INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: skyblue1 on December 20, 2013, 07:38:08 PM
-
Do We Live in a 10-Dimensional Hologram?
Slate
ScienceThe state of the universe.
Dec. 16 2013 2:00 PM
Do We Live in a 10-Dimensional Hologram?
Why physicists imagine mind-bending black-hole universes.
By Matthew R. Francis
The universe can seem bewildering at times. In the past century, we've learned an incredible amount about the cosmos: its 13.8 billion-year history, its structure (including the number and distribution of galaxies), and its possible future (increasingly rapid expansion forever). Yet two big mysteries still elude physicists: What happened to the universe in its first instants? And what is the connection between gravity and the other forces of nature?
Researchers entertain some fairly exotic ideas in an effort to understand the bits we haven't figured out yet. One of these ideas is the notion that our four-dimensional spacetime—three dimensions of space plus one of time, with gravity and everything else that is familiar to us—could correspond to a simpler cosmos with fewer dimensions. According to this line of reasoning, our universe could be like a multidimensional hologram, just as a hologram in our reality represents a three-dimensional shape on a flat surface.
That approach could be very promising, but nobody has figured out how to make the calculations work for the real universe yet. Instead, physicists have focused on making imaginary universes that might help guide our thinking. One such model has gotten a lot of attention after a write-up in Nature. Even though this imaginary universe does not resemble ours, subsequent coverage feels like a game of telephone, turning an interesting idea into headlines like “Physicists discover 'clearest evidence yet' that the Universe is a hologram” and “Mindblowing! Our Universe Might Just Be One Giant Hologram.”
Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
What does this research actually mean? A pair of unpublished papers by Yoshifumi Hyakutake and colleagues (available for free download here and here) describes a set of computer simulations that starts with a model 10-dimensional universe with a black hole. The researchers then demonstrate that this simulated universe corresponds numerically to a much simpler one-dimensional cosmos with no gravity. It's an interesting model that could be useful for future research, but it's a far cry from describing our real universe.
That's not the same thing as saying this 10-dimensional hologram model is nonsense—it's not. To appreciate what this far-out idea really means, we need to talk about a few other crazy, real things: black holes and quantum gravity.
Black holes are indisputably some of the freakiest objects in the cosmos. Their reputation for “sucking everything in” is a bit exaggerated—if you replaced the sun with a black hole of the same mass, Earth's orbit wouldn't change noticeably. But black holes stretch the limits of our understanding of the universe. When anything crosses into a black hole's interior—passing the event horizon—it can never return to the outside.
But that's where things get tricky. Black holes are defined by just their mass and rate of spin. They don't have lumps or various colors or differences in chemistry. The black hole apparently doesn't “remember” what falls in: Electrons, iron atoms, dark matter, and even photons can all contribute to its mass.
However, if the information about a particle is destroyed when it falls into a black hole, that means there’s a fundamental incompatibility between general relativity (our standard theory of gravity) and quantum physics. According to the basic rules of quantum mechanics, certain pieces of information about the identity and properties of particles need to survive. The solution to the conflict might lie in a complete quantum theory of gravity, but we don't have such a thing yet.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...anics.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...anics.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram
A ten-dimensional theory of gravity makes the same predictions as standard quantum physics in fewer dimensions.
A team of physicists has provided some of the clearest evidence yet that our Universe could be just one big projection.
In 1997, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena proposed1 that an audacious model of the Universe in which gravity arises from infinitesimally thin, vibrating strings could be reinterpreted in terms of well-established physics. The mathematically intricate world of strings, which exist in nine dimensions of space plus one of time, would be merely a hologram: the real action would play out in a simpler, flatter cosmos where there is no gravity.
Maldacena's idea thrilled physicists because it offered a way to put the popular but still unproven theory of strings on solid footing — and because it solved apparent inconsistencies between quantum physics and Einstein's theory of gravity. It provided physicists with a mathematical Rosetta stone, a 'duality', that allowed them to translate back and forth between the two languages, and solve problems in one model that seemed intractable in the other and vice versa (see 'Collaborative physics: String theory finds a bench mate'). But although the validity of Maldacena's ideas has pretty much been taken for granted ever since, a rigorous proof has been elusive.
In two papers posted on the arXiv repository, Yoshifumi Hyakutake of Ibaraki University in Japan and his colleagues now provide, if not an actual proof, at least compelling evidence that Maldacena’s conjecture is true.
In one paper2, Hyakutake computes the internal energy of a black hole, the position of its event horizon (the boundary between the black hole and the rest of the Universe), its entropy and other properties based on the predictions of string theory as well as the effects of so-called virtual particles that continuously pop into and out of existence (see 'Astrophysics: Fire in the Hole!'). In the other3, he and his collaborators calculate the internal energy of the corresponding lower-dimensional cosmos with no gravity. The two computer calculations match.
“It seems to be a correct computation,” says Maldacena, who is now at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey and who did not contribute to the team's work.
Regime change
The findings “are an interesting way to test many ideas in quantum gravity and string theory”, Maldacena adds. The two papers, he notes, are the culmination of a series of articles contributed by the Japanese team over the past few years. “The whole sequence of papers is very nice because it tests the dual [nature of the universes] in regimes where there are no analytic tests.”
“They have numerically confirmed, perhaps for the first time, something we were fairly sure had to be true, but was still a conjecture — namely that the thermodynamics of certain black holes can be reproduced from a lower-dimensional universe,” says Leonard Susskind, a theoretical physicist at Stanford University in California who was among the first theoreticians to explore the idea of holographic universes.
Neither of the model universes explored by the Japanese team resembles our own, Maldacena notes. The cosmos with a black hole has ten dimensions, with eight of them forming an eight-dimensional sphere. The lower-dimensional, gravity-free one has but a single dimension, and its menagerie of quantum particles resembles a group of idealized springs, or harmonic oscillators, attached to one another.
Nevertheless, says Maldacena, the numerical proof that these two seemingly disparate worlds are actually identical gives hope that the gravitational properties of our Universe can one day be explained by a simpler cosmos purely in terms of quantum theory.
Journal name:
Nature
http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-b...am-1.14328 (http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-b...am-1.14328)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Even if there are higher dimensions, three dimensional beings can't experience them so they don't matter. :tard:
-
Even if there are higher dimensions, three dimensional beings can't experience them so they don't matter. :tard:
Yup.
-
Even if there are higher dimensions, three dimensional beings can't experience them so they don't matter. :tard:
Yup.
Ah, but wait!
Helping one to express or experience dimensions above ones sensory set is why we create art!
:o
-
Also, let is remember, "10" is a convenient number, and means nothing outside of earth. Reptiles and mammals tend to have 5 digits per hand and foot, although reptiles and amphibians can have 6 or 7 as well.
The number 10 (and all maths based on it) have to do with fingers on animals.
The number of dimensions will not care to be exactly 10, or 15 or 20 or any other convenient rounded number.
I notice a lot of people like the number 10, when talking about dimensions - cus it's more than 4 and less than "too many".
What is "too many" then? Why can't there be 100 million dimensions? All of them unique? Cus that would definitely be too many! Too many for convenience, too many for comfort. Our convenience and comfort. And our fingers! :D
-
I don't live in a ten dimensional hologram
-
I also disagree with calling "time" a dimension.
In fact, I disagree with a lot of ideas about "time". People treat "time" like a tangible object, just because we gave it a name. "Travel in time" "Bending time" counting it as a dimension, which otherwis were just directional markers, when did time become a direction?
Then they just roll with it - and base tons of research ON the assumption that time is an object and a dimension and a place in some country, that we can travel to...
-
The Romans weren't into such nonsense. In Rome it was 1 o'clock when the sun rose, and 6 o'clock at noon, 12 o'clock when the sun set :M
-
The Romans weren't into such nonsense. In Rome it was 1 o'clock when the sun rose, and 6 o'clock at noon, 12 o'clock when the sun set :M
Maybe that is why Caesar did not make it up north. Too hard for him how fast time flew by in winter.
-
In 1997, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena proposed1 that an audacious model of the Universe in which gravity arises from infinitesimally thin, vibrating strings
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/string_theory.png)
-
In 1997, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena proposed1 that an audacious model of the Universe in which gravity arises from infinitesimally thin, vibrating strings
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/string_theory.png)
nice
-
Don't tell Odeon I did that. :laugh:
-
who is odeon!
-
Good answer. :laugh:
-
The Romans weren't into such nonsense. In Rome it was 1 o'clock when the sun rose, and 6 o'clock at noon, 12 o'clock when the sun set :M
WTF is it with YOU and Rome these days?
The fall of (TeH Greatness) of Rome occurred well over a thousand and a half years ago.
:???:
-
I thought there were eleven dimensions and all but three were trapped in a quark.
-
I would prefer primes as well.
-
I would prefer primes as well.
Prime dimensions. That was awesome.
-
The Romans weren't into such nonsense. In Rome it was 1 o'clock when the sun rose, and 6 o'clock at noon, 12 o'clock when the sun set :M
WTF is it with YOU and Rome these days?
The fall of (TeH Greatness) of Rome occurred well over a thousand and a half years ago.
:???:
Latine disco. Mannulus Romanus sum :M
-
I also disagree with calling "time" a dimension.
In fact, I disagree with a lot of ideas about "time". People treat "time" like a tangible object, just because we gave it a name. "Travel in time" "Bending time" counting it as a dimension, which otherwis were just directional markers, when did time become a direction?
Then they just roll with it - and base tons of research ON the assumption that time is an object and a dimension and a place in some country, that we can travel to...
So, what would you label it instead? How would you characterise time?
What is a dimension, to you?
-
who is odeon!
A better question is "what is odeon?"
:moomin:
-
:agreed:
-
Bugger it to hell..
I read this earlier, and it triggered off a few lines of thought on electroweak symmetry breaking I found interesting as hell to pursue. Only now I can't remember what the FUCK it was...
Don't you just hate it when you get a good idea and then forget it before it can be toyed with further..
-
I also disagree with calling "time" a dimension.
In fact, I disagree with a lot of ideas about "time". People treat "time" like a tangible object, just because we gave it a name. "Travel in time" "Bending time" counting it as a dimension, which otherwis were just directional markers, when did time become a direction?
Then they just roll with it - and base tons of research ON the assumption that time is an object and a dimension and a place in some country, that we can travel to...
So, what would you label it instead? How would you characterise time?
What is a dimension, to you?
Time is whatever we name the difference between one physical event and another. Dimensions are directional cues.
It's all arbitrary.
Why don't you include "hope" as a dimension? Or "life"? Or gravity? Why is "time" special? Imho, "time" doesn't even deserve a name :M It is arbitrary, and it is a human trait to regard something as untangible as "time" as a real physical object "let's travel through time! Yes - right through it, as if it was a ginger-bread dough!"
-
Perhaps travelling ALONG time would be a much better metaphor.
It is a direction. In the case of matter with positive mass, forwards.
-
Perhaps travelling ALONG time would be a much better metaphor.
It is a direction. In the case of matter with positive mass, forwards.
Forwards?
What IS forwards?
Do you mean ---------------------------------------> this direction? From left to right? Because that is the way we read? Our eyes? Our culture?
OR
do you mean forwards in terms of pedal locomotion? What if I U-turn? What is forwards then? What if two people walk past each others? Which one is walking forwards?
:D
It's all arbitrary... Time doesn't go in a direction "forwards" or "backwards", in fact, time NEVER went "backwards" for comparison, meaning time only goes one direction.
If there is no white, can there be black? If there is no up, can there be down?
If time only does one thing, can there be an alternative thing for it to ever do? No!
Time is fleshed out - by us, people, by our culture and our perception - fleshed out way beyond its real nature - which is just a measurement of one motion compared to another motion :I
I guess this puts me in disagreement with most physicists in the world, but I just cannot accept that time is trivialized like that - we travel through it like a tunnel? Tunnel made of cement? We travel alongside it, like a railing? A railing made of brass or stone or wood? It travels forwards. Why can't it travel sideways? How does it travel? How can time afford plane tickets, if it does not have a job?
I know I make it very silly now, but... that how I see it - giving time all of these properties :D
-
You can as well write a poem about it :M
Gungan går upp! - och ned.
sitt nu upp får du åka med!
Stjärnorna dansar kring
liksom vi i ett nött ingenting.
Marknadens sång är slut
och det är som det var förut.
Gungan går ned - och vi
längtar upp allt som gått oss förbi.
Jag hör röster
som ropar ut -
Allt är nu sålt!
Allt är nu slut!
Allt sålt...allt slut!
Men hit med mörkret drar
några toner från det som var
Hör du ett positiv
och det liv som det blåser till liv?
Köp allt vad du vill ha!
Ta nu för dej, det går bra!
Gör fynd! Dröm vad du vill!
För allt är ditt och allt finns till...
Det är bara en gång
som din dröm sjunger rent
och sen är det för sent
och din längtan blir lång...
Uppåt i evighet
stiger smattret från en trumpet!
Röd är din rymdraket
och en trumvirvel allt det du vet...
så låt dej sväva nu!
Det finns ingen så rik som du...
Gungan går upp! - och den
kanske aldrig går neråt igen!
Nej, jag drömde
Allt är som förr.
Natten har stängt
drömmarnas dörr...
Allt blir som förr.
Gungan går upp! - och ned.
Och vi måste ju åka med.
Stjärnorna dansar kring
liksom vi i ett nött ingenting.
Lars Forssell
-
o_o
-
8)
-
I should have said, forwards, with referral to the viewpoint of an observer (I mean this not in the sense of a sentient, or living one, but a fixed reference point with regards to itself, will move forward in time, if it has mass)
I'm hardly the best at physics, and I BLOW at math, so its probably not the best explanation.
But does a 'direction' have to GO anywhere.
Take a car moving along a road. The road (or time as the case may be) doesn't have to move anywhere, the CAR is what moves. Forward, or turn round and head back in the opposite direction.
Thus we get the three dimensions of space that we interact in, plus one of time, in minkowski spacetime at any rate. Spacetime geometry is NOT something I know a great deal about, too much bloody well math.
Read faye kane's blog for a better (much better, my version has less BDSM, arserape and necrophilia) understanding of spacetime geometry. (and some interesting astrophysics stuff)
Fayekane.blogspot.com
NSFW NSFW NSFW don't even think about it NSthefuckFW !!
-
I should have said, forwards, with referral to the viewpoint of an observer (I mean this not in the sense of a sentient, or living one, but a fixed reference point with regards to itself, will move forward in time, if it has mass)
I'm hardly the best at physics, and I BLOW at math, so its probably not the best explanation.
But does a 'direction' have to GO anywhere.
Take a car moving along a road. The road (or time as the case may be) doesn't have to move anywhere, the CAR is what moves. Forward, or turn round and head back in the opposite direction.
then time is the road!
and WE are the movement, yes?
But the road is tangible! It is there, a real thing, an object.
Time is like God. It is something human psyche needs there to exist - but that _reality_ has no need for.
Christians are adament God HAS to exist, ask any one of them - their argument is:
The universe cannot come from nothing - so God MUST exist! MUST exist, to explain the universe.
Time MUST exist - MUST exist to represent "the road"
But it all is in our psyche, for us to understand things.
Apart from that, time is nothing. It is a name we give the surroundings in which cars can move at all :D
-
It was a metaphor. And yes, in a sense, as I understand it I think that may be the case. 'we' being 'reality'
Reality happened long before we got on the scene. For something to occur there must be time, no? Take for instance, radioisotope dating. Don't think everything started or stopped decaying for our benefit do you?
-
It was a metaphor. And yes, in a sense, as I understand it I think that may be the case. 'we' being 'reality'
Reality happened long before we got on the scene. For something to occur there must be time, no? Take for instance, radioisotope dating. Don't think everything started or stopped decaying for our benefit do you?
Take any dating. Is the past somewhere else?
The soil you try to date - does it belong to another realm of reality?
No, it's right there.
Did the dinosaurs, who walked upon it - exist in another dimension, in another place? No! They existed in "another time", but that means nothing, because the location is the same! Motion has happend! Motion! Many many times motion! Cellular degeneration many, many, many times, aging each individual dinosaur, aging each individual plant - chemical reactions have happened, many many many!
Time is the name for one or many motions. In fact - time is the SYNONYM for "one or many motions."
"What one-or-many-motions is it?" :D
Now, I must emphasize, this is my personal take on it, so... if you disagree, you are with the major consensus on this, so, it's not a loss in any way :D
-
I haven't the cunting foggiest how to explain to someone else, in a language *I* understand poorly.
And if a mass occupies a point in space, which aside from the (hypothetical) point-like particle (which is zero-dimensional) then like other matter in space, it interacts with the time dimension. Weather from the 'point of view of' time, not that it can have a point of view, we, and the spatial 3D material universe, moves along at the same rate. A perception of time might differ, from a given individual's (I use the possessive) viewpoint, but to an external observer at an unchanging point, one that hypothetically could observe time yet not be affected otherwise (which doesn't exist in practice, to the best of my current knowledge), then two bodies separated by a fixed distance in time, would be 'seen' as moving in the same direction, in a fixed, unchanging ratio of distance between those two bodies.
That is to say, the past never gets a runup and toepunts the present in the nads from behind. The two do not crash into each other.
Zegh, when using 'motion', please do qualify when doing so in a topic like this, as it is important to state weather you mean motion in space, or along the time dimension.
-
I synonymize motion and time.
Once a motion has happened, it has happened. "Time" has passed. With no motion, there is no time. A motionless state of existence is impossible, anywhere, because - according to string theory (the little i understand of it) - motion is the core of all existence.
If time is a measurement of motion, it is entirely dependent of motion, and therefore as good as a synonym of motion. Compare it with "evolution", another word that in reality means nothing. This is NOT blasphemy - if you hear me out :D
Evolution is the result - the symptom - of biological entities battling each others out, or environment interacting with chemical activity in biology. Evolution is the name we give an event once it has allready happened - it is NOT a "rule" that nature "plays by".
Time is just something we call something after it has happened. We observe something, and then we apply time.
Our _mentality_ NEED there to be a "place" in which a past existence can be. We visualize it - for example when carbon dating a piece of rock. We imagine, visualize, a distant past in which this rock was recent. But the rock _IS_ recent RIGHT NOW. It is in your hand, is it not? It's not in a distant past. It has merely experienced a lot of motion :D
-
Your correct in that actually. Zero-point energy is for instance, the reason why the helium isotope 4He does not freeze. Even at absolute zero there is still that vacuum energy there to create movement.
Or is it 3He...ugh, I'm tired, sleep deprived. Possibly not the best frame of mind for a dyscalculic to try and explain space-time geometry. Either way, one of the two turns superfluid, rather than solidifies, and this has to do with its zero point energy. That energy is just enough to keep some tiny bit of motion going, enough to ensure that the very minimum potential well, energetically speaking, is not reachable.
-
Your correct in that actually. Zero-point energy is for instance, the reason why the helium isotope 4He does not freeze. Even at absolute zero there is still that vacuum energy there to create movement.
Or is it 3He...ugh, I'm tired, sleep deprived. Possibly not the best frame of mind for a dyscalculic to try and explain space-time geometry. Either way, one of the two turns superfluid, rather than solidifies, and this has to do with its zero point energy. That energy is just enough to keep some tiny bit of motion going, enough to ensure that the very minimum potential well, energetically speaking, is not reachable.
Hey, take my ramblings w some salt ;D It was fun discussing anyway! :D
If you really wanna go insane, there is a favorite "human idea" to apply to things that it is not applicable to: "Why" :D
"Why is energy? :0"
"Why is space? :0"
people love that :D
"Why is life? :0"
-
I also disagree with calling "time" a dimension.
In fact, I disagree with a lot of ideas about "time". People treat "time" like a tangible object, just because we gave it a name. "Travel in time" "Bending time" counting it as a dimension, which otherwis were just directional markers, when did time become a direction?
Then they just roll with it - and base tons of research ON the assumption that time is an object and a dimension and a place in some country, that we can travel to...
So, what would you label it instead? How would you characterise time?
What is a dimension, to you?
Time is whatever we name the difference between one physical event and another. Dimensions are directional cues.
It's all arbitrary.
Why don't you include "hope" as a dimension? Or "life"? Or gravity? Why is "time" special? Imho, "time" doesn't even deserve a name :M It is arbitrary, and it is a human trait to regard something as untangible as "time" as a real physical object "let's travel through time! Yes - right through it, as if it was a ginger-bread dough!"
There are some difficulties with including "hope" in an equation, not to mention the fact that it would make little sense trying to do so in the first place.
Time, however, is essential when attempting to describe the universe. It's not arbitrary and it has directionality.
All you need to study it is a simple watch and, um, some time and space. And if you have a very large object nearby, you can observe some truly amazing things. Not intangible at all.
-
All you need to study it is a simple watch and, um, some time and space. And if you have a very large object nearby, you can observe some truly amazing things. Not intangible at all.
A watch?
You... tell me that a WATCH... can explain "time" to me?
A mechanical object that needs a battery in order to run, that is based on the swinging of a planet around a star?
come on, Odeon, we're talking about much deeper concepts than wether on not a watch runs.
What happens if the watch goes to fast? Time speeds up? :D
I'm not so daft that I haven't discovered watches or calledars, and never noticed a human sense of time before, that isn't the discussion here... :D
anyway, wanna know what I mean, read my replies to Lestat up there, otherwise I'm gonna hafta explain myself all over again. But this is NOT about watches, digital or traditional, and not about callendars. Western or Asian...
-
odeon non est philosophus. Nerd est :M
-
Perhaps travelling ALONG time would be a much better metaphor.
It is a direction. In the case of matter with positive mass, forwards.
Forwards?
What IS forwards?
Do you mean ---------------------------------------> this direction? From left to right? Because that is the way we read? Our eyes? Our culture?
OR
do you mean forwards in terms of pedal locomotion? What if I U-turn? What is forwards then? What if two people walk past each others? Which one is walking forwards?
:D
It's all arbitrary... Time doesn't go in a direction "forwards" or "backwards", in fact, time NEVER went "backwards" for comparison, meaning time only goes one direction.
If there is no white, can there be black? If there is no up, can there be down?
If time only does one thing, can there be an alternative thing for it to ever do? No!
Time is fleshed out - by us, people, by our culture and our perception - fleshed out way beyond its real nature - which is just a measurement of one motion compared to another motion :I
I guess this puts me in disagreement with most physicists in the world, but I just cannot accept that time is trivialized like that - we travel through it like a tunnel? Tunnel made of cement? We travel alongside it, like a railing? A railing made of brass or stone or wood? It travels forwards. Why can't it travel sideways? How does it travel? How can time afford plane tickets, if it does not have a job?
I know I make it very silly now, but... that how I see it - giving time all of these properties :D
Silly, yes, and wrong. You make it very easy for yourself, mixing concepts (and dimensions) where it suits you. I wonder if it is because your grasp of them is weak, or is this just some basic silliness at work, a reaction of some kind?
May I suggest you to read a book or two about physics? Start with Newtonian physics and his concept of time, but do include something about relativistic physics and the Minkowski space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space).
Good luck.
-
odeon non est philosophus. Nerd est :M
Posting nonsense doesn't make you a philosopher. It just makes you stupid.
-
It only "explains" the concepts of a model, though.
Wittgenstein said that great philosophy should only be written as poems :M
-
Research involving time tends to take the assumption that time allready is tangible
'Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe – a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[20][21] The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[15] and Immanuel Kant,[22][23] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.'
It also is a matter of semantics... like I pointed out before. What names we give what we have around us, and whenever we give two names to one idea, or overlapping ideas.
-
You... tell me that a WATCH... can explain "time" to me?
:laugh: This is the best thing I've read in a while.
-
great philosophy should only be written as poems :M
:thumbup:
-
So, what would you label it instead? How would you characterise time?
Someone I know once called it a vector.
-
Vectors are dimensions, to me.
Not are, in the literal sense, but a vector signifies a dimension to me.
-
Guess it could be. Try not to think about time too much; it's upsetting. The only time I know is now.
-
Even if there are higher dimensions, three dimensional beings can't experience them so they don't matter. :tard:
Yup.
Ah, but wait!
Helping one to express or experience dimensions above ones sensory set is why we create art!
:o
I am making art lately, but so far it all seems confined to my current sensory set. :tard:
-
The Romans weren't into such nonsense. In Rome it was 1 o'clock when the sun rose, and 6 o'clock at noon, 12 o'clock when the sun set :M
That's because the Romans were ignorant and couldn't tell time. :trollface:
-
who is odeon!
A better question is "what is odeon?"
:moomin:
Moomintrolls are adept at moving between dimensions. They are masters of the known universe! :orly:
-
It only "explains" the concepts of a model, though.
Wittgenstein said that great philosophy should only be written as poems :M
Poems are stupid, except for dirty limericks about young men from Nantucket. :trollface:
-
You... tell me that a WATCH... can explain "time" to me?
:laugh: This is the best thing I've read in a while.
:headbang: Sig that shit, Jack! Do it! Do it! :headbang:
-
Guess it could be. Try not to think about time too much; it's upsetting. The only time I know is now.
I'm at the age of trying to imagine the world when I'm gone. I am feeling my age and mortality! :prude:
-
In 1997, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena proposed1 that an audacious model of the Universe in which gravity arises from infinitesimally thin, vibrating strings
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/string_theory.png)
Exactly. Explain the math to me, or its fucking religion and/or fantasy. Either that or give me a physical demonstration of the phenomenon you're trying to illustrate.
-
You... tell me that a WATCH... can explain "time" to me?
:laugh: This is the best thing I've read in a while.
:headbang: Sig that shit, Jack! Do it! Do it! :headbang:
Don't really want a signature. There's only two I've been very tempted to use. One is my own. What should be on my tombstone: Mine should have no dates and say, She never knew what day it was anyway. The other is yours: Jack is evil, but in a good way. :)
-
Exactly. Explain the math to me, or its fucking religion and/or fantasy. Either that or give me a physical demonstration of the phenomenon you're trying to illustrate.
The physical demonstration of string theory is rather boring in imagery. Like thinking about it as religion too, but find nothing wrong with god particles.
-
Guess it could be. Try not to think about time too much; it's upsetting. The only time I know is now.
I'm at the age of trying to imagine the world when I'm gone. I am feeling my age and mortality! :prude:
You just reminded me of wolfish.
-
Guess it could be. Try not to think about time too much; it's upsetting. The only time I know is now.
I'm at the age of trying to imagine the world when I'm gone. I am feeling my age and mortality! :prude:
You just reminded me of wolfish.
It's an odd feeling, this acceptance of mortality. A few years ago, while waiting at a bus stop, I observed people
walking around on the street and realized that many of them will outlive me. It actually made me feel better, to know
that life will carry on. I tend to think death = the total end of existence, so maybe it will feel like going to sleep.
I love the feeling of falling asleep. My brother has bet me a dollar that there's an afterlife. I guess we'll find out. :laugh:
-
Guess it could be. Try not to think about time too much; it's upsetting. The only time I know is now.
I'm at the age of trying to imagine the world when I'm gone. I am feeling my age and mortality! :prude:
You just reminded me of wolfish.
It's an odd feeling, this acceptance of mortality. A few years ago, while waiting at a bus stop, I observed people
walking around on the street and realized that many of them will outlive me. It actually made me feel better, to know
that life will carry on. I tend to think death = the total end of existence, so maybe it will feel like going to sleep.
I love the feeling of falling asleep. My brother has bet me a dollar that there's an afterlife. I guess we'll find out. :laugh:
Don't really think about my own death. You reminded me of one time wolfish was concerned about being remembered after he is dead. Not sure if you worry about that, but I'll remember you when you're dead too. :)
-
Guess it could be. Try not to think about time too much; it's upsetting. The only time I know is now.
I'm at the age of trying to imagine the world when I'm gone. I am feeling my age and mortality! :prude:
You just reminded me of wolfish.
It's an odd feeling, this acceptance of mortality. A few years ago, while waiting at a bus stop, I observed people
walking around on the street and realized that many of them will outlive me. It actually made me feel better, to know
that life will carry on. I tend to think death = the total end of existence, so maybe it will feel like going to sleep.
I love the feeling of falling asleep. My brother has bet me a dollar that there's an afterlife. I guess we'll find out. :laugh:
Don't really think about my own death. You reminded me of one time wolfish was concerned about being remembered after he is dead. Not sure if you worry about that, but I'll remember you when you're dead too. :)
And I'll remember you. :)
One reason for my thinking about this is that my brother has been going through old photos of our parents' families.
Our parents married later in life and we never knew any grandparents and had very little extended family.
Seeing all these pictures, I feel a sense of loss, that we never met these people. Also, my brother has been de-hoarding
the house, and seeing so many personal items that our parents will never use again, things we'll probably end up giving away
or selling, I'm sad to think that their time has passed (Dad is still alive but very old and frail) and that so much of what
they were, what they became, is gone, their belongings now just relics. It's odd, and sad. :apondering:
-
The Romans weren't into such nonsense. In Rome it was 1 o'clock when the sun rose, and 6 o'clock at noon, 12 o'clock when the sun set :M
WTF is it with YOU and Rome these days?
The fall of (TeH Greatness) of Rome occurred well over a thousand and a half years ago.
:???:
Latine disco. Mannulus Romanus sum :M
Use English or Spanish and we can discuss this. The only Latin I know was picked up from investigation of science. I have NO conversational Latin to call upon.
If I "google" your response, I find inane bullshit as result. Please, tell me you are not just trying to be cool and posting inane bullshit.
-
I also disagree with calling "time" a dimension.
In fact, I disagree with a lot of ideas about "time". People treat "time" like a tangible object, just because we gave it a name. "Travel in time" "Bending time" counting it as a dimension, which otherwis were just directional markers, when did time become a direction?
Then they just roll with it - and base tons of research ON the assumption that time is an object and a dimension and a place in some country, that we can travel to...
So, what would you label it instead? How would you characterise time?
What is a dimension, to you?
Time is whatever we name the difference between one physical event and another. Dimensions are directional cues.
It's all arbitrary.
Why don't you include "hope" as a dimension? Or "life"? Or gravity? Why is "time" special? Imho, "time" doesn't even deserve a name :M It is arbitrary, and it is a human trait to regard something as untangible as "time" as a real physical object "let's travel through time! Yes - right through it, as if it was a ginger-bread dough!"
There are some difficulties with including "hope" in an equation, not to mention the fact that it would make little sense trying to do so in the first place.
Time, however, is essential when attempting to describe the universe. It's not arbitrary and it has directionality.
All you need to study it is a simple watch and, um, some time and space. And if you have a very large object nearby, you can observe some truly amazing things. Not intangible at all.
Maybe you can help.
I am still confused as to whether Time more resembles a simple bipolar vector, its undeniable force traveling in opposite directions, all of existence along for the ride (only accounting for ONE dimension, mind you) or is it actually more like an explosion of an infinite number of vectors radially expanding in every possibly direction, from every event susceptible to Time and intersecting randomly at every other event susceptible, along with all vectors being somewhat perturbed by all other events, some of which Time itself has not yet encountered.
If this were the actual state of time, an infinite number of vectors radiating from the first event, then perturbed by every other event, would it not account for some of the indefinably dis-ordinate properties of Dark Energy?
???
-
Research involving time tends to take the assumption that time allready is tangible
Actually, what happened is that time as a dimension turned out to be a useful concept in science. There is a difference between assuming and postulating.
'Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe – a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[20][21] The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[15] and Immanuel Kant,[22][23] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.'
It also is a matter of semantics... like I pointed out before. What names we give what we have around us, and whenever we give two names to one idea, or overlapping ideas.
It is very much a matter of semantics, but you're not using the right language and so your understanding of and your ability to explain what is around you suffers.
-
Vectors are dimensions, to me.
Not are, in the literal sense, but a vector signifies a dimension to me.
Vectors are dimensions.
-
I also disagree with calling "time" a dimension.
In fact, I disagree with a lot of ideas about "time". People treat "time" like a tangible object, just because we gave it a name. "Travel in time" "Bending time" counting it as a dimension, which otherwis were just directional markers, when did time become a direction?
Then they just roll with it - and base tons of research ON the assumption that time is an object and a dimension and a place in some country, that we can travel to...
So, what would you label it instead? How would you characterise time?
What is a dimension, to you?
Time is whatever we name the difference between one physical event and another. Dimensions are directional cues.
It's all arbitrary.
Why don't you include "hope" as a dimension? Or "life"? Or gravity? Why is "time" special? Imho, "time" doesn't even deserve a name :M It is arbitrary, and it is a human trait to regard something as untangible as "time" as a real physical object "let's travel through time! Yes - right through it, as if it was a ginger-bread dough!"
There are some difficulties with including "hope" in an equation, not to mention the fact that it would make little sense trying to do so in the first place.
Time, however, is essential when attempting to describe the universe. It's not arbitrary and it has directionality.
All you need to study it is a simple watch and, um, some time and space. And if you have a very large object nearby, you can observe some truly amazing things. Not intangible at all.
Maybe you can help.
I am still confused as to whether Time more resembles a simple bipolar vector, its undeniable force traveling in opposite directions, all of existence along for the ride (only accounting for ONE dimension, mind you) or is it actually more like an explosion of an infinite number of vectors radially expanding in every possibly direction, from every event susceptible to Time and intersecting randomly at every other event susceptible, along with all vectors being somewhat perturbed by all other events, some of which Time itself has not yet encountered.
If this were the actual state of time, an infinite number of vectors radiating from the first event, then perturbed by every other event, would it not account for some of the indefinably dis-ordinate properties of Dark Energy?
???
I believe most accepted models account for a single dimension, a single temporal property as opposed to several spatial properties.
It is an interesting idea to use several temporal properties in a model, but I don't think i's warranted, and I suspect the mathematics would be hairy, to say the least.
-
Vectors are dimensions, to me.
Not are, in the literal sense, but a vector signifies a dimension to me.
Vectors are dimensions.
But time as a vector is represented by the three dimensions of space one already knows.
-
Vectors are dimensions, to me.
Not are, in the literal sense, but a vector signifies a dimension to me.
Vectors are dimensions.
But time as a vector is represented by the three dimensions of space one already knows.
With vectors one can calculate in multiple dimensions at ease. It's the imagination that fails, not the numbers.
-
Vectors are dimensions, to me.
Not are, in the literal sense, but a vector signifies a dimension to me.
Vectors are dimensions.
But time as a vector is represented by the three dimensions of space one already knows.
With vectors one can calculate in multiple dimensions at ease. It's the imagination that fails, not the numbers.
But without the numbers, time has no basis in reality. Well, not for me anyway. Tough topic.
-
Vectors are dimensions, to me.
Not are, in the literal sense, but a vector signifies a dimension to me.
Vectors are dimensions.
But time as a vector is represented by the three dimensions of space one already knows.
With vectors one can calculate in multiple dimensions at ease. It's the imagination that fails, not the numbers.
But without the numbers, time has no basis in reality. Well, not for me anyway. Tough topic.
Indeed.
-
I also disagree with calling "time" a dimension.
In fact, I disagree with a lot of ideas about "time". People treat "time" like a tangible object, just because we gave it a name. "Travel in time" "Bending time" counting it as a dimension, which otherwis were just directional markers, when did time become a direction?
Then they just roll with it - and base tons of research ON the assumption that time is an object and a dimension and a place in some country, that we can travel to...
So, what would you label it instead? How would you characterise time?
What is a dimension, to you?
Time is whatever we name the difference between one physical event and another. Dimensions are directional cues.
It's all arbitrary.
Why don't you include "hope" as a dimension? Or "life"? Or gravity? Why is "time" special? Imho, "time" doesn't even deserve a name :M It is arbitrary, and it is a human trait to regard something as untangible as "time" as a real physical object "let's travel through time! Yes - right through it, as if it was a ginger-bread dough!"
There are some difficulties with including "hope" in an equation, not to mention the fact that it would make little sense trying to do so in the first place.
Time, however, is essential when attempting to describe the universe. It's not arbitrary and it has directionality.
All you need to study it is a simple watch and, um, some time and space. And if you have a very large object nearby, you can observe some truly amazing things. Not intangible at all.
Maybe you can help.
I am still confused as to whether Time more resembles a simple bipolar vector, its undeniable force traveling in opposite directions, all of existence along for the ride (only accounting for ONE dimension, mind you) or is it actually more like an explosion of an infinite number of vectors radially expanding in every possibly direction, from every event susceptible to Time and intersecting randomly at every other event susceptible, along with all vectors being somewhat perturbed by all other events, some of which Time itself has not yet encountered.
If this were the actual state of time, an infinite number of vectors radiating from the first event, then perturbed by every other event, would it not account for some of the indefinably dis-ordinate properties of Dark Energy?
???
I believe most accepted models account for a single dimension, a single temporal property as opposed to several spatial properties.
It is an interesting idea to use several temporal properties in a model, but I don't think i's warranted, and I suspect the mathematics would be hairy, to say the least.
Hairy and harried mathematics, indeed.
I think you might have meant several temporal properties as impossible to do more than surmise (since this one we can interpret seems to be the most we conceive of in our right minds). We already accept, for the most part, spatial properties to be "several" in our simplified view: at least three we can define and imagine, right?
AS you asked; What is a dimension? What properties do specific influences (or errors in the established math) pose which might lead one to accept that those errors in the math may represent an additional dimension?
I honestly did not expect a serious answer. I posed an impossible question that one might pose while every one is sitting around stoned, looking into a fire or something.
I expected a :LOL: face.
... But thank you.
I have been wondering about just how time works against matter (I do not mean rust, chaos, entropy or anti-entropy) and just how the space between is filled (it IS filled with something and something else that forces it against the rest of the somethings, we know this and can prove it.) for a long time.
Again, I do not have sufficient education to expect an actual answer from you. I am a layman.
I do have fun thinking though and an infinite set of vectors of time emanating from every "event," each vector on its own course, coursing through the matter which each time vector encounters, is altered by every event that follows, yet dragging every particle of matter along into a single future, just as long as another, stronger time vector does not capture that bit of matter for a while, until another even stronger time vector (strong could probably mean young in this context, since each vector is caused by an "Event") is one of the fun things I think about, however impossible it may be to quantify.
???
:asthing:
-
spatial
This word was doing my head in this morning.
-
I also disagree with calling "time" a dimension.
In fact, I disagree with a lot of ideas about "time". People treat "time" like a tangible object, just because we gave it a name. "Travel in time" "Bending time" counting it as a dimension, which otherwis were just directional markers, when did time become a direction?
Then they just roll with it - and base tons of research ON the assumption that time is an object and a dimension and a place in some country, that we can travel to...
So, what would you label it instead? How would you characterise time?
What is a dimension, to you?
Time is whatever we name the difference between one physical event and another. Dimensions are directional cues.
It's all arbitrary.
Why don't you include "hope" as a dimension? Or "life"? Or gravity? Why is "time" special? Imho, "time" doesn't even deserve a name :M It is arbitrary, and it is a human trait to regard something as untangible as "time" as a real physical object "let's travel through time! Yes - right through it, as if it was a ginger-bread dough!"
There are some difficulties with including "hope" in an equation, not to mention the fact that it would make little sense trying to do so in the first place.
Time, however, is essential when attempting to describe the universe. It's not arbitrary and it has directionality.
All you need to study it is a simple watch and, um, some time and space. And if you have a very large object nearby, you can observe some truly amazing things. Not intangible at all.
Maybe you can help.
I am still confused as to whether Time more resembles a simple bipolar vector, its undeniable force traveling in opposite directions, all of existence along for the ride (only accounting for ONE dimension, mind you) or is it actually more like an explosion of an infinite number of vectors radially expanding in every possibly direction, from every event susceptible to Time and intersecting randomly at every other event susceptible, along with all vectors being somewhat perturbed by all other events, some of which Time itself has not yet encountered.
If this were the actual state of time, an infinite number of vectors radiating from the first event, then perturbed by every other event, would it not account for some of the indefinably dis-ordinate properties of Dark Energy?
???
I believe most accepted models account for a single dimension, a single temporal property as opposed to several spatial properties.
It is an interesting idea to use several temporal properties in a model, but I don't think i's warranted, and I suspect the mathematics would be hairy, to say the least.
Hairy and harried mathematics, indeed.
I think you might have meant several temporal properties as impossible to do more than surmise (since this one we can interpret seems to be the most we conceive of in our right minds). We already accept, for the most part, spatial properties to be "several" in our simplified view: at least three we can define and imagine, right?
AS you asked; What is a dimension? What properties do specific influences (or errors in the established math) pose which might lead one to accept that those errors in the math may represent an additional dimension?
I honestly did not expect a serious answer. I posed an impossible question that one might pose while every one is sitting around stoned, looking into a fire or something.
I expected a :LOL: face.
... But thank you.
I have been wondering about just how time works against matter (I do not mean rust, chaos, entropy or anti-entropy) and just how the space between is filled (it IS filled with something and something else that forces it against the rest of the somethings, we know this and can prove it.) for a long time.
Again, I do not have sufficient education to expect an actual answer from you. I am a layman.
I do have fun thinking though and an infinite set of vectors of time emanating from every "event," each vector on its own course, coursing through the matter which each time vector encounters, is altered by every event that follows, yet dragging every particle of matter along into a single future, just as long as another, stronger time vector does not capture that bit of matter for a while, until another even stronger time vector (strong could probably mean young in this context, since each vector is caused by an "Event") is one of the fun things I think about, however impossible it may be to quantify.
???
:asthing:
The problem with defining any multidimensional model beyond Euclidean space is that our ability to visualise it in our minds is limited, to say the least. It does not need to be a problem when writing the equations (although it is), but it is a huge problem when imagining such a model, since our brains require "common sense".
And common sense just isn't what you expect it to be, here.
-
I also disagree with calling "time" a dimension.
In fact, I disagree with a lot of ideas about "time". People treat "time" like a tangible object, just because we gave it a name. "Travel in time" "Bending time" counting it as a dimension, which otherwis were just directional markers, when did time become a direction?
Then they just roll with it - and base tons of research ON the assumption that time is an object and a dimension and a place in some country, that we can travel to...
So, what would you label it instead? How would you characterise time?
What is a dimension, to you?
Time is whatever we name the difference between one physical event and another. Dimensions are directional cues.
It's all arbitrary.
Why don't you include "hope" as a dimension? Or "life"? Or gravity? Why is "time" special? Imho, "time" doesn't even deserve a name :M It is arbitrary, and it is a human trait to regard something as untangible as "time" as a real physical object "let's travel through time! Yes - right through it, as if it was a ginger-bread dough!"
There are some difficulties with including "hope" in an equation, not to mention the fact that it would make little sense trying to do so in the first place.
Time, however, is essential when attempting to describe the universe. It's not arbitrary and it has directionality.
All you need to study it is a simple watch and, um, some time and space. And if you have a very large object nearby, you can observe some truly amazing things. Not intangible at all.
Maybe you can help.
I am still confused as to whether Time more resembles a simple bipolar vector, its undeniable force traveling in opposite directions, all of existence along for the ride (only accounting for ONE dimension, mind you) or is it actually more like an explosion of an infinite number of vectors radially expanding in every possibly direction, from every event susceptible to Time and intersecting randomly at every other event susceptible, along with all vectors being somewhat perturbed by all other events, some of which Time itself has not yet encountered.
If this were the actual state of time, an infinite number of vectors radiating from the first event, then perturbed by every other event, would it not account for some of the indefinably dis-ordinate properties of Dark Energy?
???
I believe most accepted models account for a single dimension, a single temporal property as opposed to several spatial properties.
It is an interesting idea to use several temporal properties in a model, but I don't think i's warranted, and I suspect the mathematics would be hairy, to say the least.
Hairy and harried mathematics, indeed.
I think you might have meant several temporal properties as impossible to do more than surmise (since this one we can interpret seems to be the most we conceive of in our right minds). We already accept, for the most part, spatial properties to be "several" in our simplified view: at least three we can define and imagine, right?
AS you asked; What is a dimension? What properties do specific influences (or errors in the established math) pose which might lead one to accept that those errors in the math may represent an additional dimension?
I honestly did not expect a serious answer. I posed an impossible question that one might pose while every one is sitting around stoned, looking into a fire or something.
I expected a :LOL: face.
... But thank you.
I have been wondering about just how time works against matter (I do not mean rust, chaos, entropy or anti-entropy) and just how the space between is filled (it IS filled with something and something else that forces it against the rest of the somethings, we know this and can prove it.) for a long time.
Again, I do not have sufficient education to expect an actual answer from you. I am a layman.
I do have fun thinking though and an infinite set of vectors of time emanating from every "event," each vector on its own course, coursing through the matter which each time vector encounters, is altered by every event that follows, yet dragging every particle of matter along into a single future, just as long as another, stronger time vector does not capture that bit of matter for a while, until another even stronger time vector (strong could probably mean young in this context, since each vector is caused by an "Event") is one of the fun things I think about, however impossible it may be to quantify.
???
:asthing:
The problem with defining any multidimensional model beyond Euclidean space is that our ability to visualise it in our minds is limited, to say the least. It does not need to be a problem when writing the equations (although it is), but it is a huge problem when imagining such a model, since our brains require "common sense".
And common sense just isn't what you expect it to be, here.
:indeed:
That's where math became a problem for me.
As long as I could visualise, or visualise via a formula, I had no problems with math at all. I could just see. And managed to get a 100% score, first year at uni. After that, it went down-hill. Beyond 6 dimensions was "just" numbers.
Time to revive my skills. Maybe I can do better now, getting older.
-
Interestingly, as the mind matures toward a line/point/space (not sure which or is it simply a point/line/space Or all three leading up to something to do with time, whether it is time left or time passed) ones imagination seems to balloon. I wonder what it must be like for one ( You know who) who has little more than a mind from which to do all his work.
(TeH HORROR!! TeH HORROR!!)
How does he ever "carry?"
:GA:
-
:indeed:
That's where math became a problem for me.
As long as I could visualise, or visualise via a formula, I had no problems with math at all. I could just see. And managed to get a 100% score, first year at uni. After that, it went down-hill. Beyond 6 dimensions was "just" numbers.
Time to revive my skills. Maybe I can do better now, getting older.
What kind of maths did you study at the uni?
-
Interestingly, as the mind matures toward a line/point/space (not sure which or is it simply a point/line/space Or all three leading up to something to do with time, whether it is time left or time passed) ones imagination seems to balloon. I wonder what it must be like for one ( You know who) who has little more than a mind from which to do all his work.
(TeH HORROR!! TeH HORROR!!)
How does he ever "carry?"
:GA:
I hope he's got help, in some way or another.
-
Exactly. Explain the math to me, or its fucking religion and/or fantasy. Either that or give me a physical demonstration of the phenomenon you're trying to illustrate.
The physical demonstration of string theory is rather boring in imagery. Like thinking about it as religion too, but find nothing wrong with god particles.
Imagery. Exactly. ;)
-
And "imagery" is why this all is so difficult.
Not everything is readily available for projection into something we already know.
-
Agreed. I never said that science like this was easy to explain or prove. I guess what i'm trying to say is that a big chunk of the theoretical physics community tend to get a little ahead of themselves.
-
Actually it's what theoretical physics is about.
-
:indeed:
That's where math became a problem for me.
As long as I could visualise, or visualise via a formula, I had no problems with math at all. I could just see. And managed to get a 100% score, first year at uni. After that, it went down-hill. Beyond 6 dimensions was "just" numbers.
Time to revive my skills. Maybe I can do better now, getting older.
What kind of maths did you study at the uni?
Basic math skills expanding secondary school math, in the end focusing on lots and lots of vector calculations.
In secondary school I had all math I could get, and one of my classes only consisted of seven students. So we got through the obligatory stuff really fast, and our teacher added other stuff like complex numbers to keep us happy.
Not having done anything with it for decades, I find lots of my skills are gone. Time to revive them. I'm going through third grade secondary books with ease now. It is time my daughter moves on to the next grade. :laugh:
I always sucked at statistics. Never was my thing. The rest all was OK.
It is funny to see how in the new rules around math in secondary school, statistics is seen as the most simple form of math.
-
Agreed. I never said that science like this was easy to explain or prove. I guess what i'm trying to say is that a big chunk of the theoretical physics community tend to get a little ahead of themselves.
But, getting ahead of themselves, they may find things they could not find by expanding on what can be imagined, yet it may work in practice.
-
:indeed:
That's where math became a problem for me.
As long as I could visualise, or visualise via a formula, I had no problems with math at all. I could just see. And managed to get a 100% score, first year at uni. After that, it went down-hill. Beyond 6 dimensions was "just" numbers.
Time to revive my skills. Maybe I can do better now, getting older.
What kind of maths did you study at the uni?
Basic math skills expanding secondary school math, in the end focusing on lots and lots of vector calculations.
In secondary school I had all math I could get, and one of my classes only consisted of seven students. So we got through the obligatory stuff really fast, and our teacher added other stuff like complex numbers to keep us happy.
Not having done anything with it for decades, I find lots of my skills are gone. Time to revive them. I'm going through third grade secondary books with ease now. It is time my daughter moves on to the next grade. :laugh:
I always sucked at statistics. Never was my thing. The rest all was OK.
It is funny to see how in the new rules around math in secondary school, statistics is seen as the most simple form of math.
Perhaps it is, for their purposes? I'm assuming they leave out a lot of the fun stuff?
-
:indeed:
That's where math became a problem for me.
As long as I could visualise, or visualise via a formula, I had no problems with math at all. I could just see. And managed to get a 100% score, first year at uni. After that, it went down-hill. Beyond 6 dimensions was "just" numbers.
Time to revive my skills. Maybe I can do better now, getting older.
What kind of maths did you study at the uni?
Basic math skills expanding secondary school math, in the end focusing on lots and lots of vector calculations.
In secondary school I had all math I could get, and one of my classes only consisted of seven students. So we got through the obligatory stuff really fast, and our teacher added other stuff like complex numbers to keep us happy.
Not having done anything with it for decades, I find lots of my skills are gone. Time to revive them. I'm going through third grade secondary books with ease now. It is time my daughter moves on to the next grade. :laugh:
I always sucked at statistics. Never was my thing. The rest all was OK.
It is funny to see how in the new rules around math in secondary school, statistics is seen as the most simple form of math.
Perhaps it is, for their purposes? I'm assuming they leave out a lot of the fun stuff?
They made math an obligatory exam subject for pre-uni secondary schools. So, they had to come up with a version that could be doable for students that suck at math.
They also made two foreign languages obligatory for those students. I would have had a problem had that been true in my time. I had Dutch, English, and the rest was bèta subjects. I loved my program then.