a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by alpha0
alpha0  ·  4593 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Kolmogorov Complexity, Causality And Spin
I think you have it. My question remains as to why 1/r^2 'emerges' over say '1/r' which is of even lower complexity. Clearly there is a sort of structural substrate that pushes up (so to speak) while the 'low pass filter' pushes down.

    If there is some generalized string out of which these common forms of equations can be backed, I would be speechless, stunned, but not really surprised. Maybe there is hope for a unified field theory in information theory, instead of quantum (or the wretched string theory).

It has to be Number. It must be N - simple act of partitioning and counting. I'm convinced of it, but how to prove it! :(





b_b  ·  4592 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I think 1/r^2 emerges because of the geometry that has emerged. If a pulse of particles is emitted uniformly in n-dimensional space, and each travels at the same speed, then their density will fall off as 1/r^(n-1), since in 3D they cover a spherical surface (2D object of size r^2), and in 2D its a line (1D circular surface of size r). Its the geometry that's important. We should search for why our world is 3D, and not some other space, if we want to know why we have inverse square laws.
alpha0  ·  4592 days ago  ·  link  ·  
quick p.s. Did you ever read Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott?
b_b  ·  4592 days ago  ·  link  ·  
No. But a quick search has intrigued me. I'll put it in the queue.
alpha0  ·  4592 days ago  ·  link  ·  
    Its the geometry that's important

Agreed. But is geometry more foundational than number? (I feel like we're back in ancient Greece.) There is a very interesting tension between number and geometric form. And addressing this will drag in Cantor as well. This question has been giving headaches to the pointy head set for thousands of years.

    We should search for why our world is 3D, and not some other space, if we want to know why we have inverse square laws.

Great insight and question. I wonder if answering that is beyond our ken. I am open to the future possibility, given the root words earth-measure, of a demonstration that provides a number theoretic basis for geometry. But indeed, why would it cap at 3-D. Per ancient lore, scripture, and even recent musings of string theory, there are additional dimensions that are 'unseen'. So I would read your "We should search for why our world is 3D" as "why our perception of the world is 3D".

b_b  ·  4592 days ago  ·  link  ·  
    I would read your "We should search for why our world is 3D" as "why our perception of the world is 3D".

I actually considered writing the reply that way, but I shy away from speculation; we know the universe has at least three large dimensions (four if we count time). I would love to hear a number theoretical reason for three. I can't accept that it is arbitrary. I can generally see why we can't exist in 1 or 2D, as movement around other objects would be impossible for anything solid. But I have never been able to imagine a reason why more didn't occur. I suppose that's because we can't dream in 4D. We can imagine--and therefore reasonably reject--lower dimensions, but only math can tell us about higher ones.

alpha0  ·  4592 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Actually it is interesting you mention dreams, given that our 'normal' sense of time collapses in dreams. Dreamland is a wonderfully strange and distinct reality.