A small, simple, and may be fool idea

[khalifa]

Hello all members and also visitors of the Physics and Math forums ...
This is my first contribution to the forum which i hope it to be a good one..


I had an idea about the possible representation of the history of the universe,

Let's assume in a certain coordinate system of N dimensions, (a Linear space with N vectors) there is a possibility to represent the history of the universe as a curve .. plane ..etc.

The first question that will appear is the number N we need to do so.
Infact it is clear that it is much higher than the usuall 4 dimensions of space - time, because the point in such a sysytem will describe the figure of the universe at that point, including the space coordinates of every particle, its energy. its angular momentum, its charge, the mass everywhere, and a very wide details for every single particle will have a value therefore it will be represented by a dimension.

The problem is in the actuall N, is it Aleph 0 (infinity in Integer numbers set Z) or is it according to the logic of the details Aleph 1(infinity in Real numbers R)

The difference is the same as the different between Z and R, if any one could prove that number of details needs to describe one particle at a moment to be infinite it will be concluded that between each two moments there is an infinite number of details there fore the number of details is Aleph 1, which makes the representation impossilble, since coordinates are countable and should belong to Z (set of integers J)

I feel unable to trandfer the whole idea with its interpretations from my mind to the keyboard to you...

but may be you will help me with your valuable opinions and discussions....


Thanks...

[Epsilon=One]

I had an idea about the possible representation of the history of the universe,

Let's assume in a certain coordinate system of N dimensions, (a Linear space with N vectors) there is a possibility to represent the history of the universe as a curve .. plane ..etc.Good luck with your history of the Universe. It can amount to little more than an exercise of the mind.

The Unverse is without beginning and it is endless.

Your "N" would have to be infinite, which is a limit that cannot be reached from Reality.

[OfficeShredder]

Along with the space-time coordinates, you would probably need mass and charge of objects. Angular momentum, energy, the total mass, all are linearly dependent on space-time coordinates with charge and mass.

Well, you would need more properties to describe all the quarks, but it makes sense that a finite number of coordinates, in a classical sense, could describe the universe (of course, Hilbert space kills this)

[Epsilon=One]

Along with the space-time coordinates, you would probably need mass and charge of objects. Angular momentum, energy, the total mass, all are linearly dependent on space-time coordinates with charge and mass.

Well, you would need more properties to describe all the quarks, but it makes sense that a finite number of coordinates, in a classical sense, could describe the universe (of course, Hilbert space kills this)No. You are quite mistaken as to what is required. All your requirements can be derived from hyper-relativistic seminal motion (without any dimensions, chaos so to speak), which is a function of the duality of Infinity.

Within mathematics and physics the truth is found before, not after, the axioms, postulates, and laws.

Strange that your argument should entail "space-time" when pomo theoretical physicists have never defined "time"; and have little understanding of "space," as can be seen by their befuddlement with emergent dark energy and compressing dark matter.

You also mention quarks and the necessity for more properties; yet supersymmetry has no idea as to what the containing quantum is, why the complex spin, why fractional charges, what constitutes "color," or why the ephemeral quality. Without such knowledge it is obvious that little is understood about the existence of quarks: where they come from or what they are composed of.

Yet, you seem to argue that more "properties" are required to describe quarks. No, what is needed is some intelligence to reduce the complexity, which is actually quite simple when not approached from supercollider images.

As for Hilbert, he was one of the great mathematician that I greatly admire. However, Hilbert was unaware of the origin of the Inverse Square Law, orthogonality, and other modern observations of what constitutes "space." There is nothing that I know of that I advocate that would refute Hilbert space. In fact your mention of Hilbert space would seem to buttress my arguments.

[OfficeShredder]

Strange that your argument should entail "space-time" when pomo theoretical physicists have never defined "time"; and have little understanding of "space," as can be seen by their befuddlement with emergent dark energy and compressing dark matter.

I'll accept the "never defined time" argument when you describe to me how you would define length, in a manner that can't be trivially altered to conform to a definition of time (so "How far apart two things are" wouldn't count).

You also mention quarks and the necessity for more properties; yet supersymmetry has no idea as to what the containing quantum is, why the complex spin, why fractional charges, what constitutes "color," or why the ephemeral quality. Without such knowledge it is obvious that little is understood about the existence of quarks: where they come from or what they are composed of.

This isn't really relevant to the topic on hand, as you'll soon see.

You mention fractional charges. I don't understand what that means.... fractional compared to what? An electron? If I defined a charge of 1 to be the charge of a calcium ion, then physics would result in a hydrogen ion having a fractional charge. It just means the charges aren't defined conveniently for quarks.

Yet, you seem to argue that more "properties" are required to describe quarks. No, what is needed is some intelligence to reduce the complexity, which is actually quite simple when not approached from supercollider images.

By more properties, I meant more properties than mass, charge, and location. Which obviously won't encompass quarks.

As for Hilbert, he was one of the great mathematician that I greatly admire. However, Hilbert was unaware of the origin of the Inverse Square Law, orthogonality, and other modern observations of what constitutes "space." There is nothing that I know of that I advocate that would refute Hilbert space. In fact your mention of Hilbert space would seem to buttress my arguments.

I brought Hilbert space up as a way of showing that from the point of view of quantum mechanics, you WOULDN'T be able to use a finite system. I know it supports your arguments, that was the point. But from a classical point of view, which was the point of my post, it would theoretically be possible (ignoring Uncertainty Principle too)

[Epsilon=One]

Despite the tone of the below comments, I do very much appreciate the effort and thoughts that you express throughout your posts.
I'll accept the "never defined time" argument when you describe to me how you would define length, in a manner that can't be trivially altered to conform to a definition of time (so "How far apart two things are" wouldn't count).Not sure if by length you are concerned with distance, numbers, or orthogonality. The difference between all of them and time is substantial . . . and subtle. A proper understanding of this difference would pretty much encompass all the principles of Pulsoid Theory. I’ll try with a few laconic sentences which you may want to further explore with me. Length is a physical “something” that requires only coordinates . . . it is separate from “counting.” Time is the “counting” of interruptions determined by a specifically defined “clock.” The “time” used by Einstein would be analogous to fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT) with a “clock” that has interruptions as a function of hyper-relativistic motion transfers to relativistic resonances . . . back and forth. Both time and the orthogonal dimensions are a function of seminal motion; and thus, though different, closely related.

You mention fractional charges. I don't understand what that means.... fractional compared to what?I was using “fractional” as used by Gell-Mann in describing the charge of quarks. Another example would be the use of “color” in quantum chromodynamics (QCD). “Charge” is analogous to a wave crest or trough (a soliton). You either have a wave (a soliton) or you don’t. There are not fractional solitons. Except in the minds of theoretical physicists.

It just means the charges aren't defined conveniently for quarks.My point . . . exactly.

…from a classical point of view, which was the point of my post, it would theoretically be possible (ignoring Uncertainty Principle too)Uncertainty is a law. It cannot be ignored, except at one’s peril.