Hidden variable in SR and GR Relativity?

Karlisbad
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
"Hidden variable" in SR and GR Relativity??..

My question is, since we live in a 3-D world, what would happen for an "alien" living on a 4-D world??..if we suppose that space-time has only 4 dimension, and that after a Wick rotation then X_{0} =it then what we think is just a time component for this being would be only an spatial component... then this "being" to describe the evolution and dynamics of its world would need to insert an extra parameter "s" (unphysical??) that we can't see or measure so X_{\mu}(s)=X_{\mu}, in this case i think that the "evolution" of a quantity in GR should depend on this "s" and hence:

g_{ab}(x(s),y(s),z(s),t(s)) and L_{E-H}=\int_{a}^{b}ds\(-g)^{1/2}R(s)ds
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Karlisbad said:
My question is, since we live in a 3-D world
No we don't; we live in a 3+1-D universe.
 
Hurkyl said:
No we don't; we live in a 3+1-D universe.

OK,OK Hurkyl..but if we make a "Wick Rotation" (from real to complex plane) the Lorentz metric becomes just g_{ab}x^{a}x^{b} where all the diagonal components are just 1 and the rest 0 (Euclidean 4metric) in fact:

- To describe the dynamic of a particle in one dimension we define two parameters (x,t)
- To describe the dynamic of a particle in 2 dimension we need to define (x,y,t)
- Hence to define the dynamic of a particle in 4-dimension we need ¡¡5 parameters¡¡ (x,y,z,t) However we only can define x,y,z and t physically
 
There is no notion of time in a 4+0-D universe. It's just space. Why would there be dynamics?
 
The Question Hurkyl..from the Physical point of view is that Physicist always need to look at the "Dynamic" of everything (space-time, particles, and so on) we always look in quantization expressions of the form:

i\hbar \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial t}=H\Phi
 
Physicists only look at dynamics because they're studying a 3+1-dimensional universe. When you change the problem to a 4+0-dimensional universe, you study it in a way appropriate for a purely spatial universe. e.g. in (it, x, y, z) coordinates, you'd use a "quantization expression" of the form

-\hbar \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial (it)}=H\Phi
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
Back
Top