Axioms
Axioms
Posted Feb 23, 2021 15:24 UTC (Tue) by rschroev (subscriber, #4164)In reply to: Axioms by Wol
Parent article: An introduction to lockless algorithms
Posted Feb 24, 2021 0:23 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
I think the equation is G=g.m1.m2/d^2
G is 9.8m/s^2, while g is the gravitational constant, which is believed to be the same everywhere in the universe.
Cheers,
Posted Feb 24, 2021 0:47 UTC (Wed)
by rschroev (subscriber, #4164)
[Link]
Posted Feb 24, 2021 0:31 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (11 responses)
It can *de*scribe it, yes. But I think you'll find it also *pre*scribes it and says "completely different constants and laws doesn't make logical sense".
Cheers,
Posted Feb 24, 2021 1:01 UTC (Wed)
by rschroev (subscriber, #4164)
[Link] (10 responses)
BTW there's a video of Richard Feyman's lecture about that relationship here: https://youtu.be/obCjODeoLVw
Interesting stuff, if you're interested in that kind of stuff.
Posted Feb 24, 2021 18:28 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (9 responses)
Cheers,
Posted Feb 24, 2021 21:54 UTC (Wed)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Feb 24, 2021 23:22 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
We think it may be four - that's what Einstein thought but that has a whole bunch of problems. If it *is* four, I believe that means string theory is correct as it's the explanation for relativistic singularities.
Or it could be ten or eleven. Anything betwen five and nine inclusive just doesn't work because we get an explosion of infinities - infinity itself isn't a problem, but there are different sorts of infinity and for reality to work they need to cancel out. For those dimensions they don't. (These universes, if I remember correctly, define mass as the fifth dimension ...)
(That's why I was moaning about computers crashing when you divide by zero. If you declare zero and infinity as non-numbers for which arithmetic doesn't work, you're in trouble. If you say "to make arithmetic work, they swap places on division", then you can do this sort of maths and come up with something that makes sense.)
At the end of the day, we have loads of maths that describes what we see. And that *constrains* what is a plausible universe. We have a local maximum or minimum, don't know which. By adjusting some values, we can force others to impossible values. Plausible universes must have all these values at maximum or minimum, not off the scale or impossible or at some non-equilibrium value.
Cheers,
Posted Feb 24, 2021 23:36 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Posted Feb 25, 2021 0:05 UTC (Thu)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link]
To say that division by zero is undefined is mathematically correct and not just an arbitrary computer limitation. There is no proper answer to the question "What number, when multiplied by zero, gives the non-zero product X?", at least not in any system that would uphold basic idioms such as the product of a number and its reciprocal being equal to one. "Infinity" times zero is not equal to any particular finite number X, so that isn't a solution. Depending on the particular forms of the equations which gave rise to the infinity and the zero (or infinitesimal) the product could be another infinity or any real number; it depends on how you phrase the question. $\lim_{x \to 0+} x ln \frac{1}{x} = 0$, but $\lim_{x \to 0+} x \frac{1}{x} = 1$. In both cases you're multiplying an infinitesimal ($\lim_{x \to 0+} x$) by an infinity ($\lim{x \to 0+} ln \frac{1}{x}$ or $\lim{x \to 0+} \frac{1}{x}$, respectively) but the specific form of the equation changes the result.
Posted Feb 24, 2021 22:24 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (4 responses)
If you want to read something mind-blowing, try the "Clockwork Rocket" series by Greg Egan. It's accompanied by a thesis-sized exploration of its (fictional) physics: http://www.gregegan.net/ORTHOGONAL/ORTHOGONAL.html
Posted Feb 24, 2021 23:26 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (3 responses)
Cheers,
Posted Feb 24, 2021 23:34 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
You can also construct a quantum field theory for such a universe, it also would work just fine.
Posted Feb 25, 2021 15:16 UTC (Thu)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
Posted Mar 8, 2021 14:59 UTC (Mon)
by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958)
[Link]
Physics tries to model measurements.
So for example you measure a planet that is orbiting, make an equation, and see if tomorrow the equation and the position are the same (within a certain range of precision).
Before Galileo saw that Jupiter had satellites, they had perfectly fine equations that predicted where everything would be in the sky. The problem arose because new data could not fit the model.
You can absolutely model an orbit of a planet using 3 dimensions, or you can model it in an higher space with an equation of a lower degree. Both work. We can't really know which is "exact" if both work.
You can keep adding dimensions and make equations that work, but we don't really know what the "truth" is.
Posted Feb 24, 2021 1:24 UTC (Wed)
by SiB (subscriber, #4048)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 24, 2021 8:53 UTC (Wed)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link]
The first formally adopted definition for the metre itself, proposed in 1791 by the French Academy of Sciences and adopted in 1793 by the National Assembly, was one ten-millionth of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator along the Paris meridian.
Axioms
Wol
Axioms
g is the gravity of earth, approximately 9.81 m/s².
The equation is F = G⋅m1⋅m2/r². In case of Earth, that's F = G⋅m⋅m_earth/r_earth², with g = G⋅m_earth/r_earth². So in that case we get F = m⋅g.
Axioms
Wol
Axioms
And some comments about it: https://medium.com/cantors-paradise/richard-feynman-on-th...
Axioms
Wol
Axioms
Axioms
Wol
Axioms
You can construct a universe with multiple time axes, with many more dimensions, and so on. The math will be internally consistent.
Axioms
Axioms
Axioms
Wol
Axioms
Who told you that? A six-dimensional classic (Newtonian) universe works just fine. Sure, you won't have stable orbits but apart from that it's OK.
Axioms
Axioms
Axioms
Axioms