Register to reply 
Fractal SpaceTime and Microphysics: Towards a Theory of Scale Relativity 
Share this thread: 
#1
May1604, 07:31 PM

P: 8

Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone of you has read the book of Laurent Nottale Fractal SpaceTime and Microphysics: Towards a Theory of Scale Relativity http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books why is not his approach adopted ? as apparently, he extended the principle of relativity to scales and thus proposes a unifying frame between relativity and quantum mechanics. See the review on amazon.com "As Einstein indulged a long time in wondering how it would be like to be a photon, LN spent his time trying to slip into a fractal. For once it is in it, a particule which follows chaotic movements in a classical frame, goes straight ahead, and then one may understance the apparent disorders of microphysics. The most amazing is that, beyond the theoretical development, LN's scale relativity not only unifies both poles of the 20th century theoretical physics, namely General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, but also gives us new philosophical insights about how to look at our world. Faithful to Einstein's ideas, he reintroduces the necessity of "the maximum elegance" in our description of the world, elegance which had been swept away by the quantum formalism. Roughly said, quantum mechanics is no longer an axiomatic theory but is now a consequence of a satisfying general principle for mind, namely the relativity principle. So what's the new point? We know since einstein that every momentum is relative (uniform momentum with special relativity, accelerated momentum with general relativity). Roughly said, I never absolutly move, I only move compared to another body. LN extends this beautiful idea of general relativity to the notion of scale. I am not tall, I am just taller than something. But this simple looking idea needs new mathematical tools to enter the hall of wonder that is called theoretical physics. There come the fractals. How these extraodinary and strange figures upset our sight of the whole universe, from microphysics to cosmology ? All this is brilliantly explained, in a simple and accessible way, in this book, where intuition and philosophical insights are as significant as theoretical ideas." 110 


#2
Mar1610, 02:14 AM

P: 10

The idea of fractal space just popped into my mind just now, so I decided to come take a look who was discussing it online. It seems like if things on Earth show fractal nature, then space/time should have fractal nature toonot necessarily a continuous emptiness. Fractals might combat the second law of thermodynamics. I recall reading about fractal memories too. I seem to be having a fractal memory right now.



#3
Mar1610, 04:26 PM

P: 10

Scale is almost universally believed not to be a dimension.If it were we could apply a scalar relativity.The universe is variant in scale.This implies that the Universe is non relative through scale.Is this an indication that Universe is non symetrical through 4d fractal spacetime? Funnel shape perhaps?



#4
Mar1710, 12:18 AM

P: 10

Fractal SpaceTime and Microphysics: Towards a Theory of Scale Relativity
Seeing as I have only taken highschool physics, I probably wouldn't understand the book very well. I did find part of it online, and the math overwhelmed me (I have a hard enough time reading w/o the math). If space is bent around massive objects, perhaps there is some quantum bending that is fractal in nature? Perhaps this "roughness" is what makes gravitons (packets of gravity)? Are we using too many differential equations and not enough difference equations? Are we flying through space, or bouncing through space? What is the shape of earths orbit around the sun? Believe me, I wish for fields (waves), and all I see is clods (particles,quanta). What is the happy medium? What is quantum/fractal bending of space?
If you use dimension on me again, I will ask you what a point is. Your best response will be something that is 1 dimensional. How many 1 dimensional points are there in the universe? How many 1 dimensional points are on [0,1]? If your answer is the same, why? It seems reasonable that dimensions are a sign of dementia. After all, wasn't Descartes sick in bed when he came up with the idea? A point is 1 dimensional in time. That's the only way it can exist at all. 


#5
Mar1710, 01:53 AM

P: 3,243

a point doesn't have dimension/s.



#6
Mar1710, 01:34 PM

P: 10

Actually, I think that points, etc. must exist in time, otherwise, we couldn't hold a conversation about them. Many things have has fractional dimension, including our decimal and binary numbering systems (they're hierarchical, not linear). The only numbering system that is linear is the unary, or base1 numbering system. John 


#7
Mar1710, 02:34 PM

P: 10

Here's an interesting link: http://www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/.../nouv.en.shtml



#8
Mar1710, 03:00 PM

P: 1,060

It is interesting that at the bottom of the text in the link the only (two) references refer to the author and of all the references given in the To Know More link only one of them is not the author, Notalle. Call me an old cynic, but this is often not a good sign. Matheinste. 


#9
Mar1710, 03:20 PM

P: 10

There's a second link here, with more authors: http://www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/...e/pesp_en.html



#10
Mar1710, 03:28 PM

P: 10

There's also another review of the book on amazon.com. Seems like the book is rather expensive. Here it is on google: http://books.google.com/books?id=Fxp...age&q=&f=false



#11
Mar1710, 03:32 PM

P: 1,060

Matheinste. 


#12
Mar1710, 03:57 PM

P: 10

Could someone tell me why Laurants theory considered so insane.I may not be the brightest person in this forum.In simple terms why doesn't the hypothesis work?



#13
Mar1810, 03:46 PM

Mentor
P: 11,770

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=...sicsforums.com I leave it to others who are more versed in such things to comment on why Nottale's ideas haven't been taken up more widely. This thread started out in the Relativity forum, then got moved to the Science Books forum. I think if the focus stays on Nottale's ideas, the best place is probably here in "Beyond the Standard Model." 


#14
Mar1910, 06:56 PM

P: 380

from my bookmarks:
quantum mechanics derived from an invariance principle or space time geometry, fractal or a weyl geometry. is quantum mechanics based on an invariance principle ? http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/grqc/pdf/0610/0610142v2.pdf 


#15
Mar2510, 04:41 PM

P: 380

A Fractal Quantum World?
http://www.andyross.net/palmer.htm Proc. R. Soc. A 8 October 2009 vol. 465 http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o.../465/2110/3165 


#16
Mar2510, 07:13 PM

P: 1,540




#17
Mar2910, 03:42 PM

P: 380

oh sorry, a long time on the beach (a good sun, a lot of photons) yes, palmer a meteorologist and einstein a patent clerk. but bright minds..... without trying to convince anyone... 


#18
Apr1310, 11:10 AM

P: 32

FYI:
"The Evolution and Development of the Universe"  http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.5508 It has some more on scale relativity and fractal spacetime. Maybe more philosophical than physical though. And from the evodevo people appearently. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Inductive reasoning in small spacetime scale  Classical Physics  2  
Space Time in a smaller scale.  Astronomy & Astrophysics  23  
Minkowski spacetime of special relativity (4D)  Introductory Physics Homework  0  
Absolute Space and Time in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity  General Physics  8 