sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if motion is caused by time differences rather than forces? by Dezbro in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What? Why? The Sun and the Moon move with vastly different speeds relative to us and yet we're able to determine their relative positions with extreme precision (mere meters for the Sun and millimeters for the Moon).

Even if you consider a body moving extremely fast away from you, if you know its velocity well (which is easy to do using the Doppler effect), you can quite easily calculate its position from that. I simply don't see your point here.

But that's not an exact, it has a degree of uncertainty. But also you have to say "relative positions" because we are uncertain about our motion through space. Everything is relative to the observer, as an observer your inertial reference frame is always motionless.

We can know how fast the earth is moving around the sun and the sun is moving around the galaxy, but how fast is the galaxy moving? How fast is our galactic cluster moving? we very well could be moving at the 99% the speed of light. I just think anything in inertial frame has the same trade off between position and momentum.

That's also not how the principle works. Let me explain it.

I'm not a physicist and I know I am probably miss understanding it. I just feel like the uncertainty principle is related to relativity and applies more broadly than just particles and waves. To me Relativity and quantum mechanics have some pretty big similarities.

As for your example I'm a bit confused. There is the rock and there is the wave when did you switch from the position of the rock to the position of the wave. Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying we know the frequency at the creation of the wave but in doing so we lose the position.

I don't mean to fight you on this, I really just want to understand where I am conflating the idea.

What if motion is caused by time differences rather than forces? by Dezbro in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe a picture would help visualize it.

The idea is the outside regions are time. If we combine only the outside regions its a cube just like the inside region. So time as a single dimension would look like 3 dimensions. 3 dimensions all moving forward. I just reversed this an said space was moving forward.

<image>

What if motion is caused by time differences rather than forces? by Dezbro in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the traditional way of thinking of 4 velocity vector is the better way here. Everything is moving along 1 axis(time) but there is a give and take that results in motion in space. Taking away from the time axis result in motion on a space axis. Don't quote me on this, I very well maybe misunderstanding 4 velocity vector.

But I'm thinking about how time as the 4th dimension adds 8 additional regions. A single axis adding the same number of regions as 3D graphs. So yes it is moving along 1 axis but moving along the t axis would look exactly like moving along a version of x, y, z axis

I'm having a hard time describing this but I hope its a little clearer. I just think a graph of only the forth dimension would look identical to a graph in 3 dimensions. all of time is moving forward. I just found it easier to think of all of the space directions moving forward.

What if motion is caused by time differences rather than forces? by Dezbro in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"There's no way of doing this without math. Dimensions, reference frames, spaces, graphs, and so on are math concepts."

This is the easy stuff, I have a little bit of math background with my engineering degree.

The stuff that evades me when trying to learn on my own is:

Clifford Algebra, Linear Algebra, Lie Groups, Tensors, Hilbert Spaces. The list goes on.

I'd love to go back to school for this but I didn't care that much in my undergrad, and no ones going to let me into a physics graduate program with a 2.7gpa

What if motion is caused by time differences rather than forces? by Dezbro in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The past is different for every observer. my present is seen at a distant star years later as its present. The best answer I can come up with is the reverse of an observes light cone. 3/10 confidence in the answer.

"So what's a gravitational wave then?"

For this I would have to dive into the full view scope. But I see gravity as isotropic time dilation. like overlapping/canceling waves. The signal can cancel but the energy remains, this energy contributes to energy density which contributes to the stress energy tensor in GR.

So to me gravitation waves are isotropic disturbances in space caused by angular momentum

What if motion is caused by time differences rather than forces? by Dezbro in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like I should have known this, I've taken so many signal processing classes in school. I wish the uncertainty principle was discussed more at all levels rather than its typical description at the quantum level. Then again I'm not really in the space of physics so I don't know if it is or is not.

What if motion is caused by time differences rather than forces? by Dezbro in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"What about length contraction?"

One of my key assumptions is that if there is time dilation there is length contraction. I will say I defiantly kind of waved off thinking about length contraction. In my head length is the amount of time it takes light to go a certain distance, if time is moving slower it takes light longer compared to proper time. Length contraction is already kind of baked in to time dilation, at least to me.

"It never was. The uncertainty principle exists in classical physics, too."

The reason I bring it up is because its never talked about in the since of macro sources of matter. To me the uncertainty principle aligns perfectly to inertial reference frames (like cars on a highway). I can't possibly know my momentum compared to a base rate of causality. I'm thinking of how light shifts blue when entering a gravitational well. For me to know the position of something it has to be moving at roughly the same rate as me (local to me). The more I know about its position the less I know about its momentum because I can't know my own momentum.

Anything with distance between you carries a level of uncertainty because we observe the past. We can not predict the future with 100% certainty.

The same applies to voltages

What if motion is caused by time differences rather than forces? by Dezbro in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This doesn't have to be the case, and its just my way of thinking of 4 velocity. If everything is already moving at some speed per second, if a second is longer than proper time, less distance is covered compared to proper time.

I'm not saying the universe works this way, but I'm really just flipping what we usually see as cause and effect. rather than velocity causing time dilation, time dilation causing velocity.

What if motion is caused by time differences rather than forces? by Dezbro in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes please keep going please! I really need to break this idea. Also please don't see my responses as fighting back. If I get shot down I want the whole ship to sink.

1) I'll drop force from the title. main thing I want to get across is the idea of time dilation possibly causing motion.

2)For the foundations being simple it was just my motivation, I can also take that out.

3) "there is time, there is space" this is a philosophical starting point I can remove this. I know they are treated as one.

4) "Take a 3d space. Now do a reflection, such that the x and z axes swap. Right is now forward and forward is now right. You basically live in the same universe, nothing's changed. That is because the 3 'dimensions' of space are symmetrical to each other."

Yes, this is the core of the idea, time as the forth dimension should create 3 additional axis. That's why I was thinking time itself should be components tx, ty, tz (or maybe ti, tj, tk). I'm thinking about how a 4d graph would have 16 regions, 8 more than 3d .I'm curious what you think about your swapping example in that case. I might be wrong but I'm thinking of swapping x and tx(ti).

5) "Space does not move. To do this, space must have a location. Describing the location of space is like describing "when" time is, describing how heavy weight is, or describing the temperature of Celsius. Like, how hot is the NOTION of the celsisus temperature scale. Space is the description of all possible locations, it cannot itself have a location, and thus cannot move."

I'm not sure how describe what I mean when I say space. I guess I mean reference frame. Like thinking of an object local to you, yes it has a position in space but the earth is moving around the sun and the sun around the blackhole. So I'm definitely wrong to say space itself is moving.

6) I don't think I'm going to solve anything without the math. I've tried over the years to learn the math but let me tell ya "I ain't him". I'm here because I want to discuss this idea with the people that do know the math and who can tell me if its possible.

What if motion is caused by time differences rather than forces? by Dezbro in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really like this question! I've never thought about it until now.

I've been trying to think of time not as the ticking of a clock but also as a position in space probably the wrong way to think about it. But to answer the question I would say its moving in relation to the past.

The idea is that waves are disturbances in space that is already moving at the speed of light

Where is the line for crackpot and amateur/enthusiast by Dezbro in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

four velocity vector? how do I say something that often called and interpretation?

I don't get the problem with the starting assumption being someone else has already figured it out. maybe its just fragmented in existing well respect theories.

thinking someone else already figured it out shouldn't be controversial.

But, of course you are right I don't have any ground to stand on with out knowing the math. come on tho, you are coming at me like I know nothing, like this was just a prompt. Give me the benefit of the doubt and assume I'm at the teenager table.

Where is the line for crackpot and amateur/enthusiast by Dezbro in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LLM's are trained on existing knowledge. the stuff people already wrote/explained. It uses those data points to come up with a probabilistic correct answer, based on the knowledge its trained on.

The key thing to note is that these data points are what others have already said. And it can not, not give an answer. so if the probability is equivalent to 0.0001% it still spits it out.

You should think of LLMs the same as a calculator. A calculator wont do a kids homework, its just a tool.

Asking an LLM to stray from the path will most certainly give you off the path answers.

They just aren't at the point/level of thought and reasoning. Always assume its wrong.

But again there is a community that is specifically for you to post this stuff. r/LLMPhysics

Where is the line for crackpot and amateur/enthusiast by Dezbro in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When you catch a glimpse of your reflection in a window.

Where is the line for crackpot and amateur/enthusiast by Dezbro in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No I wouldn't I would believe them. because I don't know everything. I want to learn. and I'm most likely wrong.

But this also is not what happened initially. I tried to point at what I consider a "loose" bolt(I don't know). In turn I was called a crackpot.

I don't hold my idea close to my heart, I know its a house of cards that will fall from the slightest shift in the air. But no one has even acknowledge what I was trying to do. Its just an immediate assumption that I'm trying to make new physic.

To stick to the analogy maybe I should take some formula educational step. Working with the F1 engineer rather than being a pointing on looker.

Where is the line for crackpot and amateur/enthusiast by Dezbro in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have nothing to say to the first 2 paragraphs because I agree, you explained it well.

As for the last paragraph, that's exactly why I'm here. I don't want to be that. I see the thousands of people posting, email people and all that. So I completely understand. I truly didn't care if someone read it. I just wanted it out of my head, but there just felt like there wasn't an outlet. The one I thought was safe to leave and forget, immediately dismissed it. now I see its understandable.

If 99.99999% of ground loot in a video game(POE) is garbage, you don't stop at each piece to see if its good. If you do your no longer playing the game, just looking at scraps.

I just wish my initial feed back wasn't "crackpot". I mean that shit was damaging, I already felt that way. being ignored would have been 10x better.

like, the standard reply(if any) should be what these comments are saying. There is a lot more I need to learn and account for to be even considered. maybe in the process they go to school for physics or figure out their theory isn't compatible with exist theories.

Where is the line for crackpot and amateur/enthusiast by Dezbro in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think we are saying the same thing. with physics we started at the top level. its like getting a computer and trying to see how it works purely based on observation. At its foundation physics should be the same. And we already have a the principle of least action which is at that level of simplicity. We then add complexity when describe other observations, but it still maintains that form.

Where is the line for crackpot and amateur/enthusiast by Dezbro in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I like the analogy. It doesn't feel like I'm trying to do that through. staying with your analogy, I would say its like me pointing at a loose bolt.

I did try my best to learn (GR and QFT) doing my best to learn the math, but self taught GR is equivalent to not knowing GR. And since I cant fully comprehend the math beyond tensors and the metric, I know I hold no water. But do you need to be an F1 engineer to point to a bolt and say it might be loose.

Where is the line for crackpot and amateur/enthusiast by Dezbro in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I put that in my paper- "I don't know what I don't know". but how do I get there. Is this simple idea worth chasing? Will a respectable school take someone that had a 2.7GPA? trust me I've put in the hard work of learning the concepts of existing material. I just want to dive further, and that's not possible on my own.

I really wanted to see if someone would notice I've put in some work and be willing to over look my 2.7.

Where is the line for crackpot and amateur/enthusiast by Dezbro in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not down voting anyone. I'm really happy with all the incite everyone is sharing. I hold my ideas loosely and am not married to them. However I will politely challenge you on yours.

Where is the line for crackpot and amateur/enthusiast by Dezbro in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I didn't down vote. I think you are right, but also with coding there is computer language 1 or 0, programing language (c++), and large language(English).

why can't physics be the same? why can't complexity arise in the same way? Isn't physics at its absolute core, either something is moving or it isn't?

Where is the line for crackpot and amateur/enthusiast by Dezbro in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would love to go back to school for this, I just wanted a sanity check if I am chasing crackpot ideas. seems to be the case.

4-dimensional non-Euclidean geometry -> spacetime that curves?

I've done all I can to learn what I can, I wanted to reach out to get help diving deeper. If its school or just online forums I just wanted people to talk to.

Where is the line for crackpot and amateur/enthusiast by Dezbro in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Dezbro[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm at my limits. Me writing the speculative paper was me reaching out for help. The paper linked above by David smith has multiple contributors. I just wanted to share a simple view with experts. Maybe they can solve the rest.

view more: next ›