# Development by Trial and Error

1. May 8, 2004

### Antonio Lao

If someone has a desire to understand some physical realities such as the reality of electric charge or the reality of matter, energy, and force. How does one begins?

One can start by using simple operations of addition and subtraction. By the use of experimentation, one finds that these realities can be quantified by the use of just simple addition and subtraction. Further, one finds that addition can be applied to scalar quantities and vector quantities but subtraction can only be applied to vector quantities. It is the inherent directional property of vector that makes them subtractable.

The reason why scalar quantities with the exception of the numeral "zero" can be added is the existence of a smallest quantum. This is the unity of all unities of numbers.

Then it turns out that nature is much more complex than what was originally thought. Because different realities can also be put into a comparison of relativeness. The introduction of fractions is a way of doing comparison between the different realities. But the ratio of two identical reality is a unitless or, properly, dimensionless quantity called a pure number and again, this is just the return of the good old scalar quantities. When numbers are ratiod, the creation of more varieties of number: algebraic, the transcendental, trigonometric, etc.

Then later the fractions turn out that they can be approaching values of zero and infinity and in-between the rationals and the irrationals, leading to the invention of the theory of limits, infinitesimal calculus, integral, differential, algebraic equations, infinite series, complex number, hypercomplex, etc. Math begins a transformation into a very specialized subject that necessitated many years of study and research and specialization.

The sad thing is that the questions of what is an electric charge or what is matter remain to be satisfactorily answered not by math but by new physical insight.

2. May 8, 2004

### Olias

This may be relevent line of thought?

Ask yourself this question:What is the maximum amount of information an observer can detect? now take a look around your home and pick out objects that you define as giving you certain degree's of information, an example I can observe a 3-D Spherical object such as a soccer ball, to about 50% of its total area (looking head on in any direction about 50% of the ball will remain hidden).

Now, the really interesting thing is the only oject that I can see more than 50% of is a model of a cone, and of a pyramid. If I observe this from above, then I can see more than 50%.

Is it a wonder that Light 'cones' are Nature's maximum value's in information exchange's in geometry from dimensional system to system. Conic 'light' shapes have the unusual property of having vector and scalar paramiters, and of course where one is viewing from is of vital importance!

3. May 8, 2004

### Antonio Lao

The true geometry of a light cone if we convert time to length is in the ratio of 1:186,000 miles where 1 is the base diameter of the cone and 186,000 is the height of the cone. For all practical purposes, this cone approximates a straight line. We can see nearly 100% with light.

4. May 9, 2004

### Antonio Lao

It might be this missing infinitesimal percentage of the light cone that makes the universe probabilistic rather than deterministic as what Einstein wanted it to be more than anything in the world.

And because of this missing percent, our knowledge of the real world can never be completely attained. We can never see the far side of the photon that is forever hidden away from our view. Indirectly, this proved that photon is not a point object. It has spatial extension after all!

5. May 9, 2004

### Olias

You have answered a question I was going to post here, before I actually posted it!

Entangled Light Cones?.. can work both ways?

http://groups.msn.com/Youcanseehomefromhere/tempusfugititalsodrags.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=40 [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
6. May 10, 2004

### Antonio Lao

The picture of the entangled light cones looks pretty neat. But the one I have in mind is two inverted cones joint at the vertex, representing the present. One cone represents past events and the other, future events. Two branches of hyperbolas parallel to the axis forming past and future worldlines can never meet but only at the vertex where the hyperbolas degenerate into the two asymptotes of straight lines at the surface boundary of the cones. This picture does not show entanglement like the one you have but it can be described by exact analytical geometry of the hyperbolic conic section.