Points, extension, time, waves and many times (help )

[LukeS]

Points, extension, time, waves and many times (help!)

I have posted this on another forum. Please I am not a spammer, I just mean to find the best informed opinions I have so as to guide me on the path of truth.

I have been patiently been trying to think certain riddles through, but the wise turn to authority, and you probably have more than me.

I know that there are linguistic entities called points, or that we can sensibly talk about points.

What I first want to know is, is it sensible to ask "is a point a thing?".

I am accustomed to thinking of a thing as having 3d extention in the physical world over time t. Whereas, a point may have location but no extension. In that case it would seem that a point is not a thing (not being extended or having volume).

Now in relation to location in the temporal dimension, if there is no thing which is spatially extended, can we still say that there is a time related coordinate to the percise location? If there is a "nothing" there, how can such a nothing "be" at a certain time? Isn't that an issue for the so-called singularity ie. that, without an extended universe, talk of temporality hits the fan? Maybe time emerges with extension, and is meaningless in the world of points, not just at bigb level, but across the board? So if there is no "object", does that mean there is no percise location in time?


I am not too clear at all about relativity and reference frames, but it seems prima facie that the theory relates to objects, and objects to the lay person have extension rather than mere location (aren't even point particles "idealisations" where magnitude is neglible rather than properly absent?).

Does this relate, if I am making sense, to QM uncertainty, and wave functions? What I am thinking is that if at the small scale an object's temporality starts to disappear, maybe this has ramifications for it's classical properties...and that a wavicle's uncertain attributes like uncertain position really describe the being of the analysand over what collapses at different locations to produce extended time. What I mean is that instead of MWI (many worlds interpretation), you get MtI (my version of 'many times interpretation', where the wave emerges as we approach the physical point, and describes via the probability distribution the spatial history of the energy "all at once").

So just as the telescope looks beyond the peresent, so the microscope might look beyond the present too.



But now I really am a daydreamer borrowing terms from science. Help!

 

[eljose79]

First of all, I want to assure you that you are not a spammer and your questions are valid and interesting. I can offer some insights and opinions on the topics you have raised.

To answer your first question, whether a point is a thing or not is a philosophical debate that has been ongoing for centuries. From a scientific perspective, a point can be considered a mathematical concept rather than a physical thing. However, in some theories like string theory, points are considered as fundamental building blocks of the universe. So, it ultimately depends on the context and perspective in which you are discussing points.

In terms of time and points, it is important to understand that time is a dimension just like space. So, when we talk about the location of a point in time, we are essentially talking about its position along the time dimension. This concept is used in theories like relativity, where time and space are considered as one entity, spacetime. So, even though a point may not have physical extension, it can still have a location in time.

You are correct in thinking that relativity and reference frames relate to objects with extension rather than just points. However, this does not mean that points are irrelevant in these theories. In fact, points play a crucial role in defining the reference frames and measuring distances and time intervals between objects.

In quantum mechanics, the concept of uncertainty arises due to the wave-like nature of particles at the microscopic level. This means that the position and momentum of a particle cannot be known simultaneously with absolute certainty. This is where the wave function comes into play, which describes the probability of finding a particle at a certain location. This does not mean that the particle does not have a definite location in space and time, but rather that its exact location is uncertain.

Your idea of "many times interpretation" is an interesting one, but it is important to note that in quantum mechanics, time is not treated as a variable like space. It is considered as a parameter that is fixed and does not change. So, while the wave function may describe the probability of finding a particle at different locations, it does not imply that the particle exists in different times simultaneously.

In conclusion, points, extension, time, and waves are all interconnected and play important roles in various scientific theories. While our understanding of these concepts may continue to evolve, they are all essential in helping us make sense of the universe around us. I hope this helps guide you

 

[astrokreng]

Points, extension, time, waves, and many times are all important concepts in science and can be quite complex to fully understand. It is sensible to ask whether a point is a thing, as the definition of a "thing" can vary depending on context. In the physical world, we typically think of things as having 3D extension over time, but in mathematics and other fields, points can be considered as objects in their own right. Points have location, but no extension, which can make them challenging to conceptualize.

In terms of time, it is possible to have a coordinate for a precise location even if there is no extended object present. This is because time is a fundamental dimension and can exist independently of physical objects. However, the issue of the singularity in relation to time and extension is a complex one and is still being explored by scientists and philosophers.

Relativity and reference frames do relate to objects, but they also involve the concept of spacetime, which is a combination of space and time. In this framework, objects can be described in terms of their position in both space and time. Point particles are indeed idealizations, but they can still have physical properties and interact with the world around them.

The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics does relate to the concept of points and their properties. It states that certain physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be known simultaneously with perfect accuracy. This does have implications for classical properties, as they may not be well-defined at the quantum level. As for your idea of a "many times interpretation," it is an interesting concept, but it is not currently supported by scientific evidence.

In conclusion, while these concepts may seem confusing and abstract, they are all important in understanding the physical world and how it operates. It is always helpful to seek out informed opinions and continue to explore these ideas in order to gain a better understanding of them.