This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The source for the statement
appears to be self-contradictory. To quote the source (Max Tegmark):
the remaining case (n,m) = (1, 3) is mathematically equivalent to the case where (n,m) = (3, 1) and all particles are tachyons [14] with imaginary rest mass. Also in this case, an observer would be unable to make any predictions, since as described in more detail in [15], wellposed problems require data to be specified in the nonlocal region outside the lightcones. If two cases are mathematically equivalent (i.e. indistinguishable), one cannot then distinguish them on mathematical grounds as producing wildly (and hence observably) different predictions. All that would happen is that the three "timelike" dimensions become equivalent to spacelike dimensions and the "spacelike" dimension becomes a timelike dimension (and the supposed tachyons become standard non-tachyons with timelike worldlines inside the light cones with this relabelling), supporting the indistinguishability statement. Blindly quoting an obviously invalid (or naïvely misinterpretable) assertion from a source should be excluded or clarified correctly. — Quondum 17:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
For example, on the globe the latitude and longitude are two independent coordinates which together uniquely determine a location.
That sentence could be expanded to include altitude which brings the reader from 2 to 3 coordinates which is the next logical stepping point on to the fourth which includes time. Damotclese ( talk) 02:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm new, but I don't see how to edit the References on this wiki page. The Ehrenfest article is in Annalen der Physik volume 366, not volume 61 as listed both in the References and in the External Links. (The page number is correct, as is the year.) This can be verified by following the Bibcode link in the References (Reference 14) or by surveying Annalen der Physik. (The original article is in German.) An English version (not sure whether it is a strict translation) can be found in the Proceedings of the Amsterdam Academy listed under the same Reference 14. Giarcea ( talk) 04:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)giarcea
The article does not mention different views/theories about space-time; such as the ones in this article ( http://www.alfonsoleonguillen.net/Spacetime56.pdf).
In addition to that, it should be stated somewhere in the article that, space-time has been continuously being created/added since the beginning of the universe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJayxpt482g Logos5557 ( talk) 19:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
"The interval s² between two events is defined as s² = Δr² − c²Δt², where c is …, and Δr and Δt …"
Why is s squared? Why not simply call it X or Y or I or S ? --
Jerome Potts (
talk)
17:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Isn’t it important to distinguish between spacetime as a mathematical model and spacetime as an object in an external world? One is a thought inside an observer’s brain and the other is an object outside an observer's brain. Lestrade ( talk) 22:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Lestrade
Everyone tells me that spacetime is a real world entity, but I have yet to see or feel it in my daily comings and goings. I guess that the distinction between what is inside the brain (mathematical model) and what is outside the brain (real world entity) is some old, outdated notion that belongs in the dustbin of history. Lestrade ( talk) 15:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Lestrade
I merely suggested that it is important for the article to distinguish between spacetime as a mathematical model and spacetime as a physical object. One is inside of someone's brain and the other is outside of someone's brain. Lestrade ( talk) 15:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Lestrade
In an article on “spacetime,” the definition of spacetime is a meta-issue? The difference between spacetime as a mathematical concept in someone’s mind might be different from spacetime as a physical entity that is curved, becomes warped when matter is near it, and is, itself, located in space. In this way, some naïve reader of the Wikipedia article may think that there are two kinds of spacetime: one a private idea in a mathematician's brain, and the other a curved, warped, public, physical object that is similar to a fabric or rubber sheet. Such a situation would lead to ambiguity and misunderstanding. Lestrade ( talk) 00:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Lestrade
From a Euclidean space perspective, the universe has three dimensions of space and one of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.
I would think that an encyclopedia article on spacetime would tell a reader what spacetime is. Is it a mathematical model (inside your head) or a physical entity (outside your head)? Lestrade ( talk) 02:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Lestrade
Spatial density and the timing of velocity are directly linked to each other, because if one value changes, the other one will change at a uniform rate. The link between the two is not understood, but it is known to exist, so to give the link between space and time a name, spacetime. There is various literature that accompanies theories about spacetime... counting dimensions, travelling without moving, time as an individual object, even Einsteins paper called "Space-time" talks about matter showing up where it cannot based on the fact that it cannot and the three lines of a triangle being a single straight line for no physical reason and basically, spacetime is the unexplained link between space and time while most of the stuff that goes with it is what they call a load of ole rubbish, but don't quote me or I will never pass my doctorate in physics! ~ R. T. G 17:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Some of the quotes under 'Spacetime in literature' seem too long not to be block quotes, especially the one from William Rowan Hamilton, since it includes single-quoted passages. The only reason I bring this up is because I was quickly scanning the article, saw a passage that didn't look very wikipedia-like, and had to look up and down several lines before I found any indication that it was from a quote. Has anybody else noticed this? Crazyeirishman ( talk) 14:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm currently working on this article in my sandbox in the very early steps of attempting to bring it to FA, and I believe that the section mentioned in this section header goes off on a tangent and distracts from the rest of this article; it doesn't really belong here. I'd like to hear some further opinions on this, and what should be done with this section if people don't think it should stay. Thanks! StringTheory11 ( t • c) 02:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Editors,
I have an article on time correction that explains the dimension of time as a parameter for several special relativity calculations. I am hoping to add to basic concepts and add to some of my topics to space time if you can look over it. I am wondering if an editor can look at my article and suggest additions for space time please?
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Time_correction
Magravat ( talk) 21:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)MAgravat Magravat ( talk) 21:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)