4 ms·
I think space-time can be defined in terms of mass. time is a change in mass, space is the number of atoms that can fit between here and there. mass has 4 dime
by nazgulnarsil 18y ago
I think space-time can be defined in terms of mass. time is a change in mass, space is the number of atoms that can fit between here and there.
mass has 4 dimensions, so space time does as well.
if mass had a different number of dimensions so would space time.
- khafra 18y agoI try to avoid snark on YC, but the "armchair philosopher" approach to physics makes me think of http://www.timecube.com http://www.timecube.com
- nazgulnarsil 18y agowhat exactly is a thought experiment then?
- hugh 18y agoA great(ish) philosopher once said that the point of having philosophers was to save regular people from the effort of having to think about philosophical questions. Likewise, the point of having physicists is to save regular people from having to think up nonsense pseudotheories on their own. I just saved you some time.
- nazgulnarsil 18y agoDon't mistake my intentions, I'm not out to prove anything. the idea that our reality is defined by the properties of mass is more philosophy than science. I'm a materialist reductionist, and really my take on this is that it is a human centered subject-object orientation.
- jpeterson 18y agospace is the number of atoms that can fit between here and there What about the space between the nucleus and electrons of an atom? mass has 4 dimensions, so space time does as well Does it make sense to refer to the 4 dimensions of mass without first positing space time? You seem to be begging the question here.
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago1. fine, the number of quarks that fit between here and there. if we discover something smaller it will be that. If this wasn't true, it seems to me that space would be infinitely divisible, but it's not. Why would the Planck length be derivable from so many other physical constants such as the speed of light? 2. no, i think it's everyone else who has begged the question by referring to space-time first because it is observable. fallacy of scale is involved here. It seems to me that what I'm saying is what the article was trying to do as well, derive the fact of 4 dimensional space-time from the physical properties of matter.
- rms 18y agohey, email me please, or post an email in your about me area