0
$\begingroup$

Today, two of my questions were closed seconds after I wrote them as not about "mainstream physics".

So, I am asking, what is "mainstream physics" then? For instance, is hypothetical but mathematically viable spacetime considered "mainstream physics" or not?

Properties of the 4-th *type* of dimensions (anti-Minkowskian spacetime)

Are physical properties of an imaginary spacetime with different number of dimensions or different metric mainstream or not?

Is asking what would be mechanical properties of an imaginary spacetime on-topic or not?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ There is no such thing as "mainstream physics" - only physics and pseudophysics. $\endgroup$ Aug 9 at 23:02
  • $\begingroup$ @PeterMortensen well, this is the wording from the closing template. My question was closed as "non-mainstream" $\endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 9 at 23:04
9
$\begingroup$
  1. "Closed seconds after I wrote them" is a mischaracterization - your question was closed 6 minutes after it was posted. (While this might seem like a petty complaint, I want to make it clear I read the question before closing it.)

  2. You have presented no citations or support for your claims that "dual numbers represent Newtonian spacetime" or that "impulse" (do you mean momentum?) is related to the areas you draw in your pictures. They strike me as distinctly non-mainstream. If you can supply references to the literature for these claims, this would do a lot to make your question seem less than a personal theory.

  3. Please be mindful that other people only have the context of what is written in the question for judging it. After presenting us with several unsubstantiated claims about different number systems relating to spacetime, you start talking about the complex numbers and finish with

    The intervals between all points are time-like. One can travel back and forward in time, as well as in those "anti-Minkowskian" directions!

    which really does not follow from what you've written before. Not only is your question non-mainstream, it is also unclear since you did not spell out a single argument in it, apparently expecting readers to intuit from your pictures what you are talking about. When in doubt, always err on the side of explaining the premise of questions more thoroughly.

    Your characterisation of your own question as a question about "imaginary spacetime with different number of dimensions or different metric" suggests this is the problem here - questions about different time dimensions or metrics can be on-topic when they are clearly formulated and based in mainstream physics, see e.g. this question and its linked questions.

$\endgroup$
17
  • $\begingroup$ "You have presented no citations or support for your claims that "dual numbers represent Newtonian spacetime" - they do mathematically as described in the question. The question describes the relation. "do you mean momentum?" - as far as I know, impulse and linear momentum are the same thing, at least this is what I was taught in the university. Of course, I can change this if advised. $\endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 9 at 21:29
  • $\begingroup$ @Anixx 1. Whether or not you are correct is not the point - we are not in the business of reviewing new ideas here. Unless this relation between metrics and number systems is exhibited somewhere in established (i.e. published, peer-reviewed) physics, just asking about its properties is the very definition of what we mean by non-mainstream. 2. In English, impulse means a change in momentum. Many other languages use a cognate of "impulse" to mean English "momentum" - beware of false friends! $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    Aug 9 at 21:34
  • $\begingroup$ 1. Well, the relation between Minkowski metric and split-complex numbers is well known. The other variants is just an analogy and represents the essense of the question (e.g. if we apply similar rules to other number systems, what happens? What space we get? In case of duals, we mathematically get Newtonian spacetime, in case of complex numbers, something new). 2. I have changed "impulse" to "linear momentum" throughout the question. $\endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 9 at 21:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Anixx The relations between Minkowski spacetime and the split-complex numbers are known, but not that well-known. At a minimum, there should be some references to the literature. (I actively work on the analogies among Spacetimes and Euclidean space. I would consider the analogies to be suggestive but not yet mainstream at this time. I think the physical interpretation of the split-complex and dual numbers needs to be better established and applied to physics first… then one can suggest a Spacetime-physical interpretation of the complex numbers.) $\endgroup$
    – robphy
    Aug 9 at 23:04
  • $\begingroup$ @robphy well, this is elementary mathematics, also, the question asks for references on whether anyone already studied this. $\endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 9 at 23:10
  • $\begingroup$ @robphy by the way, I have just found a tweet that split-complex numbers represent Minkowski spacetime, and dual numbers represent Galilean spacetime, so I am not the only one who had these ideas. twitter.com/johncarlosbaez/status/1184495830843064322 The tweet says "In physics, the complex numbers describe points in 2d space. The split complex numbers describe points in 2d Minkowski spacetime. The dual numbers describe points in 2d Galilean spacetime - the version of spacetime in classical mechanics before special relativity." $\endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 9 at 23:13
  • $\begingroup$ @Anixx I think the point is that it is up to questioner to invite the audience to the topic, with at least some references to the literature (regardless of how elementary it may seem to the questioner), especially when it is unfamiliar to the audience… which invites the label of being not mainstream. At least provide your references in your question. You need to convince those who might vote to close the question. $\endgroup$
    – robphy
    Aug 9 at 23:15
  • $\begingroup$ @robphy the tweet above belongs to this famous man: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Baez Does he also represent "non-mainstream physics"? $\endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 9 at 23:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If a tweet is the best you have to show for your idea being mainstream, it isn't mainstream. Mainstream researchers can have non-mainstream ideas - every new idea is non-mainstream before it becomes accepted. The goal of our site is not to evaluate such new ideas. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    Aug 9 at 23:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Anixx You don’t have to convince me of the split-complex numbers. You do have to convince others by including references in your question (there are published references (find them!). not just tweets). You probably also have to convince the audience (and me) as to your physical motivation with Spacetime before attempting to extend that idea to a Euclidean-Spacetime via the complex numbers. These are not unreasonable items to include in your question. Good luck. $\endgroup$
    – robphy
    Aug 9 at 23:39
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind this is not a tweet: przyrbwn.icm.edu.pl/APP/PDF/87/a087z6p02.pdf I am changing "Newtonian" to "Galilean" by the way, to conform the sources. $\endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 9 at 23:48
  • $\begingroup$ A relevant answer on Physics.SE, deriving Galilean transformations using dual numbers: physics.stackexchange.com/a/615119/1186 also, non-mainstream? $\endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 10 at 0:01
  • $\begingroup$ One more link: "In absolute space and time the Galilean transformation relates the resting coordinates system to a moving frame of reference of velocity v. With dual numbers t + x ε representing events along one space dimension and time, the same transformation is effected with multiplication by (1 + v ε)." scientificlib.com/en/Mathematics/LX/DualNumber.html $\endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 10 at 0:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Anixx You shouldn't comment these things here, but you should edit them into your question. Also, note that "a tweet", "a physics.SE answer" and "a link to scientificlib.com" fall desparately short of the bar of "a peer-reviewed article in a reliable journal" or "a well-known textbook". $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    Aug 10 at 0:13
  • $\begingroup$ I have already inserted the link to the article. Is Acta Physica Polonica A okay? $\endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 10 at 0:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .