introducing a "relativistic"
nonexistence, or the ability for things which really exist to "appear"
nonexistent. Certainly, this must be different, in an absolute sense,
from something which really does not exist on any scale regardless of
whether it can be observed or not.

So, here are three distinict examples of nonexistence which are all
clearly different, and yet they all have the same name. That is a big
problem if you want to explain things, or even contemplate them.

Suppose you have a wave which has a wavelength higher than the Planck
frequency. It really exists in an absolute sense, but you cant observe
it (according to hypothesis). This must be different from a wave which
dosent really exist in the first place, or does it matter ? You'd
expect it to.

Things that pop in and out of exstiance are called 'magic'.


Depends on what type of existence we're talking about. There are at
least 3 that I can think of, and only two of them would qualify as
magic.



Well, I need an experiment, or some algebra.

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm

Sue...


That's a really neat site.

LEFTY wrote:
Sue... wrote:


Are you using the term spactime to mean a coordinate system
or an 'aether' ?


A 4-dimensional cannot be homeomorphic to a 3-dimensional manifold.

Invariance of Domain theorem


Nonexistence makes no sense if Planck time is an absolute bottom. And
there's a great lack of clarity as to what nonexistence means anyway.
In math, existence is abstract, and so possibly nonexistent in a
physical sense. These ideas can really get scrambled, and alot of the
confusion is due to a poor lexicon which confuses the abstract and the
tangible.

Then, compounding the problem, I'm introducing a "relativistic"
nonexistence, or the ability for things which really exist to "appear"
nonexistent. Certainly, this must be different, in an absolute sense,
from something which really does not exist on any scale regardless of
whether it can be observed or not.

So, here are three distinict examples of nonexistence which are all
clearly different, and yet they all have the same name. That is a big
problem if you want to explain things, or even contemplate them.

Suppose you have a wave which has a wavelength higher than the Planck
frequency. It really exists in an absolute sense, but you cant observe
it (according to hypothesis). This must be different from a wave which
dosent really exist in the first place, or does it matter ? You'd
expect it to.

Things that pop in and out of exstiance are called 'magic'.


Depends on what type of existence we're talking about. There are at
least 3 that I can think of, and only two of them would qualify as
magic.
Are you using the term spactime to mean a coordinate system
or an 'aether' ?




Well, I need an experiment, or some algebra.

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm

Sue...


That's a really neat site.
Are you using the term spactime to mean a coordinate system
or an 'aether' ?
Are you using the term spactime to mean a coordinate system
or an 'aether' ?
Are you using the term spactime to mean a coordinate system
or an 'aether' ?

;-)
Sue...

Sorry, I know it's a bad habit, and according to Wikipedia it has
various usages.

I almost always use the term in it's non-mathematical context. Maybe I
should just call it space. Cant help it, I'm sloppy.



According to Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
The estimated age of the Universe (4.3 × 1017 s) is roughly 8 × 1060
Planck times.


This suggests that the dimension of time is graduated like a ruler, and
the graduations are fixed. Space has 4 dimensions, LxLxLxT. Generally,
space it considered to have no geometric origin. But if time is
graduated, then space starts looking just a little bit more like R4,
and I just get wobbly in the knees to see that happening.

If time is graduated, and Planck length is derivable from Planck time,
then maybe LxLxL is also graduated somehow, and maybe the universe has
some type of geometric origin somewhere ? Dosen't seem to agree with
relativity at all - no ma'am.


: P

Absolute nonexistence does not seem very useful.

But if you have the "appearance" of nonexistence, sort of like an
illusion caused by time becoming unobservable on extreme scales, then
that might actually be interesting.

I know that many people have thought of this before, and math shows
that it is impossible to occur in an absolute sense. However, math does
not preclude the "illusion" from occuring, and in fact seems to
facilitate it.


Speaking of stereo systems, some music sounds great even on an old
piece of junk. Le Nozze de Figaro, the Sull Aria, Deutsche Oper Berlin
by Karl Bohm, gotta love it.

LEFTY wrote:
Absolute nonexistence does not seem very useful.

But if you have the "appearance" of nonexistence, sort of like an
illusion caused by time becoming unobservable on extreme scales, then
that might actually be interesting.

Maybe Google around to see if any bona fide scientists think so - see
if any research is being done.
Lay folk need to be precise in language. Terms like nonexistence
should be used in their most widely accepted scientific forms. Then
*maybe* there's a chance we're not just flapping in the wind.

I know that many people have thought of this before, and math shows
that it is impossible to occur in an absolute sense. However, math does
not preclude the "illusion" from occuring, and in fact seems to
facilitate it.

Illusion is a term that's hard to misuse. I certainly have no problem
with it wrt your stuff. That's not a dis.


Speaking of stereo systems, some music sounds great even on an old
piece of junk. Le Nozze de Figaro, the Sull Aria, Deutsche Oper Berlin
by Karl Bohm, gotta love it.

I'm one of those people who enjoy(s?) classical/opera without
knowledge.

Return Of The Giant Hogweed is more my speed. HERACLEUM
MANTEGAZZIANI!

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/g/genesis/58824.html

P

"LEFTY" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Absolute nonexistence does not seem very useful.

There is a lot of it out there. We call it "space". I agree it isn't
useful.

Not much point in discussing nothing, I'll leave it there.
Androcles.

|
| But if you have the "appearance" of nonexistence, sort of like an
| illusion caused by time becoming unobservable on extreme scales, then
| that might actually be interesting.
|
| I know that many people have thought of this before, and math shows
| that it is impossible to occur in an absolute sense. However, math
does
| not preclude the "illusion" from occuring, and in fact seems to
| facilitate it.
|
|
| Speaking of stereo systems, some music sounds great even on an old
| piece of junk. Le Nozze de Figaro, the Sull Aria, Deutsche Oper
Berlin
| by Karl Bohm, gotta love it.
|

Androcles wrote:
"LEFTY" wrote in message
oups.com...


Absolute nonexistence does not seem very useful.

There is a lot of it in here. We call it the "space" between my ears. I agree it isn't useful.

Not much point in discussing nothing, I'll leave it there.
Androcles.

Thanks.

p

platopes wrote:
LEFTY wrote:
Absolute nonexistence does not seem very useful.

But if you have the "appearance" of nonexistence, sort of like an
illusion caused by time becoming unobservable on extreme scales, then
that might actually be interesting.

Maybe Google around to see if any bona fide scientists think so - see
if any research is being done.
Lay folk need to be precise in language. Terms like nonexistence
should be used in their most widely accepted scientific forms. Then
*maybe* there's a chance we're not just flapping in the wind.


I dont think that anyone in academia could agree to such a thing if
there were'nt some very good reasons to do so. Many people have talked
about nonexistence, but I could not find that any progress was ever
made on it, and unless you can give a good explanation then it's just
more ESP, UFO's, crystal healing BS.



I know that many people have thought of this before, and math shows
that it is impossible to occur in an absolute sense. However, math does
not preclude the "illusion" from occuring, and in fact seems to
facilitate it.

Illusion is a term that's hard to misuse. I certainly have no problem
with it wrt your stuff. That's not a dis.


Thanks. Seems like everybody knows that there is something funny going
on (in QM), and it must be somehting really simple, but difficult to
explain properly.

Certainly dosent hurt to debate an idea, even if it turns out to be
wrong, you can still say that something was explored and did not work
and why. I cant figure out why this would be false yet.



Speaking of stereo systems, some music sounds great even on an old
piece of junk. Le Nozze de Figaro, the Sull Aria, Deutsche Oper Berlin
by Karl Bohm, gotta love it.

I'm one of those people who enjoy(s?) classical/opera without
knowledge.

Return Of The Giant Hogweed is more my speed. HERACLEUM
MANTEGAZZIANI!


I could be worse, I think that Kudzu vine is a real problem in some
places.


http://www.lyricsfreak.com/g/genesis/58824.html

P

LEFTY wrote:
Absolute nonexistence does not seem very useful.

But if you have the "appearance" of nonexistence, sort of like an
illusion caused by time becoming unobservable on extreme scales, then
that might actually be interesting.

I know that many people have thought of this before, and math shows
that it is impossible to occur in an absolute sense. However, math does
not preclude the "illusion" from occuring, and in fact seems to
facilitate it.

It takes a theory to decide is something is an 'illusion' or not.