# Would an energy diffraction ring in five space form a Minkowski space?

If you think of a sphereical symmetric diffraction ring, the intensity is constant for each sphereical section (intensity doesn't vary for theta or phi), but it varies kind of like a sine wave in the r dimension from zero to zero with a maximum in the middle of the ring. So that if you think about a vector as being an object that has an energy intensity defined throughout the entire ring, such as another diffraction pattern imbedded in the ring, then I beleive that the distance between two such imbedded patterns can be defined as the enrgy overlap of the patterns. Since the ring sphereically symmetric but thinned out in the r direciton, I believe that it can be thought of as having two eliptical and one hyberbolic dimension. Moving into the r dimension makes things farther apart because the energy overlap becomes less.

Accordingly, I'm thinking that a similar four dimensional diffraction pattern should provide three eliptical and one hyperbolic dimension for determining the closeness of embedded diffraction/distributed energy patterns, which I think should follow the Minkowski metric.

although, I'm not quite sure how to define the energy distributions to make it all work out.

I was just rying to work out the idea of what Minkowski spaces are but it seems to me know that it is the expansion of space with time that causes the Minkowski nature of space.

Last edited:

None of this makes even the remotest bit of sense. This is rather a feature of many of your posts, where you mix jargon from entirely unrelated areas of physics and expect others to make sense of the resulting mess for you.

Please, if you have a serious, well-defined question, ask it. But questions like this serve only to waste everyone's time.

None of this makes even the remotest bit of sense. This is rather a feature of many of your posts, where you mix jargon from entirely unrelated areas of physics and expect others to make sense of the resulting mess for you.

Please, if you have a serious, well-defined question, ask it. But questions like this serve only to waste everyone's time.
I'm sorry to waste your time.

Doesn't a metric provide the distance betwen two vectors.

Can't standing waves and diffraction patterns be considered vectors?

Isn't Minkowski space comprised of three eliptical and one hyperbolic dimension?
http://www.euclideanspace.com/maths/geometry/space/nonEuclid/minkowski/index.htm

In Euclidean space, you can measure the distance between any two identical but spacially separated vectors by the distance between them at any two points, but you can't do that in a coordinate system where the parallel postulate doesn't hold.

If one dimension is expandng (the vectors are getting farther apart), then the dimension will be hyperbolic an the parallel postulate will not hold.

Since the universe is expanding, parallel vectors in x,y,z become divergent vectors as they move through T.

Is there any other mixed jargon that I used?

If you consider vectors painted on an inflating ballon, the distance between the vectors should follow a Minkowski like metric in three dimensions; and if you correlate energy density to rubber density (elasticity), the vectors on the inflating dimple shaped ballon should have a GR type metric.

So if you think of energy as being the inverse dimension of time, it is analalogous to the top half of a diffration pattern being time and the bottom half being energy, where a vector is a wave pattern distributerd pattern between the upper hyberbolic half diffraction pattern ands a lower eliptical diffraction pattern.

Although I'm sorry about asking a question before I had taken more time to think it through. Sometimes I get stuck on an idea and I want to find a resolution but what I really need to do is to take walk or a nap to let my mind reconfigure it's understanding.

Last edited: