My comment: >From the beginning i.e. Minus infinity, was God only ie 1 in existence containing all spaces or dimentions which could be an imaginary quantum. Hence, all the dimensions exist but some are local while one is global depending on capacity to comprehend what is global. I figure out that the global dimension will be minus and plus infinity (funny?) I figure that Riemann captured this in conformal mapping of the half-plane mapping b/w z + w planes which makes both infinities to be the beginning and the ending with the conformal maping to the unit circle whose centre is 0. I stand to be corrected but am convinced this is at the centre of the Riemann Hypothesis. Mike Atovigba.
On 2/4/11, epistemology+nore...@googlegroups.com <epistemology+nore...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > ============================================================================= > Today's Topic Summary > ============================================================================= > > Group: epistemology@googlegroups.com > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/topics > > - Physics: The beginning is still in a searching. [1 Update] > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/9b4373c8e8c94890 > > > ============================================================================= > Topic: Physics: The beginning is still in a searching. > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/9b4373c8e8c94890 > ============================================================================= > > ---------- 1 of 1 ---------- > From: sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> > Date: Feb 04 06:47AM -0800 > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/986e8e4d5a15ea5e > > Physics: The beginning is still in a searching. > # > Book ‘Albert Einstein’ by Leopold Infeld. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Infeld > ========================. > Page 114. > Electron, that is, negatively charged particles, produce > an electromagnetic field while in motion. Thus, > in Maxwell’s theory, and later in Lorenz’s theory, we > still find a mixture of the field and particle aspects. > Particles (electrons) move in an electromagnetic field > and influence the field by the motion. > Page 115. > In the electromagnetic theory, we have a mixture of field > and particle concept. The field is produced by the electrons > and their motion. Similarly, in Einstein’s original theory > (GRT), the gravitational field is produced by the bodies > ( stars and nebulas) and their motion. > > The gravitational field is influenced not only by the moving > gravitational masses but also by electromagnetic field itself. > Thus the sources of a gravitational field lie in moving masses, > in moving charges and in the electromagnetic field. > Page 116. > A world without masses, without electrons, without an > electromagnetic field is an empty world. Such an empty > world is flat. But if masses appear, if charged particles > appear, if an electromagnetic field appears then our world > becomes curved. Its geometry is Riemannian, that is, > non- Euclidian. > > The geometry of our world and the gravitational field are > shaped, formed, by moving masses, charges and by the > electromagnetic field. Thus the connection: > Physics- Geometry exists only for gravitational field. > Hermann Weyl , . . . . regarded this difference between the > gravitational and electromagnetic fields as something artificial. > General relativity theory treats these two fields in entirely > different way. The gravitational field is a geometrical field too. > There is, so to speak, a physical and a geometrical aspect of the > gravitational field, but there is only the physical aspect of the > electromagnetic field. > Thus, about 1920, general relativity theory presented a curious > mixture of geometry and physics. > Page 117. > In Relative Theory, the given and unknown form a strange mixture. > Mass, energy has no geometrical counterpart. But the field has. > > Its weak point was the artificial mixture of geometrical and > physical concepts. > > Both the electromagnetic and gravitational theories are dualistic > theories. In both of these theories, we have sources of the field > (charges, particles) and the field itself. Thus we see in both > theories a mixture of two concepts: matter and field. > > It would be philosophically much more satisfactory if we were > able to build a unitary theory based on only one of these concepts. > > Thus Einstein’s aim was to build a pure field theory. > > But we could argue: how can we be satisfied with field equations > alone? We know that matter is as real as stone on which we stumble. > > The supporter of the unitary field view would say that the > existence of what is known as matter should be deduced from > the field equations alone. > > Page118. > The old theories failed to do that. > ==========================. > I try to understand: what Einstein’s colleague professor > Leopold Infeld wanted to explain me in his book. > ==.. > It means I must understand the answers on these questions. > > 1. What was before: gravitational field or gravitational mass? > 1. The GRT says that gravitational masses change the space and > therefore we are talking about so-called ‘gravitational field’ > Infeld wrote: ‘the gravitational field is produced by the bodies > ( stars and nebulas) and their motion ‘ / page 115 / > And not vice versa. > > 2. What was before: electromagnetic field or electromagnetic > particles (charges)? > 2. Historically, the first person who said that there isn’t > electromagnetic field without electron was H. Lorenz. > And I can only repeat the Infeld words from page 115: > ‘ In the electromagnetic theory, we have a mixture of field > and particle concept. The field is produced by the electrons > and their motion.’ And no vice versa. > > 3. What was before: gravitational field or electromagnetic field? > 3. Infeld wrote: > ‘ The gravitational field is influenced not only by the moving > gravitational masses but also by electromagnetic field itself.’ > / Page 115 / > And not vice versa. > > 4. What was before: gravitational mass or electromagnetic > particles (charges)? > 4. The question is hard. I have no answer. > > 5. What is source of gravitational field? > 5. ‘ Thus the sources of a gravitational field lie in moving masses, > in moving charges and in the electromagnetic field.’/ Page 115 / > > 6. What is source of electromagnetic field? > 6. electromagnetic particle (charge) – electron. > > 7. Where did the gravitational masses come from? > 7. I have no answer. > > 8. Where did the electromagnetic particles (charges) > come from? > 8. I have no answer. > ====================.. > # > So, how can I solve my problem and understand > the questions: 4, 7, 8 ? Can Infeld help me? > I reread the pages 114 –115 -116- 117. > Again and again I ask myself questions: > Where does the gravitational mass come from? > Where does the electromagnetic particle (charge) come from? > What was before: gravitational mass or electromagnetic > particle (charge)? > The page 116 paid my attention. > ‘ A world without masses, without electrons, without an > electromagnetic field is an empty world. Such an empty > world is flat. But if masses appear, if charged particles > appear, if an electromagnetic field appears then our world > becomes curved. Its geometry is Riemannian, that is, > non- Euclidian.’ > Good God. Maybe I must think about the reference frame > where these particles can exist and then the answer will come. > How many reference frames I know? . . . Many !! > 1 Euclidian > 2 non- Euclidian > 3 Riemannian > 4 Many D: 5D, 7D, 11D and . . . M. > > Which of these reference frames is source of first particle? > Which of these reference frames is source of Existence? > ===========. > It is clear that the many D and M were grown from a simple D. > 1D and 2D is too simple. > The 3D- Descartes / Newtonian (our world) is seemed to be > the best absolute place for existence. But Einstein and > Minkowski came and said that we all were mistaken. They said > that the best absolute place for existence is ( -4D). > And what about the Riemannian space. > Does ( -4D) exist in Riemannian space or vice versa? > > Again I read the page 116. > In the beginning was nothing. > It was: ‘ A world without masses, without electrons, > without an electromagnetic field is an empty world.’ > > And later: ‘masses appear, charged particles appear, > an electromagnetic field appears then our world > becomes curved. Its geometry is Riemannian, > that is, non- Euclidian.’ > So, in beginning was (-4D). > From this ( -4D) masses appear, charged particles > appear and electromagnetic field appears too. > > And then . . . . .and then . . . . > ‘then our world becomes curved. Its geometry > is Riemannian, that is, non- Euclidian.’ > So . . .!! > It becomes curved and curved and in the end was created > circle, circle of our Sun and our local planetary world , > circle of our Earth and many circles of other stars and > planets. > !! > And who want to understand more must read pages > - 64 – 65 - 66 - 67: the story about creatures who lives > on a two- dimensional plane. > ‘For them the two- dimensional plane will be > what three- dimensional space for us’ > / Page 64./ > ‘ This story is not as fantastic as it sounds. Indeed, some > of its features remind us of the story of our earth and how > its spherical shape was recognized.’ > / Page 65. / > It is a pity and funny story. > But this story doesn’t finish. > In the XXI century we still doesn’t recognize that > Riemannian curved geometry shows us the scheme > of creation of our local Sun - spherical shape. > Once again. > There is empty space. And ‘if masses appear, if charged > particles appear, if an electromagnetic field appears then > our world becomes curved.’ > They appear not as one whole substance. > They appear as separated local very rare mass. > Between them is an empty space. > / Astronomers Find a Hole in the Universe > http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0fb_1188365505 / > So, the Riemannian space cannot belong to the Universe > as whole. The Riemannian space can be only local. > > In my opinion, we are creatures who climbed out to the > two- dimensional cosmos space and saw the Riemannian > curved line of light. We cannot understand that this > curved line is only a small part of a circle, which surrounds > the local gravity space of our Sun and shows us its limit. > And therefore from 1919 the discussions about ‘open’ and > ‘closed’ Universe doesn’t stop until now. > > Best wishes. > Israel Sadovnik Socratus > ==============================. > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
