Geometry and Physics

Forums:
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I see the geometry in almost everything.
You could say I am obsessed with geometry.

I had a thought...

What really is Pi?

It is a number thats decimals are so immense that we have never found their end.

I had this idea pop into my head...

Well you have heard of the multiverse?

Could each multiverse inherently have a different value for Pi's decimals?

Could Pi's extent be the thing that makes each universe in the multiverse unique?

Perhaps the eye in the sky is nothing more than Pi in the sky.

Just a thought.

Please respond to this. I think the answer to this inquiry will reveal a lot about astrophysics.

Please post anything that is geometry/physics related here.

Thanks

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,056 • Replies: 30

No top replies

How could each multiverse comprise of unique physical laws if geometry remains a constant?

Is a circle really a circle if it differs in Pi resolution?

How could physical matter differ and yet still react in the same ways?

Could stars in other universes be squares?

0 Replies

Quite simply, each multiverse is unique in its own right and way. This individuality means the numbers and number systems may well vary in value from one to another.

A circle however will likely remain a circle - although a different concept, understanding and name may be given it in another time and place.

0 Replies

@TheCobbler,

TheCobbler wrote:

I see the geometry in almost everything.
You could say I am obsessed with geometry.

I had a thought...

What really is Pi?

It is a number thats decimals are so immense that we have never found their end.

I had this idea pop into my head...

Well you have heard of the multiverse?

Could each multiverse inherently have a different value for Pi's decimals?

Could Pi's extent be the thing that makes each universe in the multiverse unique?

Perhaps the eye in the sky is nothing more than Pi in the sky.

Just a thought.

Please respond to this. I think the answer to this inquiry will reveal a lot about astrophysics.

Please post anything that is geometry/physics related here.

Thanks

This is like suggesting the value of 1 can be equal to the value of 2. No that is silly.

It would suggest there is a universe where 1 is = to 2. Does that make sense to you?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I will agree, but in mathematics some equations have two answers.

Like, how light can be in two places at once.

Sometimes 1+1 = 3 if everything is rounded and off by nearly one half. Smile

1 Reply

@TheCobbler,

TheCobbler wrote:

I will agree, but in mathematics some equations have two answers.

Like, how light can be in two places at once.

Sometimes 1+1 = 3 if everything is rounded and off by nearly one half.

I think you are misrepresenting some explanation on light. Or you misunderstood the explanation. Or you are overly simplifying it. No light can not be in two places at once. If it can then we would never have been able to determine the speed of light. There would have been examples that would have proven the speed of light wrong. So NO light can not be in two places at once.

The second part is you are lumping an additional condition on 1+1

Leave out the rounding. Why are you adding in the rounding? You are inventing another condition to exaggerate your desired result.

So in other words why not just say, in another universe 1 IS equal to 2. Because in this other universe everything rounds up. That is silly. Pure silliness.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

When we look out at the universe it appears we are in the center of the universe due to the red and blue shift.

This cannot be the case. Can it?
Or is it just that we see things from our own unique perspective?

We can calculate Pi to what seems an infinite number but what resolution of Pi does our universe use? How far down the rabbit hole does it travel?

In an alternate universe does that distance need to be the exact same?

What resolution is a quantum particle?

What constitutes a "perfect circle", it all has to do with perspective.

1 Reply

@TheCobbler,

TheCobbler wrote:

When we look out at the universe it appears we are in the center of the universe due to the red and blue shift.

Sure.

TheCobbler wrote:

This cannot be the case. Can it?

It could, IF the universe were infinite in size. If the universe is infinite in size, then ALL points are equally the center.

TheCobbler wrote:

Or is it just that we see things from our own unique perspective?

Perspective yes, but what you are referring to here is no different than a person sitting in a car rolling down the freeway at 60 mph and suggesting the car isn't moving, but instead it's the ground that is moving. The car is stationary, it's the earth, ground, trees, and buildings that are moving.

Just because it appears that way, does it make it true? No, it's a mistake in perception.

TheCobbler wrote:

We can calculate Pi to what seems an infinite number but what resolution of Pi does our universe use? How far down the rabbit hole does it travel?

You seem to be obsessed with this notion. You do realize that as a number pi becomes increasingly small. It is no different than me asking you to divide 10 by 3. You end up with 3.3333333333333333333333333333333333333 infinitely. But that number gets increasingly smaller and smaller and smaller as you go further out. Essentially you aren't really talking about a real thing, but instead you are talking about an abstract concept of 3.333333333333.

TheCobbler wrote:

In an alternate universe does that distance need to be the exact same?

Irrelevant. Because if you start entertaining this idea that it can. It means all ideas can be JUST as equally valid. You need to be honest here. It would mean that in this same universe, inside out, is right side in. Keep going on into absolute ridiculous ideas. It begins to become meaningless. The problem here is you are only focused on one aspect.

TheCobbler wrote:

What resolution is a quantum particle?

I don't know. Perhaps it's not as crazy as we currently think it is. Perhaps there is a characteristic of quantum particles we have not understood yet. But as soon as we do the entire thing falls into place and we are standing around asking, how did we not see this before?

TheCobbler wrote:

What constitutes a "perfect circle", it all has to do with perspective.

Depends on the definition. By definition all points of the sphere have equal radii. That's as simple as it gets. All of its infinite points have the exact same radius. That is a perfect circle. However; someone can object and say, what is your qualification for perfect? Because perfection could have a different qualification.

It is never the mistake of the observation, instead it is a mistake to say that we must observe it only this way. This is what you are attempting to say. I know you don't realize you are doing it but you are.

You are asking, can another universe have different rules? I think you are attempting to say yes or exploring the idea with possibilities. But you are setting the standard by which it is judged to be different. When you ask, would PI be different? This is you setting the condition for us.

To show where the problem is, it would be like referencing the chemical properties of water and asking, is water different in another universe? Well if it is, then its NOT water. By the very definition it cant be water. Because water is not something other than what it is.

The same is true for pi. If there is a mathematical constant that is unique to another universe then it will be something you can't comprehend at all period. It would be impossible for you to comprehend it. I know you might be shaking your head like how is that possible that you couldn't fathom it?

It's just like if I said, water can be derived chemically different. How? .......................................................... just like that...............

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple

I am a purist so I think geometry is the same in all universes.

That each mathematical equation has a correct answer and that Pi is Pi and water is water.

The idea of a parallel universe with different physics so alien to our world as if they were to collide our world might disintegrate or something, baffles my sense of balance.

This is what make me think geometry and math maybe are the actual abstract concepts and are only absolute because of our perspective. I know this is outlandish and breaks all fundamental rational and reason but how does that differ from the idea of different physics?

Aren't physics also products of math and geometry? If not where does it depart from the absolute?

1 Reply

@TheCobbler,

TheCobbler wrote:

Krumple

I am a purist so I think geometry is the same in all universes.

That each mathematical equation has a correct answer and that Pi is Pi and water is water.

The idea of a parallel universe with different physics so alien to our world as if they were to collide our world might disintegrate or something, baffles my sense of balance.

This is what make me think geometry and math maybe are the actual abstract concepts and are only absolute because of our perspective. I know this is outlandish and breaks all fundamental rational and reason but how does that differ from the idea of different physics?

Aren't physics also products of math and geometry? If not where does it depart from the absolute?

if you draw a right triangle on a sphere, it ceases being a right triangle.

It isn't that the right triangle breaks, its due to the definition being broken. We are setting the boundary for the right triangle. But when it is placed on a sphere it breaks the definition. Its because you are adding in a third dimension to the definition that originally was not in the definition.

The point is here is not one of perspective but instead. When you set a definition and then move that observation you might break the definition unintentionally. Then mistake it for something bizarre or strange. No.

There is a problem with the infinite dimensions theory or infinite universes hypothesis.

The problem is, people only look at a small chunk and say, this small chunk will be different. Then in another that same chunk is yet different again. So on and so forth onto infinity. But this can't happen because the universe is a linear progression.

By changing any point you completely change the entire thing. It isn't a branch at all, its 100% different. Not slightly different, completely and utterly different.

This is the problem with the human brain, it can hold two ideas as being true when they are in fact contradictory.

Just like the right triangle placed on a sphere. One person will argue that its still a right triangle. The other person will argue that it's no longer a right triangle. Which one is right? How can they both be right? When one contradicts the other? They can't. By the very condition they can't.

SO you can't have an infinite number of universes that are just ever so slightly different. Only the human imagination suggests that it can. But it fails to see the full scope of what it means to change one tiny chunk.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

But it is you who have changed the triangle from a plane to a three-dimensional vector.

Time is divided by numbers into years, months, days, hours, minutes and seconds... but place time in space and it bends.

Why can't a circle bend into a sphere and why can't water bend? ...and then is water really water?

1 Reply

@TheCobbler,

TheCobbler wrote:

But it is you who have changed the triangle from a plane to a three-dimensional vector.

Time is divided by numbers into years, months, days, hours, minutes and seconds... but place time in space and it bends.

Why can't a circle bend into a sphere and why can't water bend? ...and then is water really water?

Well time is divided into units in which have a definition. You can chop time into any arbitrary units you want or how ever you want to define them.

When you talk about water bending you have to determine the metric by which it can bend, or what it means when you refer to it, "bending". You can't just say here ill bend some water for you and not define the metric.

Space can warp time? I am always skeptical of this. It is possible since we can not physically see the actual dimensions of space. Could it be that the warp of space is only stretching the vector? So it's not that time changes, instead it is just following the same vector but it is space that has changed shape. We just can't see the shape change. So we make a mistake in observation.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

It is all beyond my understanding.

By adding one single variable (a z vector) some geometry crumbles into nonsense.

Time is warped by space.

Pi is reckoned by resolution.

Add one variable (resolution) and a circle is defined but that which perceives or measures it.

1 Reply

@TheCobbler,

TheCobbler wrote:

Time is warped by space.

How do we know this?

Could it be that it is the shape of space that is different giving the illusion that time has changed?

Just like placing a straight line onto a sphere. If you could not see the sphere, if the sphere is invisible but you still place the line as though it were on a sphere. From one perspective it would appear as though it were still straight but from another it would appear bent or curved.

I think something similar is occurring with time. The time hasn't changed it's just following the same vector, but the vector is being perceived from another perspective, but we can't see this change so we wrongly assume time has changed.

So imagine that you have non curved space. A straight line appears straight no matter which prospective.

However; if you were to distort this space the line can still be straight because it is still following the same vector within this distortion. But from an outsider perspective the line will appear to NOT be straight. Since you can't physically see the distortion of space, or it's shape, you assume it is the line that has changed shape. But no, it in fact hasn't changed at all. It's the space that changed.

Just my hypothesis any way. I could be wrong..

0 Replies

@TheCobbler,

I suggest you investigate the 'realism-anti realism debate' in physics. Most of your musings involve confusion over the ontologically and epistemological status of mathematical models.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

TheCobbler wrote:

We can calculate Pi to what seems an infinite number but what resolution of Pi does our universe use? How far down the rabbit hole does it travel?

You seem to be obsessed with this notion. You do realize that as a number pi becomes increasingly small. It is no different than me asking you to divide 10 by 3. You end up with 3.3333333333333333333333333333333333333 infinitely. But that number gets increasingly smaller and smaller and smaller as you go further out. Essentially you aren't really talking about a real thing, but instead you are talking about an abstract concept of 3.333333333333.

Pi is an irrational number whose decimal expansion can be continued indefinitely. However, there is no need to continue the expansion more than is needed. The known universe has a radius of 46 billion light years. To calculate its circumference to an accuracy equal to the diameter of a hydrogen atom (the simplest atom), needs pi to 40 decimal places. 40 digits. No more. Testing a computer might be a reason to calculate a million, billion, or trillion places.

1 Reply

@centrox,

I really like how you have reasoned this Centrox,

What about things smaller than atoms? Do they not have a shape and mass?

Quarks, neutrinos and the Higgs boson?

Cannot particles be so small they become exponentially small?

What makes up forces like gravity and how about human complexity?

Cells DNA and variety of life?

Isn't the life factor even more complex than the perceptibly physical universe?

How many factors of Pi make up chance and circumstance?

If a computer can perceive Pi is it really beyond Pi's practical application?

Something must require this amount of quantization if it is not time and a clock that is more precice than atomic time?

Could it be the unifying force that unifies all multiverses?

I just find it fascinating, a seemingly endless abyss of perfectly random numbers.

2 Replies

@TheCobbler,

Get a grip !
M-theorists point out this this universe is NOT governed by 'random' numbers. Speculation about changing those universal constants leads to a 'multiverse concept', but the 'reality' of that tends to resist usual methods of empirical investigation.
Check out 'The Elegant Universe' >>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kQXy9GZMuc

1 Reply

@fresco,

Time and space are governed by its inherent amount of resolution and "quantization".

I did not say the universe was governed by random numbers. I do not think the decimals of Pi are random numbers or they would be different each time one would calculate the number. Pi can be used to generate random numbers...

Our universe is comprised of many forms of clocks and each clock has its own unique level of resolution.

The clock that governs, "all that is", must have a resolution that is comparable to the resolution of Pi.

Do you not think you are possibly oversimplifying the theory of all that is?

Watching your video now, thanks for the link! Smile

1 Reply

@TheCobbler,

TheCobbler wrote:

I really like how you have reasoned this Centrox,

I don't know what you mean. I haven't "reasoned" anything. I just said something about pi.

TheCobbler wrote:

What about things smaller than atoms? Do they not have a shape and mass?

Quarks, neutrinos and the Higgs boson?

Cannot particles be so small they become exponentially small?

Shape not really, mass yes, no, no, no, and nothing can be smaller than the Planck length. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_particle

TheCobbler wrote:

What makes up forces like gravity and how about human complexity?

Cells DNA and variety of life?

Isn't the life factor even more complex than the perceptibly physical universe?

How many factors of Pi make up chance and circumstance?

If a computer can perceive Pi is it really beyond Pi's practical application?

Something must require this amount of quantization if it is not time and a clock that is more precice than atomic time?

Could it be the unifying force that unifies all multiverses?

I just find it fascinating, a seemingly endless abyss of perfectly random numbers.

This is like the stuff people babble when they are very stoned.

0 Replies

Forums
» Geometry and Physics

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Geometry and Physics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know