Ok. Little space are merely subsets of bigger spaces. Now, does anyone feel we might (in the distant future) make use of this; or is it just Einstein's poetics?
In a message dated Sun, 28 May 2000 4:03:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "scerir@libero.it" <scerir@libero.it> writes:
<< "When a smaller box s is situated, relatively at rest, inside the hollow
space of a larger box S, then the hollow space of s is a part of the hollow
space of S, and the same "space", which contains both of them, belongs to
each of the boxes. When s is in motion with respect to S, however, the
concept is less simple. One is then inclined to think that s encloses always
the same space, but a variable part of the space S. It then becomes
necessary to apportion to each box its particular space, not thought of as
bounded, and to assume that these two spaces are in motion with respect to
each other. Before one has become aware of this complication, space appears
as an unbounded medium or container in which material objects swim around.
But it must now be remembered that there is an INFINITE NUMBER OF SPACES,
which are in motion with respect to each other. The concept of space as
something existing objectively and INDEPENDENT OF THINGS belongs to
pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an INFINITE
NUMBER OF SPACES in motion relatively to each other. This latter idea is
indeed logically unavoidable, but is FAR FROM HAVING PLAYED A CONSIDERABLE
ROLE even in scientific thought."
Science-fiction? Machıs radical geometro-dynamics? D. Hilbertıs hypothesis?
No, I was quoting Einstein, of course.
But he did not make use of that radical concept when he developed the s.c.
EPR argument (entangled particles, quantum measurement, spooky waves, faster
than light messages, etc.).
The poet (sometimes) falls asleep.
scerir
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:48 MDT