Dimension: Change in Space and Time

[A quick review of SAMPLING: When one system relates to another across a boundary, they are said to be in relationship. They interact by co-sampling information that comes to them across their boundaries from the other system.
Each system has a way of detecting the other system, and the information that transfers between systems can be clear or degraded depending on the type of boundary (perspective/POV/experimental setup/pathway) across which one system detects, or samples, the other.
 Think of sampling as one object or system reaching out to grab some information about the other. Data returned depends not just on the character of the boundary, but the speed and duration of the sample or sampling.]
 PERSPECTIVE OR POINT OF VIEW (POV) depends on a change in the data that we sample. A change in the data from one data point to another depends on the probability that a data point is sampled in the here and now.
 One example of the above statement is to look at two perspectives. Let’s say we’re watching a train moving down a track. In space, or along a distance, we know that the change between the first data point sampled and the second data point sampled must necessarily describe a distance or path or straight line in normal space of nominal curvature. The only way we can see this path is if we view the train perpendicular to the tracks.
 Taking another perspective, we watch the train head-on(along the tracks). Now we cannot see its path from this perspective, but the two data points we sample return a different sort of information which must be mapped onto the information derived from the first perspective (in this way information from the first perspective can be understood and compared with respect to the second perspective).
 The second perspective, watching the train head on, returns the centroid of the front of the train. The outline of the train will expand, if coming toward us, or contract, if moving away.
Notice, now we can characterize the samples more easily with respect to probability. If our location is fixed, as the train approaches us, its signal increases in intensity, which is what it should do if its probability of being sampled (at our location) increases. And as the train recedes, its signal decreases in intensity, which is what it should do if its probability of being sampled decreases.
 Because we sampled differently on both occasions (watching changes in space perpendicular to the movement of the train and then watching changes in time as we watch the train head-on) we need some sort of translation between the two sets of data. Taking the two data points from the two different perspectives does not represent a controlled experiment. A controlled experiment requires a single perspective.
 In more complex experimental sampling, perspectives are born from diverse experimental setups. The data obtained from a scanning-tunneling microscope varies greatly from that derived from a light scope. There might be a way to compare the information derived from the two perspectives, but we’d never say that independent of mapping one perspective on another, we could in any way call data from the two perspectives a controlled experiment.
 Now let’s look at the perspective perpendicular to the track. If we can sample at the starting point of the train and the ending point of the train, at each of those two points the train will be there or it won’t be there. If the train is at that precise location that we sample instantaneously, it is approximately 100% probable there. If it isn’t there, it’s near 0% probable.
Notice that sampling the two points from each POV returns information about the probability of the existence of our relationship with that particular sample.
 In other words, the chance of finding the sample at a given location can be, depending on perspective, anywhere from 0% to 100%.  This information will be important when we consider our interpretation of the results of the Double-Slit Experiment.  It also has a profound influence on our understanding the difference between a sample’s tendency to be local as opposed to its tendency to be nonlocal.
 To understand the percentage chance of collecting a sample from any POV, we might delve into the definition of probability in time (chance) as opposed to the probability in space (distribution) with weather as an example.

4 thoughts

  1. What about the electron?

    Everything is about particles. The future depends on the random uncertainty of the electron, of which physics has never been able to determine its precise location on the atom at any given time. Without this invisible spec nothing would, could, or will exist. Everything we know comes from it, is determined by it, and held together by its momentum. Evolution is the result of the electron’s spin, and whether it remains in its shell or leaps to another atom. Random jumping from one atom to another is the cause of all change in the universe, including us.

  2. To DJSwykert,

    Yours is a perspective that appears to have truth and works as a story that explains a large part of the observable universe, though, as you point out, we scientists don’t totally understand how the electron operates.
    What I share on this site is my personal cosmology or philosophical story that grew out of my published experiment that examined a two-dimensional, low energy expanding universe. What I share are my educated guesses, based on my experiment, about primitive interactions of systems.
    Early in our expanding universe, particles began to endure for longer and longer periods of time, long enough to reach stability and then steady state, long enough for us to identify, describe, and experiment with them.

    The Uncertainty Principle tells us we can know where something is or how fast it’s going, but not both at once. Like observing the train, we can look down the tracks, or perpendicular to the tracks, not both at once. In observing the roof of a house from above, we’re unable to see the closed front door. That’s because of perspective. And perspective is born of relationship. And relationship is what I study in my relational philosophy.

    When I address the Double-Slit Experiment, I’ll further explore why electrons are forced to manifest on the incident screen in two different ways (as particles and waves).
    I’ll give you a hint as to where I’m going with this: The Double-Slit Experiment may not be a controlled experiment, at least not for any particle that exhibits nonlocality.

    One more point you bring up is the nonlocality of the electron. We know that massive objects have a locality, a location, a cg or center of gravity that resists change. The smaller the particle, the more its cg wanders, or is distributed in some form of space (maybe information space, or space that can be potentially sampled). Each of the aforementioned objects are characterized by a different boundary. In a massive gravitational well, information attempting to cross the boundary is damped down so much that the only information available may be location and magnitude. In very small particles, again, information has a hard time crossing the low probability/diffuse boundary. [Check out my posts on the different types of boundaries and the information they may be capable of transferring].

  3. How do you explain the force of gravity being so strong it can hold a planet in it’s orbit, yet weak enough I am able to lift my hand and defy it’s force? I’ve never been able to comprehend this.

  4. Howdy, D J.


    Science tells us that the more mass (for example: massive particles, protons and neutrons, in the nucleus of atoms) the greater the gravitational effect and the gravitational well. We can visualize the well by placing spheres of various masses on a stretched rubber mat and see how deep a well the sphere(s) create.

    Mostly trained as an applied mathematician and fluid mechanics person, I have a different way of thinking of gravity. First of all, instead of a well (though a well is just the influence of a gravitational field), I think of a gravitational field influenced by mass as acting at a center of mass. A center of mass is like a singular point, usually at the centroid or center of a field. We know that electromagnetic fields can be sources or sinks at that point.

    What do we mean by sources and sinks? A source will flow outward from the singular, central point in a field. A sink will flow inward toward the point, just as massive objects in a gravitational field do.

    A gravitational field, like that of which the Earth is central to, vary in magnitude from that central sink to its outer edges. This is important.

    The Earth is orbiting the Sun at a certain distance from the center of the Sun’s gravitational field. And there is nothing to resist the Earth’s movement, so it continues to fall into orbit around the Sun (by the way: in curved space, a planet orbiting is falling toward the Sun’s gravitational center).

    If we were trying to break an unlocked door down by kicking it, that would be the same as an orbiting planet. The door would simply move, open up, because there is no resistance. But if the door were locked, then our kicking can do a lot of damage to it. That like lifting our finger. But as you might suspect there can be two cases of lifting our finger. We could lift our finger because we can brace against our bodies and the Earth, but if we were in free-fall we can still lift our finger. Why is that?
    Because both our finger and our bodies are moving toward the Earth at the same rate and the only resistance/forces-in-play is the one generated by our muscles.

    Of course, gravitation is much more complex than what I’ve explained above. How things move in a gravitational field has lots to do with distribution. That’s why for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (but more about that later).

    If you can visualize my experiment of an expanding two dimensional droplet (a source flow) then you can imagine what happens near a trough, or a place where the boundary invaginates into a trough or well. The fluid flowing outward takes the path of least resistance (to either side of the trough) so the center of the trough remains stable, does not move or moves very little. The fluid as it fans out around the trough eventually bypasses it to come up against the boundary to expand it. Meaning the field around the trough gets weaker the farther from the center of the trough. I’ll explain this in more detail later, or in response to your questions.

    Hope I was helpful in my geeky way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: