/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4211169]

Hello everyone. Until recently, I have been having very vivid dreams which were quite troubling. Each night I go to sleep and dream that I am Einstein teaching general relativity theory. In my dreams I see one equation repeatedly and I wish to share it with you. I believe God has shown me the truth and here I will help you learn it.

The general idea is that we can derive much of the previous relativity theories by beginning with the following definition of time, where:

<span class="math">t:=\int_{P} E(x)dx[/spoiler]

That is; time is defined to be the sum (integral) of energy present (contributed by vector or scalar fields) along a path P in some Riemannian manifold.

I believe this definition immediately implies the constancy of the speed of light, and hence special relativity. Furthermore, it explains exactly why an electron and a proton do not spiral into one another in the atomic nucleus. (N.B - the gravitational reason for this is clear)

I would like to hear arguments against this definition of time, I have not had much time to work out the mathematical theory, so any critique mathematical, physical or philosophical will be considered.

[Anonymous No.4211183]

What does it do that isn't done by something else? If nothing, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.4211190]

>I believe this definition immediately implies the constancy of the speed of light
> it explains exactly why an electron and a proton do not spiral into one another in the atomic nucleus.

please expand

[Anonymous No.4211228]

>>4211190
The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency, where E = hf.

If light is travelling through space where the effects of other vector fields are negligible (i.e negligible gravity and EM-fields) then the time taken by a photon, given the above definition is the sum over the path it travels of its energy. In a non-inertial reference frame, the frequency of light does not change, hence its energy over any particular path is constant.

Therefore, the time it takes is constant and thus light travels at a constant speed in a vaccuum...

For the electron and proton situation the analysis is like this:

An electron and proton attract each other in inverse cubic proportionality. The important point is that, as the proton and electron are moved closer together the strength of the EM-field is so great that the energy implicit in the attraction between the two objects causes the time taken (relative to an external observer) to increase rapidly reaching a "threshold limit" which we naively call "energy levels" of the electron.

[Anonymous No.4211231]

what level of education do you have, OP?

[Anonymous No.4211239]

>>4211231
I am a second-year undergraduate.

[Anonymous No.4211267]

How exactly are you defining energy?
and then
/why/

[Anonymous No.4211291]

>>4211169
No, you are wrong. Your equation is complete gibberish. You should take an actual relativity course.

[Anonymous No.4211292]

>>4211267
That is kindof technical. I suppose I consider the "universe" as restricted to some kind of manifold locally homeomorphic to Euclidean space with arbitrary vector and scalar fields defined at each coordinate in our space.

The total "energy" at a point is then just the sum of the contributions from the scalar fields plus the constributions from the norms of the vector fields, i.e their magnitudes.

As for the why, I am simply curious. Specifically I would like someone to actively dispute my initial claim and perhaps find a fatal flaw.

[Anonymous No.4211303]

>>4211291
That is a good point, and I have taken it under consideration...

[Anonymous No.4211305]

>>4211239
Your idea is cute, but it is wrong. You should keep trying though, you may end up with something that isn't shit one day.

[Anonymous No.4211315]

>>4211228

wtf

have you even taken a quantum course?

The energy levels of atoms need no further explanation and your explanation of the behavior is experimentally wrong.

[Anonymous No.4211318]

>Implying time has units of kg m^3 /s^2
>Implying time is path independent in conservative fields
>Implying time is frame independent

You know nothing about physics, and certainly nothing about relativity. Stop trying to come up with new theories until you understand the current ones.

Actually learn special relativity please.

[Anonymous No.4211329]

in after assholes discourage a young creative mind.

OP, keep dreaming. Just check your stuff later.

Imagination is important.

[Anonymous No.4211362]

>>4211228

>If light is travelling through space where the effects of other vector fields are negligible (i.e negligible gravity and EM-fields) then the time taken by a photon, given the above definition is the sum over the path it travels of its energy.

No... no it's not. How you came to this insanely retarded conclusion is beyond me.

>In a non-inertial reference frame, the frequency of light does not change, hence its energy over any particular path is constant.

You mean an inertial frame, not a non-inertial frame.

>Therefore, the time it takes is constant and thus light travels at a constant speed in a vaccuum...

The constancy of the speed of light is already implied by Maxwell's equations. Also, what you're using for "time" is dimensionally inconsistent.

>An electron and proton attract each other in inverse cubic proportionality.

No, Coulomb's Law is an inverse SQUARE law.

>The important point is that, as the proton and electron are moved closer together the strength of the EM-field is so great that the energy implicit in the attraction between the two objects

As an electron gets closer to the nucleus the potential field DECREASES.

>causes the time taken (relative to an external observer) to increase rapidly reaching a "threshold limit" which we naively call "energy levels" of the electron.

What? That makes negative sense.

[Anonymous No.4211377]

>>4211315
No, I haven't please explain further. I am interested.

>>4211318
>Implying time has units of kg m^3 /s^2
An integral of scalar quantities is a scalar, and thus has no units, so no - I am not implying this at all.

>Implying time is path independent in conservative fields

This is intriguing and very interesting I think. Do you have a concrete counterexample where this might not be the case? In the case of a gravitational field for example this (might) imply that objects fall at the same speed. A grav field is certainly conservative.

>Implying time is frame independent
I am certainly not implying this.

[Anonymous No.4211388]

>>4211292
>That is kindof technical. I suppose I consider the "universe" as restricted to some kind of manifold locally homeomorphic to Euclidean space

The universe is NOT homeomorphic to Euclidean space. Spacetime is a pseudo-riemannian manifold.

>with arbitrary vector and scalar fields defined at each coordinate in our space.

What? What are these "arbitrary fields" you speak of?

>The total "energy" at a point is then just the sum of the contributions from the scalar fields plus the constributions from the norms of the vector fields, i.e their magnitudes.

What? Are you implying that all fields have units of energy?

>As for the why, I am simply curious. Specifically I would like someone to actively dispute my initial claim and perhaps find a fatal flaw.

You mean like dimensional analysis 101? Your "time" doesn't even have units of time.

[Anonymous No.4211397]

>>4211362

>No... no it's not. How you came to this insanely retarded conclusion is beyond me.

This is my working hypothesis. ;)

>You mean an inertial frame, not a non-inertial frame.
>Coulomb's Law is an inverse SQUARE law.
Indeed, you are quite correct. Forgive these mistakes, I don't believe they change my general argument.

>As an electron gets closer to the nucleus the potential field DECREASES.

Here I take it you mean something analagous to its potential energy. What I meant was that, as the potential field decreases, the attraction between the electron and the proton themselves gets proportionally larger.

[Anonymous No.4211425]

>>4211169
>Specifically I would like someone to actively dispute my initial claim and perhaps find a fatal flaw

Plug your nonsense into any least-action formulation, Lagragian, or Hamltonian, and YOU GET COMPLETE GIBBERISH BULLSHIT GARBAGE. You equation IS NOT CONSISTANT WITH THINGS WE KNOW TO BE TRUE!

Anyother bullshit you want me to refute for you?

[Anonymous No.4211436]

>>4211377
>An integral of scalar quantities is a scalar, and thus has no units, so no - I am not implying this at all.

Scalar quantities still have units. What does it mean if I say "the distance between point A and point B is 5" ? It doesn't mean jack-shit, because I didn't give you any units. 5 what? Miles? Nanometers? Lightyears? The units you are using in your definition of "time" don't even have units of time.

>This is intriguing and very interesting I think. Do you have a concrete counterexample where this might not be the case?

No, because the path integral between two points in a conservative field is always path-independent.

>In the case of a gravitational field for example this (might) imply that objects fall at the same speed. A grav field is certainly conservative.

I'm going to ignore the fact that this makes no sense and humor you: What about an electric field then? Objects with the same charge and different mass certainly do not fall at the same speed in an electric field.

>I am certainly not implying this.

Yes you are. The quantities associated with fields are frame-invariant, so the "time" you are describing must also be frame-invariant.

[Anonymous No.4211443]

holy fuck i'm a 2nd year physics grad student and i just briefly skimmed through the contents of this thread. it's horrible, and you should feel horrible.

[Anonymous No.4211444]

>>4211425
/sci/ - crushing dreams with the cold truth of reality since 1976

\thread

[Anonymous No.4211446]

>>4211425
OP has been proven wrong. Please delete this thread now.

\thread

[Anonymous No.4211449]

>>4211388
>The universe is NOT homeomorphic to Euclidean space. Spacetime is a pseudo-riemannian manifold.
Indeed, and that is why I said "locally" homeomorphic. As for what space "is" I do not claim to know.

>What? What are these "arbitrary fields" you speak of?
They are fields which can take certain values at certain points on our manifold. Think of them as the electromagnetic, gravitational,..., Higgs field if you must.

>What? Are you implying that all fields have units of energy?

No, I am not sure how to answer this.

>You mean like dimensional analysis 101? Your "time" doesn't even have units of time.

[Anonymous No.4211451]

as much as i like math, it and physics are pretty much on par

[Anonymous No.4211453]

OP has been logically dickslapped by /sci/, good show old chaps.

[Anonymous No.4211461]

>>4211425
Please demonstrate this. I am unfamiliar with the mathematical techniques you speak of.

[Anonymous No.4211470]

>>4211425
YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG OP!
NOW DELETE THIS SHITTY THREAD!

[Anonymous No.4211465]

>>4211397
>Indeed, you are quite correct. Forgive these mistakes, I don't believe they change my general argument.

In any real quantitative theory the difference between an inverse cubic and an inverse square relationship would change EVERYTHING.

>Here I take it you mean something analagous to its potential energy. What I meant was that, as the potential field decreases, the attraction between the electron and the proton themselves gets proportionally larger.

How does this relate to electrons forming stable orbitals?

[Anonymous No.4211481]

>>4211465
>In any real quantitative theory the difference between an inverse cubic and an inverse square relationship would change EVERYTHING.

Yup, definitely. For example, if you have an inverse-square potential, all bound states will produce stable orbits. If you have an inverse-cubic potential, however, all bound states (with the exception of circular orbits) will spiral towards and eventually collide with the force center!

[Anonymous No.4211484]

>>4211461
Bascially you are unfamilar with actual physics then. Please delete this shitty thread, and I will start a new one to give you a brief introduction ON TO WHY YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG (and also cover REAL PHYSICS).

SO DELETE THIS SHITTY THREAD NOW!

[Anonymous No.4211487]

>>4211461
>Doesn't know Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formulations of mechanics
>Is attempting to make new theories of time
It's like you're actually trying to be a failure

[Anonymous No.4211490]

>>4211484
waiting

[Anonymous No.4211498]

Delete the thread now... or go ahead, make my day, punk!

[Anonymous No.4211503]

>>4211481

They do that with inverse square potentials as well. Atoms do not behave classically.

Energy levels are 3d probability standing waves. You should have at least encountered them in general chem.

[Anonymous No.4211519]

>>4211503
You only get this inward-spiraling with an inverse-square law if you have charged particles, which lose energy via radiation. However, if you're talking about, for example, the orbit of planets, you don't run into that problem with the inverse-square law.

Anyways, I just wanted to make it clear that changing from a inverse-square law to a inverse-cubic law makes a HUGE difference in the physics you would observe.

[Anonymous No.4211521]

>>4211444

i'm a 3rd year undergrad and i feel retarded for even reading ops post

[Anonymous No.4211530]

>>4211521
LOL - I don't even understand half of what he wrote. Completely nonsensical gibberish, really.

[Anonymous No.4211536]

>>4211436
Thank you for your comments.

> I'm going to ignore the fact that this makes no sense and humor you: What about an electric field then? Objects with the same charge and different mass certainly do not fall at the same speed in an electric field.

Indeed. Let us assume we have two masses m_1 and m_2 falling in an electric field with similar charges and are attracted to some electrically charged particle, call it e.

The critical point is that the gravitational field produced by the larger mass m_2 is stronger than that of m_1. So the path it takes to e is [shorter] than the path m_1 takes.

At small distances the time taken by the heavier mass to fall with be shorter.

[Anonymous No.4211541]

>I believe God has shown me the truth

i stopped reading your post right about then.
i didnt read any of the other responses either but,
all i know is that this is how lunatics start off
>herp derp this rocks telling me to kill some person

[Anonymous No.4211555]

>Yes you are. The quantities associated with fields are frame-invariant, so the "time" you are describing must also be frame-invariant.

I disagree. Consider the velocity field. Something like this is surely not frame invariant. Velocity contributes energy to objects, and time is defined to be the sum of energy over the path taken by an object, hence time itself cannot be frame invariant.

[Anonymous No.4211561]

>The general idea is that we can derive much of the previous relativity theories by beginning with the following definition of time
Oh, really? Please demonstrate.

<span class="math">t:=\int_{P} E(x)dx[/spoiler]
>contributed by vector or scalar fields
neither of these 'contribute' energy to anything, are you mad?

>along a path P in some Riemannian manifold.
This doesn't at all describe the forward movement of time. I'm not even going to attempt to elaborate on this further as doing such trivially would by far exceed the character limit in this text box. Time doesn't even remotely relate to the units you are using!

>I believe this definition immediately implies the constancy of the speed of light, and hence special relativity.
Do you even know how the speed of light was derived? Do you even know what STR is?

>Furthermore, it explains exactly why an electron and a proton do not spiral into one another in the atomic nucleus. (N.B - the gravitational reason for this is clear)
I'm not even going to attempt to argue this.

>I have been having very vivid dreams which were quite troubling.
Delusions are quite deceiving, young one!

[Anonymous No.4211566]

Mods, we've already bombed the s**t out of this thread. Can somebody please just delete this?

[Anonymous No.4211568]

>>4211169
It is neat that you are thinking about the universe and connections between fundemental concepts. Keep up the "thinking".

However, there is already a shit-ton of work on issues like this. We already have a shit ton of known relations between fundemental concepts, ACTUAL SHIT PROVEN BY ACTUAL PHYSICISTS. There exists a tons of very "deep" math/physics that connects most fundemental ideas together.

"Time" isn't derived from energy, it is more like the otherway around. Energy is a concept we use because of its unique relationship with time (there are actual well established eqautions for this already). Homogenioty of time leads to conservation of energy (and visa versa).

You really need to know more physics to understand this shit, and make "credible theories" for yourself. Without knowing all the shit we already know, the chances that you can start from scratch, recreate everything we know (or at least not contradict it), and then your own theories, are slim to none. Physics has progressed so much, that you need to stand on the shoulders of giants to have any chance at discovering anything new.

Good luck.

[Anonymous No.4211571]

>>4211568
This.

[Anonymous No.4211573]

>>4211536
>The critical point is that the gravitational field produced by the larger mass m_2 is stronger than that of m_1. So the path it takes to e is [shorter] than the path m_1 takes.

[Anonymous No.4211588]

>>4211568
Yes yes! You people, seriously!

If you are referring to Noether's theorems, then yes I am familiar with them. I have some familiarity with the Special and General theories of relativity and also have some knowledge of topology / differential geometry.

If you believe that I am wrong, all you have to do is demonstrate it. I appreciate the posts in this thread which attempt to explain the "gaps" in my knowledge by pointing out mistakes.

I do not appreciate, hurr durr, read a book - you are too stupid to come up with anything original so don't even try. Or, hurr durr, it is obviously wrong OP is a faggot.

We can have a logical discussion of my relatively simple hypothesis without the need for such pessimism.

[Anonymous No.4211597]

>>4211588
>knows Noethers theorem

>yet doesn't know how to plug his bullshit into lagragians or hamiltonians for verification

Really? I'm calling troll!

[sage No.4211602]

>>4211588
>implying your bullshit wasn't proven false like 30 posts ago

[Anonymous No.4211604]

>>4211588
Confimed for troll

[Anonymous No.4211606]

>>4211169
GREAT TROLLING BRO! YOU COULD TEACH A CLASS ON "HOW TO BE A PICK ON THE INTERNET AND CONTRIBUTE NOTHING TO MANKIND" 101

[sage No.4211616]

>>4211588
saged and reported

Enjoy your ban!