> > > > "Alex Green" <dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:42c8441.0312230944.676e60ca at posting.google.com...> > > >
> > > > > The energy density at an instantaneous point
> > > > > in 3D space is a weird thing, remember Heisenberg?
> > > >
> > > > Honestly, I just cannot see any "uncertainty".
> > >
[Alex]
The uncertainty principle, in this context, suggests that if you have
a very, very small particle (as near to zero grams as possible) whose
position is measured to be at a point its next position is entirely
uncertain. (You can get the same result by considering the de Broglie
wavelength of an almost stationary particle, wavelength increases as
velocity and mass decrease).
> > > It is a weird thing because instantaneous points
> > > dont physically exist! Everything is moving or
> > > changing (BTW, time IS correlations of changes
> > > against a relatively regularly changing entropy
> > > increasing gradient - as Ken might put it.
[Alex]
Whereabouts in the putative 3D universe are these correlations of
changes? Why does time enter the Dirac Equation as a continuous
variable? Are you sure that the Wheeler-de Witt equation is so well
founded that we should abandon all our measurements and intuitions
about the relationship between time and space intervals?
Incidently, how can everything be "moving or changing" without, as a
minimum, a primitive, Galilean conception of time?
[Ken]
> >
> > I can transform 3-D energydynamics to discuss them
> > in terms of 'time', but doing so still doesn't impart
> > physical existence to what's been referred to as "time".
[Alex]
But you describe correlations and changes as physical things, you are
indeed giving time a physical basis. All you seem to be denying is
that there is a Pythagorean relationship between time intervals and
space intervals.
Surely 'space' is just as shaky as time. You must be aware of the
problems associated with differentiable manifolds, as Einstein put it:
"That the requirement of general covariance, which takes away from
space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity, is a natural
one, will be seen from the following reflection. All our space-time
verifications invariably amount to a determination of space-time
coincidences. If, for example, events consisted merely in the motion
of material points, then ultimately nothing would be observable but
the meetings of two or more of these points. Moreover, the results of
our measurings are nothing but verifications of such meetings of the
material points of our measuring instruments with other material
points, coincidences between the hands of the a clock and points on
the clock dial, and observed point-events happening at the same place
at the same time. The introduction of a system of reference serves no
other purpose than to facilitate the description of the totality of
such coincidences". (Einstein 1916a).
See: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz2b.htm
3D manifolds are no more absolute or intuitively obvious than 4D
manifolds.
Best Wishes
Alex Green