Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: yor_on on 02/08/2013 13:39:08
-
a field, described as we usually do is the same, no matter observers, as long as they are at rest with it. But, assuming that observer dependencies as Lorentz contractions (as well as time dilations) are real measurable properties (which they are as far as I know). How does a 'global field', as a 'universally common field' as the Higgs field is supposed to be, if I got it right? Allow for observer dependencies? If we only can agree on it, being at rest with each other relative it.
Two observers can't even define it to a same time and place otherwise?
So, anyone has an idea how it may do it?
Einstein's Pathway to Special Relativity. (http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins_pathway/)
Observer dependent entanglement. (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.2223) (Interesting but 'heavy construction' mathematically)
And I don't think Lorentz transformations explains it :)
-
I'll start it. If you want to consider it a 'universally covering field, with ripples' you then seem to have to assume that observers will define it, distorting this common field somehow through their observations, through motions, accelerations, energy, mass energy etc. But it can't be a illusion. What one observer measure as real must be real, no matter if another observer define it differently. Either that, or you disallow local experiments for a theoretical solution, which then becomes a 'space' we can't measure on.
but we can measure Lorentz contractions, and time dilations, and they will give different observers different answers. And 'time' is not a spatial dimension, you can't treat it as the other three we define.
-
Ok, let's take a EM field. Is it finite, or infinite? If it is of a infinite reach, does it propagate at 'c'? I'm assuming that this goes for the electric as well as for the magnetic component. And, although it is frame dependent we can assume it a entity for this. So now we have EM fields, constantly produced in our universe, and canceled, as by flipping a switch. If they propagate at 'c', then it demands there being something for them to propagate in, right? That would then be? A vacuum?
If I now assume a 'flat space', is that a space without gravity, or a space, always defined by gravity? I think it is a space defined by gravity. But we meet the same confusing definition for gravity. It 'propagates' at 'c'.
So what is a vacuum? And how does it get its existence, if not by gravity? If we use an idea of a Big Bangs origin being of no certain point (unable to back track to some specific position in our 'commonly same' universe), but of all points, then what about its metric? Which should be gravity? Also of all points? And EM? Also of all points?
(Isn't that a very local definition?)
What if I said that what gives this vacuum a reality, and a measurable existence, should be gravity? What would then a EM field do? It too has to follow geodesics, doesn't it? Meaning it shouldn't be able to exist outside gravity's definition of a space? If I assume this to be wrong then? Still defining gravity as what defines a measurable vacuum. Then a EM field is able to propagate between 'universes'? Assuming there is something allowing for such a thing to exist.
Anyway, when we speak of 'fields' it's the EM field I first think of. So, what is a field?
-
Let's make it even simpler. If I turn on the light, is that a EM field? Does it propagate at 'c'? When I switch it of, is the EM field still propagating from its origin, towards infinity? And if I let it be on then? Is a EM field constantly leaving that lightbulb, or is it a 'static' field, staying put? If it is, what part of it is propagating?
-
It isn't that a field (doesn't) makes a lot of sense. It solve problems with both QM and Relativity, as I hope then :) The question to me is how to understand it? It has to be observer dependent, at least from a macroscopic definition. That actually means that you need both a locally true, as well as a globally true description of this 'field', and it's not enough to define common properties, at least not as I would like it. I prefer direct experiments, but the field description is rather far from experiments, as it seems to me?
No matter if one would prefer to define a field from locality, then introducing 'global parameters' joining the local parameters into a seamless universe. Or, if you like it as it acts locally, one 'seamless universe', then defining observer dependencies as something 'extra', or?
=
My writing nowadays jumps over, sometimes rather important, words it seems :)
The static electromagnetic field. (http://www.oei.ytu.edu.cn/physics/jpkc_dcx/kjzl/Electromagnetics/chap03.pdf)
-
Let's make it even simpler. If I turn on the light, is that a EM field? Does it propagate at 'c'? When I switch it of, is the EM field still propagating from its origin, towards infinity? And if I let it be on then? Is a EM field constantly leaving that lightbulb, or is it a 'static' field, staying put? If it is, what part of it is propagating?
I try to answer this post only otherwise I get a headache. If we could convert your thoughts into an exploitable form of energy, the energetic problems of Sweden would be solved [;)]
<<If I turn on the light, is that a EM field? Does it propagate at 'c'? When I switch it off, is the EM field still propagating from its origin, towards infinity?>>
It keeps propagating away from its source, the lamp.
<<And if I let it be on then? Is a EM field constantly leaving that lightbulb, or is it a 'static' field, staying put?>>
In that case of a lamp switched on and then off in a free space, the em field generated varies with time in every fixed point of space you choose, so it can't be static.
-
What would a observer dependence mean for a observer in this field? Maybe the point I'm trying for is that every observer should have a uniquely true definition of what they measure. Does it matter that they can't define a (common) 'patch of space' and 'time' for this? As long as it is unique, belonging to the observer?
-
I don't know if I interpreted your answer correctly, but, for example, a vector in 3D space doesn't change if we choose another cartesian frame of reference, for example translated and rotated with respect to the first. Yet the components of the vector changes!
With fields is something similar: they changes but there is something "bigger" made of them wich doesn't.
-
…. observers will define it, distorting this common field somehow through their observations
My understanding is that the EM field is present everywhere, but it can be “switched on, (non-zero) or off (zero)”. If you switch on a lamp it causes excitations in the EM field which propagate at “c”, and may be considered as ripples in the EM field, or as particles (photons). At this point the field can be observed through observation of the effect these excitations have on objects that react with them.
This seems to leave open the question: does observation distort a field, or does the field have to be distorted in some way before it can be observed?
-
This seems to leave open the question: does observation distort a field, or does the field have to be distorted in some way before it can be observed?
Both. Observation absorbs energy from the field. To do so, the field must be carrying energy to begin with. But in doing so, it also takes energy out of the field, which necessarily disturbs it. We see this everyday. When you use a camera to take a picture, the light enters the front of the camera and is absorbed. The camera has changed the field by blocking/absorbing some of the light--if there were no camera present, the field would be different (namely, there wouldn't be a shadow of the camera).
-
I don't know if I interpreted your answer correctly, but, for example, a vector in 3D space doesn't change if we choose another cartesian frame of reference, for example translated and rotated with respect to the first. Yet the components of the vector changes!
With fields is something similar: they changes but there is something "bigger" made of them wich doesn't.
It's the same with fields. Especially the EM field and the gravitational field. For example; the Faraday tensor (aka EM field tensor) is defined here
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/em/faraday_tensor.htm
As measure in an inertial frame the E field forms the spatial portion while the rate of change of energy with respect to proper time forms the time component.
See also http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/phy319/phy319/node135.html
To find the electric field measured by a particular observer one forms the observer's 4-velocity and contracts it with the Faraday tensor. One then obtains the electric field 4-vector. A similar process is done using the magnetic field (See Wald's text page 64). While the electric and manetic field can be expressed as Cartesian 3-vectors they can also be expressed as 4-vectors in this way. A similar thing happens with relativistic mass as well as energy.
As a good example consider the EM field of an electromagnetic wave. Obviously there is no preferred frame of reference for such a field and to measure the field means to measure its components in a particualar frame of reference. Once that's done one has the complete description of the "invariant" geometric object "Faraday tensor."
-
Thanks, I didn't remember of the "Faraday tensor", I only remembered there was something invariant [;)]
The difficulty for me to remember this concepts is in translating mathematically in which sense can be invariant an object whose components are not.
-
Thanks JP. Is my understanding of the EM field anywhere near the mark?
-
The problem is that a (assumed universal) field becomes something different to me, considering it from how there is a discrepancy in both distance and time relative once local observation, to then describing it 'universally', if this now makes sense? And I mix them up a little here too. Vectors described in a EM field isn't about that really, and I can see how it confuse you Lightarrow. My sole excuse is that when I think of a field it is EM that comes to mind :) And I need something to go out from.
Does a Higg field have a inertia? The field may explain some constituent of what gives a mass, but I don't see it explain a atom of rest mass? Assuming that 'motion' creates a mass (quarks gluons etc) internally doesn't really makes it easier to see to me either?
Assuming 'motion' to create it, or accelerations macroscopically? I don't know, what is that 'motion'? But that's not the question really. For now I just want to understand how observer dependencies is explained away in a 'universal Higgs field'? Then again, we have those with a EM field too?
-
In a isolated atom, are the 'forces' keeping it in a static, or a dynamic, equilibrium? Is there anything 'moving' at all? Or is the different probe answers we get a result of a probability, having very little to do with any definition of a macroscopic motion?
And that is a question of rest mass, in a 'inertial' object I guess :) But it too must relate to a 'field concept' in my mind.
-
Think of gravity.
Assume that it represent a field.
It follows that either you need to assume a field, no matter what, to be observer dependent, or to represent some other definition, outside observer dependencies. So, which one is it?
Einstein thought of both photons and gravity as fields, if I get him right.
" I must have expressed myself unclearly in regard to the light quanta. That is to say, I am not at all of the opinion that one should think of light as being composed of mutually independent quanta localized in relatively small spaces. This would be the most convenient explanation of the Wien end of the radiation formula. But already the division of a light ray at the surface of refractive media absolutely prohibits this view. A light ray divides, but a light quantum indeed cannot divide without change of frequency.
As I already said, in my opinion one should not think about constructing light out of discrete, mutually independent points. I imagine the situation somewhat as follows: . . . I conceive of the light quantum as a point that is surrounded by a greatly extended vector field, that somehow diminishes with distance. Whether or not when several light quanta are present with mutually overlapping fields one must imagine a simple superposition of the vector fields, that I cannot say. In any case, for the determination of events, one must have equations of motion for the singular points in addition to the differential equations for the vector field.
(Einstein to Lorentz, 23 May 1909, Einstein 1993, Doc. 163) "
To make me understand a field I need to understand observer dependencies. And it's not enough transforming one point in a space (and time), relative a observer, to another point, as using a Lorentz transformation.
You can either assume that, if a degree of freedom is a 'dimension', then there should be some more degree, as I suspect Einstein to have assumed, in where those observer dependencies can be translated away, presenting us with 'one common universe'. That way of looking on it assume that what we 'instinctively' presume, also must be what it is. It's about from where you look.
Or as I think, that what we have, always is a local definition, joined through constants. Each way of looking at it I, and you, meet the same difficulty though, explaining what a observer dependency should mean for this universe.
A field, and constants?
-
Think of a coordinate system, in where you have a ball situated. That ball exist, it has a individual existence, but your coordinate system is a artifact, dependent on mass energy and 'motion'. The 'motion' you measure for yourself is relative a constant.
=
Is lights speed in a vacuum observer independent?
If it is, what then is observer dependent, as you measure other frames of reference.
Should all constants be observer independent?
They should, shouldn't they?
So, if you now presume a constant able to have changed?
Would it be a constant, from such a definition?
=
It's all about from where you stand looking at it as I think, can't stress that one enough. But if you as me think of it all, as being able to relate to some least principles, creating all we see. Then there should be something a universe rests on, agreeable for, and hopefully to, us all.
-
If a constant is allowed to change, although still being defined as a constant, then that should be from an idea of this 'field/universe' etc representing something alike that commonly same space Einstein thought of, having a existence outside observer dependencies. Myself I would like constants that does not change at all. Because assuming a field, you define it as a reality relative something outside this field. You must do so to allow constants to change. As long as you do so a universe are bounded, and even if infinite from a definition in where a straight line never is found to end (your 'forward motion'), it still is finite from my view.
Either that or we define motion and distances as artifacts. In that case it becomes meaningless defining a 'size'.
-
Constants that are unchanging should be like principles, to my mind, ideal representations defining something behind this universal veil. Defining them as changing, although not observer dependent, also relating them to a 'field' changing, assuming that concept, then that field needs a boundary from where it can be seen to change. I'm not discussing if there are one, or several, 'fields', as I don't see how that would matter for this. If you want fields, interacting with fields, you also need to define their boundaries, and as that also must make them observer dependent, you can't. You should only be able to translate observer dependencies for them.
And the point with a constant, is that it should not be observer dependent, it does not change in interactions. It's the same from any observer. And preferably stays the same under a universes existence.
It doesn't matter if you define constants as local representations, or as commonly shared although 'universal constants', if distance and motion would be artifacts, because then you can refer to a universe as a 'point like' existence. The discrepancy that allows life and a universe though is just those weird frames of reference, interacting, including finding different 'fields'.
-
I haven't mentioned 'time' here. But as I see it we build physics on a existent 'objective' time. The time for a repeatable experiment is defined as being a 'objective reality', presenting us proofs of physical laws existing, objectively. Defining it from relativity that only can be true in a local definition. My 'time' should extremely seldom be the exact same as yours, assuming mass (gravitational time dilations) and motion. Being 'at rest', as sharing a exact same definition of a arrow, is a approximate definition practically, as far as I can see, only able to define if using 'identical test particles', in a 'flat space', being at absolute rest with each other. But ideally we can define being 'at rest', and so it's not a meaningless concept.
So, what makes those test particles share a same arrow? And do we need them to define a arrow?
-
Split all particles, define it at some smallest common nominator as a 'grain of time'. You consist of those particles, I do too. Would that define a 'commonly existing objective' arrow?
If it does, what then define the time dilations we measure?
-
On the other tentacle, there is proofs for a objective 'time', as a arrow, existing, same for us all. We just need to join a same frame of reference, in all aspects naturally, down to be of the exact same distribution of mass. And then there is the fact that, wherever you compare, it won't matter for your own measurement of your life span. It will be the same relative your local clock. You do not gain any extra years by hiding at some neutronstar, not locally measured. And you can't avoid aging, it's a fact of life.
So a arrow exist, and possibly able to be defined as being of a locally same duration, relative your also local lifespan. That becomes a local proof, not unlike the way we define a repeatable experiment to my eyes. And as physics builds on those?
-
What if I would assume 'time' to be a homogeneous 'field? How would we then define the way energy, mass and motion distort our measurements of other frames. How would you go about measuring your own frame of reference in such an idea. Microscopically we must meet time dilations, and if a Lorentz contraction is a complementary part of a time dilation?
Is there any way to measure on 'one frame of reference', what you measure with, and in, being part of it? We get our measurements comparing between frames of reference, don't we?
But if I now assume that there is a homogeneous 'field' defining 'grains of time'? Some smallest common nominator for a arrow?
-
To make that work I think we need more dimensions. Because somehow mass as well as motion, and 'energy', whatever that is, should twist those to give us what we call mass? Or can you do the same with fewer dimensions than what we measure?
-
Then we might have a 'field', and dimensions as in unmeasurable 'degrees of freedom', twisting it all into what we define as our four dimensional reality, the common universe. With our measurements expressing just a part of it. It's a weird idea, but it's also one making sense to me when it comes to thinking of a field. Because you need to find the homogeneity of that field, in its smallest expression, to have something to stand on as I think. Alternatively you might be able to relate it to a 'projection' of a universe, coming from some simple principle of how a few 'dimensions' create something more, for us existing in it. Or you want to stay inside the dimensions we can measure on, in which case this becomes trickier to define.
-
If you stay inside four defined 'degrees of freedom' for all things moving, three spatial, one temporal. Then you will find Lorentz contractions and time dilations, measuring between frames of reference. That should mean that my measurements won't be yours, even though we ideally can define something to be in a same frame of reference, or, 'at rest'. But those distortions do not create a homogeneous field to my eyes, defining a commonly same universe for us all.
-
Against it you have those local proofs for it being possible to share a same arrow. That seems to me as a expression of something homogeneous, that smallest common nominator.
-
We grow physics from some assumptions, one being how we define something to be 'globally, commonly for us all' true experimentally, by being able to repeat a same experiment, somewhere else getting the 'same answer'. A 'repeatable experiment'. Where is that repeatable experiment in a world where you microscopically find Lorentz contractions and time dilations? Then a repeatable experiment becomes a generalization of a ideal, instead of a 'objective' experimental fact, does it not?
Doesn't the assumption of repeatable experiments build on a idea of there being smallest common nominators 'objectively and globally' existing?
-
You could imagine a universe consisting of 'excitations', as something becoming 'real' for us inside it. You can also translate a arrow into the ordered way those excitations change coordinate system. Doing so the arrow we perceive stops to exist to me :) with the excitations order becoming another type of arrow, hiding behind what we measure.
=
Or, and this one is quite weird, you could assume that what each one of us observe is wholly unique, able to relate to some common smallest nominator that globally gives us a universe, although always locally defined. that one also fits the facts, because whatever you measure, as a distance related to some 'speed', must be true locally, no matter how some other frame of reference, also locally measuring, want to define it. Because that is what a measurement is.
-
In the last type of universe a distance and motion are highly questionable. What exist in such a one is measurements, over frames of reference, that being no guarantee of a 'commonly shared universe' we find us to exist in. and what such a thinking would do 'dimensions' and 'degrees of freedom'? It turns it upside down for me.
-
What would be a 'field' in such a universe can only be what we locally find to be the exact same, as joining the same frame of reference. And there we have, what? A same arrow? What would you define such a minimized frame to contain?
-
The field in such a universe must have two principles at least, or? I'm thinking one relating to each 'local point' describing rules for it. Those rules should in my imagination :) be equivalent to/for all other points observed. Then you need something joining points to points ('c'). and then I think you need to introduce other parameters that we can observe from 'c' interacting with motion and mass(energy). those last ones may be emergences though :) But I do think one would need something explaining why one point can find and measure on another point, giving us a universe. As I said, this one is pretty weird, and also possible to join to an idea of everything being excitations, although not giving those to become a 'arrow of time'.
-
You can, if defining it such as all 'frames of reference' are the same, equivalent, containing the exact same 'principles' or rules in some point like manner. Then you still need what connects them 'c'. then you need mass(energy) and relative (uniform) motion as well as accelerations as the definers of time dilations and Lorentz contractions. But it would be a pretty weird idea using the idea of 'dimensions', as each locally observed universe, if treated as a four dimensional continuum, must differ? What would that give each one of us, at different speeds and mass, measuring? Different universes, or the same?
Myself I would like to have a way of expressing it where time dilations and Lorentz contractions spring forward as 'emergences' coming from a more unified presentation, and to get to such an idea I think one has to look at what are equivalent for all frames of reference. and that should then become what a 'field' is :) well hopefully. And using that universe dimensions also becomes a emergence I suspect, as well as 'degrees of freedom'.
-
Think of it as a layer for example, a sheet. in it you introduce excitations, and some rules of how those excitations communicate with each other. Each point unique, and equivalent to any other point. What defines each points uniqueness are the measurements made. Either you can define it as all points measure on all other points constantly, interacting. Or you introduce consciousness under a arrow as the definer of what a measurement is. Myself I prefer the first one, as it seems simpler, and also allows those points a independent 'reality'. If you go by consciousness alone, then the only proof you have is your own mind. For all that you know you might imagine all other consciousnesses, as well as the universe you measure on. So the first one makes more sense to me.
=
A sheet is a very poor representation of what I'm thinking of, because now I defined something, either two dimensional, or one dimensional. But that's not what I'm aiming for. I'm aiming for a 'point like' universe in this one, in where degrees of freedom and dimensions are emergences allowing us the ability to make measurements.
But I still want to keep a common arrow, equivalent to all points, in this universe.
-
What you can say for any, biological or 'dead matter', system of mass is that if it consist of Lorentz contractions and time dilations. Then those either are to 'small' to disturb, or they do not matter at all (no pun intended). If they doesn't matter you need to ask yourself how that can be. In a 'point like' universe they are emergences, in a four dimensional continuum they should have to be too small. In a 'point like universe' it's the principle joining points, 'c', that creates it.
=
Alternatively you could argue that as they are complementary (observer dependent), defining all points as 'constantly measuring' on all other, they take each other out leaving a equilibrium on some non-defined 'ideal plane'. But that will introduce a universe of ideal principles, defining the local representations we have.
-
To see where I differ. Dimensions and degrees of freedom both presumes a common universe, using basic rules, same for all, defined through containment 'inside' this universe. If you instead define it such as what is 'real' should be what defines a universe then this conclusion becomes slightly distorted. What is 'real' in this universe are your measurements. When yours fit mine we might define this as a proof of a same universe, but using time dilation and Lorentz contractions we find that there is a plausible doubt over ours experiments truly being equivalent.
The other point is that the universe you measure on, will be the one you live in and are defined by. The experiments answer and measurements are what will define your outcomes. This doesn't state that there isn't a equivalence existing. It only states that practically it will be very hard to prove that equivalence down to slightest details, presuming complementary time dilations and Lorentz contractions existing. Assuming that experiments are locally defined and measured, presenting you with the closest approximation of your reality, but not exactly equivalent to a other local measurement, will give you a universe in where we do share common principles, with a twist.
In such a thinking the universe we observe is a emergence, defined locally. It needs something joining points creating the illusion, or local reality if one like. and there we have lights speed in a vacuum. That is what joins the information I get from other points to mine. It's not lights speed that is important there, it's the principle involved instead, the idea of information.
-
You could call lights speed in a vacuum a basic rule for how points communicate, it's a limit defining it. And dimensions, our common four dimensional universe, stops covering this idea, as it to me presumes a container of sorts, us measuring from inside. Instead we find local points, sharing a way to communicate, a universe emerging from the communication as locally defined. It does not state how those points are organized from some global perspective, it will not involve degrees of freedom as defining some common container, and dimensions stop to make sense.
It's the same universe though, just turning it around.
-
Using 'c' you can link that to your life span. then 'c' is your local clock. It ticks from your birth to your demise, presenting you a even reliable duration of 'ticktocks'. that gives the arrow a strictly local definition. Although we all share it, it once again is important to point out that this does not give us that commonly same universe, we normally associate with us agreeing on some principle. You have to differ between common principles, ideal definitions of equivalence, and the 'reality' you measure on.
-
I'm slightly allergic to 'projections', as defining the universe becoming one. A projection uses dimensions to me, creating new ones, holding new degrees of freedom (ways to move) arising from the 'illusion/projection' created, to us being inside it. If there isn't dimensions then? What does the 'projection' rest on?
but we have common principles, the local arrow and 'c' merging into one expression, equivalent to all of us.
-
That's why the arrow of time is a basic principle, equivalent to 'c', and also a strict local definition, only 'true' locally measured and ideally defined. As you move from a 'ideal' local measurement to measuring over frames of reference you introduce time dilations and Lorentz contractions. And practically, all measurements must be over frames of reference. You can't measure 'locally', you can only define some ideal. As superimposing something (identical), ideally sharing a same 'frame of reference'. But it exists and it is what I would call one 'local point'.
-
If you think of a field from such a reasoning, then the field should be those principles that equivalently holds true for all local points, painting up your local definition of a universe, communicating through 'c'.
-
And those principles we have common does not have the limitations we define inside our 'common universe', They are not dependent on distances, and although we found 'c' measuring displacements over time, the principle itself has nothing to do with that sort of definition, at least not to me. It's a much deeper connection to me, defining communication between points, not stating how it communicates, although we have our definition, defined from an idea of dimensions.
-
It's very hard disconnecting consciousness from a universe. Either you define it as 'everything measures on everything', then the universe get a independent reality from consciousness. Or you define it as without consciousness, there can be no measurements. The later opens for interpretations of your reality, in where consciousness is the redeemer of that reality. But if we can agree on that there must be principles, or rules, defining the universe you see, we already have moved away from consciousness. and there a adjacent question becomes what those principles states, another way to consciousness, or not? Consciousness is easy to define if we use the limitations of a arrow to define it with, and doing so we also move consciousness to a question of 'free will' is what defines it, as it seems to me. Because living under a 'linear arrow', being conscious, we also have a opportunity to choose.
The principles defining local points though, do they choose? Take interference, Feynman's description, if I remember it right, of how a ultimate (quantum logic) answer becomes, through quenching and reinforcing. Would that be a choice, or is it just some 'cosmic principle'. If the answer to a identical question always becomes the same, is there a 'free will' involved?
-
There is the argument that there are no choice, everything being predestined. Against that you can set the difference between a 'quantum answer' always being the same (as a presumption), relative ones ability to make a 'wrong choice'. If the universe is defined by some answers being more correct than others then those choices you make may not be the correct ones, the perfect answers as it may be. That is what free will implies, the possibility of me making a mistake, presuming there is a better answer, although you can imagine a universe under arrow with no answer being 'ultimate', or all being it, depending on circumstances. Quantum logic on the other hand presumes that one optimal answer must exist as I read it, as in the idea of a quantum computer. So there we find a definition in where there is one correct answer to any well defined question.
Assuming predestination, meaning that it won't matter what choice I make, be it bad or good, as there is no other choice than the one I made, no matter how I think of free will, it still exist a difference in that the quantum computer 'must' present me with the 'perfect answer' to any well defined question, whereas my own answer might be quite far from it, comparing. So, do you think there are principles defining a universe? Do you think there can be several of different credibility, 'ultimate answers', to a well defined question?
I don't think so. I think principles exist, and that it is those defining our universe. And that's also one reason to question predestination as an idea.
-
You can keep predestination, although in a limited sense though. Imagine a universe defined by outcomes, all possible outcomes, depending on choices, all together in a 'timeless block universe'. That universe would then be representation of all choices possible, timelessly together. It allows for 'free will' to take any route it want through that universe, defining it using a arrow. Under a arrow it should be able redefine what we see, at the same time as it would allow predestination as being some non-measurable, ultimate, 'reality'.
=
That one still demands principles existing though, and those other, not realized, possibilities in my universe, depending on my choice, can then either be presumed to exist in alternative universes, or you are free to define it such as it is what you measure that exist, leaving those unrealized possibilities be as they do not exist after my choice becoming a outcome.
-
Dimensions contra degrees of freedom. Damned if I know how to define this. We live in a four dimensional SpaceTime, right. We use parameters defining where you are, relative some agreed on grid. The grid consist of the degrees of freedom something can have. Physically (not strictly mathematically now) a test particle should be defined by three degrees of freedom spatially and one temporal. Meaning your position in the room as well as the time. To that there might be other parameters you can add, as 'energy' 'spin' etc, but for a point particle that you want to place the first four should be enough.
Then we have Phasespace.
"In mathematics and physics, a phase space is a space in which all possible states of a system are represented, with each possible state of the system corresponding to one unique point in the phase space. For mechanical systems, the phase space usually consists of all possible values of position and momentum variables....
In a phase space, every degree of freedom or parameter of the system is represented as an axis of a multidimensional space; a one-dimensional system is called a phase line, while a two-dimensional system is called a phase plane. For every possible state of the system, or allowed combination of values of the system's parameters, a point is included in the multidimensional space. The system's evolving state over time traces a path (a phase space trajectory for the system) through the high-dimensional space. The phase space trajectory represents the set of states compatible with starting from one particular initial condition, located in the full phase space that represents the set of states compatible with starting from any initial condition.
As a whole, the phase diagram represents all that the system can be, and its shape can easily elucidate qualities of the system that might not be obvious otherwise. A phase space may contain a great many dimensions. For instance, a gas containing many molecules may require a separate dimension for each particle's x, y and z positions and momenta as well as any number of other properties." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space
Mathematically it becomes even weirder. A circle can mathematically be defined as having three degrees of freedom, its radius being one, and two center coordinates. A angle has four degrees of freedom, two coordinates of its vertex and the slopes of its rays.
So what is it? What is a dimension, and what is a degree of freedom? I like degrees of freedom, and naively i would define those as the possible ways something can move in a dimensional system, from an idea of physics. We better take a look at dimensions too.
"In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.
Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it (for example, the point at 5 on a number line).
A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it (for example, to locate a point on the surface of a sphere you need both its latitude and its longitude).
The inside of a cube, a cylinder or a sphere is three-dimensional because three coordinates are needed to locate a point within these spaces." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_%28mathematics_and_physics%29
One might find dimensions easier to comprehend, as a description of the universe you can 'touch'. But I find degrees of freedom better. And why is just because I'm questioning what it means.
-
But both build on a ideal as I see it, the assumption that there is a global definition of a 'space', from where you can lift out parameters defining somethings position. If you split the definition into two parts, you get to a similar but yet different resolution.
What I measure locally, relative what you measure locally. Where we agree on local measurements we ultimately define repeatable experiments. But measuring over frames of reference, introducing mass energy and motion we will not agree.
Either you find this to be the universe adapting to your local parameters, as your mass, relative 'speed' etc etc, or you don't? Although, there is very little logic in me assuming that my futile,and very finite adjustments of a speed, would be able to contract a whole universe, to me.
But if you define it as a commonly same SpaceTime, that's exactly what you do.
-
The universe as a illusion.
Well, if it is, it's still very real to me, measuring, and to you too, isn't it? :) The problem is twofold, at the very least. There is a universe locally measured, you exist in it as I exist, we both agree on that from our local measurements. We can communicate. At the same time as my very real universe, isn't the exact same as yours. What would you need to question to make it fit?
If you want to make a time dilation into a illusion you need to do the same with a Lorenz contraction. They must be complementary. If you as me define it such as 'c' and your local arrow is equivalent as a clock, then I don't see how to avoid finding time dilations and Lorentz contractions existing, being as real as measurably can be.
-
You could try to define 'c' as a variable, but that's not what experiments tell us. Questioning motion, as well as distances, or you could ask yourself if there is some other way to define how a universe comes to be behold, in local measurements. If there is a way for communication to define dimensions, and 'degrees of freedom'. There is a difference between a illusion and a emergence I think, in that a emergence is measurable, a illusion should be able to be proven false.
-
And now we come back to degrees of freedom. Isn't it those that will define dimensions? Take a point, give it parameters. Let some parameters define a room geometry, giving us distances, a arrow, as well as speeds. Then take a parameter defining a limit, as 'c'. Either define it as one point, making all points :) or fall back on the idea of some 'plane' or 'strings'. It's the one with one point making all points that I don't find the words for, because we don't have either words, or a logic, for it that I know. But if you look at what parameters you would need for a point, being the exact equivalent to any other, then use communication to define a dimensionality the question seems to become how many points do you need? It's a pretty weird idea :)
-
Relativity is about measuring between points, you at A, me at B. When we compare our results we can agree on parameters explaining differences in measurements, as Lorentz transformations. Those parameters are not part of your local reality, neither of mine. Our local reality is the exact same as what our respective measurements will tell it to be. So where is the commonality? In a mathematical space?
Alternatively you use local definitions as your stepping stone, then use what is shared 'globally' (principles being equivalent) to define a commonality. Doing so you either try to keep a 'common space', or you don't. The later is simplest, let that space go. What you then have is your local definition of a space, but a space that due to communication also includes me. If I find a way to communicate rules for finding me in your space, also assuming that 'being at rest with' and sharing a same frame of reference is approximately true practically, and ideally a absolute truth. Then we come back to the space we have. the difference being that it is no container anymore, rather ways 'things' connect. The container gets its shape through the connections.
-
That one is crucial to how I'm staring to think. If we are defined from sharing some same local rules, those rules enabling us to connect, then that is a total different universe from one that is defined from some global point of view. In a 'global universe' containing us, dimensions and degrees of freedom being how we can behave inside it, we are fishes inside a fishbowl. In a universe constantly created and updated through information/communication the fishbowl is a construct. It's like everything else, a matter of where you stand and look at it.
but it can treat a universe expressing Lorentz transformations and time dilations better than the one in where we live in a fishbowl.
-
And as it is defined through principles that must be true in each local definition, as 'c' and as I think, as a arrow equivalent to the way we define lights speed in a vacuum, for any frame of reference. And I'm including accelerations for this, because if the arrow have a equivalence to 'c', then I need to include a acceleration in it too.
-
So it should be easy to disprove :)
Just prove that 'c' isn't.
-
There are interesting possibilities to such a approach. One is hierarchy's, as in 'layers' upon 'layers' using scales to define it.
"In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition. One consequence of this dephasing is classical or probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer) and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation:
decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary. Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way. This prevents different elements in the quantum superposition of the system+environment's wavefunction from interfering with each other. Decoherence has been a subject of active research since the 1980s."
There is no set scale that I know of that limit a quantum approach from a 'classical'. But we see the results of a 'classical answer' in easily defined outcomes daily. And then we have consciousness, what would you refer that to? Is it a classical phenomena or a quantum logical? Or a little of both?
In a universe built on communication/information, assuming everything to be 'in touch' constantly, a hierarchy becomes a theoretical construct. In it a universe will be a construct from communication, creating definitions we use of dimensions, as well as of 'degrees of freedom'. Scaling as such is one logic way we find to probe this construction. another question becomes what 'local' should mean in such a universe as it is just information that are being exchanged.
from the universe's side communication should be communication as I think. It should not differ between hierarchies, and so could be seen as a 'flat network' of nodes communicating, the hierarchy/ies we find arising from the way the information is handled, meaning all measurements. Another way of expressing communication is that 'everything measures on everything' as I think. 'Locality' in that definition should then be a definition of what nodes communicate with what nodes under a experiment. And a hierarchy would be the way we define it to become, building a mental logical construction, either using a arrow, or not.
It's locality in the old way as it assumes that nodes 'close' to each other are those that communicate, now using a arrow for the definition. But it's locality in a new way as it does not use a definition of a dimension, distance etc, limiting it. The universe built from its communication, and our experiments, as it may be. In it, a definition of something being 'close' to something else, is resting on what experiments tells you, not on what its (the universes) 'dimensions' tell you.
=
Think of it this way. The experiment will define 'closeness'. Using the arrow, as I do, is related to outcomes as measuring in our classical way. The arrow ticks, everywhere, and its outcomes define a universe. But the experiment will define what is 'close', not an idea of dimensions.
A measurement is a outcome. Can't get around that, 'weak measurements' must also give you a outcome to draw a conclusion.
-
I want to keep a arrow, locally defined, and I use 'c' for it. Then you have a locally equivalent definition valid for each 'point' in a 'universe'. It's primary a theoretical definition as it under our ordinary paradigm today then must, for being 'measurable', be able to be related to some scale or other. And I am using 'points' for it, am I not? It's been a headache to me, trying to imagine how one should define some smallest common nominator for such a 'point', holding equivalent properties in itself, valid 'everywhere in a universe'.
But you don't need points for it, you can use a field. Although a 'point like particle' is one without dimensions a field is easier to relate to, possibly. You just need to treat it, scaling it down, to some common principles defining it.
-
A field have another excellent property to me :) There is no set 'size' defining it, as in finding 'bits' at some ultimate scale. More than possibly the idea of scaling down to its singular excitations, but that will then be a question of your interpretation of a excitation. That means that it is a smooth phenomena to me, although possible to translate into 'bits'. The 'common universe' we measure on have so far proven to be smooth, astronomically tested. and it makes sense if you think of it as emergences defining scales.
=
Because in a universe of emergence, scales are a construct too. Something that allows us to probe different logical frameworks. A very weird universe indeed :)
-
A field of equivalent 'time'/ 'c' (locally defined naturally, there is no other way you can measure) underlying the constructs we find :) It's a nice thought to me. the arrow exist.
-
One has to remember that I differ emergences from illusions. Time is no illusion, neither is the arrow, its' the structure on where you will find outcomes resting. Time dilations are emergences, not illusions, as they are measurable. The same goes for a Lorentz contraction. In a universe of communication dimensions are one way to describe what we observe, degrees of freedom another (as I think better) although dimensions are easier to understand in that it very well describes all objects in our 'common universe'.
A illusion must be able to prove wrong, a emergence though should be a measurable thing.
-
So why would I want to exchange dimensions and degrees of freedom as the dimensional canvas in where we move to some weird idea in where the connections is what makes us perceive dimensions? For me it's following 'locality' to where it should come from. 'Locality' is to me an idea of some scale in where we should find a arrow of time, and 'c', locally equivalent. It is a question of scales to me, possibly also without limits. If what makes dimensions can be related to some smallest meaningful points, and those related to equivalent properties, as 'c' and its equivalent arrow may make. Then those becomes a sort of nodes, defining relations interacting and so creating dimensions to us consisting of them.
Just think of it as principles defining what we see and measure on. What I call scales here then becomes the background from where a universe constantly becomes and gets affirmed through interactions. But it does not state that this is all there is. It just state that it is from those principles we find our ways to measure and communicate in the way we do. To me that seems to suggest that you might have several 'co-existing' realities, each one finding itself 'alone', having its own definition of what 'dimensions' and 'degrees of freedom' must mean.
-
Scales becomes something its own right there. In one way able to use as we normally use it, 'magnifying and shrinking', but also becoming an idea in where it is our limits of observation that defines what a scale means. As seen from the 'inside' of a 'universe', scales must exist. From the 'eye of a God', or 'outside' any such definition, scales should become an approximation of what a dimensional system contain, but a meaningless concept when described over 'it all'.
If it didn't presume dimensions, a canvas would be a good concept for describing it all.
-
Let's consider it from temperature.
A temperature is 'vibrations' by matter. Motion of some sort. A 'perfect vacuum' is the absolute absence of matter at some geometrically defined 'space'. Does that 'space' exist? What about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP) defining it such as you can't know both a particle's position and its momentum, exactly. Using that on a perfect vacuum, will that create particles? No, it won't.
"Virtual Particles
In many decays and annihilations, a particle decays into a very high-energy force-carrier particle, which almost immediately decays into low-energy particle. These high-energy, short-lived particles are virtual particles.
The conservation of energy seems to be violated by the apparent existence of these very energetic particles for a very short time. However, according to the above principle, if the time of a process is exceedingly short, then the uncertainty in energy can be very large. Thus, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, these high-energy force-carrier particles may exist if they are short lived. In a sense, they escape reality's notice.
The bottom line is that energy is conserved. The energy of the initial decaying particle and the final decay products is equal. The virtual particles exist for such a short time that they can never be observed."
You need interactions by 'real particles' to define 'virtual particles'. But let us consider a vacuum as a 'fluid' then? Not good to me, it presumes that a vacuum has properties relating it to matter. Ever seen the statement that a vacuum can do ftl? If it can it must be a fluid, and of a extremely strange sort, as it then goes against relativity's statement that nothing surpass the speed of light, in a 'perfect vacuum'. In fact invalidating relativity, as we now have defined a 'absolute nothing' as possible to define a position in/to it, excepting any and all matter. Because that is what it state. That you can define a point in a universe consisting of a perfect vacuum, then follow its 'propagation' through that same vacuum, to find it 'move', and also move 'ftl'?
A temperature is matters motion, or interactions. So does a vacuum have a temperature? Not a perfect vacuum, unless you introduce mass, which is what you must do, to measure any possible temperature. You could imagine that a vacuum contain 'properties of matter' without creating it, unless you present it with real matter, such matter measurable over time as existing.
A 'motion' of matter is measurable displacements over time. A virtual particle is a displacement, not measurable over time, as I see it.
A perfect vacuum can not, in and by itself, be defined and constricted to displacements over time. All geometrical definitions of points need real matter, as your anchors, from where you define a motion of 'something', be it a 'hole' or a 'particle'.
-
Maybe you can shorten this to the question: Does a perfect vacuum have properties, except geometrically? Can you scale a vacuum down? If you would, do you expect to reach some ultimate scale from where it can't be scaled down further? If you want 'bits', and if you want some common smallest nominator scale wise for both particles and 'vacuum', where do you expect it to exist? Planck scale?
Does a vacuum need to 'exist'? Matter exist, measurably so. Bosons and fermions exist, measurably so, a vacuum though? From a point of a universe, as a four dimensional container of it all, measuring from an 'inside' you might want to consider particles of all kinds as dancing on a 'energy' of the vacuum, defined through a arrow.
From a point of particles 'properties' creating the four dimensional universe we see, and measure on though? What would that vacuum become then?
-
So, what is 'energy' :)
From a point of 'properties' defining a universe, creating dimensions, energy becomes understandable to me. It's fermions and bosons properties, defining 'my universe', observer dependently, although taking observer dependencies further than what we normally means. From a point of a 'cosmic container' it has no simple answer to me. You're free to define it as only consisting of 'one container' or 'several containers' co-existing, alternatively 'splitting' (many worlds) etc etc. And what the two definitions also differs in is the way they treat a arrow. The first one assumes a arrow as a property, equivalent to 'c', existing in all 'points'. The second one?
The first one defines a universe by measuring, locally.
-
And constants then?
That should be the properties, shouldn't it?
-
What I mean saying "And what the two definitions also differs in is the way they treat a arrow. The first one assumes a arrow as a property, equivalent to 'c', existing in all 'points'. The second one?" Is that from the first definition a arrow must be what creates a measurable universe. We live inside a arrow of time, defining us and our measurements.
What you can't measure on won't exist for you. That's your 'container' of sorts, but not as seen from the normal point of view of a universal container, as that 'commonly shared universe' we think we observe. This universe is defined by what you can measure, possibly infinitely 'co-existing' with other definitions and properties we don't know how to, and possibly never can, measure. It takes on another aspect to me, 'co-existing', if you think of it as defined by measurements. And scales, as well as all other properties we might find a universe to consist of, then becomes a result of those properties. We becomes one emergence, of many.
-
What it does is to simplify things for me, and I like it as simple as I can get it.
-
Then again, if 'energy' is bosons and fermions only, what would those other possibilities be? The ones 'co-existing' with us, although not measurable? I guess I would call that 'energy' too? That we can't measure energy by itself, only measure its transformations, supports that view, I think? 'Energy' is still a slippery thing, although as defined from inside a dimensional system perfectly simple, following the principles, constants, properties, defining transformations, which is what we measure.
-
'c', and that equivalent, locally measured arrow? At what ultimate scale could I expect to pinpoint them? Light is without a 'dimension', can you see how that could be, from a view in where those 'particles' create those dimensions? Maybe 'dimensions' is just our construct.
-
Because a scale needs dimensions, just as a fish needs water, ahem. One gets defined by the other so to speak :) If you are able to define a system, using whatever properties it have to decide a dimensionality, creating interactions following a arrow of time, defining degrees of freedom, then you have made a universe, and you should be able to scale it.
-
And such a universe explains Lorentz contractions better to me, because those are observer dependent, and there is no 'commonly same universe' as some fishbowl containing us all. What 'contains us' are shared principles, constants, and properties. And the same must then go for that complementary time dilation, as what we really share, isn't what we measure on, as that rocket at that black hole, 'standing still' to us, forever. What we share is 'locality'.
-
Not 'locality' as in 'action and reaction'. That's a classically valid definition, but not the one I'm referring to. I'm referring to the way we measure, always locally. I'm referring to shared principles, constants and properties. Those are in a sense not 'observer dependent', although they will define 'observer dependencies', as your locally defined arrow, and 'c'.
-
So what about Hawking radiation, defined as a virtual particle pair created at the event horizon of a black hole, one part wandering inside annihilating some other particle inside it, the other then materializing inside a arrow, outside the event horizon, as needed by conservation of energy, creating that Hawking radiation?
Where was the matter involved there? If my definition of the procedure now is correct? It came about spontaneously, from a virtual pair production, didn't it? Doesn't that state that a vacuum must exist, as a real entity in itself?
Don't know, maybe? Or maybe you could define it as where particles 'energy' gets excited, due to properties as relative mass/ relative motion accelerations, rest mass gets created? All of it assuming that Hawking radiation exist. You can find a similar result in a cloud chamber, creating more particles than what went into the collision.
It's not that a vacuum isn't there, it's what it should consist of.
-
The mass of a black hole has a proportion to its geometry, or better expressed, it's when the proportion breaks down you get to a black hole.
"The Chandrasekhar limit (named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar) is the maximum nonrotating mass which can be supported against gravitational collapse by electron degeneracy pressure. It is commonly given as being about 1.4 or 1.44 solar masses. Electron degeneracy pressure is a quantum-mechanical effect arising from the Pauli exclusion principle. Since electrons are fermions, no two electrons can be in the same state, so not all electrons can be in the minimum-energy level. Rather, electrons must occupy a band of energy levels.
Compression of the electron gas increases the number of electrons in a given volume and raises the maximum energy level in the occupied band. Therefore, the energy of the electrons will increase upon compression, so pressure must be exerted on the electron gas to compress it. This is the origin of electron degeneracy pressure."
Passing this you get a black hole, defined by all paths leading to the same place passing its event horizon, and it is at that event horizon we have this virtual particle formation. So there is an abundance of mass, creating those virtual particles, or/and depending on definition, energy. And mass defines what vacuum, or 'space' you will find existing measuring.
-
We get our forms from the 'relation' between mass and vacuum, don't we? Without a space no form. So? Energy?
-
It's quite nice, isn't it? Just consider how things connect to things, consider 'forces'. The forces we talk about, at a small scale, create a form macroscopically. It's not about some universal container inside where we find mass and radiation, it's about connections, communication, and how it can create a measurable universe. We 'talk' with that universe constantly, through those forces, defining ourselves relative it, with the universe defining itself relative us. And we connect in so many ways simultaneously, communication existing as an abstract reality, as with speech.
And yes, I think simultaneously exist, locally defined :) The problem being defining what locally should mean there. Is it a question of some smallest scale? Or is it locally shared properties, principles and constants? Would you say a constant have a scale?
-
There is a problem with it, there always is. The question if what we see as forces must be what defines everything? And by everything I mean all possible connections, those that are measurable as well as those that might not be measurable. Assuming that quantum computer can exist, assuming that it reach a outcome 'instantly', would you say this involve a arrow? Logically some questions would take too long to answer normally, or be just impossible, but we do expect a quantum computer to be able to crack them. As asymmetric encryption.
So, did it 'think' about it? Did it 'test' for all possibilities?
What is 'energy'? Is it only those forces we find that defines it? Simplest solution is to define it as what we measure is what exist.
-
But if I define a arrow to 'c', then you might be able to argue that a quantum computer set this principle aside, as it reaches its outcome 'instantly'. If that is so, then I'm either wrong in finding the arrow equivalent to 'c' (locally defined) or it should be a indication of there existing possibilities outside our definition of a linearly timed universe, following different principles.
What would 'energy' be without a arrow?
-
And then we have 'c' itself. The speed of light in a vacuum, as locally measured, is the same everywhere. Doesn't matter what velocity you may define a object too, a light beam leaving that object should be at 'c', as measured from your frame, or any other non accelerating frame. And that light has a momentum is not synonymous with it having a rest mass, there exist no 'rest frame' for light in where you can measure a mass.
And 'c builds on two assumptions, one is a arrow of time existing, locally equivalent everywhere. The other is our definition of a distance, as locally measured. The really interesting thing with both local time and a distance are that, no matter time dilations and Lorentz contractions, they implicitly are assumed to have equivalent values locally measured. And, assuming they aren't, we can't prove any repeatable experiments anymore, unless you have a way to superimpose their 'frames of reference' upon each other, them becoming exact replicas, as 'one and the same'. And that really mean they have to be the exact same, inseparable from each other.
So we build science, and repeatable experiment, on a arrow of time, locally equivalent for all of us. You want to retract that arrow, you also retract our definition of a repeatable experiment
-
A 'virtual particle' is a 'possible particle'. Its definition rest on HUP (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). The idea is that as its actual 'existence' is so short, it finds itself able to express a wide variance of energy levels (time versus energy, or, position versus momentum). What the duration should be for such a particle I don't know, but presuming its existence it should be of interest to define it. One Planck time is the time it takes for light to propagate one Plank length, so maybe you could find it around there?
The interesting idea here is the assumption that we can reach a 'end' of our arrow, scale wise. We scale it down and as we do another vista opens itself, free from our constraints. You can also ignore the idea of virtual particles for it I think, instead using indeterminacy for pointing out a same phenomena.
-
So, what do you think?
You expect us to be able to split the arrow? Is it a 'smooth phenomena', or can we treat it as 'bits'?
Both?
-
The arrow and 'c'.
They are equivalent, locally defined. So, you split the arrow, you split 'c'. You scale it down. What if what builds it up from Planck scale, also builds our universe? Including what dimensions and degrees of freedom we find?
-
Try to use that way of looking at it, imaginatively 'rushing up' from Planck scale into the macroscopic world, creating a arrow and 'c'. ( You are now traveling 'faster than light' :)
-
Alternatively think of it as every point having its own stress, relative all other points, or tension, like being inside one part of a infinite amount of soap bubbles, from where we apply forces (tensions stress) on 'membranes'. Those membranes relating to distance and arrow relative other membranes, depending on local manipulation of forces. It's two ways to look at it, as a 'sideway communication' in a macroscopic universe at the same time as it is about how scales communicate a universe, and 'c', and a equivalent arrow. ( It's not a very good description I'm afraid, hopefully I'll find a better :)
-
And yep, alike a SF :)
Isn't it?
Then again, it fits Lorentz contractions better than a 'container', and so time dilations. That is, if you accept them? And it allows for a local representation of constants, at the same time as those becomes 'universally same' allowing for a repeatable experiment. It actually depends on defining local constants, principles, as what gives us that 'common universe' we observe.
-
Would you say that 'c' is a constant? A local constant, although shared by all (and in all) 'points'? If you now scale it down to Planck scale, is what you meet there a static field of 'c'? And that static 'field' if so, what would you call it? We're made up from it, aren't we? And if 'c' is equivalent to a arrow, then, as you scale it down that arrow 'diminish' does it not? Or better expressed, 'disappear' at Planck scale, locally defined. Now, if it was so, what would you expect to exist under Planck scale? A 'negative expression' of a SpaceTime? Negative 'time'? Or is that where it end, Planck scale?
-
Now, in a universe regulating communication through a local 'c', assuming a equivalence to a local arrow of time, you can't have superluminary speeds (FTL). What you instead have is question about what a vacuum and a 'room' is. If you define it as communication, created (and received) relative your local constants. And if you define it as your local measurements does not lie. Then a room isn't a 'set container', well, not 'globally defined' at least. It may very well be so that your measurements give you a locally set 'container', in which local constants and principles defines your limits, but there are no such thing as a commonly same universe. Instead we have to fall back on what limits, principles and constants we share. Those define the 'locally measured' room and time.
-
What I mean is that although you might want to define the 'traveling twin' to do ftl, from your frame of reference, (ignoring time dilations) that one will be about comparing one frame (yours), to another (his), then calling the one you're not sharing 'ftl', using your local measurements to prove it.
-
But we all can share a frame of reference. Not easily :) as we would need to super imposed, but macroscopically we all have one frame of reference that we are at rest relative, Earth. When we share that frame our arrow of time 'synchronizes'. That it is able to do so should tell you something.
-
And it doesn't matter what speed or mass you define to a frame of reference. When we join it, we will all share in it, equally. It's 'c', locally defined, a 'arrow of time', locally defined. And it won't change for you, you can't fool it, or your lifespan. It will be the same locally defined wherever you go, however fast.
-
What it tells me is that what really is 'global' is constants and principles. They are the same for all frames of reference possible in this 'universe'. If you would find a local representation of 'c' becoming different, so also locally 'elongating' your lifespan. Then I would say 'you're out'a this world' :) Because that one doesn't belong to the universe we see. And that makes it easy for me. I have a definition of 'c' and a 'arrow'. And anyone claiming that this is wrong :) well, 'you're out'a this world' ::))
-
And to then imagine a universe as a 'container' filled with time dilations and Lorentz contractions, as some do, actually craves a near infinite, possibly infinite, amount of universes. If you trust relativity? Because your measurements ain't mine. And those local measurements is what gives us science, and repeatable experiments, and 'global constants'.
-
Well, they are equivalent, the measurements I mean. But only when defined locally, as 'c'. Any comparison between different frames of reference will prove the statement made before though. That your measurements, ain't mine.
-
So we have two definitions, you can measure something from a same frame of reference, or you can use (for simplicity) uniform motion and from there locally define 'c', as well as what a distance should be, as using lights wavelength relative some arrow of time passing for you. It's all local though.
-
So where is the 'illusion'. Would you call a locally measured 'c' a illusion? And if a arrow of time is locally equivalent to that (and it is). Is that a 'illusion'?
-
Is it a 'illusion' that we all, by joining a same frame of reference, will come to a equivalent definition of distance, as well as of time. No time dilations comparing between us, and no Lorentz contractions.
-
What is the mystery here, is frames of reference.
-
It is 'frames of reference' that gives us 'scales'.
-
And it is when you scale something down you meet the foundations for quantum mechanics. "In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition.
One consequence of this dephasing is classical or probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer) and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation:
decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary."
It's a tricky point this one. But if we define a single 'frame of reference' as something in a superposition, ideally. We get pretty close.
-
And Planck scale. I would say that this is a limit, for the observable 'universe'. It's a border to me.
-
So, what would I like to define as a single 'frame of reference'? Well, we need super imposing, and that is entirely possible using quantum logic. We need a limit, and that is Plank scale to me. So? What about a 'point particle' what about 'excitations in a field'?
Gotta like decoherence.
-
Doesn't mean 'bits' though, means what it say, 'limit'. But that is from where our .. local .. principles and constants should come as I think. Defining it through 'scales'. Although you naturally are free to define this as the 'bits', creating a universe, you still have to explain from where the constants and principles come. Either you turn it into a cat biting its tail, making some circular logic, or you prefer a linear logic, as a beginning and a end. Or you might prefer quantum logic, in where it all exist, outside a arrow. The last one demands something existing, past Planck scale, as I read it.
-
What would gravity be from a purely local point of view? Similar to what a expansion might be seen as, locally described? Can I describe a expansion as a 'upwelling', of a added distance, constantly creating in all points? And then gravity as it exist for me, standing on matter, as a 'down welling'? Weird thought, isn't it :)
Gravity is related to matter, and 'energy', as well as accelerations/decelerations, being two sides of a same coin. Does a expansion automatically bring with it a added energy equilibrium? If now a 'vacuum' contain a energy. It must, if that is true. Otherwise the 'energy' of that 'universal container' should dilute, and what would that do to the conservation laws?
-
You can have such a universe, in where a expansion express itself in all points, as long as we have a mechanism for keeping particles 'together'. Think of buoys in a pond, getting filled up with water and assume 'gravity' (as well as the microscopic 'forces') being the security net, updated at 'c'.
It's 'c' that's important here I think. The 'speed' of communication.
-
Gravity is always pointing inwards. Plank scale is always as close to you, no matter from where you choose to scale it down. Take a sphere of matter, reduce it to plank scale, or at least as far as you can get. Not 'shrinking' it, just subtracting particles from it. Will it still have a gravity? And what way would that gravity point? Assume it existing in a 'flat space'.
-
"The gravitational constant (G), first estimated by Isaac Newton and also known as Newton's constant, describes the strength of the gravitational pull that bodies exert on each other. " Then we have "the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth’s surface. The symbol for the first is G (big G), and the second g (little g)."
The first. G, is defined as a constant, although hard to pinpoint experimentally.
"The first experiment to measure Big G was conducted in 1798 by British scientist Henry Cavendish. He set up a clever device in which a dumbbell-like object with two lead balls on either end was suspended by a wire. Another dumbbell was placed so that its balls were near the two spheres. The gravitational attraction between the two sets of balls caused the dumbbell on the wire to twist. A mirror on the wire reflected some candlelight, creating a beam of light that allowed Cavendish to carefully monitor exactly how much the wire rotated. His experiment produced a value for G of 6.74 × 10−11 m3⁄kg s2.
Since then there have been dozens of experiments to measure G, producing a modern estimate of 6.67384 × 10−11 m3⁄kg s2 – not far from the 200-plus-year-old experiment’s results.
“These days, we use a laser light that gets measured by an LED, but it’s not really so different from what Cavendish did,” said physicist Harold Parks of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, co-author of the paper with the new Big G value that appears Sept. 5 in Physical Review Letters.
The team, led by Terry Quinn, the former director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in France, used an updated version of Cavendish’s setup for one experiment. But they conducted an additional experiment, using a servo to counteract the twisting of the wire and figuring out the gravitational constant based on the voltage required to keep their apparatus from moving. Taken together, their tests yielded a new G value of 6.67545 × 10−11 m3⁄kg s2, which is higher than the current accepted value by about 240 parts per million. It may not seem like a big deal, but a constant should be constant and physicists would like to know that they have it finally figured out.
The main problem here is that gravity is an extremely weak force, more than 40 orders of magnitude weaker than that other familiar daily force, electromagnetism. When you reach over and pick up a pen from your desk, the electrostatic forces in your hand (which allow you to hold solid objects) are able to quite easily overcome the gravitational force of the entire Earth on that pen." http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high-gravitational-constant/
-
'c' is a local constant that you can split all the way to Planck scale. One Planck length, being the smallest meaningful distance light are presumed to propagate, in one Planck time. You can do the same with a local arrow, assuming it equivalent to 'c'. So what about gravity?
-
A mix of quotations.
"According to modern physics field theories, each of the four basic interactions (a better term than 'force') is mediated by a type of particle:
The strong (nuclear) interaction is carried by gluons. (This is the interaction that holds together the particles in the nuclei of atoms.) An attractive short range 'force' between particles like protons and neutrons
The electromagnetic interaction is carried by photons. (This is the interaction responsible for all electrical and magnetic phenomena.) An attractive or repulsive long range 'force' between two objects with charge
The weak (nuclear) interaction is carried by weak bosons. (This is the interaction that governs certain radioactive decays, such as beta decay.) A short range 'force'.
The gravitational interaction is carried by gravitons. (This, of course, is the interaction that gives rise to the familiar pull of gravity.) An attractive long range 'force' between objects with mass. "
Photons have an energy, and so a equivalence to mass. They are point particles though, bosons, not taking up place. There is nothing I know forbidding you to superimpose all photons existing, at any given instant. So it is rather meaningless, as it seems to me, using those as some smallest definers of that constant? As long as we use (Planck) scaling that is, passing that it may become meaningful in some other way. Try this one http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/ for some thoughts on mass and energy.
-
So what are 'point particles', having no measurable size, as far as science know today? Some quotes on it, and one link :)
"A point particle, also known as a point mass, is an idealized object which has mass but no extent in space. An object which does have extent in space can be considered to consist of an infinite set of point masses. If the object neither rotates nor deforms, every point mass making up the object undergoes the same motion (or lack of motion) that every other point undergoes. Hence, laws of motion that apply to a point mass can be applied to an object that neither rotates nor deforms. In the case of objects that do rotate and deform, laws of motion that apply to a point mass can be used to characterize the motion of the center of mass of the object."
"The quarks, leptons and bosons of the Standard Model are point-like particles. Every other subatomic particle you’ve heard of is an extended particle. The most familiar are the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of an atom, but there are many others—pions, kaons, Lambda particles, omegas and lots more. The defining feature of these kinds of particles is that they have a reasonably measurable size (which happens to be about the size of a proton)."
"A lepton is an elementary, spin-1⁄2 particle that does not undergo strong interactions, but is subject to the Pauli exclusion principle. The best known of all leptons is the electron, which governs nearly all of chemistry as it is found in atoms and is directly tied to all chemical properties.
Two main classes of leptons exist: charged leptons (also known as the electron-like leptons), and neutral leptons (better known as neutrinos). Charged leptons can combine with other particles to form various composite particles such as atoms and positronium, while neutrinos rarely interact with anything, and are consequently rarely observed.
There are six types of leptons, known as flavours, forming three generations. The first generation is the electronic leptons, comprising the electron (e−) and electron neutrino (νe); the second is the muonic leptons, comprising the muon (μ−) and muon neutrino (νμ); and the third is the tauonic leptons, comprising the tau (τ−) and the tau neutrino (ντ).
Electrons have the least mass of all the charged leptons. The heavier muons and taus will rapidly change into electrons through a process of particle decay: the transformation from a higher mass state to a lower mass state. Thus electrons are stable and the most common charged lepton in the universe, whereas muons and taus can only be produced in high energy collisions (such as those involving cosmic rays and those carried out in particle accelerators)."
The 'point' with 'point particles' is that they can be seen as having a field, interacting with the energy of the vacuum, aka 'virtual particles'.
"Let’s start with the easiest point-like particle we know, the electron. Assume it has zero size. Although we know that the quantum realm differs from the familiar world, in which things are measured in inches and feet, we can still get a reasonable mental image of what happens as we imagine looking at an electron with a perfect microscope. To begin with, since it has zero size, you can never actually see the electron itself.
However, you notice the electron does have an electric charge, and that sets up an electric field around it. That’s the first crucial point. The second crucial point is an idea called the quantum foam, which refers to the fact that empty space isn’t actually empty. Matter and antimatter particles appear and disappear with utter abandon, willfully flouting what seems like a principle of common sense. Empty space is actually pretty complicated.
Now if you combine those two ideas—that there is an electric field and that space consists of a writhing, bubbling mix of particles—then you can imagine what a point particle is like. At a large distance from the particle, its electric field is weak and doesn’t much affect the quantum foam. However, as you get closer to the point particle, the field becomes stronger. The stronger field affects the ephemeral virtual particles to a greater and greater degree, eventually lining up other particles with its point particle. (For example, the field of a positively charged point-like particle will push away other positive particles and hold negative particles close.)
Thus if you collide two point-like particles, while the two particles might never actually collide, the cloud of particles surrounding them will likely interact. The point-like particle is the mathematical abstraction at the center of the particle, but the extended field in essence makes even a point particle not so point-like." https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-15_NutshellReadMore.html
-
No size right, but still of defined although fuzzy positions, and furthermore the orbital of a electron in a atom, is not fuzzy, as I gather.
-
Would you say that a atom needs its electrons?
-
A field :)
Assume light to be non propagating. Then assume that what we measure as lights speed in a vacuum is excitations defined by relations, creating a pattern 'propagating'. You can also split it into two parts as I think, one 'static' and that is a field, then a arrow that creates change. Also you need to assume that 'location is all', meaning that observer dependencies is a matter measuring over frames of reference, with the constants we find to exist, existing locally purely. And that fits the way gravity behaves too as I think, as if gravity was a 'down welling' in each point, somewhat like gravity has a direction, slope on slope inwards, towards some 'center'. But what about matter? What about about me, moving my hand? Or my nails growing? How would such a universe 'remember' the way we transform? and how would it consistently keep us 'together'
Two parts. A static 'field' with a observer dependent arrow. And then matter, the universe, and 'motion'.
-
Because I define a 'clock' equivalent to 'c', they both become 'constants'. And as all 'constants' are locally defined I would expect that what really is non illusionary is just those '(locally definable) points'. They are what's not 'observer dependent'.
-
How about this then?
Think of the universe as a plane, then gravity as something coming to existence (as locally defined) interacting with that plane, acting perpendicular to it?
If I would adopt that view, then 'gravity' is existent even when not measurable, but as a 'property' of a SpaceTime, which indeed would make some sense to me :)
-
Although, if you as me want to define it from points, a plane would just be a conceptual description. That as this 'plane' you might measure on, must be observer dependent, so creating that same confusion as the idea of a 'container universe' of four dimensions. To make it fit my weird thoughts :) You need to define it purely locally, to get to what a constant, principles and a 'non observer dependent' reality must be, well, as it seems to me now at least?
=
That would mean a universe's 'properties', naturally.
-
And if you don't use a plane, then this 'perpendicular' definition becomes wrong, although still usable as an idea of something existing as defined over frames of reference, also assuming a universe to be a projection, although 'real enough' for us measuring 'inside' it. With a point particle, assuming it to exist and to interact with 'gravity', the direction becomes toward some 'center', does it not? If assuming three 'dimensions' and a arrow for it to exist in. Then again, the 'point particle' itself might very well be a dimension less quality/property of a SpaceTime, in which case we might want to keep the idea of a 'perpendicular' direction?
-
Because, assuming a point particle to have a dimension less quality/property, also defining a universe's properties from strict local definitions, it doesn't make a lot of sense defining it to have three dimensions, does it? The only way you can justify that sort of definition is when you place the point particle inside a three-dimensional universe (and a arrow, to measure in it).
What we then might get to is something where a 'direction' comes from interactions.
-
And where interactions defines 'dimensions, distances and time'.
Your local ruler and clock.
-
That as when you measure on a universe, you do so over frames of reference. But locally, always locally.
-
So your arrow would be a 'constant', as 'c', and your local 'ruler' should then also be a constant, as it seems to me, all from a strictly local definition.
-
In fact, that is the way it must be, to get to a repeatable experiment. We need some properties (laws) to be the same, no matter where we measure from. And those 'properties' allowing us to find those laws, must then to a high degree be considered 'equivalent'. Otherwise we can't have a universe as we define it today.
-
From a 'global' point of view I can describe a multi verse, as it is observer dependent. From a 'local' point of view, we share the exact same constants, principles, properties, etc etc.
=
That should be read as a your 'multi verse' existing, as defined by your measurements, when compared to some other observers measurements, ignoring Lorentz transformations. You can't introduce a Lorentz transformation without moving the universe from measurements, into conceptual 'space'. Realistically, your measurements define your environment, and what will happen, to you that is :) then we also have the possibility of fitting your measurement to mine versus a Lorentz transformation.
The last is what defines our universe's causality. If there was no causality, a Lorentz transformation should not exist.
-
Causality is unavoidable, I think? As long as we have the same local properties definable in all 'points/observers'. Or can you construct a universe in where we all locally share the same principles, 'constants/properties', equivalently. To then come to a (global description of a) universe without a causality of some kind existing?
-
I'm not especially excited over the idea that 'all time' co-exists. You can theorize that it does, Using those locally defined 'time slices' and then imagine that you 'instantly' could see the whole SpaceTime loaf, depending on motion, direction and mass (energy). It's just not true, causality won't allow it. It seems as some really smart people have allowed themselves to be seduced by its novelty. It's like the idea of the moon only existing, as you observe it, Einstein doubted that one with very good reason, the moon will be there.
And I don't need entropy for defining this. I just need a locally measured 'c', and assuming a equivalent 'clock'.
'c' is not relative. It's only relative when you think in terms of a 'container universe'. Locally measured you can prove that your local time never change, locally you can join any frame of reference, finding its 'time' to be yours too, and no experiment you can imagine locally will prove this wrong.
-
That doesn't state that there isn't a possibility of something containing a whole SpaceTime. Scaling SpaceTime down to Planck scale, gravity disappear. Isn't that a accepted fact? And so does 'c', and if I'm right so should a local arrow. But you measuring will have a clock ticking beside you, so in your measurement a arrow must be involved. It's very hard to imagine a way to test 'singular frames of reference' in themselves. We always test locally, over frames of reference.
-
What I mean is that there is a difference between stating that 'all time must coexist' as you can get to different 'time slices' theoretically, and what a SpaceTime really is. Ours must be regulated by 'c', that's the speed of communication, everywhere we measure, to make sense to me. That communication defines your reality. But it's not impossible to consider the 'common universe' a illusion, if you find a way to stop 'c' locally measured. But then you will meet another place, using another way of 'communicating' as neither causality, nor 'c' as a mean of communication, should exist.
-
You can get to a universe imagining it having no dimensions at all. You can also find something not using a propagation, instead finding a rhythm, defined by 'c'. What's real would then be constants, equivalently so in each frame of reference, aka 'point'. The rhythm is defined by 'c', and those constants, giving us causality. Defining it locally also mean that whatever dimensions and degrees of freedom we measure are 'local constructs' defining your relation to a universe. That doesn't make dimensions non existing, or degrees of freedom. It's just another way of defining it. In this universe observations define degrees of freedom, and dimensions. In it we have 'c', but we don't have a explanation of why we can communicate between frames of reference, although we know how. 'c'.
-
So what do this mystical revelation mean :)
Nothing special.
Just that I think scales are more important than what I see normally. And as I've always have said, it's not so much about proving a 'new theory' as it is about applying a different point of view. Using that view some things that I wonder about becomes simpler, others doesn't. The clock and 'c' is true, prove it wrong and I will be pleased. That will give me something new to think about.
=
as usual, my spelling sux...
-
And yes, it's indeed taking Einstein seriously, more seriously than what we normally do. We like to split relativity from the very small. I don't, I just use a local description, that keeps it as simple as I can get it. My universe needs to make sense, and I'm prepared to ignore most archetypes for getting there.
-
When I think of the very small I do it in terms of frames of reference. Assume that a clock stops there, assume that 'gravity' disappear, assume that 'c' is gone, as some definition/limit of communication. How will you differ one point from another in a positional system? To me they become inseparable, doesn't make sense to say that this point belong to there, and this to there. They are one and the same.
=
That gives one a question, can you presume a geometry? Or is geometry a result of matter, relativity and 'forces'? We're in a fishbowl, with limits.
==
And that bring us back to how we do a measurement. We can't do it purely locally, measuring 'inside' one frame of reference. We can loosely define me as being at rest with earth and so you can argue that I can do a measurement inside one frame of reference, but gravitationally that can't be true, and ones position must also have a impact on the measurement, comparing it with another observers 'identical' experiment, also 'at rest' with earth.
To me it's the difference between a macroscopic and microscopic definition, and also why I think it should be possible to define one singular frame of reference to Planck scale. Maybe there is a geometry existing microscopically too, but all points in that 'frame of reference' should be microscopically identical as I think. I don't know if it would matter, if there is, or not, actually.
-
There is a tentative idea I have of it though. And that one uses something similar to the idea of decoherence. I assume that a geometry is a result of interactions, 'c' defining its communication. We have the idea of 'symmetry breaks'. Assuming that a geometry is a result of limits imposed on a regime, defining it.
-
That will give you one equivalently same point, or no point at all :) as you need a positional system to define a 'point', microscopically, becoming many points for us inside, allowing us coordinate systems.
-
In that way everything we measure is a illusion, theoretically :)
But to me it's not, and neither can it be to any other observer existing inside it.
-
And then a Big Bang must be what defined that 'first' symmetry break, presenting us a arrow. But it should also mean that when scaling down, we look at what always is there, the regime we come to be from. It's not 'gone', it 'coexist' with us.
==
We speak of distances, don't we?
Well, the distance to that origin is the same from all positional points, 'coordinate systems', you can think of. The exact same distance, into a 'center' if you like, from any position chosen.
-
A 'symmetry break' is such a perfect description of it. Whoever first thought that word up found a real beauty :)
It's simply a break in a symmetry, SpaceTime.
-
So what is entropy?
It belongs to a arrow.
And what is consciousness?
-
We think we 'invent' a quantum computer, don't we :) Well, if we're a symmetry break, why not say that this 'invented' us, consciousness, entropy, and all, like some white mouse ::)) Douglas Adam had it right.
=
Applying frames of reference on such a reasoning, I must state that it, from its own frame of reference, the origin of our symmetry break better should be considered to 'invent', as there is no arrow to define for me there. It never started, and it never finished it either. All such definitions belong to us, inside a arrow of time, our 'fish bowl'.
-
Let us assume that Planck constants aren't constants at all, instead being some agreed on definition relative some ill defined earlier definitions. Would that destroy the equivalent way I treat 'c' and a arrow? I don't think so, what my reasoning rests on is the assumption that at some point it will become meaningless to define a 'propagation' of light. I'm discussing where physics breaks down actually. That's also where I will place a singular 'frame of reference'. A frame will become apparent when it gets a definition through interaction, and so will a arrow.
-
You can free this definition from the one where we define 'c' as defined constant speed too. Although that would give us a very flexible definition of where such a 'break down' of physics take place, as it still is observer dependent, it would still point to locality being what defines it. And locality from my point of view isn't solely about interactions, locality can also be seen as one singular frame of reference, equivalent to all other frames, consisting of the exact same properties, principles etc.
-
Easiest to understand is to think of a arrow, locally defined. You're 'constantly uniformly accelerating', being at rest, with Earth. Does you clock still work? You go into a rocket to be shot at a relativistic speed into the universe, will your local clock stop?
Nope.
Doesn't matter if we define it as uniform motion or accelerating decelerating. That wrist watch must exist, or you will have to define a entanglement of sorts instead, somehow? :)
-
And those discussions about what arrow is becomes ill defined to me, considering what people discuss. A arrow is to me your wrist watch, equivalent to 'c'. I do not need to define that 'speed', and argue what is should be. It's a relation, and a equivalence, the same no matter what 'speed' you would like to define from some comparison. Can you see what I am talking about?
-
Using such a definition everything becomes a equilibrium. There are parameters that change your 'universe', comparing your local clock to other frames of reference, but you are still in a equilibrium with the cosmos around you. Motion, energy and mass. And as it is a local approach to reality, presuming equivalence between all 'singular frames of reference' a Lorentz contraction can be understood as yet another relation changing due to those parameters. What defines your universe are local constants.
-
And the universe you think of as a 'commonly same container' of us all will cease to exist. What's commonly same in this universe are constants, principles, properties, that we ultimately can refer to as existing locally defined in all points.
-
But I will use 'c', and I will define 'c' as a constant through all types of motion, the same way I challenge you to show me how your clock experimentally can be proven to change its 'speed/ticks' locally measured.
You can't.
Only comparisons will infer such a notion. And that comparison builds on you, using your local clock :) Can you see what that implies? That you have no defined notion of a arrow what so ever, using that type of argument. If you apply your local definition on some other frame of reference. Then others can do the same with you, and hey, they won't agree on your 'time keeping', will they? So, what is a 'time keeping'?
Either it is non existent, in which case there are no 'repeatable experiments', or, it is locally defined, equivalent.
-
There is a causality to cosmos. We define that causality through 'c'. That's what gives you the opportunity to do a Lorentz transformation, transforming my notion of a SpaceTime to yours.
'c'
-
It's a ultimate game. You build it from 'nodes'. You give them common principles, constants, properties. You define limits of communication as 'c'. You, and here's what I don't know how to understand, have to find a way for the nodes to interact. That/those interaction(s) will then define dimensions, and 'degrees of freedom'.
-
Entropy can also be seen as a mean of 'communication' I think. Transformations leading to some minimalistically equivalent state in all points, called 'heat'.
-
But tell me one thing, can 'heat' exist in one singular frame of reference?
Can it?
I don't think so myself, 'heat' and 'temperatures' are interactions. Although, one could assume that there should be properties defining that interaction, existing in all frames of reference.
-
And all that clever reasoning building on a presumed container model of a universe stops making sense. No use defining a loaf of bread, with 'time slices', 'proving' that all time is co existent. Using my definition we come down to two things, a locally equivalent arrow to 'c', also equivalent for all points or 'nodes'. And then something where a arrow stops making sense, that's what 'co exist' to me, and you can use scales to see it.
-
There is another alternative way to think of it, possibly? The 'commonly same container' we see is defined by Time dilations and Lorentz contractions. Apply the eye of a God on this, a thought up 'outside', and then define what allows communication, not meaning 'c' now, just a 'fabric' of sorts. What keeps it 'together'?
a very weird 'fabric' it must be. But we need something, allowing for lights propagation in a vacuum, communicating over frames of reference. That to us defines the 'dimensions' we find us to exist in.
-
We call it geometry. But what make it allowed to exist?
-
What is probability?
How does a electron become a probability? Is a electron itself 'isolated' existing at all?
Does the moon exist when you're not looking?
Relations defines it. Well, as my assumption for this :)
Think of the universe we observe as a description of probabilities, relations defining those probabilities. The moon don't care if you look, it's you that do that :)
And that becomes a geometry, relations defining a reality. The real question, and the one I'm truly confused about, is in what way one frame can communicate with another? In my universe that is :) A lot of stuff is easy to explain thinking of a universe this way. A particle becoming a wave, becoming a particle, depending on relations, in this case meaning your experiment for measuring. And entanglements? Well, we have a situation in where we have a limit for communication, 'c'. But the entanglement in itself? the idea of a instant 'spooky action at a distance'. Depends on how you look at it, what was it I suggested at a microscopic level? That it was no use trying to define a position, if defining it such as a arrow disappear there? There are no 'positions' to be found. You might also want to consider, a superposition maybe?
-
A superposition, without a geometry? That's pretty weird.
-
We look at QM, the really, really, 'small', through our macroscopic definitions. Our local clock, decoherence, ruler, etc etc.
-
And the 'really small' ignore our geometry. Your frame of reference 'force you' to define it from 'dimensions', doesn't it :) You entangle two particles, place them at different positions, measure one, then the other, finding them to have a 'opposite relation', falling out the same way every time you repeat it (ideally this is, entanglements are hard to set up practically as I understand).
-
Why not think of it in terms of relations? A entanglement craves a 'setup' before you can get to it. Fulfilling the setup correctly should give you a high probability of it falling out. That should then either mean that most particles aren't entangled, or that we fail to see how they are.
-
How far can one take a entanglement?
Let's assume that at a 'Big Bang' everything should be entangled. What happens after that? As particles bounce each other? Do they find new 'entanglements'? Whatever they do, do you expect them to keep the original entanglement? A Big Bang was a lot of energy, wasn't it? In a geometric 'point', that somehow became a lot of 'points', assuming a inflation faster than light. How can we assume a 'ftl', without defining it such as there is a origin geometrically?
We can't.
-
Can you see how our archetypes constantly come into play, creating riddles for us. If there was no 'origin', then there was no 'ftl' either.
-
So what am I suggesting? Some perpendicular plane to our universe that act on it, giving us a illusion of propagation? I don't think so, using such a analogue ftl exist, even if not in the plane we exist and observe. And this one also goes back to how a point communicate with another, if I now got it right, that way creating our dimensions. I have good reasons to prefer a universe defined locally, but defining 'dimensions' from such an idea is trickier. Either one assume a geometry free from locality, but that's not true. If you trust relativity, Lorentz contractions must exist, and they are observer dependent. If they are you can't sponsor a geometry isolated from the observers. Or you have to find a way to describe a geometry from whatever change its description. That would then, as I see it, be all types of motion, mass, and that undefinable quality 'energy'. What's good with defining it from a observer is that you don't need to argue what is more 'real', what you measure at rest with earth relative what you would measure moving relativistically. But 'dimensions' won't be the same after such a change, neither will what makes them. The universe in such a description don't care of your mass, if we just use relativistic motion for now. One gram or one tonne, it doesn't matter for the frame of reference moving relativistically. If it measures it should see the same contraction, loosely defined. And as all measurements it does tells it is true, then, from 'localitys' point of view, it is true.
=
To see where I'm going with this comparison just translate mass into 'energy'. Doesn't matter what 'energy' you have, or spend. To get to a relativistic motion, (well, we know it does, mass, relativistic and restmass, do have a role but we're ignoring that fact for now) one gram 'energy' or one tonne, the contraction of your universe should be the same (loosely defined). So a good question here is to ask yourself how this ever can be true?
-
For me it comes back to a observer dependent geometry, defined by 'c'. Assume :) that we're living in a projection, it's not a new idea. Do I then need 'dimensions' from it to start with? Holography needs it, but that we can prove to be a illusion. What does a universe need? You need some sort of 'space' for those points to interact in, creating a universe, but if the points themselves create the connections, giving us the dimensions we define? Do those 'points' need to be separated?
=
It's also a question of 'energy'. Assume that we have a equilibrium, assume that the only thing that happens is transformations, of a constant unchanging magnitude of 'energy' existing as a universe. Isn't that a 'free lunch'? Nothing gets lost, it just transforms.
==
Then look at a inflation, and a 'accelerating' expansion of a vacuum. Is that a transformation too? Where from? Either you define a 'outside' of some type for this, or you define it from a 'inside'. If you do the last you need to take 'something', to deliver something new. As it all should be about a equilibrium of 'energy', transforming from one state to another.
==
Or it's a projection, in which case our definitions probably hold true anyway. The 'equilibrium of energy' transforming. But I don't think it to define a 'inside' anymore, if that would be the case, although it still will be/seem so to us, measuring.
-
The way we measure a 'loss', is using a arrow. We define useful energy relative non useful. The non useful energy is defined as 'heat'. Heat is radiation, interacting with matter.
-
For heat to be non useful it has to stop being heat, wouldn't you agree? If it interacts, how can I define it as not being 'useful'? Assume a universe of radiation, will that too be in a equilibrium? If it will, where do we get to a density? Can I assume 'hot spots' in such a universe? giving a restmass? If it does, do it transform? A Big Bang then? Would you define a constricted geometry for that? A pinpoint? Won't work with a definition of a 'instant inflation', in where there is no defined origin. If you on the other hand define a origin, a pin point, then? Well, then astronomy should be all wrong.
=
I'm usually referring to a point, becoming a lot of points during a inflation. And that can't be true, as it both assumes a arrow, as well as it assumes a 'speed'. I better stop defining it that way.
-
A Big Bang then? Would you define a constricted geometry for that? A pinpoint? Won't work with a definition of a 'instant inflation', in where there is no defined origin. If you on the other hand define a origin, a pin point, then? Well, then astronomy should be all wrong.
Inflation is not based on any real physical process. It has absolutely no basis, no root. It is a floating model which you can modify almost as you wish.
Einstein himself said that GR is not a finished theory. Einstein searched for a better theory until his death.
Before Hubble's observations, the universe was thought to be extended to our own galaxy alone. Now, we think it is much larger but we really don't know how large it is. Most physicists think there is only one big bang, and this big bang is the creation of the universe...
If the big bang occurred in a larger universe, then, its origin must have coordinates. In no way it disproves astronomy, just the cosmological model. The distances measured are based on the standard candle. As long as the standard candle used is reliable, you have a reliable distance, unless there is a major flaw.
You must take care more about the data than the interpretations because the interpretations are based on the actual cosmological model. They are filtered by it...
Our universe is not well known beyond a few billion light years. When we look at a galaxy at 10 billion ly, you don't see the entire galaxy so it is quite difficult to know what type it is. Interpretation will be biased.
Dark energy doesn't fit in the actual cosmological model. This model has been created more than 80 years ago, based on Hubble's observations. Recently, Planck's data showed some anisotropy, which is very unexpected. Dark energy has not been measured in the southern hemisphere (there is a current mission on this). The true cosmological model may mimic the actual model to great distances. If inertia is mediated by photons, after some time, the matter of our big bang will be uniformly distributed, especially if it is older than 13 bly.
Our visible universe is not in equilibrium because entropy grows. Matter is searching equilibrium...
To keep the current theories, we need more free parameters. It is a symptom that something is wrong.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/dec/04/mystery-of-neutron-lifetime-discrepancy-deepens
http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=13080001
-
If there is a center to our big bang, transverse velocity will affect the formation of galaxies. The further in time you look and the further you look from the center, the younger galaxies will look. It will take more time for galaxies to form where initial transverse velocities are greater.
-
Hmm. I use it, and find it explaining some really weird stuff CPT, looking out on a universe. You can check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation#Observational_status for some of the things it explains. But you're perfectly correct in that it is a theory, or hypothesis. Based on my own thoughts it fits a place of sorts, where what's 'stable' comes from locality, 'points' interacting, creating and defining dimensions to us. I have no real problems with it so far.
=
A standard candle is defined as "celestial objects with well-defined absolute magnitudes which are assumed to not vary with age or distance. Type I and II Cepheids and RR Lyraes are all examples". Stars who we assume to be of the same energy output, aka radiation, no matter where we find them.
"To help understand what is meant by standard candle, we first need to have a basic understanding of how distances are measured in astronomy. For small distances such as from the earth to the moon, lasers are used. Moving further out to Mercury, Venus or Mars, we use radar. Leaving our solar system and measuring to nearby stars, we use semi-annual parallax. And out to 500 parsecs (pc), spacecraft (e.g. Hipparcos) are used with measurements computed trigonometrically.
We refer to these as direct methods of measurement.
At distances greater than 500 pc, the error in the parallax measurement is too great and not usable. Indirect methods are used based on stellar properties such as luminosity,radii, the effective temperature and others. Distances are determined from relationships connecting these properties, including the period-luminosity relation for Cepheid variables. [Illingworth & Clark 2000]
While it is difficult to find a ‘pure’ definition for STANDARD CANDLE, reliable sources provide enough information to define it as saying there is no single object used for a Standard Candle; there are collections of stellar objects with known luminosities that allow them to be used to determine distances. The Standard Candle object used depends on the distance being measured. The brightest Cepheids, for example, can be seen out to about 60 megaparsecs (Mpc). For distances of 150 and 250 Mpc, red and blue supergiants can be used, respectively. For distances even greater, a galaxy’s HII region or brightness of its globular clusters are used. Beyond 900 Mpc, astronomers rely on supernovae. In all measurements, as the distance increases, the accuracy decreases. [Kaufmann & Freedman 1999, Illingworth & Clark 2000]"
From STANDARD CANDLES by RONALD E. MICKLE Denver, Colorado 80005 (http://www.denverastrosociety.org/dfiles/mickle/StandardCandles.pdf)
=
And one more, for those getting stuck on where parsecs come from. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/distances/units.html
Light years are a easier definition to us laymen :)
-
One thing I do get a little thoughtful about though is the cosmological redshift, due to a accelerating expansion. Not because it redshifts, as that to me is a question of the detector relative what it detects, relations defining it, but when comparing it to a gravitational redshift? Very similar, aren't they? And that one is then also described in 'relative motion'(s). So three types (causes), same effect.
We don't know what gravity is, do we?
And motion is weird too :)
=
you can actually get to four causes, if you split motion into two parts, uniform motion also called 'relative motion', versus acceleration/deceleration. Although if relative motion indeed is purely relative, you then have to define that from a 'black box' (local) perspective. In a 'commonly same container universe' relative motion can't be relative, 'globally' defined we can prove different uniform motions, as soon as we involve more than two objects, measuring their 'speeds', using a local clock and ruler.
=
Or five? A constant uniform acceleration, equivalent to a gravity, and so different from all other types of accelerations/decelerations :) Depends on how strict you want to be, right?
Heh..
==
Then there is one more thing that I'm not sure about. All of those effects are, to me, connected to how we define a geometry relative 'anchors', the detectors, matter. Can't see any other way to detect?
-
I can walk around a globe finding stars all around me. If I was in a plane (two dimensional) then? I could still walk in a circle though, but what about 'stars'? I need at least three dimensions to find stars, or can I define it otherwise? Doesn't matter if I use anchors for this, does it? To see stars around me, everywhere, I should need three dimensions. It's not holography, the universe, or if it is? Then all dimensions should be able to be questioned. I like a projection better.
=
I'm wrong :)
There is no way to define anything if you don't have anywhere to go out from. So where ever I am, whatever dimensionality I define, I still need a 'detector', and that is matter. And imagining myself fitting into a one or two dimensional reality I should still be able to define a 'above' and a 'under', shouldn't I :) As a dot, on a line.
-
The question is what defines a two dimensional, or one, reality? Either we have to assume that looking in some direction nothing exist (assuming myself existing 'inside' it) or you will find a seamless reality of 'stars', all around you, in all measurable directions. When referring to two dimensional objects, existing inside a three dimensional reality, the logic breaks down. You can prove if the object is two dimensional geometrically quite easily, as it then should 'disappear' from some angle, but from a 'inside' I don't find it that easy.
==
"You can prove if the object is two dimensional geometrically quite easily, as it then should 'disappear' from some angle, but from a 'inside' I don't find it that easy." can be broken down two ways.
Either we define three room dimensions, in which case you can prove logically how a two dimensional object should behave in it, 'disappearing'. That would then prove the idea of singular dimensions, 'knitted together' with our arrow of time.
Or we don't, we just define a 'inside'.
-
A 'inside' is what can be proven, the first example does not exist, as far as I know? We can refer to 'forces' behaving two dimensionally, as in a lattice, but we can't prove it geometrically, by matter disappearing.
-
That, in its own turn, breaks down to two assumptions for me. Either 'dimensions' aren't singular, or there is no way for a lower dimensional object to exist in a higher dimensionality. I prefer the first.
-
Then again, what would this 'inside' be, if it isn't defined by singular dimensions, 'knitted together' with a arrow? Tough one isn't it? A projection is the way I think of it, as a hologram but not the same. A projections dimensions are defined, and will exist in measurements, to me. It's not about one or two 'dimensions' being a illusion. A 'illusion' shouldn't be measurable in my thoughts, although I admit it's possible to argue about this one, a lot :) But let us define it as the difference between a mirage and shooting a bullet on that same mirage, finding it not to be stopped. And using this definition a Lorentz contraction is real, and so is all time dilations. But they can only exist with you comparing locally, over frames of reference.
-
Let's go back to the idea of one gram or one tonne making no difference for the contraction you observe of your universe, you moving relativistically relative incoming light. The energy spent reaching that velocity will differ between those two, but it still won't make any better sense, if you compare it to the energy needed for moving a whole universe, closer to you.
But if it is relations that defines it, parameters consisting of your velocity (speed), mass and 'energy', as defined 'inside' a universe then? You can scale down any position, imaginatively.
When you do, do you expect those positions, at some scale, to become equivalent?
I do.
=
I mean that, exchanging positions for 'points', there must be a equivalence locally defined, for/in all points. Also that what we define as positions stops making sense at that scale.
-
How would we get to a Lorentz transformation if this wasn't true?
-
You can see it as a opposite definition of the idea that the laws of physics are the same, locally measured, anywhere, in a universe. Same thing really.
-
Btw.
As it is xmas, well almost xmas anyway :)
And as we're on a physics site.
And as I liked it.
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2003/20031222/december.shtml
-
Let's talk about multiverses :)
I have one, inside, here. You can expand that into several. I can't see anything stopping you from that. I don't have anything limiting the amount of 'points'. What limit our observations are 'c'. I can define a arrow, for each point, but I also have to accept 'time dilations', comparing between frames of reference.
-
There is one thing though. You have to accept a 'inflation', and, it has nothing to do with time. At least that's my presumption.
-
You see, either I can argue that everything is a result of a arrow, or I define a arrow to 'relations', creating dimensions, and inflation. I'm using scales.
-
I define it as 'relations' creating a arrow now. But it might also be so that it is possible to define 'relations' through a arrow. If you really want 'multi dimensionality' then this should be worth thinking about.
-
Then I have this vague idea about time. Time is not a arrow, it's a origin. I think of it as a property for now. Arguing that local arrows define universes, separated by 'c':s limits though? Do I need a property of 'time', isn't the arrow everything there is?
-
Although, defining a arrow as equivalent for all points, can you get to different constants, for different areas? Doesn't matter if 'c' sets a limit for communication here. Neither does it matter if you measure something to have a different arrow from your local definitions, or contractions.
-
If you want to change constants, I would expect you to have to prove different arrows too. Because in Relativity you can't separate the room from the time.
-
Been thinking about what happens as you scale something down. Does gravity disappear? I define it for now as a 'down welling' in each point, putting points together, interacting, creating effects measurable 'sideways' in a universe, sloppy writing but I think you can get my drift. Because gravity is directed inwards, toward some 'center'.
So, does 'gravity' disappear? Or is it just unmeasurable? If it is unmeasurable, then it becomes a property, to me. If it really disappear then? It's about a vacuum too. And how to think of it. As a something? Consisting of points too, containing all properties I would define to something of matter? 'Energy'? And the the arrow, did inflation take a time?
-
There are some consequences worth mentioning, taking a approach in where dimensions gets created by (local) interactions. It doesn't really matter, as far as I see it now that is, if the universe is deemed 'flat', saddle formed, or as a ball, or any other thought up possibilities. It's an illusion. Real to us, but there are no definable limits to any shape, more than what properties you give each point. Although? What properties would you need to give us a octagonal universe? :) whatever that would be?
-
So what is a gravitational acceleration then? Something seeking a equilibrium? And is it mass that creates it? Think of it, 'gravity' has in reality one direction, inwards to a 'center', of sorts. Doesn't matter if you define gravitational 'fields bending' a SpaceTime. There's only one direction for gravity, one sign to it.
-
Actually, there's no 'up' or 'down' to a spacetime coordinate :) It's us defining it (directions), and we usually do it relative gravity.
=
If you like, I see this as allowing me to define any gravitational direction as 'down', or as I more prefer, towards a 'center'. Doesn't matter what frame of reference I use defining a 'gravity' from, for this.
-
I can transform away a gravity, coming into a 'free fall'. I can't transform away my own mass though, and that mass has its own gravitational direction. All 'directions' becoming one, if you think of it as me. Toward a 'center', and that 'center' is best represented by scaling.
-
Effectively, gravity reduced distances between two bodies. You can see it in terms of velocities too.
Follow Mach's Principle. Consider that there is no spacetime without matter. You must understand that Einstein introduced the concept of spacetime because he didn't have a valid description of matter, including the source of inertia and gravity. Spacetime replaces matter in GR, if you follow Mach. There is spacetime without matter in GR!
According to the Equivalence Principle, inertia and gravity are indistinguishable. Inertia pushes and spacetime pushes.
Maybe there are two forces or maybe two distinct interactions.
1- Two forces: Gravity attracts through the interaction of the graviton and inertial push is local but relative to the universe.
2- Two distinct interactions: Gravity is mediated somehow by the inertia of photons and inertia is mediated by photons locally.
If you throw out the entity of spacetime, photons must have a gravitational mass. If photons travel really at the speed of light, they can only have a transverse gravitational mass. It explains too many things, like why electrons and positrons have a gravitational mass, what is the Higgs boson... Unless the positron has a negative mass, which disagree with GR anyway.
The Casimir experiment gives a vacuum energy that is 10^120 order of magnitude higher than the observation of Dark energy. Maybe the Casimir effect is actually attraction between the plates...
-
Well, I don't know what gravity is CPT :) It's mostly when I've made it into 'my own', things starts to make sense to me. I'm just defining it as something directed toward a 'center' for now. Using gravitons, combining that with such an idea doesn't work for me at this time? A little like I might agree on a Higgs field describing inertia, but not, representing 'mass'.
-
Think of SpaceTime as a place in where all gravity points to a 'center'. In terms of positions inside a 'containing universe' those 'centers' points everywhere, no defined preferred direction. it is related to mass, locally defined accelerations, 'energy'. From a point of scaling something down though it won't matter :) what I define as their directions 'globally', inside that container universe. From that point gravity have one same direction, toward a 'center', as I see it.
-
From a definition of using 'matter' as an anchor for gravity, I can ignore space for this idea. A pure vacuum can not become gravity's origin experimentally. If I first define a 'container universe', which somehow also seem to define limits, I can use a gravitational field, existing in a vacuum. But I can't define the vacuum as a origin of gravity although I can use 'energy', but still not experimentally prove a gravity to origin from a perfect vacuum. Even when assuming a vacuum to exist as a 'energy', defined by 'virtual particles', space should be neutral. I don't expect one patch of perfect vacuum to differ from another, 'energy wise'.
So I'll stay with matter for this, for now. And doing so the only preferred direction for a gravitational field, for now, is its 'inward direction'. And that one is a local description of gravity.
-
Then again, I can't ignore motion, can I? And motion presumes a space to move in. Motion of matter gives relative mass, easily defined in accelerations/decelerations. But it must be existent in uniform motion too. Motion is one mass moving relative, either another mass, or as locally defined from infalling lights blueshift/redshift. And we can easily prove that there must be different 'relative motions', aka uniform motions (velocities/speeds).
-
But, assume yourself to get close to light speed, moving relativistically. As you accelerate you will find a new gravity, locally defined. Either that gravity's reach is infinite in which case we have to assume it to act on the space, and matter, existing. Or it is a illusion.
Now you stopped accelerating, defining your speed as relativistically close to lights speed in a vacuum. Do you still find a local gravity? You must still have a added relativistic mass, but the local definition of a gravity is gone, isn't it?
-
Depending on what anchors you use you can define earths, or any planets suns, speed differently. The best way, to me, seems to be using 'fixed stars' light for it, assuming 'candles' for it, measuring locally incoming blue shift. Alternatively one can use the CBR (Cosmic Background Radiation). But as you can't prove CBR to be 'still', and as you can't prove 'fixed stars' to be still either, although one can define them so due to their enormous distance from us, it's still relative speeds, isn't it?
-
A planets definition of a gravity will be the same, no matter how much you first accelerate it, to then return to a uniform motion. To me it becomes a question what motion is? Accelerations versus uniform motions. But I think I can define matters gravity as directed towards a 'center'. Can I do the same for a constant uniform acceleration?
==
differently expressed.
Can I differ inertia, from gravity?
-
Using a Higgs field we have one definition of inertia, as I see it. But a Higgs field do not describe a mass in uniform motion. A book 'at rest' with/on a table, on Earth, can not be defined as 'accelerating' by itself, can it? And so there can be no Higgs field to react on it.
The Higgs field is a definition relative accelerations/decelerations, to me.
And that I would call classical inertia.
But then we have the idea that inertia, and gravity, is inseparable.
-
You can define it as acting on all mass, by using the equivalence principle, possibly. But that one is limited to a very special type of motion, if we want to be strict. A uniform constant acceleration, as by some 'cosmic' elevator, equivalent to the experience you get on a (non spinning) Earth.
Gravity.
Don't like that. It's taking one approach, relativity, and then try to glue a Higgs field upon it, without explaining why it should be so. A Higgs field demands several archetypes, it demands real motion, and real accelerations, inside a containing universe defined by a existing geometry. It may fit relativity in that you still can allow an idea of observer dependencies for it, but it neither explains those observer dependencies, nor does it fit uniform motions.
Einsteins universe can be seen as using a universal container model, although observer dependent. In it a relativistic mass is defined by tensions, relations acting on something moving uniformly, creating a relativistic mass, and so a added energy, although not measurable locally.
-
That's the normal approach to relativity, defining it from a 'preexisting geometry'. From such a approach it becomes self evident why Einstein demands the moon to still exist, even when he's not looking. But you can labor with relativity, as I see it, from local definitions instead. And define a geometry from local properties, 'constants', principles. It should still leave the moon to exist when I'm not looking, to fit my ideas, but it's not a 'preexisting geometry' anymore.
-
Einstein defines the room as collaborating with time. That in its turn makes the universe 'plastic'. But it's still a container model.
-
Or it's not. Some archetypes are very hard to get rid of.
-
But this approach solves some very strange things for me. It leaves me free to accept Lorentz contractions and time dilations. they are a result of those local constants, applied over frames of reference. And it explains a 'plasticity'. What it does not, is to explain how what we see is 'commonly recognizable' as a 'same universe'. Well, I can use those local constants for defining how it should be possible, but? Why does it give us this 'common universe'? How does it do it?
=
The geometry.
-
So what is logic?
It's a belief system.
I think :)
It's based on the idea that some beliefs are possible to prove, here and now. Also that what we can use for proving them are mathematics, statistics, and probability. Or is there more to it than that, logics that we use? Physics comes from statistics, 'repeatable experiments'. We define it such as if there is a logic to it, then it might be true.
So what is empathy, compassion? What is 'intuitive'? What is a 'eureka moment' that you afterwards dedicate a whole life to proving logically? Then we have love?
Would one stomach that logic is a belief system too? Or are you a devotee? Convinced of there being a 'ultimate logic', no matter whatever logics we have today breaking under new logics, superseding the old. As Relativity's logic supersedes Newtonian?
Does God exist?
And does he need logic, if he/she(it:) does?
=
Why I'm asking?
Well, I believe in logic, and hope it to be just such a 'overlapping' truth, no matter what 'breaks' as we use this tool. On the other hand, it does not explain everything, not yet at least. Was reading http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/24/atheism-richard-dawkins-challenge-beliefs-homeless?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2&commentpage=17
And it made me wonder. Not as much about what Cris wrote, I found him quite truthful in his reflections, and it was moving to me. But all those defending logic as the only thing there is? Finding him 'attacking' it? I don't think he did, he's on a journey, and it seems worthwhile to me. Neither did I read him as degenerating others, rather he was lifting up all that we have in common, those emotions, feelings, we all share. Well, I do, and I hope you do too :)
-
What I'm thinking of there is that people love to define belief systems as 'logical'. Remember Hitler, and his 'Aryan logic'? What differ physics, 'hard sciences', from such is that we don't take any belief system for a given. And that we have mathematics, repeatability, and hypothesis's, validating and testing.
But, depending on your logic limits. What you set as your 'system' restricting it, you can reach various results. And never is it more apparent as when it comes to religious dogma. We are flock animals, and we like alpha leaders, but we better use some common sense before choosing one. Or we will end up deluded, by others, but mostly by ourselves..
-
A little like politics relative democracy. People seem to be intuitively understanding politics, understandable as I can depict any politic statement by me as a extension of my own private opinions. After all, it's what we in Swedish call 'egen intressen' that defines politics, my 'self interests', what I want, often giving me a gain.
But that's not democracy.
Democracy is very simple, it's one voice, one vote, everyone equal.
Snowden does not discuss politics, to me he discuss what wests politics build on.
Democracy.
And that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. The closest we have to a working democracy today, is the Internet.
Not a country, just Internet. And such a lot of self interests want to become the regulators of it. Some going as far as making nation wide 'intranet' as China, sifting through all information coming from our 'normal' Internet.
Tell me, what's the difference between Chinas approach to a 'free exchange of thoughts and information', and one in where we find information corrupted, sifted through, limiting the free exchange? What the Internet should represent is democracy.
-
It's been a weird xmas, almost no snow, more like spring than winter or autumn. You can't draw any far reaching conclusions from that naturally, but to me it's like 'swings', every swing pushing the climate a little further into a warming, storms getting worse, everywhere. We've had some really strong storms here in Sweden recently. On the other hand, if we really wanted to do something about global warming I suspect it would lead the developed country's into something resembling a 'state of emergency'. There are too many heavy interests wanting us to continue on the trodden path, and as we're flock animals, congregating around Alpha leaders? And they on their side want to stay in office, riding the gravy train as far as it can go, as most of us would like to I guess :) So, no uncomfortable truths.
Also, no one want to exchange their life for a poorer copy, do they? And it should be one of the effects, as well as a lot of 'imaginary money/assets', circulating as 'real assets' in the banks world, disappearing as people gets real worried, that is if waiting too long with taking action.
Don't rock the boat...
Seems as a good advice?
So, Fukushima then? And nuclear technology?
Nope, don't think that's the way, even though it will become one, as we keep on not 'rocking the boat'. We don't have that many centralized energy technologies left actually. We have coal, oil, 'Natural gas' (methane) and nuclear energy. That's 'energies' that you can rein in, controlled by the few, and without my central heating it can get really cold in Sweden. A very convincing argument for staying in line, wouldn't you say?
Natural recourses are declining though, at the same time as we build up an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere. So, do you think it can lead to small arms wars? Probably, just as clean water should be able too, and fertile land. But not the west, at least not beginning here. We will see it in the poor countries first, and advertisers will gain huge amounts of money playing on wests guilty conscience, telling us to 'share' some part of our personal wealth with them. But it won't stop global warming.
So why am I writing about it, painting such a gloomy picture?
Same thing, it all comes together. The difference between politics, and democracy.
-
We do have 'renewables'. Sweden for example have a lot of streams, waterfalls, that you can convert to electric energy. And then there is the sun, winds, waves.. Although building a damn creates its own problems, for people and wild life living further down. And, as we don't try to utilize those resources to their full extent I'm more or less ignoring them for this.
But we do have the Internet. If there ever is going to be a change to the way we behave as a species, we will need to communicate. And I don't mean 'experts'.
-
Now take a wild guess why so many interests find the Internet so important, and also want to control its information.
-
Then take a wild guess to why I say I don't know any 'democratic countries'. We have a resemblance to it, and we have a real chance of getting further too. But that depends on what you want the Internet to be, a place whereon one voice, one vote, everyone equal, is true? Or one where we adapt to a 'representative Internet'. Represented by what national 'self interests', commercial interests, etc, guides it to?
Interesting, isn't it :)
What do you want with you life? And your kids.
=
Internet is no different from outside your home. There, as here, you will find certain people you won't want to be with. People you wouldn't dream of letting into your living-room.
But that is exactly what democracy is, allowing even those you can't stand, to have that voice, and vote, treating them equally.
So, it's not 'politics', even though some politicians might try to convince you otherwise.
Politics are, to its highest degree, a question of 'egen intressen', self interests.
Enlightened or not.
-
I've seen discussions about what is more 'right', although none discussing it my way. Defining a universe over frames of reference, in where you can reach some astounding results depending on your choice of measurements/system. Or from defining it 'locally'. Einstein first defined SR.
SR is without gravity, no gravity at all. In that place he created a axiom that nobody know why it is.
The speed of light is the same, measured from any inertial place of observation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
To simplify it we can use earth for measuring a speed, ignoring spin (frame dragging) and so gravity.
That will give us 'c' .
The problem here is that the universe use mass(energy) and gravity.
And that's GR.
Measuring over frames of reference you can reach conclusions that seems to contradict the statement of 'c'. But it doesn't, it's a question of how you define it.
I define it locally. That's also why I'm wondering how to define 'one local frame' practically. I would prefer a definition in where we could set a measurable limit for what one frame of reference is. That's also why I define a universe's geometry from local interactions.
-
And yes, such a interpretation will lead to QM. I also keep coming back to the way relativity defines a relativistically moving mass to be able to 'shrink a universe'. To see where that takes me you need to accept both Lorentz contractions and time dilations. You also need to accept that they are consistent through all types of motion, uniform motion (relative motion) and acceleration/decelerations.
To me they are real effects, just as your local measurements tells you. And that statement comes from, my very own :) analysis of what a 'repeatable experiment' should mean in this circumstance, and how we do them. We do them from a local definition, using a local clock and ruler.
So, ignore Lorentz contractions and time dilations at your peril. Because, if you do, you now have invalidated all repeatable experiments ever done. There are more things to it naturally, but this is the simplest reason I can give.
-
Now, we can turn 'repeatable experiments' around if we like. What that says is also a axiom, the one where we expect physics to be the same in all points of a (measurable) universe. Constants, principles, properties being the same everywhere you can go, and tell us about it.
Because that is what a 'repeatable experiment' should be, to me, to contain a logic. Otherwise you create a 'magical universe', steered by different natural laws, constants etc, at different patches of 'space' (vacuum). Don't like that one, and no experiments done points to it either, that I know of?
So, you can do a 'repeatable experiment' anywhere in this universe. And that is 'locality' to me.
-
So we have two views. The one I prefer, in where all 'points' of a universe are equal, scaling them down to their simplest 'containment' of constants etc. and one in where you can define a lot of confusing things, debating 'c' and so SR.
-
Neither is wrong, as far as I know. To me it's a practical question foremost, and what makes it simpler for me. Using (my type of) locality I can define a arrow, equal to 'c'. Using locality I also can suggest a 'geometry' as created from local principles, constants, properties. And that makes Lorentz contractions and time dilations understandable for me, in another way.
-
Admit it, no matter your understanding of the mathematics. The idea of Lorentz contractions and time dilation, when considered from several observers in a defined patch of space, using different motions and mass, confuse you. But only when we think about a universe as some 'container' of them. We use 'systems' and 'dimensions', presuming that this way of looking at is the correct one. And it is how we built physics. But I expect it to be possible to use a 'universe' defined from local definitions instead, building a geometry from interactions. And then Lorenz contractions and time dilations becomes a result of your local definition relative all other 'points' creating what you find to be a universe.
-
Considering that SR is without gravity, also defining gravity as a up/downwelling in all 'points'. Can we define some scaling from where 'gravity' disappear? I don't know.
What is a property?
Spin?
Gravity?
=
'Up' and down welling as we have two factors. You act on gravity by being of matter, and gravity acts on you. But in reality I would prefer to define gravity as being of one sign, and that should be a 'down welling'.
-
There is actually the possibility of no singular frame of reference being able to exist, neither theoretically nor practically. And it may well be the correct definition, practically, for creating a measurable universe. The rest would then be properties constants and principles, unable to define to any specific location. Becoming a sort of 'background' to what we have as a universe.
-
Because to get to a interaction, you need a 'split'.
-
Things 'bump' into each other, do they not? And waves 'propagate'. And we track it to the existence of a 'arrow', making all of it possible. And you do die.
-
No singular frame of reference but still locality? What would that make of what you observe, scaling something down?
-
So what do you think? Can there be a interaction, scaling it down, inside something defined as one singular frame of reference? I'm not discussing being 'at rest' with something here. That involves two defined 'objects', and usually reserved for macroscopic definitions.
-
And a Shapiro delay, as defined for a observer, 'far away' comparing this distance light 'propagates' to his detector with a locally defined speed of light then? Finding it to be 'slower'? Is 'c' a variable?
Nope :)
It's a locally defined speed of light in a vacuum, valid everywhere in the universe, that assuming the physics to be the same, everywhere I can go to measure and tell you about my results. And that my friends, are 'repeatable experiments.
You can define it as a result of time dilation, as described from the 'far away' observers frame of reference when calculating the result, finding that a 'curved SpaceTime' does not cover the 'slowness' he theoretically finds. You might also consider that if 'c' and and a arrow is inseparable, from a strictly local beginning, and as I think, then as I define the arrow to become 'slower' measuring over frames of reference, I also must consider 'c' to 'slow down'.
So is it a illusion?
Nope. As long as we define a universe containing ourselves it's not. It's a valid description of a universe, as measured by a 'far observer'. But please, use a definition going out from locality for it. Because that's 'c', and that's what I define as equivalent to a arrow of time. Split 'c' and you get the best clock existing. And that is the ground floor from where we can define such things as the Shapiro delay, Lorentz transformations, and a logical universe.
-
How would you get to a Lorentz transformation without first defining 'c'? And do you think a Shapiro delay can be Lorentz transformed?
-
If a Shapiro delay can't be Lorentz transformed it either has to be a wrong approach, or relativity has to be wrong. SR creates GR, using 'c' and 'gravity'.
-
I used to find relativity complicated, but it's not. What is complicated are the conclusions you can draw from defining different 'systems' from reading about it. So it can fool us a lot.
Relativity springs from 'c', that's the axiom telling us that it doesn't matter what 'relative motion' you measure, using infalling light or any other heavenly bodies, the speed of light in a vacuum will still be 'c' as measured in a 'two way experiment'. And that one is correct..
Using that one you need time dilations, and you need Lorentz contractions. To explain how 'c' can be 'c', no matter how fast I'm 'moving'. Nota bene, to me it won't matter if you introduce accelerations or not, for that very local definition of 'c', although to be strict about it we must use 'c' as described from 'uniform motion'.
So that's where you get time dilations and Lorentz contractions.
Then you go to GR, which treats gravity, and so matter, It does it by defining all energy as equivalent to mass, then defining gravity as inseparable from the effect you experience sitting in a uniformly constantly accelerating rocket, as measured by a accelerometer. The equivalence principle.
Notice one thing there though. It's about a 'local definition', just as 'c' is. But if gravity is 'motion' then you must find time dilations and Lorentz contraction even when being 'at rest' with Earth. And that one is proved by NIST, at centimeters.
It's our instruments that draws the line there, if we had a 'perfect' instrument 'ticking' at Planck scale ('c' is one Planck length in one Planck time) we would be able to track this relation between gravity and time dilations (Lorentz contractions) even further. But we meet HUP (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) long before that, so it's just not possible.
You might say that it 'smears out' at a very small scale.
-
And you can simplify time dilations and Lorentz contractions by using this fact, that those are all 'local descriptions'. Just stop thinking of it, the 'universe', as some container. It's much easier to define it locally. Doing so you will need a complementary description of 'dimensions' though, and that, I suspect :) is what 'degrees of freedom' is all about. A simplification of 'dimensions', or as I think of it, a correction and better description.
-
Using the idea of describing a dimensionality from locality we find that describing something, inside a lattice for example, as behaving in a 'two dimensional' manner is perfectly acceptable. It is not acceptable from the idea of a universe consisting of three singular dimensions and a arrow though. That one is rather easy to disprove, as you then need this two dimensional 'system', described in/by your lattice to 'disappear' from some angle of observation. It's not logically acceptable, as it won't happen in any experiment. Or you will have to define that as there can be no 'lower dimensional systems' existing in a 'higher dimensional system' invalidating most of the physics we use, as strings and loops etc.
=
spelling sux.
Keep missing words :)
==
That was actually the way I thought of it first, as if the universe we saw was made out of 'whole 4-D representations' in each point, also described locally to fit my thoughts. But using 'degrees of freedom' I think I would prefer to move away from that one, instead defining it as 'connections' expressing interactions. Those 'connections/interactions (relations) creating' what dimensions we measure. And so this lattice can be allowed to be 'two dimensional' for all practical purposes, and possibly even theoretically, as there is nothing stopping any sort of 'dimensionality' that I can see, more than whatever constraints being imposed by constants, properties, principles etc.
Einstein did not use a geometrical approach, defining relativity. And assuming this type of description, he might have been closer to the truth than the geometrical approach is, although that one is much clearer for us laymen. All as I think of it, naturally, as well as understands it, that is :)
-
So, degrees of freedom :) a better approach.
I'm sure you will agree on that one.
-
Because when you describe dimensionality from an idea of 'connections', locally defined, that means that your experiments (relations) must define your universe. And it also allows for different observers having different relations. So, dimensions falls away, and instead we will use 'degrees of freedom'.
-
But there is something more to such a definition, presuming a 'logical universe'. It must presume something being constant for all observers, giving them, and the universe, a coherence. What you see, and me, as we go out at night to look at the sky. 'Our' universe.
-
And that must be local constants, principles and properties. We share them, everywhere, and they are our background.
-
Now, where does a property come from?
spin?
-
If you're asking yourself that one, you also might want to wonder what a nucleons 'rest mass' is, and you either define it as a rest mass, ignoring any thought up intrinsic 'motions', or you invalidate the idea of rest mass, and so also the idea of ever being 'at rest' with anything. A electron for example uses 'orbitals', not 'orbits', and if you don't know what a orbital is a 'goggle' will tell you the difference. And why is a nucleons mass bigger than its parts, theoretically measured.
This one treats spin rather nicely, Electron spin doesn't really exist. (http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/spin.html)
But it also want us to go to a Bohr model?
Maybe this one should be read first. Q: What is “spin” in particle physics? Why is it different from just ordinary rotation? (http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/10/q-what-is-spin-in-particle-physics-why-is-it-different-from-just-ordinary-rotation/)
And a Bohr model, Magneton?
"The magnetic moment has a close connection with angular momentum called the gyromagnetic effect. This effect is expressed on a macroscopic scale in the Einstein-de Haas effect, or "rotation by magnetization," and its inverse, the Barnett effect, or "magnetization by rotation." In particular, when a magnetic moment is subject to a torque in a magnetic field that tends to align it with the applied magnetic field, the moment precesses (rotates about the axis of the applied field). This is a consequence of the angular momentum associated with the moment.
Viewing a magnetic dipole as a rotating charged sphere brings out the close connection between magnetic moment and angular momentum. Both the magnetic moment and the angular momentum increase with the rate of rotation of the sphere. The ratio of the two is called the gyromagnetic ratio, usually denoted by the symbol γ.
For a spinning charged solid with a uniform charge density to mass density ratio, the gyromagnetic ratio is equal to half the charge-to-mass ratio. This implies that a more massive assembly of charges spinning with the same angular momentum will have a proportionately weaker magnetic moment, compared to its lighter counterpart. Even though atomic particles cannot be accurately described as spinning charge distributions of uniform charge-to-mass ratio, this general trend can be observed in the atomic world, where the intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of each type of particle is a constant: a small half-integer times the reduced Planck constant ħ. This is the basis for defining the magnetic moment units of Bohr magneton (assuming charge-to-mass ratio of the electron) and nuclear magneton (assuming charge-to-mass ratio of the proton)."
And a brief history of how this term has been used. Brief History of Bohr Magneton. (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/3468)
-
It's always hard to set things into a proper perspective historically, but I found this one N. Bohr, “On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules” (http://www.fisica.ufpb.br/~jgallas/CURSOS/Estrutura02/bohr_part02_PM1913_14786441308634993.pdf)
But before that one you might want to read this commentary about Bohr and this same paper? Niels Bohr and complementarity. by Plotnitsky. A (2012) (http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9781461445166-c2.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1346443-p174513951)
-
I'm arguing that you can't ignore the observation from the observed, and something similar seem to have been Einsteins take on it too.
"Einstein told Heisenberg that our concepts and theories decide what could be observed (Heisenberg 1971, p. 63). Einstein’s argument impressed Heisenberg and, in part, guided his work on the uncertainty relations. Einstein’s insight is crucial because it leads to a questioning of the uncritical use of the idea of observation, an idea that has been a subject of much discussion throughout the history and philosophy of science."
To me that practically means that as soon as you measure, you should consider your observations part of a larger system, defined by locality. It also means that you can't ignore your presumptions, for example a local clock and ruler. That does not presume them to be meaningless in any way, but it do mean that a pure 'local measurement' is not possible. And you can easily see why by considering that all measurements are done over 'frames of reference', now defining it from scales. You have the possibility of being 'at rest' macroscopically but that one is to me discuss-able microscopically, although correct from a macroscopic view.
==
I am of two minds, when it comes to being 'at rest' with something. The way I would try to join it is from decoherence. While you only find probabilities at a small scale, at a macroscopic scale you will find a classic predictability, and so I think of being 'at rest' with something for now. It has to be something similar to decoherence, at least to make sense to me.
-
It also means that defining the reason why one find a rest mass of a nucleon to be larger than its 'parts', being 'energy or quarks and gluons' in 'relativistic motion' have no real meaning to me. There is no such thing as a relativistic motion there, just as atomic particles spin is no real spin.
-
I prefer indeterminacy to 'virtual photons'.
-
What one can question using locality, is whether the classically definable spin (angular momentum) of a spinning top is more 'real' than the atomic spin? After all, the classical definition of a spin comes scale wise from probability. What I probably :) mean is that both has to be accepted on their 'face value'. They exist measurably, therefore they are here.
-
It all comes back to measurements, doesn't it? And what meaning we put into their results.
-
There are two ways to look at 'weak measurements', as I think of it then. You might be able to argue that by doing a lot of weak measurements of, for example, a 'photon path' you also gives 'it' a higher probability, by finding this 'path' to be the one most chosen. Or you can argue the opposite, that there are no paths, only positions in space and time, defined by locality. To do the later you need local constants, properties and principles.
-
Without a 'locality' existing the later interpretation becomes a hard one to argue. Only if assuming this 'background', valid everywhere, can I argue that this is one reason why weak experiments seems as working hypothesis's.
-
So time dilations exist, as soon as you can measure them, locally defined. There's no reason to assume that accelerations/decelerations is the culprit for this, in my eyes. More than you need to introduce them to get back to a origin, now ignoring the idea of some 'spherical universe'. And why I ignore that one should be obvious from the rest of my ideas.
-
So what gives us a arrow?
Decoherence too?
Don't know. It's somewhat of a local property to me, that I call 'time'. But I do assume that we get to a arrow by this property interacting, finding relations, in a similar way that decoherence is thought to work from probabilities microscopically to predictabilities macroscopically.
=
You most definitely need to introduce scales, and so 'frames of reference' to see my reasoning here.
-
Why accelerations and decelerations are assumed to be a reason for a 'real' twin experiments age difference, I foremost relate to the idea of 'dimensions' as a container, containing us, and everything else we can measure. It's that one that defined most of what we think is 'real', and also that one that makes people doubt relativity most. The idea of different observers observing different 'times', and not only that but also different 'universes'. It's a hard one to accept from a container model, if I may call it that. But as soon as you turn it around, defining observer dependencies from your local definition, then it makes sense. But you need those constants for it. and you need them to exist everywhere, locally the same (equivalent).
-
Either there is a rhythm to a universe, as defined by 'c', or the rhythm comes to be macroscopically. Either you can scale something down to a singular frame of reference, or you need 'two interacting'. And that one should be about symmetries, and symmetry breaks to my eyes.
-
And Einsteins ideas must still be valid, but you no longer need to look for where that 'tension', relativistic mass, should be able to be measured, using different uniform motions defining it. If it all is a question of relations then the relations creates it as needed, in a collision for example. Not unlike a computer model over objects colliding, presenting a kinetic energy, the programming defining how it will behave. The 'programming' here should be constants, properties and principles.
-
What can 'bump' (collide) here is matter aka restmass. As far as I know, there is no experiment proving radiation able to 'bump' with radiation. Radiation, treated as waves, can reinforce and quench each other, but not 'bump' into each other.
=
But it interacts with matter (rest mass)
-
"Either you can scale something down to a singular frame of reference, or you need 'two interacting'. And that one should be about symmetries, and symmetry breaks to my eyes."
Well, that's relativity isn't it? 'two interacting', and symmetry breaks.
Eh, and 'observer dependencies' :)
-
How about this then :)
Assume that you need 'two frames of reference' to get to a interaction. Well, now I think you've defined a 'clock'. A 'clock' is a relation between two states. The one that fires the 'emission' and the one that does not. Very simplified naturally, but that is what I like, I'll freely admit.
-
All oscillations are 'clocks'. They 'tick' and they need to be observed to exist, do they not? Or can we assume a universe where they 'tick' even without observations? If we define a observation as one frame of reference interacting with another we get to a 'system' in where the frames confirm each others existence. Quite nice, and very meta physical.
-
Before you laugh, define entanglements, and tunnelings.
-
When a oscillation falls into a 'low state', passing a 'peak', that's where we think a tunneling can take place.
-
What is Time? a Arrow? Arrows? Oscillations?
Locally it is one single time keeper, equivalent to 'c'.
There is no confusion to that statement.
The confusion arrives when you treat this from a common universe, containing us all and all we measure.
So what is more right? The common universe one assume one self to exist in, shared with every-one and '-thing' else. Or the local definition of 'c'? I'll go with 'c'.
-
So what connects 'locality'?
We arrive to relativity in comparing frames of reference, using a local definition. We assume the physics of this 'universe' to be the same everywhere. Now, that is my definition of a 'locality' too. Is that to complicated :) I don't think so.
Then I assume this locality to be governed by relations, relative all other 'localities', that I then call 'points'. What I do not presume though is a 'container' of it. I define the 'dimensions' we define to be created from 'points' connecting and interacting. That means that it's our inability to pass whatever local constants, properties and principles we have equivalently, that will define a 'commonly shared universe'.
=
It give us a background of constants properties and principles, but it doesn't state from where they come. You might assume this to be a symmetry break though, which is what I do. And a temperature craves interactions between frames of reference. Radiation/matter.
-
That way it is simple. Then we have all complementary effects. It's like we stand on one side of a mirror, to suddenly find us on the other side. Alice, that's me, and now you're in wonderland :)
Or maybe that was where you was, before reading me.
-
No need to get stuck on time dilations, as long as we agree on that ones local definition of a arrow never change. The problem left is to define what a local arrow should mean. Can I scale a world down to one frame of reference? Not practically, and as I'm starting to suspect then, neither theoretically?
I really wish I could though..
As that would join relativity with our need of something 'tangible'. We like it that way, we've always had I think. And it's hard letting that one go.
-
'c' is a 'local background', one point and all points, becoming local observers interacting over frames of reference, defining a universe and dimensions. A common local principle and constant, governing information.
-
That's where we arrive at 'symmetry breaks' to me. Because when defining one singular frame of reference there is no outcomes, and that is a indifferentiated place I can't really describe, nothing happens 'locally' there so what would there be to describe? You need a symmetry breaking before we get to a arrow, and interactions.
-
But, when assuming all points locally equivalently the same, impossible to differentiate from each other, any ideas of a distance lose its meaning. And as soon as you measure you introduce frames of reference.
=
Let me rephrase the last.
As soon as you measure you introduce 'frames of reference', and scaling.
-
Expressed otherwise, introduce a observer and you must define a arrow, frames of reference, and 'distance'. Motion though? Let's see, that involves a distance doesn't it? And a arrow? And matter, or radiation? And then you can split distance with time to find displacements. We define a distance relative a clock, 'intuitively internal' or external, and then use displacements in a 'space', to define a motion. And motion is weird. Uniform motion ('relative' motion) versus constant uniform acceleration, relative non uniform, non constant, accelerations, all treated differently in relativity, and with right.
It's not that we can't agree on a 'space' existing, it's just that it is observer defined, as I see it 'locally defined'. In a way one could presume this 'background of locality' to also become some sort of 'frame of reference', possibly? Although I don't see how that would be provable, as there won't be any 'outcome', unless we introduce something more, interactions.
-
Scaling becomes a distance too in my thoughts, and the only way we have to get close to what I think governs this universe.
-
But the unique thing with this distance is that it is as 'far', or 'near' to locality, everywhere. You can go wherever you want in this 'common universe' to measure. The distance is the same. Well, a little, but let's use 'test particles for it :) and define a flat space, we can use scaling for arriving to that one. 'gravity' and 'mass' redefines space, as does motion. But in a uniform motion, using a test particle in a 'flat space' your distance to that 'singular frame' scaling, should be the same everywhere.
-
From such a point of view one also safely can assume all relative motion to be equivalent, even though we can prove different uniform motions existing, measuring and comparing over frames of reference. Because we define it locally, and locally it is equivalent. I really like that one as it solves a problem for me.
-
It doesn't matter for this how you define your (uniformly moving) velocity relative incoming light, or other bodies. All uniform motion is locally equivalent although your relations relative other frames of reference can change. As you measuring a time dilation and a Lorenz contraction.
Although it makes our common perception of a universe into some sort of projection to me.
And that one is a headache.
But it makes it no worse than 'one dimensional' loops and strings do? Or as some geometrical definition, as relativity for one is described today, does it? :)
There's just a need of defining how it 'connects', joining into our defined 'dimensions'.
-
A symmetry break also fits the idea of a inflation (and expansion), and the way it seems to have been faster than light. I need it to be a symmetry break to fit my ideas I think.
-
And I don't want a initial 'temperature' scaling down, temperature must disappear, locally defined as I see it. And that's the observer problem for me, all over again. The way we introduce frames of reference in all observations. We can't avoid it, not if we want to measure something.
-
And yes, as I define constants properties and principles as 'preexisting' expressed though symmetry breaks, equivalent in all points, I think I'll do the same for 'gravity', for the moment that is :). A 'down welling' in each point, scaling it down.
-
And now we come to another interesting aspect of it. 'c' disappear as you scale it down, using Plank scale, although 'time' still should be there as some 'property', not ticking though. What happens with gravity as you scale it down?
-
Then again, think of a black hole. Then define that infinite mass inside a event horizon to some 'dimension less' point? Energy constricted? A broken symmetry, broken again? If I'm defining all points as equal, what would that make of this? I really do define them that way you know :) and they are, to all experimental definitions, locally equivalent.
-
Then again, that's behind what we call a event horizon, is it not? A singularity, nothing able to go in, and come back, with information. The universe closing itself of? Something consisting of infinities?
-
If we think of it from a geometry, that dimensionless point defined, should be a representation of all other points defining whatever mass there is, before a compression. And although that still is correct, from some distance outside the event horizon. As you close in to a event horizon, tidal forces and gravity will start to act on you, more than what you expect, if comparing it to its former mass as matter, acting on you. And passing your/the event horizon there should be no way back for you, as far as I get it.
-
I have no problems with 'dimension less' points though. Not from a definition in where you scaling down should see interactions change and ultimately, assuming it magically possible to define a (singular) frame in itself, disappear into properties, principles, and constants. Those are noting tangible, and they can only express themselves in interactions. And locally defined, if there is no way to find and define a distance, does it exist?
-
I know, it sounds pretty weird, doesn't it? And yes, I'm not sure of all of this:) But it tickles my curiosity.
And no QM, and no 'forces' discussed for the most part either.
But I mention it, now and then. How should one define interactions without at least two frames of reference being involved? As well as the observer/detector, assuming a experiment? Although you can take away the observer/detector, presuming a natural interaction as a radioactive decay, it must continue anyway. That is statistics. And as I define interactions as 'frames of reference' interacting, each frame becomes a natural 'observer/detector' to me.
And 'one frame of reference' then?
Well, prove that one and I think we definitely passed QM:s limits, into ??
But on the other hand, using frames interacting I can't see how to pass two frames?
Well, I might be able to imaginatively but I don't see how to test it.
-
Another point with this idea of a black hole is the one in where it is a equilibrium that breaks down, creating that singularity. A geometric relation between a mass and a space, creating 'infinities'. So that 'infinite mass' created inside a event horizon is not related to how many kg:s you throw in, although we can speak of smaller and greater black holes from its outside. Break that relation microscopically and there will be a 'black hole' too, and passing that event horizon you won't get back.
In a one to one relation it seems possible speak about different infinities, but as you also must acknowledge the fact that any real infinity always will give you a one to one correspondence, no matter how you first defined them by 'size', you can't really prove that one experimentally, can you?
Let's use it on different black holes, of a different mass, initially.
What's important there?
'initially'. Initially we can say that the relation between matter and geometry will create different sized black holes. But from passing a event horizon they all are alike. Theoretically we can assume all sorts of things inside that event horizon, practically we will never know if we don't pass a event horizon to see.
So in a 'one to one' relation we have two things, our definition before defining two infinities, of different amounts. After the 'real infinity' is established though, they will be the exact same to all experimental approaches. Even if going inside a 'microscopic' black hole, it won't make a difference to your chances of returning. And counting one infinity relative another will never end, no matter how you define them initially.
-
'Initially' here is what exist before the singularity is established. There we can labor with those concepts, using a 'one to one' definition. But any real infinity is countless, and for that your initial parameters won't matter. And a black hole is a nice practical definition of why.
=
Using numbers for defining different infinities you will find the same. Using that 'one to one' correspondence it doesn't matter what your initial definitions of them was. Neither of those infinities will end, you counting 'one to one'. If one would end, your initial parameters would be all wrong, as you now have a finite result for one.
Then they can't be infinities.
-
People just love to get stuck on the first definition, and stop there :)
Calling those that take it to its logical end being 'wrong'.
But it's not. The most I can say about it is that depending on what 'system' you choose, you will get to a different definition.
=
Possibly exchange 'system' for frame of reference too. As I'm interested in local definitions.
-
So, is the universe 'infinite'?
From what definition?
Go out to the left to come back at the right?
Or infinite as in there being no end at all, and when ignoring time for it meaning no 'repetitiveness', as the above example actually mean, ignoring a arrow?
Or 'infinite' as in connections, defining a universe, observer dependently?
-
I better admit that I'm partial to my own definition.
If I define it from connections (locality) then there is no defined magnitude to it, except your local definition of clock and ruler. There is no end either, as long as connections exist, without those we won't exist either. so what we have is in one way a 'bubble', but not as definable from any thought up outside. It's existent to us inside it, but? There is no way to define what a 'outside' will mean that I can see from it. Unless you want to use 'constants, properties and principles' as what 'exist outside'?
-
And a inflation does not use a arrow, initially. Not as I think of it. Let's call SpaceTime a 'rip' coming from a symmetry. That rip can only use a arrow if we also can define frames of reference interacting. We need oscillations for it :) sort of. Proofs of change.
-
That would then be connections establishing themselves.
-
And they use 'c', don't they?
But a inflationary space?
Well, that space should be connections too, shouldn't it? To exist I mean? Either that, or that 'space' is non existent, as defined classically, perfect vacuum.
-
I'm not sure at all what a vacuum means. If I use a definition of light non-propagating, instead giving us a rhythm, and a pattern that we find to propagate, what would the vacuum we describe be?
-
Think of it as layers upon layers, each layer subtly different. The pattern you find being those layers described from your 'position' inside a SpaceTime, giving you motion. Just as we find 'gravity' to act 'sideways', although I define it as a 'down welling' in each point.
-
If it really is non existent, as in a classical definition, then there is no 'connections' to it either, and no definable 'speed'. If it uses connections though, I would expect those to be defined by 'c'. You want it to be 'energy? Don't you?
Well, does 'energy' obey 'c'?
-
Sure, it obeys 'c', in any outcome you can describe. So, presuming 'energy' to be a added quantity (or 'property') to a vacuum, we still need to define that vacuum, as either obeying 'c', or not?
=
That is, if you want a inflation. Better point out that it does not matter what 'speed' you expect a inflation to have had. Any deviation from relativity is as bad to me. Doesn't matter how you define it as, tachyons or a 'outside', as long as you involve a definable 'speed' to this inflation form some 'origin'. Also, it is inconsistent to define it as there being no origin at the same time you expect something to have a 'origin'.
-
Exchange 'energy' for constants, properties and principles. Then tell me, do they need to obey 'c'?
-
Sure, inside they must, as in a transformation defined by them. But as a 'background', equivalent in all 'points'?
=
You need to remember my definition of a 'inside' for this, creating 'dimensions' through connections, obeying 'c'. You also need to remember that it will not make sense discussing a 'outside', as long as we're discussing connections (relations) defining a universe, observer dependently. It has no meaning from a thought up outside, it's not a 'tangible' thing.
-
That's why I think of it as a projection. You can see that projection different ways, as layers upon layers, or as something 'dimensionless' giving us 'infinities'. You can only define a distance relative a clock, and a ruler. You need both.
-
So what would a inflation be from my point of view? I can easily accept it to have no origin, we actually need to stipulate that property of it. We also need to agree on that this is the only way it can keep 'c'. You need something, coming into a arrow of time 'everywhere', no defined origin. You also need it to establish connections at 'c'. Because that is how I define 'c', as equivalent to your very local arrow of time. And that is also transformations, and 'c'.
-
So, what is this vacuum? 'Energies'? Or constants, properties and principles?
-
And what is a symmetry break?
Temperatures?
-
So, that will in a way give us a speed, as you measure over frames of reference. The points need to connect, and they should do it at 'c', as I presume. Because 'c' is what rules locally, inside this universe. And a symmetry break will involve temperatures, and transformations, or as I think of it, 'frames of reference' interacting.
-
Even when thinking of it as there can be no single frame of reference possible inside this universe, I still can think of it as 'dual frames' connecting to dual frames at 'c', if you see my reasoning here.
but there is no 'time' to this universe, other than the one you get using 'c'.
-
The only presumption you need for this reasoning is 'c', hopefully :) Everything follows from that one. The arrow becomes a local 'c', frames of reference interacting is 'c'. Your definition of a age for this universe is 'c'. etc etc.
-
And the speed of communicating here is also 'c'.
Now prove me wrong :)
-
I guess it's slightly boring. But one of the biggest hurdles I found, is what I think of as the 'observer problem'. It goes like this. Assume yourself to 'observe' anything.
1. what you observe you will define as one frame of reference, yourself consisting of the other.
2. You will, in accordance to relativity, have to define what you see as dependent on your local clock and ruler.
Now imagine that what you observe is a interaction.
How many frames are we talking about?
-
That depends on your 'system' doesn't it :)
You can define it as two, or you can assume that all interactions are a result of a frame of reference interacting with another, in which case you might want to consider it three, or even more. Three as we might assume that a decay is a result from frames of reference interacting, your observing becoming a third frame.
Or more. And that one has to do with how you think of SpaceTime.
Gravity? Is that as a 'net', updated at 'c'?
What did Mach mean, and why did Einstein find his ideas so interesting?
-
It does matter. For me, as I'm looking for the 'holy grail', a proof for one singular frame of reference able to exist on its own it play a huge roll. If there is no such proof, then there are no 'singular frames' either. Everything becomes a question of connections defining those 'frames of reference'.
-
Why do I want to find a proof for one single frame of reference?
Well, what about a 'bit'
How would you define it quantum mechanically if there only are relations, defining those bits?
No 'bits' existing on its own?
-
That would mean that any assumption of something existing 'by itself' quantum mechanically is wrong.
-
No bits to it, still QM?
=
What about strings and loops then?
-
From a point of it being relations that defines a universe, its connective tissue being 'c', I just don't know? I mean, I'm discussing it as a projection, am I not :) That one you can transform into a plane if you like. Just one layer, updated at 'c'. From QM then? I don't know there either.
Is 'bits' really necessary for QM?
Why?
-
What would it mean to the definition of a wave function, if that was a function of frames of reference, interacting for example? No discrete bits any longer, just relations.
-
I don't find my ideas that complicated, they use a presumption that is 'c', and its equivalent clock/arrow. But 'frames of reference' is filled with traps, depending on how you want to define them. From relativity you need two frames of reference to describe it, and it works perfectly well, experimentally too. From QM:s point of view we find a need for discreteness, bits, but I'm not sure this really mean you can't use frames of reference there, the way relativity demands it?
The key to it is the question if there is a possibility proving a singular frame of reference, existing on its own. Do that and you have 'discrete bits'. I started my wondering from that approach, but with the realization that one singular frame of reference becoming a impossibility, describing it relativistically?
Although, 'locality' do use one singular frame of reference, I can't isolate it physically. I can idealize it, using some dimension less test particle in a flat space, but that one is so close to the way I think of constants, properties and principles, isn't it? As a 'background' of sorts.
Maybe the question should be if we need to prove it physically?
If it is right that it belongs to the 'intangibles'?
Circumstantial evidence my dear Holmes :)
-
My type of locality does not exclude things, far away, as I think of it. It though demands 'meaningful information' to obey 'c', but it does not forbid entanglements. Entanglements can be explained through your scaling it down. But I expect it to forbid startreck 'beaming' of matter as that becomes a macroscopic question, involving a lot of interconnected relations, wave functions etc.
It has a intangible 'center' to it, a singular frame, that I really would like to prove scale wise. That one defines it, 'c', and a arrow.
-
Even if assuming two frames necessary, I still have a choice of what frame I use as my clock and ruler.
-
Then there is that other possibility I might define :)
far fetched?
The one in where a oscillation at its very least must demand two frames of reference interacting, to exist, or 'states' if you like. But, on the other tentacle, in a universe demanding 'opposites' to exist for a interaction, is that really far fetched? What this one does to me, is to define it as there is no way of imagining anything, being a singular 'frame of reference'.
Don't know what to make of it really. In a way very close to scaling something, in the same manner we can imagine us to magnify something, hoping to find some final discrete 'bits', creating what we see. But it is interesting, for me that is :)
-
A time dilation is best described by a light clock.
John D Norton does a truly tremendous work of explaining it to us in a understandable manner. What his (or Einsteins) 'light clock' builds on is a presumption of 'c' being 'c', as locally defined, in a two way experiment done from any uniformly moving object, as Earth, assuming a 'flat space' for the light path to propagate in. That means that you need to ignore gravity for it.
It's called Special relativity (SR) and was also a ground for GR, together with introducing how gravity and a uniform constant accelerations, could be defined as locally equivalent. (the equivalence principle) One G in a rocket giving you the same experience as one G on the ground.
Light Clocks are Slowed by Motion. (http://www2.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_clocks_rods/index.html)
It all builds on 'c', as far as I'm concerned :) Which also is why you need to demolish that concept before introduce some other theory describing light paths 'speed' and redefine the equivalence principle. But it does not stop you from questioning a propagation, as long as you find a way to transform the speed into? A rhythm for example.
I wrote 'redefine' the equivalence principle, because I don't see how you can invalidate GR. It's too well tested, and that taken to a logical conclusion, actually state that you need 'c' to be 'c', for GR. SR has also been tested and validated, tried to be falsified, several times. I won't write uncountable as it's just so much we can do to test it, but it's been well validated. And this concept of 'c' builds to GR, as I see it. Just think of the effect it would have if variable lights paths existed in a defined gravity. As 'photons' of a specific 'energy, so having a equivalence to 'mass'.
The elevator experiment for example where you make a pin hole and find incoming light to 'bend', due to your elevator accelerating at a constant uniform velocity. If you now had a equivalent 'energy/mass' of all photons passing that pin hole, but giving light a variable speed, would you find a spreading out of those 'curved light paths', or would it be defined to one 'curved path'? Exchange 'energy' for equivalent mass, and think of yourself throwing stones at different speeds through that hole.
=
And spelling spelling spelllingggg.
Never look twice at what you wrote, beginners mistake that :)
-
What locality does to a light clock is to define a arrow as something locally of a same 'magnitude', as described from some ideal local 'frame of reference'. And it presumes that this is true everywhere, meaning that it won't matter where you go, your wrist watch will tick as always, and you will find yourself aging, relative it, the same way as on Earth. In reality we have gravitational time dilations to consider too, as well as your motion relative, for example, very distant 'fixed stars', or possibly measured relative CBR (cosmic background radiation).
You should be able to define the particles holding you together as being 'at rest' with each other in a uniform motion, but if we introduce accelerations/decelerations then this is not correct anymore. As a acceleration 'wanders' through your body, particle by particle, as I think much in the same way as a very long rigid rod can be described as transmitting the force of you moving it at the speed of sound.
=
You should be able to exchange acceleration for 'gravity'.
Doing so we have to take a new look at the mass of particles making you up. They too are related to gravity. And thats how I come to think of it as a 'down welling' of 'gravity', in each, perfectly evenly distributed, perfectly spherical :) 'particle' of mass, ahem ::)) Also a idealized concept.
-
And it is this 'frame of reference' I'm interested in. Because assuming that relativity is about two frames of reference, yours local, relative something measured over a distance. It actually defines one frame of reference as 'existing', and that one is your local clock and ruler. QM does much the same in assuming that we can magnify and scale down, and possibly to some smallest discrete bit creating us and a universe.
Then I just use this idealized local 'clock and ruler', and define a universe from it. That becomes a very local definition, in where mine won't be yours. So we get to 'multi verses' here and now. But only if using a model of something containing us and everything we measure. I let the container go, instead using constants properties and principles. Then I define them the same way I defined that clock and ruler, strict locally, valid everywhere you can 'go'.
-
So what about a relativistic mass in such a scenario? Everything locally defined being equivalent in uniform motions, no matter where you are? Well, you can as easily ask me, what about time dilations then? True or untrue?? That depends on how you define it. From a local definition everything you measure should be true, presuming that we can do a repeatable experiment on it. Because it also builds on repeatable experiments being the way to go. And repeatable experiments assume that it won't matter where I do them, as long as I have equivalent situations regarding mass gravity etc etc. The one defining it as the universe is the same everywhere we can go to measure something, and tell.
And that is constants, properties and principles being the same everywhere.
-
Take that away and you have no repeatable experiments any longer. I can call it a fluke, you getting one, or several. There are 'hidden variables' you just don't know about. So, which one do you prefer? 'Hidden variables' or a universe acting the same, from the same constants properties and principles everywhere, not caring for your SpaceTime position?
=
A he*' of a difference here, isn't it?
'way' relative 'away' :) Dangerous stuff, spelling..
-
The right question should be, which one is simpler.
-
I hope you looked at the light clock John had made. One mistake, easily made, is to assume that, as the moving light clock only is a relation to a increasing distance, it has to be a optical illusion. Imagine yourself counting the far away 'light clocks' ticks, watching it turn around to come back to you. To make this into a illusion you now will have to assume that you, and someone at rest with that light clock, will agree on the exact same amount of 'ticks'.
From a local definition of every tick being the same, anywhere in a universe, as locally measured that can't be true, can it? Because, using that definition we find that Johns 'inertial frames' clock going twice as fast, as the moving light clock does.
But, the local definition I gave you, where your life span, relative your wrist watch 'ticks' never change, has to be true.
Imagine it not to be.
Then you would need to find 'time' to slow down for you, wouldn't you? How do you expect this 'slow motion' to express itself? As in a slow motion picture? forks taking a minute to fall to the floor?
Or you have to assume that you by moving relative the 'inertial' frame must meet some 'time dilated' space, slowing everything in it, thoughts, movements, etc? In where that 'slow motion' only can be observed by the far away 'inertial observer'.
Well, that sounds plausible until you realize that you by just defining a few more 'inertial observers', being at different velocities, find that they all will define your 'moving light clock' to tick differently. So now you've defined several 'time dilated' spaces, for one and the same space, right? By that meaning all measuring 'ticks' from a same 'moving light clock'.
A time dilation is a relation between frames of reference. A twin experiment is a uniform motion combined with a acceleration. The last to leave that 'inertial' origin of yours (as a Earth), to then get back (deceleration is a mirror to a acceleration, inertia there at both times, or 'gravity').
So it doesn't really matter for defining this relation, a time dilation must exist in all motions, as long as we have two frames of reference, your 'local' clock and ruler, relative some other frame of reference. And it builds on that all 'light clocks' have one 'speed', locally measured, no matter what velocity you may define to a uniform motion (or acceleration). But it also becomes a question of how to define that 'local frame', especially if I want it to cover both accelerations and uniform motion. But all of those falls under 'motion', as defined relative a observers local clock and ruler.
'c'
-
Oscillations are weird, they are used for string theory and QM, as well as for classical physics.
"Oscillation is the repetitive variation, typically in time, of some measure about a central value (often a point of equilibrium) or between two or more different states. Familiar examples include a swinging pendulum and AC power. The term vibration is sometimes used more narrowly to mean a mechanical oscillation but is sometimes used as a synonym of "oscillation". Oscillations occur not only in mechanical systems but also in biological systems, from human society to the brain."
A spring is often used to depict it. A simple harmonic oscillator is "a mass attached to a linear spring, subject to only weight and tension."
"The harmonic oscillator and the systems it models have a single degree of freedom.
More complicated systems have more degrees of freedom, for example two masses and three springs (each mass being attached to fixed points and to each other). In such cases, the behavior of each variable influences that of the others. This leads to a coupling of the oscillations of the individual degrees of freedom. For example, two pendulum clocks (of identical frequency) mounted on a common wall will tend to synchronise." This one also belongs to chaos mathematics, the non linear kind.
And then, from my slightly twisted view :) what does it depict? One frame interacting with itself? Observed by me? Or two frames of reference interacting, observed by me?
-
As I define a 'observer' as anything measurable, interacting with something else. Does a spring interact with itself?`Well, I think it does? How do you want to define it? One 'frame of reference' representing that oscillating spring, able to present several 'states' locally, or as it being possible that each thought up 'state' of this representing a frame of reference? Or as there being, let's say, two frames of reference interacting, with or without me observing, creating this oscillation?
Because that is a presumption of mine, the moon will still be there, even as I look away.
-
I could define it from Planck scale possibly? Proposing that a 'frame of reference', defined my way then, is one Planck length in one Planck time. Which then would make that spring into as many frames as there would be 'Planck steps', if I may call it that to shorten it. That would also need to define complementary Lorentz contractions at a same scale. Also, there is no way to measure such a thing, HUP combined with our instruments inability of 'sharpness' takes care of that, long before we even get close. And HUP gives every measurement a innate fuzziness, does it not? That's also what 'weak measurements' are though to make able to handle, presuming 'identical experiments'. That definition is tricky from relativity, as time waits for no one.
-
Although it makes slightly more sense from an assumption that it doesn't matter where you are, you should be able to make a 'repeatable experiment' anywhere in the universe, from where you can communicate. It's not really the same, is it? A repeatable experiment is something identical, that you imaginary can freeze in time, each instant identical. A 'weak experiment' makes a wider definition of it, assuming that you by doing them at, for example, different positions also can prove a 'light path'? Not really the same..
-
I don't really believe in 'weak experiments', at least not normally, although there might be exceptions where they could make some sense. I do believe in the concept of 'repeatable experiments' though, proving that this universe is 'isotropic and homogeneous', equivalent in all directions, sort of.
=
Using locality you get to a exact same definition, always defined locally though.
-
A vacuum is so weird.
Think of it, does a vacuum have dimensions? How about compressing it then :) Will you meet a resistance somewhere? We define dimensions from matter, having three dimensions, existing in a vacuum, following a arrow. Particles as atoms are mostly a vacuum too.
We find matter all around us, isotropically and homogeneously spread through the universe.
But what about this vacuum?
=
To see it remember that I find 'a universe' from equivalent connections and relations, defined locally.
And you can also ask yourself if you would have a problem 'decompressing' this compressed vacuum, in space, meaning a perfect vacuum. Will you now meet a resistance, as you just keep on 'decompressing' it, in space.
-
Let's play some more with the vacuum. Assume yourself to be of two dimensions, and everything else you can see also being of two dimensions. Does the vacuum we have need to be changed for this? Or make it one dimension. Think this vacuum will do fine for that too.
-
So, how many dimensions do you relate to a perfect vacuum?
-
See why I like degrees of freedom? The ways something can 'move'. How many degrees of freedom do we find inside our universe? 1, 2, 3, 4, right? A two dimensional lattice is ok to me from a definition of locality, a four dimensional SpaceTime is also okay from a container model. It all depends on how you define it.
-
But there is a important difference, the idea of dimensions are 'global' descriptions to me. The idea of 'degrees of freedom' are always local descriptions. It goes out from what you observe, relative a local clock and ruler. Although now we are discussing how things seem to 'move', not what time we measure.
=
And so a observation of two dimensional interactions in a lattice becomes acceptable to me. It's about degrees of freedom, not about what 'dimensions' you expect this to happen in.
-
I'll make a slightly disturbed jump now and propose a vacuum as 'non dimensional/one dimensional/two dimensional/three dimensional/four dimensional" up to whatever you can prove by experiments. In fact, I won't define anything there, but I think I would like to use a vacuum as a layer.
-
Because that is how I think of a inflation, before we get to three dimensional matter. It's a layer, a sheet, a plane. Its 'degrees of freedom' is in a plane. Crazy stuff :)
-
Ever wondered why you can't tell which spin you will measure on a entanglement? Mostly it is presented as it either is a 'hidden variable', or as QM demands it to be this way, just using probabilities which in this case is 50% up and 50% down. The next thing should be to wonder what is 'entangled', right? Everything, now and here? Or at a inflation/Big Bang, then disappearing when things start to bump? Or each bump representing some sort of 'new' entanglement?
-
If you define things bumping into each other as observers of each other then? Does that change the relationship? And what is a entanglement? Then time, again :) In my eyes time is a local property, a arrow locally equivalent to 'c'. Local connections and relations defining what 'dimensionality' you will find, and so 'universe'. The arrow may be able to be scaled down into a 'standstill', but 'time' must be there for this idea to make sense. I do not believe that you can get to change by stipulating that 'change is the origin of change'. That's a circular argument leading nowhere.
-
So I have two ways of treating arrows 'standing still'. One is describing it over frames of reference, classical Einstein. The other is a local description, assuming that as you scale something down you also home in on what defines this 'locality'. And I can use a sheet this way too, layer, plane whatever. Which ever one you prefer, it doesn't matter.
But if I can get a arrow to disappear, and I assume it will, locally defined, totally ignoring the 'observer question' for this. Then all ideas we use to define this dimensionality also disappear. Distance disappear, and without a distance, where is a displacement?
-
Same goes for dimensions. I don't need to define what a vacuum is. In fact I can define it any way I like. It's our experiments that define the degrees of freedom something have.
-
So what would a entanglement be from this point of view?
-
The observer question have no place in a strict defined locality. As soon as you want to describe something the observer is there naturally. But for this one you must ignore it. A strict local definition has no observer in it. Without a arrow, how do you observe?
-
people ignore this one, string theory too. All assume observers, string 'vibrate' etc. All of this presumes the possibility of observing something. Can you see why I think indeterminacy is a better description than virtual particles, taking this view?
-
You can also consider my idea of 'Planck steps' as way of defining 'discrete bits', equivalent 'everywhere'. Everywhere as the whole idea of 'commonly same universe defined by dimensions' disappear down there. There is no defined dimensionality for this universe, or, there is :) Defined then by what constants, properties and principles resting inside each 'point', we locally find, measuring over frames of reference. But what exist scaling down would then be something 'equivalent' and without a 'arrow' as I think.
-
But we need a property creating frames of reference. 'c' describes it, and also defines meaningful communication. But to me there must be another way, possibly also being 'c'. And that one stymies me. Because that demands me to define why 'c' is 'c'. But there has to be a way, if we want a logic that's not circular. One way might be symmetries though?
-
So, think of constants etc, as a 'background'. That 'background' contain entanglements, 'c' and whatever constants you are able to define as a 'origin', not resting on 'c'. Which ones would that be? Or you can take another approach to it and use all 'constants' you expect necessary, ignoring which might 'come first' from an idea of a arrow..
-
Looked at it from a process of scaling it down 'c' is a local arrow disappearing. So taken as a 'constant', that 'constant' merge with something locally indescribable in my thoughts, although we have quantum computing etc. But Quantum computing is observer dependent, it assumes a 'outcome', and the outcome demands frames of reference, interacting.
-
Frames of reference interacting demands a arrow.
-
So what about a time asymmetry in my thought up universe then? In my definition you should be able to get it both ways. You have 'time' as a property, and you should be able to see that express itself, even when measuring over frames of reference. The observer always have his local clock to measure by, but as we all know some weird things do happen as you scale down, using quantum mechanics. A time asymmetry is just the way we find a arrow to always keep one direction, into the 'future' as it might be. And that one should, in my mind, relate to the idea of decoherence (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-decoherence/). My reasons being expecting interactions to disappear as you scale something down, until you meet a state in where no interactions are observable, assuming perfect measurements/instruments. And I go by measurements as far as possible. I think I can argue it otherwise too, for example using a definition of any interaction craving 'observers' interacting, but it also puts a lot of expectation on us macroscopically measuring, as we then represent that local 'clock' by which we find something to interact.
Either you can think it to be 'patterns/sheets', 'moved' by 'c', according to us measuring. That's to my eyes a 'God given' view of in, not unlike the one we normally use, thinking of this universe. Or you use a strict local definition in where nothing 'moves', unless we introduce frames of reference.
-
I think you can simplify the idea of a observer, as being one local 'frame of reference'. The whole idea of a frame of reference builds on a locally usable clock and ruler, but always as related to another frame of reference. Defined strict locally though, that clock is non-existent, only coming to exist measuring over frames of reference interacting. And that's time dilations, Lorentz contractions and relativity.
-
Expressed another way. The 'clock' is interactions, oscillations. What makes our 'common universe tick'.
-
But it assume constants, properties and principles existing as a 'origin'. And it assumes those to be existent even when a clock stops 'ticking'. The 'direction' of your local clock is then defined by 'c', and to get to a distance you need a asymmetrical definition, although you after defining that 'speed' theoretically may define it as working both directions.
-
You could possibly describe it as something constantly evolving from simplicity into complexity?
=
Assuming a 'heat bath' this one is questionable though, then again if I think of it as a fractal behavior? I don't know.
-
Why I like the idea of a fractal is because I think you can in cooperate 'arrows' in it. As a figure evolving on your 'flat screen'. And the figure being a local representation defined by 'c', as measured by you.
-
Expressed another way. You being the observer of frames of reference interacting in a oscillation are actually the observer of a fractal evolving, in 'time or a arrow', as defined by you locally. But the figure evolving does not need you to interact, assuming all frames being 'observers'. Or if you like :) You are the 'clock', defining this figure evolving.
-
Now use a sheet, place that fractal on it, and see it rush into a future.
Or, evolve.
-
You could either think of it as one fractal, representing a universe, or as fractals interacting, as it seems to me. It's new territory to me this one, and it depends on if I use the 'eye of a God', or define it locally. One way to test such an idea might then be, assuming a 'eye of a God' being possible, to define how several fractal, locally defined, behaviors merge into one 'commonly same' fractal behavior. Alternatively this assumption is wrong, (but I don't think it is, now at least:) and you can ignore it for a definition in where you define this evolving pattern as a strict local, defined by your clock and ruler.
But as we can agree on a universe there should be a possibility of describing it mathematically as one thing, 'evolving'.
-
What I mean using a fractal is that locally, 'inside it', the arrow becomes a pattern evolving, like rings on the water. Although as defined by you, observing it, having a defined arrow, a past, a 'now', and a future.
=
You might consider yourself the stone, thrown into the pond, measuring rings. Although that is a weak comparison, as it assumes you having a arrow in where to move. On the other tentacle, you have, don't you?
-
But it's nice anyway as you need the stone to define the rings here. No stone, no rings.
-
And that is also the 'observer problem'. I like to define interactions as possible because they all represent 'observers', observing each other. But you could, if you like, define it such as without consciousness there can be no observers. We need consciousness to 'observe'. Why I don't like that definition is because we then need to define what a consciousness should be, and how it can exist at all, if a arrow needs it. We can agree on that we need 'outcomes' to define a past, a 'now' and a future though.
-
Using a definition in where consciousness needs to be there as a catalyst, you also need to assume something 'timelessly' existing, put into 'motion' by you observing.
-
And then the fractal becomes you.
-
Don't like that one. I prefer one in where we can explain things, both as a pattern and from an idea of a 'linear' arrow including interactions. And I would prefer everything to be able to 'observe', as in interact, with or without me.
-
The difference being that patterns really evolve in the later approach. You have something with a direction defined by its evolving.
-
In the first approach this becomes a illusion. You being the definer of a arrow there, and that makes it truly irritating to me :) It's not what I call a happily accessible definition, more of a mystical one. Everything can be a illusion naturally, from both definitions, but evolving seems to be a aspect this universe needs, and if it needs it then I won't accept it as a illusion. Everything evolves inside this arrow, you and me too.
-
And we do it individually, we have patterns defining differences even though we can track them genetically to 'origins'.
-
So from some undefined idea of simplicity, to complexity.
=
Assume that there is a fractal describing it all. Then that fractal evolves, using a arrow. More interactions coming to be, with indeterminacy and probability (statistics) defining rules, and to that add relativity and constants, properties, and so principles .
-
A fractal is a pattern evolving in time, coming from simplicity into complexity. It fits the way I look at it. Even if assuming those fractals to be locally defined it doesn't state that there can't be a equation, able to describe them all. It should be possible.
-
And I prefer mathematics before entropy for describing it. Entropy is more of a theory of temperatures to me. Fractals is just a way to describe something mathematically. A temperature is a relation between frames of reference. Fractals is just a pattern, evolving, when using a arrow.
-
Now think of the ability of tracking all seven billions of humans to some common origin. That is one fractal to me, you individually another, nested into the first. You belong to this fractal of origin too, but you're a individual.
-
To get from a fractal, to interactions, we need to assume that it 'laid out' on a sheet, have a way of allowing interactions between all points representing its pattern. How does it do that? It uses a locally defined arrow, equivalent to 'c'.
-
Defined this way the fractal change itself, constantly updating the pattern, using all points representing it. That's a non linear description.
-
We can't use a fractal as being one point, just as we can't describe the universe just using one frame of reference, as I see it. A fractal need something to start to 'move', to get frames of reference interacting. And that either is properties, constants and principles without a origin, although becoming a 'background' of sorts. Or you can define it at some linear process, needing 'opposites' from its very origin, frames of reference interacting inside a already existent arrow. Then again, according to my definitions, as soon as you have 'opposites' (frames of reference) you should have a arrow.
-
The description becomes non linear in that it should be impossible to define all points, as its pattern evolves in 'real local time'. Although if taken 'instant by instant' it becomes 'countable', not really though, just using that 'eye of a God' defining it now.
-
It's strange isn't it, that I reach such different conclusions. Not accepting dimensions for example, although we all know they exist each time we open a box :) Blame that on 'c', Einstein and relativity. You might say that strings and loops look at it in a similar manner though? See, if I'm right in that dimensions is a wrong concept then a lot of the definitions used becomes wrong too. And the reasons why Einstein never could find a mathematical way to describe this fifth dimension he thought to carry the four we observe becomes more understandable. He went out from a universe making sense, even though 'c' was there. And he went out from an idea of a universe 'containing us', so looking at the universe he found, time dilations and Lorentz contractions, he needed a construct in where there was no need to Lorentz transform anything.
I just run the opposite direction with his concept, assuming that we already had a universe without time dilations and Lorentz contractions :)
That's the 'strictly local' point of view. Problem with it is that it doesn't in-cooperate a clock, and there is no ruler to it. The clock and ruler comes into existence, interacting with other frames of reference. You could call it 'time less' if you like. But it's not where you are, is it? So Einstein was right, still is, one hundred years later.
We measure relative clock and a ruler. We define both locally idealized. To do it we must assume them to exist, even though we can't measure it. Any other way, and you have no more repeatable experiments.
-
Time-less isn't the best way to put it though, as I differ between time as a property, and a 'arrow'. A arrow is what you meet interacting with frames of reference, time is what locality already has, a property of sorts, like spin, to me. What more is that in my eyes 'gravity' becomes a property too, idealized into one (local:) 'spherical point' of rest mass for example.
all property's, together with using your local arrow as equivalent to 'c'.
-
So what would a symmetry break be? I would say it is all we can measure. We measure this symmetry break in a arrow. Scaling it down we find it to transform, into something time-less, locally defined. That's not what a observer, usually does though. He goes out from frames of reference, finding a local clock and ruler to measure in. That's not, what I define as being 'locality'.
Looking at it my way the symmetry still exist, our universe more of a projection on it, than anything uniquely existing by itself. Now, if it would be this way, would that make us 'unreal?
Define reality.
-
Outcomes?
'c'
oscillation?
'a spring'
a geometry?
degrees of freedom?
dimensions
time
arrows
consciousness?
please define what a reality need, I'm really interested in that one.
-
Using my idea of a fractal, on a sheet, representing points interacting and updating this fractal behavior constantly it becomes a very non linear description very fast, assuming a arrow. And you definitely need a arrow, as well as frames of reference, for it. The 'sheet' it rest on are those 'local' constants and properties, giving us those repeatable experiments we define science and physics from. Without them we don't have a measurable logic. But we have one.
So reality needs logic?
Does it?
-
this logic, does it remind you of something? A 'system' maybe? Something defined by your limits? Are the universe then a 'system' too
-
If it is, and I think it has a reasonable similarity to one, then degrees of freedom are so much more appropriate describing it, than any idea of dimensions.
-
Four degrees of measurable freedom is what we have, 'time' 'length' 'width' 'height'. And 'plastic' from a containing description. Our very own fish bowl. I don't think it is a fish bowl at all. On the other tentacle, described from a inside it is. And it makes us 'exist', crazy isn't it :)
-
To describe a universe, following different constants etc we then need to define how we would describe them, separated from ours. There is no arrow at the scale I'm thinking of, and so no distance, and so no 'dimensions'. Or how, if I would define this universe as 'point like' as that follows perfectly reasonable from this definition, I should be able to define how other 'point like' universes can exist, separated? Then again, looking at it that way, you also might have a possibility of allowing something 'super imposed' on our reality. Defined by other properties than ours.
although I can't define a outside to it as I don't find anything describing a outside, more than the way locality itself seem to exist, as some 'dimension less point'.
-
From a container idea you can, but the universe does not act as a container, what defines it to us are the limits of 'c', and mass.
-
A reality like ours though, definitely need a linear logic. And we got 'c', and that local arrow defining it, don't we? What more do we need? Distances, which mean a space, defined from? a vacuum? Or rest mass?
-
If I allow relations to build 'dimensions' I definitely need rest mass. And I use it to define the dimensions we see. But a vacuum becomes trickier to define.
-
You can't stretch a vacuum. And you can't tell me you can compress it either. If I would to assume that a vacuum contain a energy, how do I prove it? The only thing I know of is the 'Casimir force'? And that one isn't that convincing to me as it contain combination of rest mass versus rest mass.
What is a vacuum?
-
What you can do in a vacuum though, and prove, is to create a repeatable experiment. And that we all assume to be correct, anywhere.
-
You have to look at it from 'frames of reference'. Would you say that a vacuum consist of one or several frames of reference? How would you then define it, if so? Using gravity? Gravity will disappear, scaling it down, isn't that a reasonable assumption? So what will you use, separating one patch from another?
-
What I think I will agree on is that a vacuum contain the same constants, properties, and principles as rest mass.
-
It's like the 'layer' unhidden, isn't it? Rest mass defines a vacuum. We measure a vacuum in distance, and as it exist all around, as well as inside, rest mass, it begets the same properties we define to a rest mass. Having three room dimensions with a complementary 'arrow', always locally defined.
-
There is no measurable pressure either, to a vacuum.
-
A field is only observer dependent when the observer chooses to influence it by physical means. No hocus pocus mystery unintended quantum consciousness influence.
-
Depends, although I would define all fields as observer dependent Ethos. Two ways to define it that I know of, the one where we assume the 'eyes of a God' which is theoretical, not measuring. The other is by measurements and there they must be observer dependent. Create equivalent observer dependencies (all other equivalences included:) and you should get to a repeatable experiment. You have mass and motion defining your observations.
-
A vacuum, does it exist? It has to, don't you agree?
From where does it exist?
From a 'inside' it does.
We have no other way of measuring it, than from this 'inside'. Geometry keeps giving us a definition of a inside versus a outside, doesn't it? And 'dimensions' are actually very similar in that they creates a container, containing four 'singular' dimensions, that somehow coagulates into a SpaceTime.
Forget that distinction for a while, exchange it for 'degrees of freedom' instead, and what experiments tells you.
-
Treat it as a 'point like' universe, each point defining relations relative all other points. We finding dimensions in our inability to ever pass outside those points relations and interactions.
-
It fits relativity. And it will work for strings and loops too as I expect. And you really becomes the 'center' of whatever universe you observe. Feels good, doesn't it :)
-
But it gives another definition to a 'outside'. It does not specify it as one geometry relative another. The difference is subtle, but you have no 'anchor', more than yourself and what you measure relative yourself. There is no objective 'center' anymore, to anything. And that's one reason why I think one have to assume a frame of reference as being a 'observer'.
-
If you want a 'center' to such a universe you need to scale it down. And it doesn't matter where you do it, you will reach that same 'center' from anywhere in the universe.
-
You could call that 'objective' possibly? But I don't see how you would give it a SpaceTime position?
-
How about this then?
Reality is defined by outcomes. No outcomes, no reality.
-
So how can I ignore a arrow?
-
Doesn't matter for this if we define super position and wave functions. You still measure outcomes, not wavefunctions, neither can you measure a superposition. You can draw a theoretical conclusion from circumstantial evidence, making you think of it this way. But using relations with you as a center, you, your experiment and your experimental outcome is one thing, not many superimposed upon this reality.
-
And it allows a two slit experiment giving you a duality of light. As a particle or as a wave, depending on what relations you and your experiment set up. What it should not allow, is to prove both simultaneously, meaning at a same SpaceTime position (same 'instant'), in one experiment. And what defines that is a real local arrow, equivalent to c'.
-
Think of it, you need something 'stringing up' those outcomes, because they are stringed up from your local observations. Forget simultaneity for this one, it doesn't discuss it. Your particles, creating you, interact, don't they? How else will you read this?
-
Simultaneity presumes a container universe.
-
It becomes a meaningless definition from a strict locality. There WYSIWYG.
And accepting locality defining my definitions of a dimensionality, we need to look elsewhere for why we find dimensions. It does not make the concept meaningless though, dimensions exist and becomes our 'inside' in my thoughts too, but as a local relation to constants, properties and principles interacting, giving us outcomes from where we define 'c', and a arrow.
-
So, what is 'reality'?
-
A reality is a logic, explaining outcomes?
With outcomes explaining us :)
-
The problem with strings, and all 'moving' things, is that you need a clock (and ruler) for it. You can naturally define it from our normal definition which assumes a macroscopic observer using a local clock. From such a definition you always have a arrow to find a motion in. From a observer definition, using 'c' as equivalent to a arrow you still should meet a scale in where that motion blurs out though, and that is what we do. Strict locally though, no distance can exist and neither can a arrow. The alternative would be to assume that there are no stop to a distance, and a arrow. Split it as far as you like, there will always be a part left, to split further.
HUP do not agree on that one, relativity doesn't either.
How you define a string as having a distance or geometric form seems subtly wrong to me, although it presumably work from a observer definition, using that local clock and ruler. And naturally, the same goes for something vibrating. Indeterminism is not vibrations.
-
If string theory insist on strings vibrating we must find that 'frames of reference' either is 'smaller' than strings, or that it is in a relation to a macroscopic observer using a local clock and ruler you define it, using a clock ticking better than Plank scale.
-
A tension though, does it need to 'vibrate'? Something that vibrates normally have a interaction, as molecules and atoms. If you want to define strings as being over Planck scale then? Well? That would give me my 'theoretical Plank threshold' wouldn't it. But I will not define that as some building blocks you fit together, instead i think I'll let them be as points on a sheet, each one defining the others, locally. And then take the sheet away as it only is a prop, helping me describe it :)
-
I started this some years ago, as I started to wonder what a 'frame of reference' really mean. That lead me to scales and Planck scale. Because I'm not discussing 'at rest' here, well, depending on definitions and scale then, not yet at least. And I assume Plank scale to mean something physically meaningful here.
"Experimental observations on the wavelength distribution of the energy emitted by a black body as a function of temperature were at variance with the predictions of classical physics. Planck was able to deduce the relationship between the ener gy and the frequency of radiation. In a paper published in 1900, he announced his derivation of the relationship: this was based on the revolutionary idea that the energy emitted by a resonator could only take on discrete values or quanta. The energy for a resonator of frequency v is hv where h is a universal constant, now called Planck's constant."
"What is a Planck length? The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant. The physical significance of the Planck length is an argumentative topic of research. Since the Planck length is so many orders of magnitude smaller than any current instrument could possibly measure, there is currently no way of probing this length scale directly"
I don't expect us to be able to measure at that scale, ever. According to how I look at it measurements shouldn't be possible at this scale. Then again, maybe this is wrong. Maybe we can pass it? Doesn't really matter actually. Frames of reference then 'move' down to some even more 'fundamental' scale.
It has a relevance no matter how you define that scale.
-
Why would a wave universe be limited to discrete magnitudes of quanta?
-
Would you say that there is a limit to the differentiation of waves we expect to exist, in radio transmissions for example. Does the universe limit the waves we observe? Should we think of this the same way we use Fourier transformations? http://www.dspguide.com/ch8/1.htm Analogue to digital, and then back?
Using that we then define this universe as having less information than being possible from a analogue definition. Bits do not contain the same information. That's why you can 'compress' the old 'LP' into something more compact, a MP3.
-
And a 'bit universe' should at some scale dissolve into bits, shouldn't it? A 'frame of reference', scaling it down to a bit, must then be this discrete 'bit quanta'. As that should be where a universe end.
-
But if you want it to 'vibrate' then, having a tension? Why would a bit be able to vibrate?
-
Which is more fundamental, bits or frames of reference? I think it must be frames of reference.
-
Frames of reference does not confuse itself with wanting to define a physical dimensional 'quanta' of a 'size'. What it does is to define the universe as being a result of frames of reference interacting. I use scales for defining it, but I'm not sure you have to stop there. It's my limits of imagination restricting my definitions here. What a frame of reference ultimately might become I'm not sure. But it's a very valid definition, and scaling it down we reach something similar to a 'bit', but we can pass that one into a analogue definition, without bits. A undifferentiated 'sheet' of constants properties and principles giving us a universe.
Analogue as there are no 'bits' to define there,
-
It's not a strict definition :) but it gives you a flavor of how I think of it. Assuming we would like to stop at those bits though, ignoring the constants etc? Do you expect that bit to 'move'? Relative what?
-
You want something to move, you need dimensions (degrees of freedom) to move in. You need frames of reference, in where we now have defined one 'bit' as becoming one 'frame of reference', interacting with another frame of reference, inside something containing, and enabling, them to observe each other.
You need a arrow, you need a sheet, you need a observer. Or, you need a sheet, you need a arrow, if you define each frame of reference as able to 'observe', as in interact, even without us defining that 'motion'.
-
Can't 'vibrate' outside a arrow.
-
So assuming 'one bit' to exist at that sheet, it then must use the sheet to define a vibration from, and it must find a arrow to do it in.
-
But that's not relativity.
-
So either we use a sheet, defining that plane in where something move, or we could use frames of reference interacting, defined locally.
-
Does a hologram enable you to define a position to the things it depicts? From the 'inside'? Or is it a interaction between 'frames of reference' giving you those positions? Don't want to use hologram for it really, this is no hologram to me, but it makes you wonder, doesn't it :)
-
We need interactions, and interactions presume relations between what interacts. And that 'between' could then be described as a vacuum, with what interacting representing 'frames of reference'. Degrees of freedom defining dimensions.
-
Assume the sheet to be a vacuum, then define one 'bit' inside it. Now tell me how it knows it 'move'?
-
Then tell me how it will define a dimensionality to this vacuum?
-
Two ways. Mach principle or as a 'property' of a 'rest mass'.
Inertia.
-
That's what you have left here. Using my definition of gravity as able to define as a 'down welling' in each point, locally defined, well? I would say that what I define is the 'origin' if you need one, but I would not define it as Mach principle being wrong either. You want to use that arrow defining it, don't you :)
-
Ok, we have a third, assuming you able to define what rest mass you have into a geometrical shape. Then you also get to 'dimensions', but that one would then consist of frames of reference, interacting, finding degrees of freedom relative each other.
-
And Einstein should be correct in defining a 'motion' to gravity, as Earth acting on us at approximately one Gravity, I think? :) 'inertia' as a property, times a arrow, becomes gravity. We are 'rushing' through 'time'.
-
And if that is correct, then assuming 'c' locally equivalent to a arrow? Well, it will give us inertia as a constant too, won't it?
-
Sweet one. I really like it.
-
You have a added difficulty counting on that one though. And that is mass. Inertia is related to what mass we give something before we try to move it, inside that local arrow you measure it from. But it should still be possible to add in a arrow (another constant, locally equivalent to 'c' in my thoughts) to find inertia as being a constant too. And it simplifies what gravity is, as gravity is inertia, counted on over a arrow. And it fits both a acceleration, and you standing on Earth, 'feeling' that gravity act on you.
Yep, I'm very pleased, so far, with this one.
-
I know, it seems to destroy 'gravitons', doesn't it :) It's all about your definitions. Even with gravity becoming a 'down welling' in my thoughts it does not exclude gravity having a 'infinite reach' acting on all mass in a universe. One way does not exclude the other.
-
So, let's see. I've defined three things as being constants so far? The speed of light in a vacuum
'c'
Then this arrow, as being locally equivalent to 'c'.
So 'c' and 'a' ::))
And possibly, still need to wonder about this one.
Inertia being equivalent to a gravity, when described by/in its local arrow, defined as a 'local observer' of a universe, in a collision for example. I think this is right but also described in simple terms. Then again, I like simple?
That should mean that inertia, just as a vacuum, always is there as a property and constant. But to get to 'gravity' you need that arrow 'pushing you' into a future :).
And no, I don't know if a vacuum would be some sort of 'constant', although it makes sense from my ideas, don't it :)
But I could go out on limb here defining it as being of a same quality, property etc everywhere. and yes, a 'constant' of sorts. But not really, to me a vacuum is undefined, unless we introduce mass.
Any way.
I like the way I defined inertia.
==
So 'c' and 'a' and 'i'.
-
Then again, a property or constant is what it has. and that one defines a constant as something being the same everywhere you go. And as I also define distance as a effect of frames of reference interacting, and with that motion as it needs that distance as well as as a arrow as a global illusion, although locally as real as it can be?
-
Sounds mystical doesn't it :)
You need something as a vacuum, and rest mass, to define dimensions. But you can, using my definitions, also relate to it as a 'constant', a axiom able to be proved anywhere you 'go'.
-
A Higgs field is expected to define inertia right :)
Hmm. Inside a arrow?
-
I can relate to it as describing a way to define the inertia of rest mass, then again, it becomes a 'side way' description of a container universe, where you find 'forces' acting on you. Whereas, in my ideas, you have local constants and properties, creating 'globally valid' principles that defines inertia and gravity. Two ways, in which mine is the one zooming in on local definitions.
-
And a 'field' is always locally defined in my way of thinking.
-
The point enabling one to see it better is the question of what a inside is.
You are here, ain't you? And everywhere you look things seem much the same. A isotropic and homogeneous universe in where we, and everything else, exist. Or have you seen a 'wall' defining where this geometric universe stops? From a point of inflation taking 'place' everywhere there is no limits to this universe. You do not need to go out to the right to come in at the left, as long as we apply an idea of physics being the same everywhere we can go.
And there is no container to it either.
-
"as long as we apply an idea of physics being the same everywhere we can go." And tell each other about it, that is :)
A Black hole is not included in this description, as there will be no telling of what it is like inside.
-
Although, assuming it to have a same background of constants, properties and principles, namely that classically defined non existent vacuum, well, as a way to make it 'touch able' imaginatively? Then we might assume it to be describable, possibly? Or maybe that is a place where those constants we find breaks down? I don't know what I would prefer there?
But if there exist walls to this universe, a black hole must be one.
-
Although :)
The wall consist of information, just as 'c' becomes another.
-
You could say that what defines a universe isn't the idea of dimensions, but the idea of information. And the idea of information is not entropy, it's 'c'. The speed of light in a vacuum defines the speed of information. and that one should be applicable on everything. A entanglement is not information, not unless you find a way to define what the spin is, before measuring. That one you won't find. In the universe I think of, that is :)
It may seem as a boring universe but it isn't. It's a projection, defined by informations speed, as locally measured.
-
And we have ways of traversing it, expending 'energy'. But you won't be able to shrink a dimension, because dimensions does not exist in my thoughts. What you have is degrees of freedom, and they are a relation to your local constants, properties and so principles. We all have those equivalently as a 'back ground', and so we agree on a 'inside' in where we all exist. But it's not a container defined by dimensions. Maybe I could call it a container of constants though?
-
Well, maybe you can use dimensions too? But not as a global container of a universe. You define a distance between rest masses relative your clock and ruler, and that will vary relative motion, mass, and 'energy'. You can either define that relative some expectations of a universally (globally) existing measure, making it a container universe. Or you can define it relative locally existing constants, properties and principles, equivalent no matter where you are. That makes the background for your experiments the same, everywhere, doesn't it :) Then you introduce parameters as motion, mass and that pimpernel 'energy' to define how the universe you observe will behave. And it will be true, and you do not need a container anymore.
But it makes it important to define what a 'motion' should be, as well as mass and energy, locally.
-
What we have so far is 'c', a equivalent arrow, and inertia combined with a arrow, giving us gravity. All local definitions, although equivalently shared everywhere. Not much is it? Well, we have the idea of scaling and decoherence too.
-
Scaling becomes something different to me, thinking of it as meeting a background of constants, etc, also losing that arrow. The local arrow gives us our linear definitions, as distances, dimensions and a measurable universe.
-
Isn't it strange to you too? I imagine that by scaling down a universe loses all definitions we find macroscopically. I also define it such as you can't include a observer of it in this definition. For relativity everything evolves around observers, and so it does in all experiments we do. There's alway a locally defined clock and ruler involved. Even theoretically we involve arrows, as bringing us outcomes.
-
You can't ignore the observer, the only thing you can do is to clarify his/hers/its involvement. And defining it this way the observer must have a relation to what he measures. Is there a difference between a detector and a observer? You can either assume that consciousness must be involved for any measurement to take place, or you can define it as detecting is observing. The last one is the one making most sense to me, and it accepts everything, able to interact with something else.
-
What it does is two things. It ignores consciousness as a prerequisite for observing, and it defines all 'observers' as being as important for the experiment, you included. It doesn't split it into different categories, instead it assumes that a outcome is a result of relations, where everything defining it has a relation to that outcome.
-
Your clock and ruler too :)
-
It is your clock and ruler that finally put a stamp upon that experiment, is it not? And a repeatable experiment is a equivalently made, defined, experiment, although done at another location and time, at a different position inside this SpaceTime if you like. And when we do them we define 'laws' by them, if they truly gives us the same outcomes.
For this we ignore the idea of a arrow 'pushing us' into a future, but my own definition of inertia can't do that. And neither will a 'container idea' of a SpaceTime. Because in such a one the dimensions 'adapt' to each other.
-
There my idea of a arrow can be used more simply though, as it presumes all arrows locally equivalent, even though we will ignore accelerations for this, just looking at time dilations, as defined in uniform motion.
Locality builds on constants, locally measured.
-
Although, using inertia as becoming gravity due to a arrow interacting with it? What would a acceleration become?
-
You can't define a rocket accelerating at a uniform constant one G, the same way you can define it standing on Earth. Or can you? Locally defined it should be the same? And, if I now define a arrow as being locally equivalent anywhere, then also define inertia as being a local constant?
Then you have two locally unchanging constants. What you introduce that differs is then a acceleration, which is displacements, and assuming a constantly uniformly accelerating, gravity.
That states that motion should be gravity. Locality defines a uniform motion as being no motion at all, as I think I discussed before. Locally defined you only can get to a 'gravity' through acceleration (deceleration). Also you can consider all particles as, more or less, being at rest with each other in a relative (uniform) motion. It becomes harder from gravitational time dilations to do so, but macroscopically it works. If it didn't you shouldn't exist :)
So, using that definition the only 'motion' we need to consider here should be accelerations, right?
-
So using accelerations we find the displacements to grow over a defined time period right? Maybe we should look at it at a particle level though? Maybe introduce local clocks microscopically instead too? Instead of using a fuzzily defined 'local' macroscopic clock?
Then each microscopic clock should find a constantly uniformly growing displacement relative the other as a constant uniform acceleration builds up, displaced space growing between them each 'instant', if you see how I think there. Which then would make gravity a result of displacement? But where would that displacement be standing on Earth?
Damn :) I really liked that one.
-
Although it still makes sense to me, defining inertia as a constant?
There must be a way of making sense of that one.
-
It must have to do with what mass is, how it can come to exist, if it is going to make sense.
-
What makes mass able to accelerate?
-
As you stand on Earth you're being moved in time, the same definition is correct for all motions, none excluded. Assuming it all to come down to local principles etc, I then need to define this earthly gravity relative the proper mass I stand on, now ignoring 'infinite reach' of all mass acting on each other for a while.
-
What does inertia need?
momentum?
Displacements?
Mass?
=
Does a wave have a momentum? A photon? It has..
So not momentum, unless I want to define a mass to a photon.
Defining a mass to a photon also should define different 'time dilations', depending on energy. I don't like that one at all.
-
It depends though? If you imagine it as 'propagating', or as 'non propagating'.
=
Assume a very high energy, evenly distributed. Transform it into photons. Now assume that the higher the energy, the greater the mass. That should give you gravitational time dilations and Lorentz contractions, comparing between frames of reference, assuming frames of reference being applicable to such a scenario. That one depends if you trust a photon to be a 'individual', or not.
the speed may be the same, but their energy can differ. And in a Big Bang?
-
Is there some analogue to microscopic displacements possible, considering a proper mass from its particles? You should be able to define gravitational time dilations, and so Lorentz contractions, there too as it seems to me?
-
That would move it from a constant uniform accelerations displacements being responsible to one in where we would use the definition of the time dilations and Lorentz contractions we find in both descriptions, wouldn't it? Those then being the definition of how a gravity comes to be?
-
But it doesn't answer how a rest mass comes to be.
-
You can use energy defining how a particle comes to be, shooting particles through a EM-accelerator, measuring if there is new interactions. But those interactions are short lived, decaying back into 'stable particles' as I get it. So there is a difference.
-
Using my definition we then find frames of reference, interacting, creating new but short lived rest mass (particles). And the energy of a particle, is that a temperature? It is when it interacts, so what is your definition of a particle? One single frame of reference, 'at rest' in/with itself? Or frames of reference, interacting?
-
Could you use 'energy' defining it? Nah, don't think so? The energy represented by Earth, relative its gravity, is infinite magnitudes greater than the energy your rocket spend, although it is increasing the closer you get to the speed of light. Thinking that way, where do we find a equivalent amount of energy, as the one represented by Earth? And is that a equivalence? Not to 'gravity' at least :)
-
Do you need rest mass to apply 'frames of reference'? That one I think could be translated to 'do waves interact', and they do, they quench and reinforce. But photons then? Don't really know, it depends on your definition I think. Two-photon physics thinks it can. "Two-photon physics, also called gamma–gamma physics, is a branch of particle physics that describes the interactions between two photons. If the energy at the center of mass system of the two photons is large enough, matter can be created."
-
If we define mass as 'energy' then everything must interact, the rest becoming a question of transformations and symmetry breaks, due to temperature? And then everything must have a equivalence to mass.
But the energy represented by a rocket at one uniform constant G, including the expenditure do not equal the energy represented by Earth.
-
Well, maybe not a vacuum. It depends on your definitions, as long as no one can present a experiment proving it, one way or another.
-
So, can gravity be a measure of energy? Or is it a measure of inertia expressed through time dilations and Lorentz contractions? Displacements inside a arrow? Or something all together different?
To the first question I will say no. Gravity is not a measure of energy, as I can't find a equivalence?
The next one is really tricky, and I just don't see how to answer it.
Displacements in them selves don't answer it either, as I can see.
The third? We have a uniform constant acceleration being equivalent to gravity? And there you can experiment to find it locally true. And that is displacements, and depending on how you think of it also microscopic time dilations and Lorentz contractions. You may be 'at rest' with your particles in a uniform motion, but you're definitely not 'at rest' with them in a acceleration.
-
Maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong angle? If it is a 'constant', it is a 'constant' related to mass, not to waves or photons. Otherwise someone need to show me how I define a inertia to a photon, or a wave. That makes inertia a function of proper mass versus accelerating displacements. All course changes from a geodesic should then represent a acceleration. But then we have this idea of a photon also being able to represent a 'mass'? Never felt really comfortable with that one, although there is a equivalence between mass and energy.
If a photon is equivalent to a mass, why doesn't it accelerate? you can only measure it in its annihilation, and possibly the 'recoil' of it leaving.
'Energy' being 'mass' then?
I don't know what 'energy' is.
-
Ok, I'll give you this. You can define a photon acceleration/deceleration as its energy becoming blue respective red shifted. And that one is related to frames of reference, and gravity. But that's not what we normally define as a acceleration. Looked at from frames of reference the blue/redshift is a result of your local frame interacting through relative motion, accelerations and gravity with whatever frame you define that photon to originate from.
Do you want this to be what 'energy' is?
-
Another way would be to define 'energy' from transformations. What it 'cost', and what it 'lose' doing that transformation. That's the one I like myself.
-
The isolated definition of a photon is something 'time less', able to pass through all of the time we think this universe to existed. Of a same energy the whole way, annihilating as soon as it interacts, with what ever result from that interaction, then becoming a new photon released as proven by the recoil. You can define it as 'elastic' interactions too, but that only mean that you can't find a difference between what's incoming and outgoing, and it's sort of questionable to me.
=
Maybe you could define a question here?
If a elastic interaction exist, can there be a recoil?
If there is no recoil, did it interact?
-
So the blue and red shift becomes just another description between frames of reference, the observer defining it. Not unlike a time dilation, and just as real for that observer.
-
Ah well :)
Nothing is as simple as one want huh.
-
There is the 'mass energy equivalence' in relativity though, defining it as the proportionality between equivalent amounts of energy and mass is equal to the speed of light squared (E=MC2). that enable you to translate a proper mass into a same amount of 'energy'. But, can we apply that one to this? To give the constantly uniformly accelerating rocket a equivalent energy to a whole earth, transformed to 'energy' via E=MC2?
-
Nevertheless, the equivalence principle is experimentally correct. Why gravity works this way? Or as I then would want it to be :) A inertia, expressed in time, becoming gravity? Beats me.
-
That I look at it one way doesn't state I have any understanding of why a universe should be one way or another. You just look at the rules of the game, and try to define them so they make sense to you. And the more you learn about those rules, the more traps you will find :) but hey, it's not the game, it's how you play it, right?
Heh.
-
What I'm certain of, well almost certain anyway, is that is that the equivalence principle capture gravity. And that it defines it two ways, 'proper' rest mass (matter) and as a uniform constant acceleration. And so you can speak of Earth as 'accelerating' at one Gravity, constantly and uniformly. I find a Higgs field define inertia, but I don't see how it can define Earth in a uniform motion. It's solely about accelerations to me, it does not discuss proper mass in uniform motion.
-
Einstein doesn't tell you why those two are equivalent, but he differs between uniform motion and accelerations, defining uniform motion as 'relative' what you measure it against, and so all uniform motions becoming equivalent, a 'relative motion'. Also giving the concept of proper mass a much clearer definition. To me the Higgs field attach itself to the definition of accelerations, and from there expect a proper mass in uniform motion to follow, magically. But I don't see how it does?
-
If we want a Higgs field to cover a proper mass in uniform motion we also need to define how it can 'accelerate'. To see why a uniform motion isn't enough you just need to make some experiments in where you measure your gravity with a accelerator, and a scale, in different uniform motions, relative Earth. Would you expect to weight double your original weight, if we would give Earth double its velocity, as measured relative some distant star?
The acceleration needed will give you a added weight, but as soon as we go back to a uniform motion, no matter what velocity, you will weight the same as before, and your accelerometer won't react any more.
So in the acceleration you weighted more, both as measured from a scale, and from accelerometer. Well, a scale is a accelerometer too :) so maybe I should have avoided that one.
-
The difference here is that a Higgs field comes with presumptions. To me it defines a container universe in where we have a field, that field reacts with accelerations, but does not define how it reacts with uniform motion. Neither does it define how it assumes a equivalence to Einsteins definitions of a uniform motion, relative a constant uniform acceleration. Instead it seem to presume as Einstein defined Earth as 'accelerating' a Higgs field will hold true there too?
-
Einstein defined things, and they worked, but we, or maybe it's just me, still don't know why. Why is 'c' 'c' ? Why is uniform motion relative? How does a uniformly moving Earth, in 'relative motion', accelerate simultaneously?
A hypothesis should move the questions forward, to new ones.
-
Ah yes, there is that other thing I don't see how it (Higgs theory) defines, and that is observer dependencies. The more you bury it in weird mathematical notions (and notations:), the better it may sound, and the harder it becomes to understand what you really mean. But, if you really think you found a way to make something work, you should at least give it the same time as it took you to get that idea, to explain it as logical and simple as you can. Einstein succeeded, and his theory is weirder than most :) So why can't you?
-
Read me right now :) I enjoy relativity, and I think the parts I understand to be correct. Doesn't mean I can explain the stress energy tensor 'works' though, even though it do, 'work' I mean. That's a mathematical description that I keep losing myself in, or maybe I'm just too lazy for it.
But I don't find the Higgs to address relativity, only accelerations.
-
Sort of a sign of the times isn't it, or humanity maybe? Higgs gets a Nobel prize for his idea, Einstein never got one for his theory of relativity. Higgs particles becomes, at best, a sub discipline of relativity, needed from a discrete bits theory of a universe. But a discrete bits theory does not state where those discrete bits come from, neither how they organize themselves into dimensions, they instead define them from a container, be it how many dimensions you want..
-
Then again, Higgs and Einstein isn't that separated in time. There are some decades between them, and Higgs shaped his theory wanting to incorporate relativity in it as I understands it. and the discrete bits theory of a container universe isn't that different from the way Einstein defined the moon, there even when I look away. It's when you use local definitions that the container model becomes really questionable, observer dependencies, and how to think of those, real or not? Defining it from a background of constants, locally equivalent, a container model stops making sense. But 'c' and relativity still works for you, observer dependencies works perfectly, but a Higgs field need to be defined.
-
And then the most confusing part of it all :)
You measure locally, you observe your universe locally. We expect differently made, equivalent, repeatable experiments to define it, and we find this idea to work. That makes for the foundation of physics. Then comes 'c', and introduce locality. But we don't question repeatable experiments, and why they still work? Neither do we question what constants becomes, in a universe always defined locally. How they can exist, from what frame of reference.
What I like to think of as, back to fundamentals.
-
Also, there is a universe of difference between discrete bits, and a universe existing through 'frames of reference' interacting. I too would like to be able to define one frame of reference, 'bits' of a sort, but the closest I seem to get to such a frame is when using local constants and properties, forming principles equivalent everywhere, leading us to repeatable experiments defining physics.
Einstein didn't define it from 'one bit', as I read it, he defined it from frames of references interactions. You need two frames for a universe, yours relative the one you observe.
-
been thinking about this idea I got yesterday:) The one that refuse to work out. Inertia becoming gravity under a arrow. It's absolutely lovely ::))
And I would like it to work. I can't put it on time dilations and Lorentz contractions though, that's a result of gravity, not a cause of gravity. Shows you the danger of not going to sleep when you should. Sloppy thinking.
I could use time dilations as described from a far observer though, but then I'll go against the definition I use of ones arrow to never change. Because locally 'c' will be 'c' in any uniform motion, and if I define a arrow from 'c' using it as a clock, splitting it in even chunks?
-
To get that one to work I then have to define it as 'c' being 'c' locally, everywhere, although assuming that from a 'eye of God', a 'global description' every observer will find time dilations, although not locally observable.
Can you imagine what that should mean for one observer, accelerating uniformly and constantly at one Gravity. Let's make two more 'far' observers of the first one. Each one measuring a different velocity relative Earth, going in a same direction as the one accelerating. Both finding the guy accelerating having a different (unique) time dilation and Lorentz contraction, none agreeing on the others findings without a Lorentz transformation. Assuming that time is the culprit also makes you need to define it from some 'objective definition'. Using locality I don't see how to do that, using a far observer I have to define which one that would be 'objective'.
-
What I need to make this make sense would then be something like a 'global time', a 'hidden variable' not resting on what observers, or Earth, define for this guy accelerating in form of time dilations. Something like a Lorentz transformation, keeping that 'global time'.
-
But it would not be your local time keeping, so I can't use a locally defined 'sheet of constants' for it. Neither can it be the other observer definitions of a time dilation and Lorentz contraction. And it doesn't matter what type of 'motion' they are in, making a whole universe able to give that guy accelerating different time dilations and Lorentz contractions.
In other words, it sux, badly :)
And I still like it.
It seems right.
-
And it won't help to define a arrow as 'non existent' either, as far as I see. What you have, assuming that inertia becomes a gravity under a arrow, is just a arrow :)
-
I could possibly use something in where certain interactions, as entanglements are 'time less'? Allowing gravity to become one, similar to Mach principle, but now of a 'infinite speed', instead defining it as some Jungian 'gestalt'? In where gravity is what join a universe, 'c' being meaningful communication, relating 'gravity' to something like a entanglement?
Weirder and weirder, what would that make of a gravitational wave coming from a binary star, spinning around each other?
-
Then, using that nomenclature, a gravitational wave does not exist, or it becomes a 'meaningful information', as it obey 'c'.
-
How about this then.
Assume that light is non propagating. Use that sheet, paint a pattern of instants, each representing a static 'picture' of a universe on it. Then imagine the sheet to be exchanged at 'c', each instant existing let's say, one Plank time.
That gives us something similar to a gestalt. Assume this direction of exchange to be in one unmeasurable direction we call 'global time'.
Then introduce a 'side way' universe, defined by equivalent local arrows. In where we define gravity as acting and being acted on by all mass. Two ways.
-
That one might work.
-
And it seems to fit a description in where singular bit quanta becomes a very tricky proposition, where frames of reference must be defined as a observer, relative what he observes, I think?
-
Although :)
This definition leaves us to ponder what meaning consciousness will have in it. It gives us structures, from simplicity to complexity, that have very little to do with a definition of 'c', even though it comes from it. On the other tentacle, we already have those structures, anyway.
-
Then we have a ground beat, we call 'c'. On that beat we have our local interpretations, defined from this ground beat.
=
Well, possibly?
-
The 'forces' I define should then be a result of my definition of what I can measure, while the universe at large will be instants flickering at 'c', leaving me unable to measure it.
-
Very theoretical that one, no way I see to prove it. It would be cool if it was provable though. as I could define it as a result of 'free will', I mean, there isn't really a need for a static gestalt to prove itself, is there? Unless we introduce something like a consciousness in it, feeling that need.
-
That would make consciousness into something holographic, wouldn't it?
-
It should leave with two definitions of information. One that is meaningful, obeying 'c' representative (with 'forces') for the universe we can measure on. The other going in a unmeasurable direction, also defined by 'c' but now as 'gestalts' or instants of patterns. Then we find new 'holographic' structures, or projections created by our local definition of that local ground beat. But, how would it allow inertia to become gravity? I need that ground beat, don't I? If I want gravity to be a result of 'c', but I also need a way of making it fit different mass. I'll ignore 'energy for it, for now.
-
The ground beat should represent Inertia, don't you agree? Giving us a constant, sort of. So what would mass represent from such an idea? mass is acting 'side way'. All interactions that we would be able to measure should act such, in this weird universe.
-
Hmm, it's not a unmeasurable direction. It's the local arrow we all share. But treated as sheets it becomes a sheet of its own, a 'dimension' if you like, called time. What's new to me is the way I decided to define the sheet as a pattern of 'instants'. Then defining it such as on this other 'measurable sheet' we have only one direction to measure in, sideways, following the sheet. The other sheet is not measurable in the same way, although it gives us a locally definable direction in time. It's old ideas I've had, it's just that I look at it differently now, as I formulated the question differently.
-
What I then would use for gravity is the constant update by 'c', of the local 'sheet'. Without the direction representing a 'ground beat' we are left with a local property I call inertia. And thinking of each sheet as a static pattern, gravity becomes what defines that pattern.
-
So we come back to mass. That's what defines gravity's measurable difference's. How would it do it? Assuming the sheet to be defined by local constants proper mass becomes a new parameter.
-
You have the Higgs field, to me representing inertia too, as it discus it as a result of forces acting upon you in a acceleration.
"The Higgs field applies only to the electro-weak sector of the Standard Model. The mass of ordinary matter is overwhelmingly due to the protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms. Protons and neutrons are comprised of the two lightest quarks: the up and down quarks. The rest masses of their constituent quarks (approx. 0.005 and 0.010 GeV/c2 for the up and down quarks respectively) which could be attributed to the Higgs field comprise only about one percent of the masses of the protons and neutrons (0.938 and 0.940 GeV/c2 respectively). The remainder of the proton and neutron masses would have to be attributed to contributions from the gluon field strong interaction energies plus smaller electromagnetic and weak fields contributions which would not be affected by a Higgs field.
The origin of inertial mass of ordinary matter is thus a wide open question."
" "Some particles interact with the Higgs field more than others, which is why the particles in the Standard Model all have different masses. For light particles such as electrons and neutrinos, traveling through the Higgs field is like running down the street. Heavier particles, such as the electron’s larger cousins, muon and tau, experience more resistance, as though they were running in a swimming pool full of water. For the top quark, which is by far the heaviest particle in the Standard Model, traveling through the Higgs field might feel like wading through a vat of molasses.....
A very important detail is that the speed of light in a transparent material is slightly different for each wavelength (i.e., momentum of the photons). For instance, considering visible light in water: So “yellow” photons travel through water faster than blue, and red even faster. We could say that blue photons have more problems to move in water than yellow and red. In this way, the blue photons act like as if they had more “inertia”, i.e., more “mass”. Refractive index gives a measure of the interaction between photons and a material medium through which they travel, but, somehow, it could be also considered an “index of mass”, since the bigger the value the smaller the speed of the photons.
Therefore, in vacuum all the photons travel with identical speed, but if the Universe were filled with water photons corresponding to different wavelengths would travel with different speeds. As it has been said before, they would have “different masses”. So we would be passing from a symmetrical situation to a non-symmetrical one. This is what in Particle Physics is called symmetry breaking phenomenon.
ow we are ready to establish our comparison. Initially, all the particles would be travelling through an “empty” Universe with the maximum speed permitted. So they would all be massless, and from this point of view the Universe would be symmetric. That is what SM originally states. But obviously the Universe does not work in this way.
The current SM suggests that all the particles had no mass just after the Big Bang, but as the Universe cooled and the temperature fell below a critical value, an invisible field called the ‘Higgs field’ appeared filling all the space. We could also say that the Higgs field was born in the begining of the Universe, but it only showed its influence once the Universe cooled down enough.
Unlike magnetic or gravitational fields, which vary from place to place, the Higgs field is exactly the same everywhere. What varies is how the different fundamental particles interact with it. That interaction is what gives particles mass. Of course, other kinds of interaction, such as the electromagnetic, weak or strong interaction may contribute significantly to the resulting mass. Moreover, the degree of resistance of the Higgs field is different depending on the fundamental particle, and this generates, e.g., the difference in mass between an electron and a quark.
Now, suppose a quark or electron moving (making up composite particles such as proton, neutron, or various atoms) in this uniform Higgs field. If these atoms (or molecules) change their velocities, that is, if they accelerate, then the Higgs field is supposed to be exerting a certain amount of resistance or drag, and that is the origin of the inertial mass." "
-
Weird isn't it. Higgs presented as a solution to mass? Let's see, 'energy' is mass, that's Einstein. Higgs = 'acceleration is 'inertial mass' :) Ok, what about the rest of the mass then, and what about uniform motions and proper mass?
-
If I instead define inertia as a initial property then? Using a arrow to define it as gravity? Then I need to introduce the magnitude of a displacement as one variable, mass as another. Should we give gravity several definitions? Higgs does it, Einsteins equivalence principle does too actually, differently though, and if we want to be strict. Because the equivalence principle is about comparing proper mass in a uniform motion to what a accelerometer defines in a constant uniform acceleration, finding those experiences to be equivalent, ignoring tidal forces (spin).
But I don't think Einstein looked at it that way. Generally speaking I would expect him to have considered all forms of acceleration and deceleration to represent 'gravity', although, only constant uniform acceleration becoming the one giving us a equivalent phenomena to a Earthly gravity. It seems rather reasonable to assume all sorts of accelerations to give us a same equivalence. The difference between the one being constant and the one varying is how it act in time. You know, the time that doesn't exist :) Freezing a instant of a acceleration should still give you a 'gravity', preferably for my needs as defined from mass, displacement (magnitude of acceleration) and some inertial constant, preexisting.
-
Can't use magnitude of 'motion' for that one, can I? :) As Einstein defined it we only have one type of acceleration, but I will chance on all types.
-
How would you define the energy for one rocket, accelerating at one constant gravity? let it be three of different proper mass, all accelerating at one constant uniform G.
-
They are not 'identical' as they have different mass, and so they must expend different amounts of fuel, and that's expending energy. Do you expect there to be a proportionality then? You do, right? And so do I. We have three proper mass, three different amount of spent fuel, and a same 'gravity'. If you expect there to be a proportionality you also expect there to be a logic. So what is the logic to their 'gravity' being the same?
Does their mass have a relation to their local definition of one G? It should, shouldn't it?
Do you expect the vacuum to treat them differently, depending on mass.
It shouldn't? I know no experiments proving a vacuum to act differently on different proper mass.
But they have different relativistic masses. Where, or what, would you define that relativistic mass too?
Their acceleration? Does their relativistic mass disappear in a uniform motion then, no acceleration?
It doesn't. Or? Would you like to define it as a acceleration being a local definition, experimentally measurable, with all uniform motions becoming locally undifferentiated?
So in a acceleration we have something locally measurable, in a uniform motion it disappear?
"As an object's speed approaches the speed of light from an observer's point of view, its relativistic mass increases thereby making it more and more difficult to accelerate it from within the observer's frame of reference.
The energy content of an object at rest with mass m equals mc2. Conservation of energy implies that, in any reaction, a decrease of the sum of the masses of particles must be accompanied by an increase in kinetic energies of the particles after the reaction. Similarly, the mass of an object can be increased by taking in kinetic energies.."
-
That one shot a big hole in that balloon, didn't it? What that says is that a relativistic mass should be defined relative a velocity, or speed. As I read it, it also states that it doesn't matter for this if we define that motion as accelerating, or as a uniform motion. Or do you read it differently? Do you expect there to be a difference if you stop accelerating at some point, uniformly coasting for a while, enjoying the sights, to then start accelerating again?
-
So where do you store that relativistic mass in a uniform motion?
-
"Mass–energy equivalence is a consequence of special relativity. The energy and momentum, which are separate in Newtonian mechanics, form a four-vector in relativity, and this relates the time component (the energy) to the space components (the momentum) in a nontrivial way. For an object at rest, the energy–momentum four-vector is (E, 0, 0, 0): it has a time component which is the energy, and three space components which are zero. By changing frames with a Lorentz transformation in the x direction with a small value of the velocity v, the energy momentum four-vector becomes (E, Ev/c2, 0, 0). The momentum is equal to the energy multiplied by the velocity divided by c2. As such, the Newtonian mass of an object, which is the ratio of the momentum to the velocity for slow velocities, is equal to E/c2."
-
Assuming the vacuum to be 'neutral', not acting on the rocket in any measurable manner as a 'resistance'. Also as all uniform motions imply in a flat space where your geodesic never ends, no matter what speed you define to it.
-
Let us look at the rocket, if you have a light bulb in it, will that be brighter the faster you go? Will the rocket hull start to glow in a perfect vacuum as you accelerate? Well, it will meet light from stars won't it? And depending on your velocity those 'beams' will blue shift into the gamma sector. But if we turn of those suns then?
Will there be a locally stored energy measurable in your rocket?
-
We agree on the vacuum behaving the same, measurably, don't we? To do otherwise would be to give a vacuum a resistance. And I hope we agree on that there will be no measurable changes locally, proving a 'stored energy' locally measured.
Using two inertial observers then? At rest with your rockets origin (Earth). One placed at the fore of your motion/acceleration, the other inertial observer placed at the stern, of your rockets motion, will we find the 'apparent' blue and red shift they measure to cancel out when compared?
-
Where is the relativistic book keeping stored?
-
In all accelerations you have ever-growing displacements. So using a light bulb situated in the middle of the rocket, two observers, fore and stern inside the rocket, they will be able to measure a blue respective red shift. They will also find a gravity, situated outside the stern. (constant uniform acceleration now)
-
Not in space, measurably so. Not in the rocket, at least not as defined from a uniform motion. And even though we find a blue/red shift inside that accelerating rocket you can move that light bulb anywhere you want inside it, to find a same effect. And remember that the relativistic mass is a definition relative a velocity/speed. Doesn't matter if you stop the acceleration for an hour, no resistance to a geodesic, no loss of velocity/speed in a perfect vacuum. The relativistic mass as you start to displace the rocket doesn't become less just because you stopped accelerating for a little while.
If it was so that you could cheat the relativistic book keeping that way, you should be able to reach (close to) 'c' expending a lot less 'energy' than when constantly uniformly accelerating.
-
So, where is it stored?
In time?
-
Relativistic mass must exist, all collisions are defined from velocities (speeds are without defined directions) and mass.
-
So what does relative motion mean, in what manner are they all equal?
-
They are equal locally measured. As for example relative a local scale that you stand on. You do not gain weight by doubling Earths uniform motion. And that weight scale and you are then loosely defined as being 'at rest' with Earth. Using distant suns the incoming light, meeting Earths motion, will become measurably blue shifted though.
-
In a comparison between two frames of reference. You on Earth measuring some comets uniform motion for example, you are free to state the comet to be standing still, or Earth, standing still, it's a equivalence of sorts in uniform motions. If one of you was accelerating through the vacuum though, there would be a locally measurable change, for the one accelerating.
-
So Earth is constantly uniformly accelerating at one Gravity. But you can double its uniform motion, without adding to a gravity.
-
Gravity is not relativistic mass, that we can see. If it was, then doubling Earths uniform motion should change your weight on that scale. But uniform motion must contain a relativistic mass, otherwise you can cheat the relativistic book keeping.
-
So how does the Higgs work?
It uses an idea of densities I would say. It defines different attachments or properties to different 'stable particles', then defines something we can't measure on, except by inductive logic, giving a probability of it existing, when measuring interactions at very high energies. It's ghosts passing you through acting on some of your particles, but only as you accelerate, giving you a inertial reaction equivalent to a gravity, if we then use the equivalence principle to define it.
in a way not so different from my own idea of inertia becoming gravity, but to me it presumes a container universe. You could argue that if observer dependencies are real, and if we exist, then this problem is no problem as we do exist and consist of densities, particles, fermions and bosons. I think this is what the Higgs theory will argue, finally backed into a corner. That is not sufficient, and it is not physics. New physics should answer old questions, and give new questions to ask. It seems for example that the Higgs boson is though to change the chirality, "Having a handedness or helicity, not having mirror symmetry" of particles, lefthandedness to righthandednes, and back, each time they interact. But this seems not to be true with neutrinos, that has been found to have a mass. So where does this mass come from?
So what is observer dependencies from a Higgs field'?
-
I can transform away the observer dependencies :) By stipulating that this universe always is locally defined. And to do so I just erase the container model. I do not stipulate any defined dimensions, more than using a sheet for describing the fractals I think a universe should be made of. Observer dependencies are very hard to understand from the idea of a defined four dimensional container, that also is observer dependent. If you instead assume connections, relations, creating a universe then all relations you ever will measure on will be defined by you, locally. And instead of dimensions we have the degrees of freedom we find something to have, which are four macroscopically.
-
Was discussing the idea that when you measure a entanglement you also inject it with a energy that must be duplicated at the receiving end. I said that either you then have to assume the energy to get split in two,(1 becoming .5) or you need to lend the far end of the entanglements 'energy', preferably then from a vacuum. Assuming entanglements to exist spontaneously, or as utilized by us, this should lead to a vacuum getting 'depleted of energy'.
Then again, assuming my own ideas of scaling a entanglement should be special relation, allowing it to presented at two 'points' in a positional SpaceTime, both having 1, without any 'lending' being involved in it, if it is correct.
=
Spelling and words :)
btw. That would then mean that you can get 'free energy', if the injection is found to work? So maybe I'm wrong with that one? Although you might also see it as them being the same photon, doubly represented? The arrow is after all a local definition (defined over frames of reference). Ouch, don't know how to think of that one :)
-
The important point (Well, I think?:) there is if it is correct assuming that you can 'inject' a annihilating photon with energy, just because it's entangled? Can you?
-
Whatever you inject it with should 'propagate' at 'c', as it seems to me? For example, photons should be able to annihilate in a sun, and assuming them able to get entangled in there this should lead to a excess of energy, either 'lent' from a vacuum, or 'split the injection' in two. I think we can rule out a 'injection' as lending from a vacuum at the 'far end', don't you?
-
Maybe the first question should be.
Can the sun act as a beam splitter?
-
I don't see how a sun can avoid entanglements, for both photons/waves and electrons? And if you now assume that a annihilation inject a energy at both sides we get to a proposition in where the sun lends energy from a vacuum.
-
I know, this has very little to do with relativity, but if you imagine relativity scaled down to meet QM, which it properly done should be able to then I guess everything has a relevance relative relativity, I'm very pleased with the last sentence there, by the way.. Quietly imposing, sort of :)
And it has bugged for quite some while, the idea of a injection in a entanglement, and still does btw, it's all assumptions I make, can't go into the sun and present a experiment proving it one way or another.
-
On the other hand, I look at a entanglement as something 'whole' in both ends, and then make it fit my proposition from scales, that you will lose a arrow, locally as you get down there. The first problem with my proposition is that you, to measure on it, use a local clock and ruler. As well as we have this fuzzyness and HUP scaling down. Then again, if relativity is an idea of frames of reference interacting, defined by a local clock and ruler. Then QM is an idea of a local definition also being possible, best expressed through the expectation of quanta. If quanta (qbits etc) exist, then they should be a very local definition, even though you are involved too, with that local clock and ruler.
-
Then we come to the original definition of a locality, that one is you throwing a stone in a pond watching the rings spread and interact. I don't think of it in that way, although I do :) The stone you throw in, is you scaling something down, the pond that stone scaling down meet should lose its arrow. And if there is no arrow (always strictly locally defined, remember) then our ideas of motion distance etc, disappear. And there is one more difference introduced through this idea, it allows for a entanglement. So you have our macroscopic reality, and 'under it' a microscopic ending in something unmeasurable. Someone wrote that Black Holes was 'censured' by the cosmos, I would say the same for scaling, you should meet infinites there too.
-
And that makes constants the most interesting idea you can have. What is a constant, and what is not?
-
Because that is what you have left. Constants, properties, and principles, creating a macroscopic universe. And it is made from a local definition of a ideal clock and ruler, everything else defined relative it. And that ideally defined clock and ruler must become a constant in 'my universe' :) as well as in Einsteins relativity. If I give 'c' a equivalence to the clock, then I will do the same for the ruler. And I need to lock it down somehow, that's Plank scale to me.
-
That's also why I hold out on defining what a vacuum really, really, is. Energy exist, we see it transformations, although on its own it becomes non measurable, as with objects in uniform motion. There is no extra measurable energy locally in those objects, it's all about relations between frames of reference creating the energy you find in incoming light for example. And a vacuum 'on its own' does not make for a definition of dimensions, and neither do I think it will give degrees of freedom. You need mass.
-
A vacuum is a form-able thing in my thoughts, proper mass giving us the dimensions we define. And it goes back to the idea of relations, locally defined by you, defining a universe. Just as a inflation and expansion has no defined 'origin' so it should be with 'locality', it's as valid everywhere, and now you can define that 'sidereal universe' you act on, that acts on you.
-
So dimensions are questionable things to me. Degrees of freedom is not, they are exactly what they are defined as, the degrees of freedom you find something to have, measured locally. So, to me, they becomes a better definition of how a universe acts than dimensions, because you can apply that same point of view at any scale.
-
And then a idea of inertia fits in so well, because a inertia is a unwillingness of motion, a 'resistance' to motion. If you are able to accept the idea of Earth gravitationally accelerating, as locally measured by a accelerator (scale). then you can split it in inertia and a arrow, giving you 'gravity'.
-
That makes Inertia into a constant too, I think? You could define it as a property of mass, but the way I think of it, I think it should behave as a constant, like 'c'.
-
And it seems correct if you assume that we are continuously connected to that scaled down 'time less' reality. That's also what I mean by assuming that we always are as close, (loosely, and locally, defined now) to Planck scale. Doesn't matter where you are.
-
And down there the rules change.
-
So gravity and the arrow disappear, but 'time' and 'inertia' should be able to exist, as constants.
-
The arrow and the ruler, would then be a phenomena similar to the idea of decoherence. Always locally defined, and locally equivalent everywhere. The arrow and the ruler being equivalent to 'c', which we then define to 'propagate' at a set speed in a vacuum, equivalent for all frames of reference. At least as I see it.
-
Let us do it this way. You have two things. 'Yin and yang' :)
The soft and the hard principle in life, as one way I think the Chinese thought of it. You can translate it to a cosmos too, although it becomes rather confusing to define which is which. You can also translate it into a description of frames of reference, acknowledging that relativity is described through two frames, yours, relative what you observe, comparing.
Not that hard to get to, is it? :) You don't really need to use that idea though, as long as you acknowledge that we are not the first humans on this planet, wondering about it. The ancient Greeks did too, probably we can find that most all have thought and wondered about it, at some time.
So you have a vacuum, and proper mass. Fermions and bosons. Two objects, a sun and a planet interacting. Depending on their relative motion giving a planetary observer different definitions of that suns rays 'energy'.
The energy is correct, but where is it contained? It differs, you can measure on that, but is it contained in the vacuum? That would be a rather weird proposition, as I can add how many suns I like, in different relative motion versus Earth. Depending on what sun you measure on you know will find that this vacuum then should have different 'energy values'. Do you think that is true?
So where is that energy stored?
-
One way is to define a container universe, and you need one for it, don't think you can get away from it. Then you assume that all relative motion takes itself out, then you apply an eye of a God to it and define it as there is 'global' definition of this energy 'propagating' in the vacuum, that is constant and in a equilibrium.
-
When this container model meets observer dependencies it breaks down into multi verses though.
-
The container model is described through 'dimensions'.
-
A degree of freedom, described locally, what would that be? Could I define some center to it and then displacements from that center describing a 'motion', as in a degree of freedom. relative me (someone/thing) observing it?
-
So where is that 'energy' you find the sun to have stored?
In the detector?
-
You see, assuming lights propagation, you need to define different patches of a vacuum containing different 'energy' in each instant of measuring 'energy/rays etc' propagating through it. That one hurts my head, what happened to the neutral aspect, and equivalence, of a vacuum here?
-
You can't use a container model, with dimensions, at the same time define the vacuum as being neutral, while defining it to contain different energies, propagating? What are you doing here? Imagining the vacuum to be some sort of ocean with 'streams of light'? Then you must differ 'bosons' from a vacuum, and 'energy'. What do that leave a perfect vacuum?
-
So you then must define 'bosons' as something different from the concept of 'energy', if you want a vacuum to contain it. Or you split it in two, 'bosons and 'energy' ' and then, a perfect vacuum.
-
I guess you prefer the first, letting a 'energy' differ from bosons. Can you prove that one?
-
Can you prove different patches of a vacuum containing different energies then?
I don't think so, neither the first, nor the last question. What you can prove is that using a sun (source), then placing a detector (sink) somewhere inside a defined vacuum you will find proportionality. It is from finding the relations we define the propagation.
-
As soon as you introduce a proper mass, it start to interact with bosons. Using a mass closing in to gamma radiation, you should find a retardation of motion, as the photons create a pressure, through their momentum.
-
What is a perfect vacuum?
-
All would be good, possibly? If we had this container defining it, and naturally so 'dimensions'. But the container, and the dimensions, are observer dependent giving us locally defined 'multi verses' here, and now.
=
That's what Lorentz transformations is all about, translating observer dependencies.
-
And if you want to connect 'energy' to different regimes, defined by temperatures, then that to the 'dimensionality'? Including that perfect vacuum?
-
I would say ones definition of a perfect vacuum is a relation, to mass and motion, locally defined. What we may agree on is what we think defines a perfect vacuums 'property's'. And that is it containing degrees of freedom, as defined from a observer, and so distance(s). You can define it as having a relation to energy too, but I don't know what 'energy' is.
-
light has a vector, doesn't it? We give it a source, then define a propagation and vectors for it (speed and direction). Then we define it to have a momentum, giving it a pressure on mass, acting in the direction of its propagation.
-
That's a pretty robust argument for lights propagation, isn't it?
-
My universe becomes pretty weird, doesn't it? It assumes that as soon as a arrow is gone, and that you do by scaling, every 'direction' must point to a 'center'. And as there is no arrow, any definition of distance, so splitting that center into 'points', must lose their meaning. If something is perfectly homogeneous, equivalent in all aspects, without a arrow. How do you introduce it to get to the isotropy (distances and dimensions)?
-
It's a 'sidereal universe' we live in. There is no up or down to it, ignoring gravity. Any direction is as good as any other.
-
And what makes it possible to define a distance is a arrow. So how do we introduce that arrow?
-
The observer, isn't it :)
From relativity's point of view you must have a observer. You can replace that for needing two frames of reference, one frame defining the other, from its local clock and ruler.
That's your 'time' in a sidereal universe, becoming your arrow.
-
Decoherence becomes really interesting to me, for defining it. It's what 'evens out' QM ,becoming the laws of Newton and Einstein macroscopically. Decoherence needs a arrow, and the arrow becomes decoherence.
-
Then we have this assumption that laws are time invariant, meaning that you can play the movie backwards. I think it is correct, but I also define it such as it is a logic you must find, if you want a universe such as ours. I do not jump from there to a definition in which as a shadow creeps forward on a sun dial, it will be as true to say it also should be able to creep the opposite way. I differ between a needed logic, giving us repeatable experiment, and a presumption that you should be able to use that logic for reversing your arrow.
-
What I suspect I'm saying here is that I would expect 'time' to have a direction, a property of time, or possibly as a result from properties interacting becoming a arrow. Mathematics can prove all sorts of things, depending on your system of logic.
-
Can you see why 'time travels' becomes impossible from such a definition?
It's about a whole universe played backwards, from using an idea of decoherence. You can't lift yourself out of the fractal.
-
Consciousness and linear logic is also a result of a arrow. To define this 'consciousness' without thoughts you may experience meditating you actually need to get out of it, starting to think again, don't you :) No way to define it being there.
-
so what you define belongs to the arrow, never mind what you would like to call it. We use a arrow, always.
-
It's the exact same experience as you will get from realizing that we only can define something from a 'inside'. Every thought you had, every experience you know, is defined from a inside of this universe. It does not tell you that there is a 'outside' though. That presumption comes from our definitions of 'dimensions' inside this universe. From there it is easy to assume that as a box has a inside as well as a outside, so must every 'inside' contain a possibility of a outside. But that is a fallacy of logic. Define a universe from relations defining 'dimensions' and the outside becomes the inside, what we call 'inside' defined by measurements, and repeatable experiments.
-
But light has a vector, doesn't it? And a pressure? so it must 'propagate'?
So the universe is as I see it intuitively, looking out at the stars at night. Nah, it's not.
-
At least not from where I stand :)
-
Using relations you will get to a definition of a universe, as being a linear logic, definable through a arrow and what repeatable experiments you find setting its limits. The relations becomes it all actually, dissolve decoherence (as a probable) and the universe should disappear.
-
It also becomes meaningless arguing what 'reality' is. We define ours from a inside, and it is as real as it ever can be from that inside. When you die you die, you are no longer 'inside' unless you want to count in 'energy' as a countable. Your consciousness, your definition of yourself, needs a arrow. That doesn't state that there can't be anything more to it though, but whatever that would be it won't use this arrow.
-
A slight release, isn't it :) Getting away from oneself I mean, the last and biggest adventure you'll ever make. If we use fractals for defining how simple becomes complex, then the universe should be a mathematical fractal to my mind. A fractal that is described as evolving by a arrow, defined by decoherence, and constants. Properties and principles arising from it interacting.
-
And free will then, well, what is HUP?
-
All of it defined locally naturally, over frames of reference.
-
So what 'glues' one frame of reference to another? Forces? Constants, properties and principles? I prefer the last.
-
But it depends on from where you look at it. Forces exist, gravity acts not only as a point like experience, having one direction 'down wards' into some center. It acts on you and you act on it, which allows us to define why our solar system hang together. EM is the same way, you can exchange frames of reference there too, defining it differently.
-
So, we have us a universe in 3-D, with a local arrow giving us four dimensions, but I suspect you can add one local direction downwards to it. Doesn't matter where you are either. Five 'dimensions' if you like :) the most important being the one you get to, scaling it down.
==
All depending on definitions naturally.
-
Or two?
If you imagine it as a plane, then scaling down that plane gets a direction of its own. I don't like dimensions that much. I think it's better to define it from what a observer, locally defined, can measure over frames of reference. Then it should be the behavior you find that define the degrees of freedom something have. And so we find four macroscopically but a microscopic lattice might be defined to have two. And going further down, how many degrees of freedom can there be?
-
Can you define a dimensionality in where there is no possibility of scaling? Should a string be impossible to scale?
-
The point to it is that a string is below any measurements, but if you truly think them to exist, then there is no reason I see why you can't imagining them able to scale, down and up. Scaling becomes a direction of its own to me, although part of the three dimensional space we define macroscopically.
-
How different does a universe becomes if you disallow dimensions, instead using degrees of freedom? For example, a orbital, can you describe that in 'degrees of freedom'? Well, you can describe it as a result of how the atoms are organized, as in a lattice. It becomes a statement much alike the argument Einstein presented. Relativity being frames of reference interacting, having the addition of the importance of the 'observer', meaning that the observer always has to define it locally, using a locally defined clock and ruler for measuring in comparing between frames.
-
Then we have the idea of being at rest with something. Assume that gravity in 'reality' will come down to just one direction. The direction shown by a singular 'point mass', inwards.
That gives us one degree of freedom, doesn't it?
-
And a lattice then? Two degrees of freedom?
And to that you need to add observer dependencies, but I can't see how that could influence the degrees of freedom you find something to have? Maybe it can though? As in imagining myself 'speeding relativistically', very close to lights speed, trying to define the degrees of freedom for suns, moving relative me in the vacuum. Would they be found to move?
-
We have two ways to define reality. One is through observer dependencies, and experiments of course, the other is from a thought up 'objective standpoint' in where I apply what I call the eyes of a God to a universe, and so a imaginary 'outside'. Is there a outside, if you only have degrees of freedom to define it from?
-
I think that a field picture is acceptable from a definition in where we use local constants combined with the degrees of freedom we can prove, as defined by the observer. When different observers agree on each others observations, and their 'equal setups' we come to a definition of a 'commonality' in this universe, and 'repeatable experiments'. Those then must define the 'common universe' we agree to exist. But there will be no outside to it, unless you define it such as only what we directly can measure is 'inside' it. Which in this case should disallow a Higgs boson/field.
-
So what is then degrees of freedom, and where do they end? Can you scale them away?
-
If you use a local representation, ignoring dimensions, how many degrees of freedom do exist? We use four dimensions in relativity, three room dimensions, and one 'time' dimension. That becomes the container from where I define the degrees of freedom to that lattice. Would we be able to see more degrees of freedom than the ones defining the container? Doesn't seem possible, does it? If we could the container would be differently defined.
-
There is no size to this universe, but there seem to be a scale. You can scale it down, and according to my thoughts then, the 'distance traversed' in scaling down should be approximately the same everywhere. You could also define it from observer dependencies as mass, gravity, motion, energy density etc. But I'm using the prerogative of applying 'eyes of a God' for this :) And so I expect the 'distance traversed' to be equal, everywhere.
-
It's a different universe than the one we see. We see it without including observer dependencies, and we assume that what 'I see is what you see too'. That makes applying the eyes of God real easy, and thinking of it as having a inside and a outside real easy too.
-
So, what do you think?
Can you use the eyes of a God in a universe defined by the observers local measurements?
Only when defining it locally, then adding in other observers locally found constants.
Defining a commonly same universe from those repeatable experiments.
That should be 'the eye of a God'.
-
To me the eyes of a God should be to look for what we otherwise won't notice, or recognize. A bare bones map to a universe, and the bare bones would then be constants, although you from them, or if ignoring those, might be able to argue that it is repeatable experiments that are those bare bones. But 'c' is a constant, and that constant creates observer dependencies, gravity is another, creating observer dependencies. Newton is right.
-
None of this explains why we have frames of reference though. If now locality is where 'reality' stops.
What allows a frame to communicate with another frame of reference?
'c' is one answer, but it doesn't tell us how they exist.
Dimensions as some container is not a good answer from observer dependencies. Degrees of freedom doesn't tell it either?
So, what make one frame of reference able to 'co exist' with another?
-
The universe I think of is locally in-differentiable. At some ultimate scale 'smeared out' into a total sameness, and no arrow to it either. So you can't discuss that place from a macroscopic definition of clocks and distance. But somehow, scaling it up, we get to the universe we know?
=
Actually you just need to take the idea of constants to its logical conclusion to see that all points must be 'equal'.
-
consider that you always bring in your 'ideal' local clock and ruler in everything you measure, over your frame of reference, no matter the scale you look at. There is always a arrow involved. And you can't use a definition in where motion 'vibrations' decides time, or rather, you first then need to prove that for example 'vibrations' measurably is 'its' arrow. That means a experiment. Meaning that just because what you observe won't change, you can't regard it as 'time less'.
As there is no experiment possible, without you involving your local arrow ?
How would you prove it?
-
To see why I think of all arrows as locally equivalent. Assume it gets its reality through interactions, frames of reference interacting. Scaling it up into a arrow. Can't we then also assume that depending on mass, gravity, speeds etc etc it must change, although being the same locally defined? Yes, maybe we can, or we can argue that as it decides your life span, and as that one never will change relative your wrist watch, the simpler approach is to define it as equivalent to 'c', a local constant.
-
Now you just have to decide if 'c', locally measured, is equivalent everywhere in a uniform motion. What makes it differ will be inertia 'gravity' and accelerations.
-
There seems a logical fallacy in assuming that uniform motion at different speeds will introduce different aging. As we now assume 'c' to be what we locally will measure, in both 'circumstances/places', when defining 'c' equivalent to a local arrow. Although we can see far away 'light clocks' ticking at different paces, depending on the speed of their uniform motion, relative ones own. If 'c' is equivalent to your arrow, then you can't have a 'twin' of another age, just by him having a different uniform motion, can you?
On the other hand, I take those light clocks seriously and find them to describe time dilations. As well as there is no way to test it, as you must introduce accelerations, to get to a different 'relative motion' between you.
And actually, as long as you think constants exist, then they must be locally equivalent in all circumstances, doesn't matter if you introduce accelerations in it. 'c' should still be 'c', strict locally, even though we can't do a 'one way experiment' to prove it. It's about frames of reference.
-
The real reason for constants is simple. Without them there can't be a order, and without a order no causality, there just won't be a definable universe anymore.
-
You need a structure, you need the 'bare bones' first, the rules and principles defining the game.
=
Or if you like, as we here are involved in a more deductive science. 'Backtracking' this universe you must arrive to rules, constants, properties and principles. Because if you ultimately fail in this, you shouldn't exist :)
==
Well, not logically exist anyway. A universe without ground rules is a universe without logic. Anything should be possible in such a universe, which would make it quite confusing, for us at least. We expect things to be the same tomorrow as today don't we? The ground under our feet, the sky above etc. And if I would want to apply a 'hidden logic' to it, I actually want to introduce 'order upon chaos', don't I :)
(wording sux bad at times here)
-
You could say that what I do here is to try to justify why I would like to define one frame of reference as equivalent to an idea of a constant. They go together (in my mind).
-
Why do I think 'c' is 'c' in all motion? One good reason is that motion is weird :) If you look at it classically motion is one thing, about displacements measured in time. But if you use relativity we get to several new conclusions. We have uniform motion, also described in relative motion, then we have constant uniform accelerations, and finally all other types of accelerations. Let's call it three types to start with.
But the first definition, uniform motion, also becomes a relative motion. Relative to what you measure against. And locally there is no proof of this first type of motion existing, you need to introduce frames of reference to prove it. That means that you need to pick something not locally to compare against, to get to a uniform motion. But we probably agree that as soon we have tree objects in different uniform motion we have a proof of different uniform motions existing. You can also use incoming lights blue and red shift, or the CBR, for defining the same.
But :) You're at rest in any uniform motion, and being at rest is translatable to still. So now we got four types. Where two is about the same type of motion, uniform 'relative' motion.
If we want to define 'c' to a arrow, I think we can do it two ways. One is a very strict definition of locality in where we can assume instants of displacements as being 'still' in any acceleration, connecting those instants to the idea of 'constants', and 'one frame of reference'. The other is different, and not as satisfying to me. In that one we also will use 'locality' but now define it as this local focal point 'frame of reference' can be transformed by motion, mass, energy etc. That means that this frame of reference still exist, but also should be locally adaptable to the relations around it, 'adapting' in some weird way. What talks against this one is the fact that you can introduce a accelerating rocket together with three uniformly moving objects, being at different uniform velocities. Each one of the uniformly moving will define different time dilations, and Lorentz contractions to the one accelerating.
You don't need a twin experiment, you just need to decide if you believe in different clocks measure over frames of reference, or not. And the choice isn't even there, NIST has already proven that one, conclusively here on Earth at decimeters.
-
That does not take away the strangeness of Inertia though. Let us start with assuming that although we find different speeds existing in geodesics, all of those are also being 'still'. Because, according to inertia they all are, 'still' that is.
-
You might want to look at that as another proof of uniform motion being without 'motion'. Relative motions are locally no motions, even though we can define different speeds to those, comparing over frames of reference.
-
We define Earths relative motion versus other objects, existing in a vacuum. We define the vacuum as being of one equivalent piece, it together with mass creating a objective universe. We either need a container model existing doing so, or we need to understand how one frame of reference can connect with another. 'c' in no answer to that one, 'c' is a definition from locality, using a local interpretation of a container model, defining it as equivalent for all 'inertial' frames, aka uniform 'relative' motion.
-
Now ask yourself, if Earth would accelerate to double its velocity, to then move uniformly again. Will it then cost you more fuel, to lift with your rocket in the direction of 'motion' we defined earth to have? Or we can ignore any added velocity, and just ask ourselves if we think there will be a higher cost to lift a rocket in the direction we define earth to move, as compared to lift from a opposite direction? The other side of Earth, where Earth 'disappear' from us, relative whatever velocity we defined earth to have.
-
Then look at "'c' is a definition from locality, using a local interpretation of a container model, defining it as equivalent for all 'inertial' frames, aka uniform 'relative' motion."
The container model you use can not be mine. Not even in a uniform 'relative' motion.
How many 'containers' will that make?
-
So what do we have that is constant there? 'c' is constant, your life span is constant too. It's a local definition naturally, but valid for all of those container models.
Then we have inertia.
accelerations
uniform constant accelerations.
gravity
-
In a nutshell. There is no 'absolute frame' that Earth moves relative, in its uniform 'relative' motion (geodesic). Therefore it is still, inertia got it correct. And for a uniform constant acceleration to perfectly equivalent with gravity, it must be able to be described as being directed 'inwards', which in that case place the direction from its acceleration, towards its stern. This is assuming the best direction to describe it from locally, as in a 'point mass', should be 'inwards'.
-
And defining it so, we find that Earth is 'still', but 'accelerating' at one measurable gravity. The other type of 'motion' we assume is not locally measurable, unless we define it comparing Earth to? Our Sun maybe? The Magellan cloud? The CBR? And that's relativity, comparing between frames of reference.
-
I know, a lot of rambling around here :) But I'm slow, so I need it, this is actually a minimum of rambling so far. The point about how to define a frame of reference is rather important to me. because if you define it as 'unchanging' which is what I want to, then everything becomes a result of relativity. A relativity in where you won't be able to pin a change to any single frame of reference, only to them interacting. That gives us a static universe, and some form of 'bit', although 'bits' disappear if the arrow isn't there.
The other possibility is one in where there is no single frame of reference. That one is also relativity, but makes it very hard to define a existing focal point, as a singular frame of reference, as a 'bit'. If you think of that 'ideal local clock' we always use, where does it 'tick'? It all comes down to interactions creating the focal points, that we then define as 'bits'. And a frame of reference from this definition is just a result of interactions giving us opposites. I'm having a hard time with that one, as it would be a very different interpretation.
I don't know :)
-
The other point I'm getting to is the one Higgs and those other guys found important. Inertia.
I'm in total agreement on inertia being important. And if we stop considering relative motion, just looks at what express inertia then we find accelerations.
Earth accelerates too. Without a 'motion', but it accelerates. So a reasonable question should be in what it accelerates?
There's only one thing it accelerates in, and that is a arrow.
-
Time becomes a relation to mass. one point mass giving you one representation, and as you let them together into macroscopic pieces, them redefining that 'point mass' time, as related to other frames of reference. The point mass is still there, but in this piece of matter his relations to other frames of reference change.
Maybe focal points would be a giving subject? because you can give a point mass one focal point of 'time', a earth another, a neutron star a third. Locally defined they should be the same though, in my thoughts.
-
Build it up from point masses. Let a arrow be a constant referable to 'c'. All point masses keeps this ideal definition and as we put them together we find a need for a ideal clocks. We have ideal clocks, everything has it, but as you break matter down you should reach something irreducible. A 'point mass' or ? A infinite center if we use a black hole for it. but there must be a back ground to it.
-
What is a illusion, in 'my universe' that is, :) is not yours, or mine, local arrow. We need them to be equivalent to get to repeatable experiments, otherwise they won't exist. But the idea of a macroscopic even flow of time is incorrect. And that idea comes from the way we perceive the universe, 'commonly same' to us all. The universe is a mosaic, 'interactions/relations' between pieces giving us time dilations and Lorentz contractions. But it does not change the fact that we all locally have a equivalent arrow.
-
If you want you can see it as being 'here', happening all the time, all the way. Our arrow becoming a back ground scaled up into a macroscopic universe. and when you scale it the other way, finally reduced to constants, properties and principles, rules. So your background becomes 'time less', and this, your play for a audience.
Yeah, sounds good doesn't it :)
ahem
-
You can also relate it to information.
If you assume there being something striving for the concept of 'meaningful information', then we and the universe we agree on existing is 'it'. We're all meaningful information. but then we have information that's not 'set up', and that one you find as you scale down. Another way to express it would be from simplicity to complexity. What defines our universe is a need for logic, for 'meaningful information'.
-
What we can notice is that the idea of this other type of arrangements fails our logic. It breaks down as we close in on it. That's also what combine the idea of a event horizon to the idea of the very small where the mathematics becomes just as impossible without using renormalization. When we expect the inside of a event horizon to behave the same as its outside, we're doing a renormalization, based on the statistics we have of SpaceTime outside it. That all physics works the same, no matter where you are.
-
So we can answer one question at least. Can mathematics describe everything?
No, if it could there would be no need for renormalization, and statistics.
Even if we would get the most elegant equation from using those two, describing a universe, it would leave us with the same dilemma as 'c' does. It explains it, but it doesn't explain it.
-
There is a catch to this though. It might be possible to create a mathematics truly explaining things, looking at what statistics and renormalization tells us to work. And so refute what I just said. But I'm not as interested in what might be possible as I am in what is possible. And there mathematics does not give us a tool that unerringly lead us to the right conclusions. If it did we would all become mathematicians :) Then again, maybe we all are? When you reach for something you mostly catch it too, don't you? Well, that's a pretty good intuitive mathematical computation you must have made, to arrive at that point in space and time.
-
What do we call it when a baby learns to walk? Trial and error? A statistical approach to how to learn to walk? somewhere inside that baby there is something 'weighting' the results of all this trial and error, not only related to its brain but to muscles and tendons and ? All about relations. As Jung would have had it, the gestalt becoming something in its own, a 'ideal' and a 'synergy'. Epigenetics is a new field in genetics, or maybe not so new, but once more taken seriously. It's about much the same thing.
-
Then we have this about what information should be. I differ it in meaningful information and useless information, from logics. Entanglements then becomes useless information, until someones proves that we inject energy, that can be taken out at 'the other end' of the entanglement. As an idea 'energy' is very interesting, and I would refer it to a interaction. So do you inject energy into a entanglement at 'both ends' as you measure? You should, and that's what makes that idea so phreakingly interesting, as well as confusing, to me :)
What the idea suggests, is not only that we inject 'energy' in all interactions, but it also allows you to collect a same amount at another SpaceTime position. If we now treat this as a photon hitting your retina (eye), does the retina inject energy into the photon?
-
We can test this proposal by thinking of light passing a glass, does it lose or gain energy by doing so?
-
Whatever else it does, I've never seen anyone arguing that it gains energy by passing through matter, or getting absorbed and re-emitted by the glass molecules, atoms, electron orbitals, etc. On the other hand, a often used argument to why HUP is so confusing is that you by probing something disturbs it, forces it into a state, but that is not the exact same thing as injecting a energy, is it? It's confusing ideas all of them I better admit. But I don't think it possible for the glass to inject energy into the light, passing it through. Because that should then cool a window in the sun, and it doesn't.
=
There's one more point to it. Photons doesn't 'interact' with 'photons', as far as I know, unless we refer to the 'energy' in a gamma gamma reaction where you might find short lived 'new' particles. But then we have waves too, in where they can reinforce as well as quench each other. It is confusing, isn't it :)
-
Take a field of light. does it have a temperature?
Not as I know, it have a energy that can be expressed in temperature, but to do so you need to introduce matter, don't you? You won't find light interacting with light producing a temperature without matter. So what was the temperature in that primeval 'photon field', and, is that even a meaningful question?
I don't think it is.
-
A better question then would be how 'energy' of a 'photon field' can produce stable matter, matter that will continue to exist as the temperature falls. Also why that matter doesn't break down, due to the immense temperature we can imagine it to be produced under. The same energy that creates matter, should as soon matter is 'produced', start to act on it as 'temperature', shouldn't it?
-
Then we have this idea of gravity transferring energy. A photon is defined by a recoil at its origin, and its own annihilation arriving to its 'sink'. It's Newtons 'action and reaction', as well as a result of the conservation laws. A sun has a lot of photons leaving it constantly, they should then act on this sun in the classical way by recoils, dampening its 'motion', although that 'reaction' should even out over a spherical body, shouldn't it? You can apply the same idea to 'gravity' as it transfers 'energy', as Earths tidal forces. It seems as a good argument for something being transfered by the 'force' of gravity, doesn't it? Another way to view it should be that what we see as tidal forces are the geodesics defined for those spacetime positions, meaning that what rips you apart is not a force, but your body's particles diverging geodesics due to gravity. The 'forces' keeping those particles joined into you are split by gravity defining different geodesics for them.
=
(Hmm, not sure you can use 'action and reaction' for it? The recoil is explained through conservation of momentum, if I get it right, those days. It's about a symmetry needed, but action and reaction is about forces, and ? Demands a acceleration possibly? And a photon doesn't accelerate. I'm not sure, although I'm sure that Newton thought of action and reaction as a result of forces, making it inappropriate here any which way. So forget 'action and reaction', although it still fits somehow.)
Ok, back to black holes tidal forces :)
-
You can view this as being a force too, but when those particles follow their separate geodesics there are no force acting on them, the same as there is no force acting on you in a free fall. It's when you're at rest with (and on) Earth there is a force acting on you, and you can measure that force by a scale. In a free fall the scale won't show you a thing.
-
Forces are tricky, dimensions are tricky. That force can exist, acting on you, what does it mean? A stream acting on me, have I transformed away the stream by becoming at rest with it? Is it gone? Depends on how you define it I think. Locally it is gone, ideally defined. From a perspective of someone standing on a bank watching you, it's still there, just taking you with it.
But that is what relativity seems to state, that everything is frame related. Well, almost everything. A acceleration is not depending on what frame of reference you choose to accelerate in. A acceleration is always a local experience of inertia, and 'gravity'. Will gravity disappear as you scale something up? A piece of Earth you're standing on, 'magnifying' it, will gravity disappear? I don't think so, but it might become unmeasurable by your scale.
If you can't measure it, is it gone?
-
I try to use a strict locality, I hope :) and then what ever experiments I know, for making my views on it. So, to me gravity is gone, if you can't measure it, just as that stream is gone, locally measured. Because this is the way the universe is fitted, it uses time dilations, Lorentz contractions, 'motion' and accelerations, and on it imposes limits that are local, not 'global', as standing on that bank might be seen as.
'c' is a local description. That we make it into a constant means that we accept locality. Otherwise it can't be a constant, as your 'motion' then would have to be taken into account, relative some arbitrarily defined frame of reference, as for example the cosmic background radiation.
-
So, am I right in that if we take one perfectly spherical evenly distributed point mass, then try to define its 'gravitational direction' it will point inwards? And what happens as you scale it up?
-
What will happen if we place two point masses aside each other in a formerly 'flat space'? Will they 'interact'? In what way? By force?
-
It's strange isn't it? Whenever we get mass we find that 'gravity' final direction must be inwards, and what is it about this inflation we hear about? Directed 'outwards' is it? in each point? No origin to it, is there?
Is there a 'origin' to the directionality of gravity, ignoring mass :)
Nope, no 'origin', unless we use mass, and 'constant uniform accelerations'.
-
I leave energy aside, because I still don't know how to define that, and I probably never will.
-
'Energy' makes sense to me from a 'container model', a container in which we can define some magnitude of 'energy'. But without a container, what is 'energy'? If the inside is the outside?
-
So we have 'gravity', and then we have all other types of accelerations, becoming inertia. Which one covers the most? Gravity or inertia? If all types of gravity can be related to inertia, what would it make of Earths gravity? And what does Earths gravity need to exist? I think it needs mass, it needs a arrow, it needs a way of communicating over frames of reference. Is there anything I'm missing? Does it need a vacuum? Don't think so. And 'frames of reference' should be read as distances, measured locally.
=
Then again, a atom is 99.99 ~ vacuum?
I'm not sure I can ignore a vacuum for it?
-
Why does mass consist of so much vacuum? Because the 'bits' we're made of doesn't have the ability to clump together? Or are those 'bits' excitations? If they are, what makes them continuous and consistent? Forces :)
-
That makes us into some sort of ghosts, doesn't it? Being continuous coherent excitations in a field, dressed as 'matter' or fermions, using bosons. But a field demands a objective reality to me, a defined SpaceTime having limits, or you can let it build from local constants. If you do that you need to define how frames of reference comes to be, and 'dimensions'.
-
The point is that you can't have a 'objective' description of a Einsteinian SpaceTime. You can only have a local. If you do like me then you will define the local description as the 'objective', then it just becomes trying to see what is equivalent for all 'local' frames of reference. Constants, properties and principles/rules. That makes a field the result of information. Locally defined.
-
The only 'displacements' existing for Earth uniform acceleration is in time, am I not right? And if we define a arrow the way I do, then it exist. Purely local definition, but so is all other definitions I've seen, making sense to me. So each point mass making up a earth, has one direction inwards to some 'center', even if unmeasurably so, and one timelike direction, using a local arrow.
-
The 'sidereal universe' we define normally is a container. I don't think anyone will argue against that? A container containing regimes and forces. The reason I ignore that part is that I'm wanting to define locality, and that should be some ideal point mass when it comes to gravity. And I also want a universe to be built from locality, so the 'sidereal universe' we started from in physics is to me becoming more unreal, as I burrow myself down in locality :)
It would be a nice SF.
-
It just needs a reason to how frames of reference can co-exist, to become 'real', doesn't it?
-
A dimension is a archetype. You start from a archetype as a sheet or plane, then use it as a Lego, to build more dimensions from, you twist them against each other, somehow glue them together, to define three room dimensions. and to that we add a time dimension, or a local arrow. I've never liked archetypes, and I don't think this is the way dimensions comes to be. I think they are a result of local constants, communicating. Those constants, properties etc, create the dimensions we find. To me they become limits, just as as 'c' is another.
-
But without a outside, it's a limitation of measuring that define what is real to us. The geometry too.
-
heh, I don't like archetypes, do I? But I do like constants, don't I :)
Ah well, we need some rules, don't we?
Unless we want magic?
-
If we apply this on strings, or loops, then we just move it one step further down in scale, don't we? Instead of a sheet, we use a string, or a loop. But, what if there is a background of constants, and what if there is no arrow to it? one equivalent local background, scaling up to a multitude of localities, communicating over frames of reference, and a local arrow, using 'c' for 'meaningful communication'. Information might be different, but meaningful communication should to me be everything obeying 'c'.
-
Your lifespan is a meaningful communication, isn't it? You can't change that one, doesn't matter if everybody rush past you time wise. Your life span will be the exact same relative your wristwatch. That's meaningful to me :) And if 'c' is a local definition, so is that lifespan.
-
The closest to this concept might be loop quantum gravity. In it the quanta of the field builds 'spacetime', according to Carlo Rovelli. Well, where he speaks of quanta, I want to define a frame of reference :) Maybe it's all the same, a reductionary approach to locality, or maybe not? It depends on what you think exist there? A background, or loops?
-
Without a arrow, I don't see how I can 'split' the extremely small into loops, or anything? To me it becomes 'dimension less' as a arrow is needed, and meaningful communication, to build that SpaceTime? So you got yourself a nice mystery in that something timeless, as I see it, creates a (local) arrow, and distance. And from that now is able to introduce 'relative motions', and accelerations.
-
You could say that what consist of a background is whether you presume it to exist some blueprint for how things should behave or if it is the things themselves that become the blueprint. I use a blueprint of constants, that I define from a strict local outlook. That becomes a background of sorts, but as I also expect the local arrow and 'c', as I set them equivalent, to expire (disappear) around Planck scale, this 'Background' must become 'distance less' and so 'dimensionless'.
It's a matter of personal taste if that is a 'background' or not? I call it a background though.
-
SpaceTime is 'Background independent', meaning that it is itself that creates it. It's about dimensions, three room and one time, defining geodesics that everything 'moves in'. The only way to break those, accelerating. Then there is frame dependencies defining what you observe, always locally made. But the concept seems still to be one of a 'container', to me, although you easily can redefine that as I do, using only local definitions. Einstein used both, local definitions and this idea of a SpaceTime as a 'entity' in its own right. When he spoke of the moon always existing I think he thought of SpaceTime as a entity, not from locality. but you can argue the same locally I think.
-
Can't help wondering about regimes and temperatures. A gamma gamma universe, populated by energetic light/photons interacting how? A 'energy density' of what? As waves they quench and reinforce, would it then be when they reinforce each other? That they make matter? And why seems atoms to be time less? At least very long lived, how do they do it?
And another thing, if you think of two objects exchanging light signals in uniform motion, they both will define the speed they exchange it with 'c'. What a light clock shows is a 'twisted geometry' from the observer, induced by motion. It's not a result existing for the observer, locally measured. You might say? That the geometry change with somethings motion, as defined from the observer. The problem is that it is measurements we use to define what is correct, and they are always local. You might want to argue that the far away observers motion isn't only a motion, but also a distortion of the space you define him to be in, traveling.
If it was so, and we introduce different observers at different speeds, then that distorted space we find one to traverse is either a geometrical illusion, or it gets redefined, differently depending on observer.
-
And that one goes directly back to the question of how we define a dimension, doesn't it? If everything would be planes, then what that light clock shows us, measuring it locally, indeed would be a changed geometry. Think of it as a sheet moving away from you, upon which light paints a picture of this light clock ,'ticking'. It would be the geometry that distorts the speed of those 'ticks'.
-
Actually, the sheet doesn't have to move at all, as I think. It's enough if everything you observe gives you a information consistent with 'motion'. But that's a very strange idea :)
-
You either could see the concept of light clocks a good proof of a vacuum containing three dimensions, or, you might ask yourself how it is this way, if it isn't three dimensions?
-
Causality demands symmetries. It's a logic, in where you follow the 'dotted line', called a arrow. The arrow is 'time reversible' in that you find a symmetry of sorts, allowing you to play causality backwards, at times, also depending on what limits you set. But I think of it more like a mirror (symmetry) to the way a arrow works, and from logic there must be a certain reversibility. Or do you know how to create a logic universe, using a arrow, without reversibility?
='
The fact is that I have never seen physics define a universe where we won't have a time reversibility existing, and still present us a logic. From pure logic that is one of the things what you need to prove, before giving this time reversibility its present status as a 'proof' of a arrow being a 'illusion'.
We better define what magic is too. It's not ' very advanced technology indistinguishable from 'magic' ', it's the opposite of logic. It won't make sense.
-
So what do we have so far in my universe :)
A arrow equivalent to 'c'.
A definition of dimensions as coming from 'degrees of freedom', defining dimensional limits, always observed and defined locally.
A argument about 'arrow' in where I state that you can't ignore your 'wrist watch', always giving you a 'time', even for things that is unchanging in themselves. This meaning that there is no way to prove anything, measured over frames of reference', to not having a arrow, that I can see?
I think the equivalence, and the way to define a dimensionality, is the ones I like most, this far :) Doesn't mean that there isn't dimensions, it's just back tracking them to what I think makes most sense from observer dependencies. And that is 'degrees of freedom' defined by the observer.
-
Then we have gravity, in where I'm ignoring our sidereal universe, instead defining it from a point mass. That one fits right in, into a 'back ground' of sorts, that we can reach by scaling.
-
Inertia should be gravity, expressed in accelerations. What is weird with this is what 'motion' becomes, in such a universe? From an idea of 'origins' of locality, gravity should be the 'original concept', inertia coming into existence through acceleration.
-
So a 'motion' is no longer a 'motion'. A relative motion a equivalence to 'being still', and experimentally provable too. A acceleration becoming inertia, becoming a equivalence to gravity. What the he* is motion?
-
All of it defined locally. Proving why I use locality by referring to the way we define 'repeatable experiments'. Always a local definition, also as a result demanding 'constants' to exist, and from that getting to our definition of physics being the same everywhere inside a SpaceTime, that we can communicate.
-
And it's all local. Repeatable experiments proving that SpaceTime use a logic, as differing from 'magic'. Chaos can be a logic, but magic isn't.
-
Which leads us to question how a frame of reference join another, and why they at all co-exist? I really don't know how that can be possible? For lack of better words, it seems like 'magic' :) to me, so far. We need something defining the 'observer dependent mosaic' a SpaceTime becomes from ideas like mine, and others.
-
I have two arguments there. One in which there is no other definition than accepting that a single frame of reference can't exist, at least not experimentally. That one is Relativity.
Another in where we might assume that singular frames of reference do exist, as described by a loop, a string, a geometrical knot, or as a 'quanta/bit'
-
A outside third which then is some sort of projection, holographic or not. Maybe that one can join with any of the other two. A lot of it rests upon your definitions. Which is why I like the concept of 'meaningful information', and defines that to everything obeying 'c'. A entanglement may be information too, but it's not meaningful to us, obeying 'c'.
-
You see, to me 'information' is what I observe. And as I can observe a entanglement it too becomes information. But it's not meaningful to me, in that I can't use it for communicating.
-
Heh, so many post and so little done :)
Ain't that just like life.
-
Local definitions can only be as good as the limits allows it. NIST have put a gravitational time dilation to centimeters, clocks 'ticking' differently depending on gravity. What does such results mean? That there are gravitational time dilations inside my body too? It should be so, and each time I move I must wander from one time dilation to another, add infinitum, as relative earths gravity. So does this make time a illusion? Not really, the problem is how frames of reference interact. Because mine, and yours, local arrow is always there, of a same measure relative oneself, wherever one go.
-
Time dilations should be a result of frames of reference interacting. But my local arrow can't be so, or maybe it can :) It depends on how you define it. If you like an idea of time, or a arrow, as a result of frames of reference focusing at some ideal local point, adapting and becoming your arrow. Then 'time' is a result of frames of reference, and it becomes a 'illusion' of sorts as it then doesn't have a anchor in a constant. But as I define the arrow to 'c' :) well, then I have to redefine 'c' too, don't I? If the local arrow still is equivalent to 'c', and that it will be to all tests possible. You will always find that 'c' is able to split in even chunks of 'time', becoming a clock.
So using this definition 'c' also becomes a variable, adapting the same way as ones local arrow. Heh, this one presumes that you have a 'continuum' similar to how I believe Einstein thought of it, because we're now using 'forces' focusing at wherever you measure, giving you that ideal local clock.
Or I keep 'c' as a constant, and a arrow. Then time dilations still are a result of frames of reference, but that local arrow becomes a background. It depends on what your taste is I would say :) myself I like constants, and find them weirdly fascinating.
-
For the moment, and it's rather late here, I think both will work with a concept of locality. But I still prefer the one where we use constants, becoming a sort of background. Instead of referring to each point in a SpaceTime as a 'equilibrium', focused to present us with a same balance, meaning your arrow equivalent to 'c'. I really need to think some more about this one, don't I :) But it would become a interesting universe if it was so. Symmetries and equivalences defining it, not constants, although you might be able to look at it as possible to describe, from both sides.
What is a constant?
-
what would it make constants as 'c' if it was that way? it would become a expression of a symmetry if you also define it as your arrow. From the 'eye of a God' there would no longer exist a 'c', which I suspect might fit my thinking about there being no 'outside' to this universe, only a 'inside'. Measurably defined through, and by, constants, rules, principles and properties. But that it already is, my definition, even if accepting constants as I usually think of them?
But it would make even more of a local symmetry, if it really was a 'mosaic/equivalence' to 'c', although? It would definitely 'split a SpaceTime' into frames of reference, interacting to give us those constants. I don't know, it's a very tricky idea and I better look it over, after a good nights sleep.
-
What I really mean is that even though we might labor with an idea of 'c' only being a local expression, not existing from 'an eye of a God', it also follows from it that there can't be a 'eye of God'. That's what makes it interesting to me. It becomes a argument for it only existing a 'inside', no 'outside' to it. And in that way a validation of locality, if you follow my thoughts there? Because, without constants, what have you left that's not observer dependent?
Even using those arguments I think I would define 'c' as a constant. Because it's the closest to what I think a constant should be, without a 'container universe'. And it's like mirrors to each other, those two ways to look at it. But it won't work from a container universe.
-
I can't really argue against Einsteins 'continuum'. It's what makes frames of reference interact, isn't it? But it's also a good argument for there not existing a 'outside' to me. So what I think, for now, we got from it is a SpaceTime, as a continuum, without a 'outside'.
Let's see if we can make it weirder :)
-
I wrote this earlier "I can construct three observers in different uniform motion at different velocities, and they all will define two different time dilations per observer. They also will define a different energy which now either is defined to exist inside this continuum 'simultaneously', which I think it has to be defined as, if I want it to be a SpaceTime continuum, or it all becomes a illusion to me
A Higgs field is either a local definition or I should meet a same problem defining what this acceleration is. And that is locality to me. The one place where you can define things, and agree on measurements."
And I won't argue against it. I just want to point out that what we use for defining what I wrote above is the idea of constants. Losing constants makes everything observer dependent, and what will then be our leverage? We know that constants works, 'forces' exist.
'Repeatable experiments' is what becomes physics, and we know it works, it's what makes the Internet exist, amongst other things. But what I stated in my earlier posts can actually, and correctly, be interpreted as there existing no 'repeatable experiments'. Well, If we insist on defining it from a thought up 'outside', what I usually refer to as using 'eyes of a God' :)
But locally defined we have constants, as long as we leave a 'outside' outside of it, eh, sort of..
-
ever thought about democracy? As being where politics should come from?
I'm probably becoming a grumpy old man :) Nowadays I can't have a beer, without starting to get angry. Democracy is simple, at least as I interpret it. It's 'one voice, one vote, everyone equal'. And you can use it on any political suggestion, or decision, to see if it is democratic. Simple, isn't it? And you do know that you can't take anything with you, don't you? Do you find a lot of democracy in your country?
Let me ask you a question, why do you think so many interests, having political and monetary clout, want to 'own' the Internet? And why do you think they tell you they want to make it a 'safe place' for you and your kids? Is your neighborhood a 'safe place'?
No crimes there, is it? No fights? No bad feelings?
Tell me, why do we need a democratic Internet to be sanitized? Because, if you use that mind of yours, do you know anything coming closer to the ideal of democracy, as I defined it, than the Internet?
So, and use that mind again. Why do some groups feel such a overwhelming need of sanitizing a Internet?
Is control power?
-
Been reading a good friend of mine :)
He's always interesting, sometimes hard to follow, but interesting. He's discussing weak experiments, as applied on entanglements. And what he says has a relevance for communication. Even though it obey 'c', to set up a communication protocol, once it is set up it might be used for ftl communication. At least that is what the idea of weak experiments is hoped to realize.
You do it by measuring weakly on related 'relations' to the entanglement, not directly on it as that would break its wave function and lock it into a finalized state. Although when measuring weakly you do have a influence on the entanglement, as it is described in those ideas he takes up. If you now can find a way to make those changes to it on a continuous basis you then have come a first step, to be able to put in, and 'read out', meaningful communication from a entanglement, while still leaving it intact.
It's a thing I've been wondering about before, but now it seems as if there are experiments proving the idea to be valid. I don't know though? What would it make of 'c', as a limit of communication? The protocol/code for it must still travel at 'c' but once you have this protocol and entanglement set up, on both sides, you constantly will break 'c', as being a limit for information.
So information will then after be ftl.
-
If that is correct then the idea I had of any measurement also 'transmitting' a 'energy' as it probes, must be correct. If it is so you transfer 'energy' instantaneously, by probing any entanglement. And that leaves us with the question how the 'energy' at the other end comes to existence. I love that one :) and it makes my head ache terribly.
-
If we accept a four dimensional space, populated with matter and light. Then we define something that I should be able to use the eye of a God to describe. In that universe the 'energy' I instantaneously transfered should become doubled, as I 'break' the wave function. Alternatively you will have to find a way to half it, one half of the probes kinetic energy 'staying' where you actually probe, the other half then expressing itself at the entanglements other 'end'.
Both are as weird, none of them makes sense to me. In the first instance you would 'create' energy from nothing by probing, in the other you should break the physical laws we use.
-
Then again, I don't think you can use an 'eye of an God' on this universe we exist in. And if you define it from locality, using local constants as the ground, creating our impression of four dimensions and a SpaceTime? It's a strange universe we live in.
-
to take it into absurdum. Imagine everything to be entangled. If it is so, then we all become probes, probing each other. Which then means that this universe is creating 'new energy' continuously, assuming the first scenario. Otherwise 'splitting it' in half. Actually the later would make more sense to me then, and also allow your set up entanglement to 'send energy' as you probe it. But it then will assume that what we define as somethings kinetic energy is only half of what it really should be.
As I said, into absurdium :)
=
'We all become probes' should actually be read as 'everything able to interact' becoming probes, btw. But I was thinking of it in terms of your eye 'probing' the light it uses to create a visible universe. And as it 'probes' it also gets 'probed on' by the light itself. and as that light is entangled in this scenario, 'new energy' comes to be at the entanglements other 'end'. And your eye is then also entangled naturally :)
So the probe that you probe with is also instantaneously transferring a 'energy' in such a scenario, not only your entanglement doing it.
-
At least it fits my definition of a observer. A observer should to me be anything able to interact, animate or inanimate, doesn't matter. What matters is that it consist of one, ideally imagined, frame of reference interacting with another. And that makes a frame of reference into a minimalistic definition of a 'observer', in my universe that is :)
-
Decoherence is interesting. It's about how things come to be, solidity, classical physical laws that works on a practical plane. Assume that this is how we find a arrow too. The idea of a arrow comes from a 'constant', a 'time', a value you arrive to by splitting 'c' into Planck scale. That's yours, as well as mine, local definition which when interacting with frames of reference, macroscopically becomes your clock, ticking.
Scales. They make us exist.
-
Now find a way to define how it does this, sending this 'energy'. Doesn't matter for this if it doubles it or half it, or any other definition as long as we agree on that it 'sends' it, instantaneously. Each time it does it either can be represented by weak measurements, or by annihilations of wave functions as you probe. It doesn't really matter to me, because to get to a change of this entanglement you need to involve 'energy used' aka 'probing' no matter how weakly, how else would the entanglement change? But the really interesting part is how it do it, and what those 'paths' might represent?
Gravity?
Weird stuff.
-
Don't know if you noticed it but science is going in a circle, philosophically. It becomes more alike a philosophy of logic for every step we take. Decoherence can be a result of wave functions breaking down or, as I think then, also a result of scaling. If it is a result of scaling something, then you have to look to what parameters increase with scaling, as the possibility of macroscopically defining all possible parameters for a ball. Because that is what differs it, isn't it? From Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
-
You need to see just how weird this ability of 'magnifying' really is, to see why I find scaling so important. To me it becomes its own unique direction, 'degree of freedom', or 'dimension'. Treated that way we can ideally define that direction as being just as far from you everywhere in a universe. And defined that way, just as reachable anywhere. And down there we find entanglements.
-
An Entangled Drama, (http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/an-entangled-drama) a refresher :) and to get our minds working a little, after that one. Try The Early History of Quantum Entanglement, 1905-1935 (http://tam.ung.si/2007/slides/20070828_Howard.pdf) Short and concise..
What is the corner stone of a entanglement is the realization that no matter what of two spins, up or down, I measure. The other 'end' of my entanglement must become the opposite spin. And you have a even probability of your first measurement to be up or down, meaning you can't know until measured. Either this relation is set before a probing, although unknown to the experimenter, or it becomes as a result of you probing. The interesting thing with a weak experiment is that it assume that you can influence a entanglement, then also read its 'other end' without probing.
Which would you choose if that assumption would be correct? The first one, or the second?
-
If you assume a 'entangled universe' also defining it my way, as everything 'probing' everything. Would you then define the complementary spins as a result of probability, or of a hidden parameter set unknown by you.
-
If you define it as a result of a probability, then that probability of complementary spins of individual photons, created in a entanglement ideally becomes a hundred percent.
How is that possible?
-
How about forgetting 'individuality'? Treat a entanglement as a 'spatially elongated' relation? But a whole universe of it?
-
A universe of rules, constants, properties and principles, 'creating' us? And remember that it always is defined locally, this universe.
All those rules are defined locally.
-
How do we get it together? forgetting 'individuality' for this entanglement, yet defining it observer dependently, locally?
-
you have to give up 'space' as a distance traversable in a defined time, I think? It's about a suddenly ill defined 'locality' when described from the view point of a 'spatially instantaneous' entanglement, or outcome, isn't it? :)
so ordinary 'motion' becomes a very weird idea in this entangled universe.
-
And a 'Einsteinian' acceleration becomes even weirder, as it is applicable to both Earth and a uniformly constantly accelerating rocket. The equivalence principle.
-
Gravity as accelerations stressing entanglements? But what about Earths gravity? uniform motion being no motion at all, locally defined. Matter then also must stress the entanglements if we were to argue such a relation.
-
all frames of reference are equivalent, ideally and locally defined. We then scale 'upwards' from one frame, now finding a multitude of frames, interacting with my local definition(s), presenting me with time dilations and Lorentz contractions. We also find inertia and gravity.
-
You could see a entanglement as something 'time less' maybe? If you like, representing a scale where a arrow disappear.
-
From locality and a arrow disappearing, everything must be entangled. As it seems to me there can be no less than a total equivalence 'down there' at that place where distance disappear. Distance needs a arrow, and dimensions and degrees of freedom too. Without a arrow there is no degree of freedom.
So scaling?
How does it exist?
-
Or maybe that's not correct, let us assume a equivalent ground at some minimalistic scale. A entanglement can be described as two 'separate' photons, each one existing in a indeterminate superposition as long as there is no measurement done. After measuring one you 'force' the superposition(s) to fall out in a definite outcome, characterized by those photons giving us a opposite spin. You break, or collapse, the wave function describing them, and the opposite spin we see is a result of conservation laws. In this case conservation law of angular momentum. A symmetry if you like.
so what is indeterminacy? Maybe we should define it as indeterminacy when a arrow disappear?
-
This one is a pleasantly nice read Entanglement: From the information philosopher. (http://www.informationphilosopher.com/problems/entanglement/)
You read this one you start to see.
-
You can think of it this way. A original photon is indeterministic, neither 'up' or 'down', existing in a indefinite state until measured. You pass it through a beam splitter, in where it gets split into two photons, each one of half the energy of 'its origin'. Both assumed to be in a same indeterministic state as we have no measurements made. The important point is that they both origin from this original 'indeterministic' photon, getting split, and to keep the equilibrium their spins now has to take themselves out, and so be found to be opposite. From such a point of view those two photons still are 'one original', just expressing itself localized differently spatially defined.
-
So, 'meaningful information'? Does it obey 'c', or does it not? Until I see a experiment proving the concept of sending meaningful information through a entanglement I will expect what's meaningful to obey 'c'. Which then also either makes the idea of 'new energy' transfered through you probing a entanglement wrong, or defines 'energy' as being non meaningful information.
-
The same idea that define 'c' as a constant, same for all of us measuring from a uniform motion, is also the very reason to why we get time dilations and Lorentz contractions. What parameters differing them is mass, speed, 'energy density', and those they acquire through frames of reference interacting, relative locally measured constants.
-
How about this, define the universe as a clock, one dimensional :) Or, if you prefer (I do, I do:) having one degree of freedom to 'vibrate in'. That's where your local constants, as 'c', comes from. One degree of freedom does not define what this degree is 'free' in, and that one seems better to me than assuming 'preexisting dimensions', as some original in where things 'exist'.
Becoming a 'field' through frames of reference interacting, if you like. Then that is our 'global definition' of what makes 'repeatable experiments' come true. Still local though
-
Let's get back to entanglements. Injections of energy 'teleported' to another location. It has to be wrong, because if you destroy one 'side', the logical conclusion if it was right would be that the other side should be destroyed too, unless we assume some restrictions. Another way to use this example would then be to consider, if it is wrong, what it says about hidden parameters. If it is so that you by weak experiments on one can influence both, without destroying the entanglement, at the same time as we assume that injecting energy into one (measuring) does not carry over to the other? Weak experiments as an idea for communicating 'instantly' becomes questionable here, wouldn't you agree?
And what does it say about the possibility of there being a hidden parameter?
-
This is using 'energy' as some minimalistic common nominator in all transformations. Also assuming that change costs.
-
One more point to it. Assuming that it is right, and that you can inject energy, actually presumes a hidden parameter too, doesn't it? As it won't matter 'how' we destroy the original entanglement, the other 'side' of it must still exist, until measured. So if you want to 'inject energy' you now have to define why it won't destroy both sides. On the other hand, if the entanglement indeed are(is:) one entity, as is presumed by me, then? Forgot what I thought :) Getting senile here.
-
Ah yes, maybe this? If we want it to be a result of hidden parameters, and we want, if we want to be able to inject energy in it, then we have to consider how those limits can come to be. It becomes some weird sort of 'degrees of freedom' too? To me that is :) Anything that express itself one unique way, not definable any other way, has somehow a unique degree of freedom to me. As not allowing the entanglement to disappear, by you measuring and so injecting a energy in it. That then craves a definition for why.
-
The hidden parameter, in my universe, would then be rules, constants, properties and principles. The question becomes if you can take it any further than that? Why are there rules? How can 'spin' exist (QM). Why doesn't measuring a entanglement destroy 'both ends' of it. Does the rules consist of definite, arbitrarily set up, limits? Or are they expressions of something more fundamental, creating them?
-
You might say that I'm questioning what indeterminism mean.
-
Can you see how I think there? If 'weak experiments' are possible to influence a entanglement, allowing communication 'ftl'. Then 'injecting energy' should be possible too. If it is not, although the first still works we need to redefine what we mean by 'energy'. And that somehow splits this idea of 'energy' into two domains. One in where you can influence by weak experiments, another in where your measuring doesn't influence any 'energy levels' for the other end at all.
-
alternatively it becomes a question of hidden parameters. On the whole I very much doubt this possibility of redefining a entanglements spin without collapsing it, then again, I don't know.
-
There exist entanglement swapping though. Although that one is a very tough one to digest. "Taking a joint measurement on one photon in each pair (A1 and B1), these photons fall into an entangled state." Why? Do you by measuring then force them into a same spin?
Let's test the logic.
Assume that the universe consist of entanglements. Then we should have a 50/50 probability of spins up, and spins down, as 'it all' is entangled. I can now take any two of those incalculable entanglements in the universe and by forcing them into a same state by my measurement tell you that I now have entangled photons that never 'meet each other', as in first getting split by a beam splitter. I can further create experiments in where one of the original pairs photons, is 'gone', re-entangling the other with another pair through my measurement simultaneously destroying and measuring the first one.
Is the logic satisfying to you?
-
It's not to me, done this way there is nothing strange about it. What we know of a entanglement is that the subsequent measurement should be opposite the first, do you agree? If the first is 'spin up' the second in a entangled pair must be 'spin down'. If it isn't your entanglement is a failure, right :)
Heh.
That's a rule. And that rule allows what I wrote above to be true, The measurements do not 'teleport' any spins, although if you can force a 'known before' spin on a one part of a entanglement, then by necessity you have also made a measurement. To have it both ways, proclaiming that the entanglement is in a indeterministic 'unknowable state', before measured, at the same time proclaiming that I can force it into a known state without measuring, lack the most fundamental logic necessary to me.
-
The point is simple. Either you can know a entanglements spin, or you can't. I say you can't, not without measuring. And if it is so then it won't matter how many generations of photons I use. And any time I make that measurement, destroying one side of that entanglement, 'collapsing the superimposed wave function', it's a measurement made, locking the other side. Because that is what defines a indeterministic state, that you do not know, until measuring. The other way, described by weak measurements, is to assume that there is some threshold for collapsing it, and that as long as I stay under it I can both eat the cake and keep it.
But it's not logic.
Indeterministic states that are known are no longer indeterministic.
-
The second question is, does this matter? If now the universe is entangled or not? Well, it should if it can be used to send 'meaningful information' shouldn't it? That's what we use 'c' as a limit for, separating stuff that is usable from non usable. A entangled universe with the ability to communicate meaningful information would be a new thing. And thinking of it that way, the concept of injecting energy through your measurement, collapsing its wave function, do state something to me as it doesn't (collapse)/annihilate all of it, just the part you measure on.
=
This one is possible to take into absurdum too. You just need to imagine a universe of entanglements, obeying the principle of 'weak measurements'. What you now are left with is a universe probing itself constantly, and depending on how you define it, also 'changing' the other sides spin to fit whatever spin of the last probe, constantly. And as nothing then is 'indeterministic', as we just need a weak experiment to prove what spin there is? Plus that there will be nothing left indeterministic as this situation continuously involve both 'parts' in a entanglement, probing, and getting probed at the same time.
-
Look at it this way. A field is communication, but what makes it useful to us is 'c'. 'c' also define your arrow, aka clock. When you communicate useful information then that is the limit for it, as I expect. So the field may use entanglements, but not for constructs we find meaningful. The type of information using information carriers belongs at and under 'c'. It's a result of the regime we exist in, the SpaceTime we find.
-
It's hard for me to pinpoint what information really mean. Is your thoughts information? If it's not, why write them down? Does it matter what you think? Another example is that equation written on a cube of ice. Was it information, and where did it go as it melted? We used to use verbal recitations, and books, in digital format nowadays to store information, we use schools to share it with new generations. And it changes the world we live in. Is thoughts useful information?
-
We are information carriers too, aren't we.
-
Maybe the universe is a quantum entity. Maybe all information existing already is stored, us mining it under out local arrow. If it is so, would that give us a reason to exist? You as a individual is a information carrier in several senses, biologically, information wise as from your thoughts and experiences, all of it has to be counted in.
Why would the universe do it this way, if all the information already exist?
-
What would venture into the unknown mean :)
-
A free will, is that what HUP is? A wider description would be indeterminacy. And to get to a outcome from those we need a observable. those make outcomes. What defines those outcomes? We need a arrow stringing outcomes up, don't we? I think we do. How about free will then? Do we need that?
-
Is thoughts useful information?
The simplest way to define information is the equation. At it's basic level, all information can be expressed with math. If we ask the question; "Are thoughts useful information?", one could say yes if they understand the thought process to be mathematical in nature. Our minds are computing devices and computers define reality using the logic of math.
In my opinion, thoughts are useful in that they are constructs in mathematical logic.
-
Maybe.
If I give you a circle and a pen, and tell you to draw one line, from its center to its circumference, is that finished product you deliver a example of free will? After all, there's a lot of choices of how to draw that line inside the circle.
-
A free will, is that what HUP is? A wider description would be indeterminacy. And to get to a outcome from those we need a observable. those make outcomes. What defines those outcomes? We need a arrow stringing outcomes up, don't we? I think we do. How about free will then? Do we need that?
My own feelings about free will are that it is very limited indeed.
-
I would probably want to define it as logic being what we build from, and what creates our mathematics. That, and experience (repeatable experiments). All of it following a linear universe, meaning ones local arrow. I don't know Ethos, as with so many other things free will becomes a question from where you describe it. From a quantum entity's view there should be no 'new information' as all information already is stored in it. From a individual point of view, under a arrow, every new instant brings you to a place new and unique for you. And if we to that individual add the possibility of making choices then those choices must matter.
-
And if we to that individual add the possibility of making choices then those choices must matter.
One must also ask themselves, how these choices are made. The brain is a chemical computer and we view our decisions as personal and of choice. But if that is true, we must at some level be controlling the function of the brain from somewhere outside of it's realm. If free will is determined from somewhere outside the mind, where would that be?
I believe the chemical processes in the brain are controlled there and free will is an illusion constructed by the brain to express it's sovereignty over the material world. This view is, of course, a bit far out there but one must concede the purely chemical nature of the mind. If not, then we are forced into the spiritual realm of our reality and that view can't be dealt with scientifically.
-
:)
Everything is more, or less, possible Ethos. Myself I prefer a universe, in wherever you are, the distance to the microscopic is the same, down there finding Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and indeterminacy, up here, individual choices.
Let's turn it around. How about a magical universe. No laws, no logic. Nothing, more than choices. Those choices becoming 'laws' that exist 'momentarily'. And with no arrow under which to find linear outcomes. Would that then be a 'ideal free will'?
What I'm asking is what do we need to be able to define examples of what free will is?
-
:)
Everything is more, or less, possible Ethos. Myself I prefer a universe, in wherever you are, the distance to the microscopic is the same, down there finding Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and indeterminacy, up here, individual choices.
Let's turn it around. How about a magical universe. No laws, no logic. Nothing, more than choices. Those choices becoming 'laws' that exist 'momentarily'. And with no arrow under which to find linear outcomes. Would that then be a 'ideal free will'?
What I'm asking is what do we need to be able to define examples of what free will is?
Actually yor_on, I have a great deal of respect for you my friend. I've been watching this thread for some time now and have recognized the depth of thought you've been applying to it. I suppose if I were asked on what level I agree with your ideas, I would place that percentage at around 98 per cent. The other 2 per cent would have to placed there because I'm rather unsure about many things myself. In any case, I do like the way you think and am convinced that you are sincere about the search for truth. And truth for many of our cookie cutter scientists seems to be only what they feel comfortable with when rubbing elbows with their peers.
My point about free will is really focused on the issue of the spiritual. And we both know that such a topic is not very welcome here at NSF. In all truth, contemporary science has evolved to a point now where it is moving very close to the boundary lying very close to the spiritual. Take quantum mechanics for an example. How are we expected to believe in the old concept of cause and effect when quantum interactions defy the logic. Maybe we've reached the limit of logical science and find ourselves moving ever closer to the mystical explanations for reality? What ever the future holds for rational explanations about reality, it appears to be far from the logical view science used to hold.
-
I think it's a question that one need to define too Ethos. After all, it's information. The 'spiritual point' is no different from any other question of information to me. We all know, to some degree, that we're going to die. And it would be a strange individual that never have wondered about what it means. That you disappear? All experience gone? Never to be retrieved unless it's been stored for later generations? And then we have society, living its own 'life', consisting of us individuals. The individual disappear but I think we have to presume that society continue to exist even without us. To do otherwise would draw the continuum very near a magical expression, in where I become all there is. But it's a hard thing to quantify, and even harder to define what importance my existence have. I guess that's where from some of the doubts about 'free will' comes too, looking around you and seeing that things and ideas somehow refuse change, no matter how wrong one might find the present situation. But it has changed, and we are evolving. And the values we are choosing are 'spiritual' as I see it, belonging to ethics and questions about what a civilized society should consist of. People often use behavioral science today, also wanting to believe that it's solely logic that defines it. But I would say that those developing experiments, those days, have defined their goals ethically, although perhaps not consciously. It comes down to ethics to me.
-
Better say, 'most of those developing experiments, those days, have defined their goals ethically, although perhaps not consciously." The ministry of defense for example may have different goals and values than a university. It's about being conscious, and making choices to me, adapting to what we are. But we're evolving, although ever so slowly.
-
Ever wondered how a inflation can be ftl? That depends on your definitions, we only have a 'inside' from where we can measure. Doing so ftl becomes very strange if we look at it from action and reaction, the idea of 'information carriers' propagating in a space. Exchange it for a SpaceTime in where 'information carriers' also becomes our dimensions, not meaning that what's outside of this definition isn't here, instead define those as unmeasurable and we might get an idea of how SpaceTime both can become a 'instant symmetry break' as well as having a inflation 'faster than the speed of light in a vacuum'. If SpaceTime is a 'regime', then that regime we can measure is just one part of it.
-
And another thing, this indeterminism we see at a quantum level, does it disappear at a macroscopic level? Also a question of how you define it. If we assume action and reaction for it, as 'information carriers' interacting from a quantum level up to our macroscopic 'reality', then there is no 'split' between the quantum mechanical behavior and the macroscopic. We're still 'indeterministic' :)
-
Can you see why scaling is weird, seen through my eyes? Ones ideas of distances becomes strange from a view in where the distance always is the same, equivalent, when it comes to scaling. A 'dimension' of its own, well sort of :) equivalent in 'distance' everywhere.
-
Think of it as QM surface of sorts, on which a SpaceTime becomes projected. And us as something created together with this SpaceTime, measuring it the only way we can, 'inside' as defined by its 'information carriers'. That does not define a outside, because it does not give 'dimensions' a objective existence, except as measured from that inside.
=
As locally measured, from that inside, is more correct. And why we then find a Lorentz contraction and a complementary time dilation is also a result information carriers, obeying 'c'. It's important to understand where the limits come from, and for me that is 'c'. If there is a limit that is inexplainable by itself, then 'c' got to be it.
-
Probably it ('c' and SpaceTime) is more explainable from an idea of symmetries? But a symmetry between what is measurable and what is not also seem to become a circular argument, as a cat chasing its own tail. Each side explaining the other. You might say that this kind of explanation has no beginning, and no end. A new sort of thinking to us, as we're used to measure in time, using a local arrow.
-
But to get to a consistency for that SpaceTime projection we need to assume a 'equivalence' of 'QM surface'. Laws, properties, rules, constants all being equivalent in that origin. We do not need to assume that what we find to be a distance must have its exact counterpart in that minuscule milieu though. That's also why I sometime think of it as a cone, with its point resting on this absolute QM surface, defining SpaceTime properties and laws. After all, distance is a local definition even macroscopically.
-
Alternatively one could assume it to be a balance, dynamically changing. But that should then also crave a arrow existing on both 'sides', as I think. Can't see how to make it work otherwise? What I mean is that if a arrow disappear, locally defined, at some QM scale then there is no 'linear time' to discuss from a symmetry. Only as measured inside SpaceTime. And the problem is also that a assumption of our arrow being a macroscopic phenomena is very hard to proof, as all experiments we can do will use a local arrow (the experimenters), no matter what scale we measure on.
What I'm trying to get to is that locally defined there is no 'size' to that scale where QM exist. We define size from distance, we define distance from our ruler, as measured in time. Without a arrow a distance becomes a meaningless definition.
-
If you think of it you must find just as me that the arrow is no illusion. But also that it is a local definition. The next step is then to ask yourself if there is a proof for all 'local arrows' being of a same origin. And that we have in joining frames of reference, superimposing them. There one arrow will be the exact same as the other. So yes, all arrows are locally equivalent. And the step after is to ask yourself, equivalent to what? and there you will find 'c'. This is assuming that 'c' will be consistent in a acceleration too, which is the view I have. But I don't need to have it, as long as I can prove a 'balance' between aging, the arrow, and acceleration, relative aging, the arrow, and uniform motion. So you're free to define it any which way, but the most consistent is to give 'c' the status of a local constant through all motion, and your local arrow a equivalence to 'c'.
-
But that then defines a relationship that seems unchanging, doesn't it? 'c' and your local arrow (aging) being equivalent? Where then does a twin experiment come from? Why do the twins find a different biological age? Would then 'c' have to change as I move?
Not locally defined.
And that is the only way I can see to define it, practically and experimentally. Puts an awful lot of emphasis on local definitions, don't you agree? As compared to the older 'global definitions' we're used too. As one universe of one unchanging time ticking away, containing us all. Here it all becomes a local reality.
But where this local reality is shared, as in 'repeatable experiments', we now can find a new definition of what 'global' should mean.
-
So yes, we're definitively 'indeterministic' :) Think of it, the 'global definition' is actually existing in a collective mind space, although the repeatable experiments we do to prove that 'global reality' does not, all made locally. But, it is also so that your measurements of the universe you exist in have a fit to my definition, as when using Lorentz transformations. But assuming time dilation and Lorentz contractions at uniform motion too, there is no 'frame of reference' more true than another. What gives us a minimalistic common nominator is actually the idea of superimposing 'frames of reference', finding them to become 'one same frame'. And, as I think of it then, when using scaling.
-
So, what do we need to get to 'meaningful information'?
'c'
equivalent to
A arrow.
You're free to exchange those two any way you like, they are each others mirrors.
-
You need that arrow, but does it have to be 'c'?
Well, assume a equivalence locally between 'c' and your local arrow. But then also assume that there was no possibility of superimposing one frame of reference on another, finding them becoming equivalent. Now translate this into Lorentz transformations becoming impossible too. Then apply this on a Earth. That Earth can't exist, there would be no informations carriers keeping to any logic anymore. 'c' wouldn't be there, neither would it be possible to agree on a local arrow. And 'repeatable experiments' would lose all foundations.
In short, we've now created a magical universe.
=
heh, rereading myself I got confused :) Hope it makes more sense this time.
-
The universe has a logic, it is local. But it is also subtly 'global' in that repeatable experiments do exist, and that we can agree on them. They are the foundation of physics. But the 'global definition' of a SpaceTime is in fact existing in our minds, not as a objective reality. What is my reality, is what I measure.
-
We can break down 'does it need to be 'c' ' into, yes, at least it need to be something equivalent to other definitions of what they call 'c', able to superimpose. It also need to present us with a even 'speed', to make it into a SpaceTime. What we then define that speed as is up to each one of us, although we have agreed on common definitions.
-
Then there is another thing. A universe built from connections, or if you like, Dimensions built from connections aka interactions, should be background independent. Same as there should be no 'outside' to it. You need a objective definition of 'dimensions' to reach to a 'outside'. Loops seem to define it similarly, as if the loops themselves create the universe we measure on. The difference between the older idea of time being a illusion here being that I take the local arrow very seriously, and give it a equivalence to all other locally measured arrows, connecting it to 'c'
-
One way to describe it would be to say that this universe works on two planes. One is the local, your local reality. There we find what makes repeatable experiments exist, the way every point in this universe, locally defined, present you with a arrow and 'c'. 'c' is the information carriers between the particles making you up, and the information carriers enabling what I call meaningful or useful information between all sorts of particles. The other 'plane' (find no better word for it) is the one allowing one frame of reference to communicate with another, aka interactions. So instead of four dimensions, or adding to it depending on view, we find those two expressions coexisting, creating a universe. The local, and then something allowing local expressions to interact. That's what makes the dimensions we find, as I think. Freeing yourself from the idea of four 'objectively (globally agreeable on) existing' dimensions, allows you to look at scaling differently. It also allows for the idea that a local speed increase indeed can shrink a universe, not only shorten the time it takes you from A to B, but shrink it, locally measured.
-
Because, and here I'm getting into very deep waters :) It's not 'energy', it's information. If it was a question of energy I see no way your local speed increase should be able to shrink a universe.
-
Yeah I know, I use a lot of strange words. I'm not really interested in your wealth, that's a human joke. And I have dreams :) I'm sure you have it too. If you didn't you wouldn't bother to read this. Life is strange. And I'm finding that I like poetry too :) Not sure what is wrong with me. I mean, we're sheep's, right? Leaded by the Shepard into oblivion. The Shepard is the guy next to you, with a big mouth filled with certainty, telling you how 'it works'. F** him.
=
Ok I know. My English sux. Lead, not 'Leaded' :)
On the other tentacle, maybe it's middle English, belonging to the ages when we were free.
-
There is more to life than money. There's justice, not a popular subject. There's love, also a weird idea. And there's trust. Today people seem to find a joy in abusing trust, and it's easy. We can all do it, nothing especially hard about fu*'ng someone up. I can do it, and so can you. Those that don't are the heroes of this age, in my eyes at last.
-
Can you see what a injustice we're doing each other? Wanting to become more and more. the joke of the bible, 'populate the world'. And such a lot of us that never use their minds, unless it gives you that boost. It's a insult to them, and to us.
-
Justice, does it exist?
Don't know. Then again, I use my mind, and I'm willing to see. It's nothing special about using your mind, but people tend to get bothered if you open your mouth :)
-
Not locally defined.
And that is the only way I can see to define it, practically and experimentally. Puts an awful lot of emphasis on local definitions, don't you agree?
I do agree, and if we refine the idea of local definitions, we must move to the quantum realm. Nothing is more local than the Planck length, associated with Planck time. This of course is all determined by c, without this speed limit, these basic units would not have any significance at all.
But there remains one really important question for me about c. What is it about the nature of the cosmos that determines this speed limit? It's not about the energy involved because photons are produced with many variations of energies. There must exist a medium thru which the photon moves that limits it's speed. I suppose one could surmise that it could be the universal field but exactly what do we mean when we use this term; "Universal field" There are many different magnetic and electrical fields in space that vary to an extreme degree thru which light passes and c still remains constant in the vacuum.
If we remove all dust and gas, and all magnetic and electrical fields, light still passes thru the vacuum at c. In final analysis, it's the universal vacuum field that determines the speed of light. I think we need to uncover the true nature of this medium before we can truly understand c. When we do, I believe it will answer many questions about reality that remain hidden to us even yet.
-
It's nothing special about using your mind, but people tend to get bothered if you open your mouth :)
I like that quote yor_on, I must try and remember it.
-
Thanks Ethos :)
We're all here together, and we communicate. That's the really interesting thing about Internet, and the very thing those of small minds want to discredit.
-
As for a medium Ethos? I don't know, I like to think of it as a game. The game is not about breaking the 'barriers' of physics, although that is a very essential part of it. It's about evolving into what we can be. And we're not trustful, are we? As a species we're defining things from our self interests. Then we try to see a pattern that explains the way we allow our interchanging self-interests to sway us :)
Well, maybe 'enlightened' behaviorism is one way, but in the end we're all living for love. Love of ourselves, and others.
-
Let's make it easy. There is only two people left on this Earth, standing on a garbage heap, one dies the other says "I win". Or we have two people, both remembering loved ones, none of them wanting to be the last on a garbage heap.
-
As for the physics you're perfectly correct. I'm using Planck scale for defining my thoughts. It's nothing special with Planck scale, although the mathematics we use breaks down around there, as I understands it. In a way you could use any limit you like. It's more about the limit, and assuming that where we meet it something different steps in. You could assume that 'time' is able to broken down in ever smaller pieces, never ending too. But I don't, although I differ between the idea, or 'property' of time, and a arrow. The property needs to be there.
-
In a way it will seem as a 'bit' universe. discrete bits of 'time' creating a arrow. But 'time' becomes my property :) and that one you can't split. It's just a property making a local arrow able to exist. In a universe like mine the bigger mystery, at least as I think, is how those local representations can interact. This as I assume that it is those interactions that will define our dimensions. The other way might be to presume dimensions able to exist on their own, no interactions/connections needed. But it's not what I see.
-
Another way to see it might be to think of it in forms of outcomes. Then 'time' is what doesn't use a outcome, the arrow we live in will though. That's what I mean by properties, 'laws' and rules, becoming a background for the ticking universe we live in. And I think it's easier to think of that as if we have a symmetry with something that we can't measure on. Us being a part of that, dependent on it. A symmetry break, defined by the breaks origin. And as I can't use a arrow there, then this symmetry break we live in should constantly be 'happening', as well as being 'gone' too. Outcomes define the arrow.
-
Looking at it that way the universe we live in becomes one, set or defined through probability, possibly. It has a probability of existing, amongst any other uncountable amount of universes you ever can imagine. Each probability setting its own limits, defining what is possible 'inside' it, and nothing I see now hindering those probabilities from 'co-existing'. The only thing I'm assuming for this is that there is a logic existing, as some origin.
-
I think we can let them co-exist if one define dimensions my way? The distances we measure on are valid inside, although that 'inside' becomes something different without a arrow defining it.
-
Let's take a look on what a background dependence may be.
"Background-independence is a loosely defined property of a theory of physics. Roughly speaking, it limits the number of mathematical structures used to describe space and time that are put in place "by hand". Instead, these structures are the result of dynamical equations, such as Einstein field equations, so that one can determine from first principles what form they should take. Since the form of the metric determines the result of calculations, a theory with background independence is more predictive than a theory without it, since the theory requires fewer inputs to make its predictions. This is analogous to desiring fewer free parameters in a fundamental theory. So background-independence can be seen as extending the mathematical objects that should be predicted from theory to include not just the parameters, but also geometrical structures."
But, can there be a dynamic structure that 'solves itself', without a cause? Yes, and no. We use constants for defining what is our common origin. Those are constant properties, principles, laws and rules, defining every point in a SpaceTime. Without them we get another 'physics' where nothing is true, everything a 'locally valid solution' but not joining it into a 'common SpaceTime', in short a 'magical universe'. You need something, that will join this SpaceTime. And then we have measurements.
My clearly defined measurement is what defines the reality around me, when we find us agreeing on them we finally get to repeatable experiments. But to me it's a 'sandbox of logic', 'inside' of which we find those constants rules etc etc. You can either choose to imagine dimensions as something existing in their own right. A 'commonly same global' sandbox', then also able to exist without interactions, aka connections, needed. Or you can do as I'm trying and define dimensions, aka SpaceTime, as a result of interactions (connections).
But there is a 'background' as I think, although of a very weird sort. I think I would like to call it 'information, constants, principles, rules, physical laws.. Joining a local definition of a SpaceTime into a common. Repeatable experiments.
-
All of those have a common origin, and we find it when scaling.
-
So what makes our universe can be described as a 'dimension less' point, containing all information needed for the reality I find.
=
Eh, that's a strictly local definition though :)
The mystery to me, is how to get to this 'globally agreed on, commonly same' SpaceTime we expect us all to exist in. Because we do.
-
What joins it is interactions, regulated by information carriers. And that is 'c', locally defined.
-
But in my universe the only correct definition is the local. I won't see the universe 'die', just by imagining my self at a event horizon, will I? The local is the correct one for me, then there is something more, the way it seamlessly join into the universe we all agree on, so we need a principle for how a strictly local definition can co-exist with another, split by Lorentz contraction and arrow. Because without this no universe would be here.
-
And that principle is best described by repeatable experiments, and those constants.
-
If you assume that a Lorentz contraction is complementary to a time dilation, then you get to a 'fractured' reality. Not only that 'illusionary time', but 'illusionary distances' too. And we can prove time dilations, here and now.
-
So how big is that local anchor of 'reality', that defines your arrow, and 'distance'?
Dimension less?
Sure, why not? Alternatively, using Planck scale, defining you, as well as disappearing, at that scale where light is defined to take one 'Planck step' in one 'Planck time'. At that scale, if we define it this way, mathematics breaks down and 'light' stops 'propagating'. One step is no step at all as I see it, it's just a instant unmoving.
-
What this mean is that the arrow is a result of frames of reference communicating.
-
But it needs a arrow to communicate, doesn't it :)
A cat chasing its tail.
-
If there exist a principle for explaining this, we have to look for it outside our arrow. And we have to question dimensions.
-
It's a strange universe. Maybe it is a universe of information, forcing a measurably local, as well as commonly agreed on global, reality. I don't think it is 'walled in' though, unless you're describing it from a 'inside', in which case it must be.
-
'Walled in' is referring to the limits that defines it, not if there is a physical wall defining it. It's perfectly acceptable to go out to the left, to then come in to the right, seamlessly, in such a universe. What decides it is connections.
-
But it's not 'magical', it has laws, properties and rules. There's a logic to it.
-
There is one other possibility, assuming a whole universe, acting on each point of itself. The 'focus' of a whole universe, defined in each point, a sort of 'Mach'ian universe. But, as long as we agree on that we can super impose frames of reference on another, finding them absolutely equivalent, we still will find constants.
-
The local definition is the simpler one though. Assuming a universe acting in a 'Mach'ian fashion does nothing for explaining where it comes from.
-
It's rather possible, to me that is :) that the 'Mach'ian point of view can come to be from local principles also. I'm using scales for it, assuming that there is a equivalence at some very small scale, but that doesn't explain the differences, as time dilations and Lorentz contractions, and so 'c'. It's that principle I would like to see, the one defining how frames of reference can 'co-exist', creating a SpaceTime.
-
You might say I want to do away with dimensions :) but keep degrees of freedom. This makes little sense from where we normally observe objects. They all have dimensions that we can measure and feel, and as they are objects they also have clearly defined limits. But going down to a very small scale this isn't as clear as it becomes macroscopically, down there everything smears out. What differs might be what we call a vacuum, a perfect vacuum should stay a vacuum no matter your magnification. Any way, it's easy to see why we think of dimensions the way we do.
-
So what would a degree of freedom be? Only the way we can find it to 'move' spatially? Or is there more ideas to include in it?
"Almost by accident in the mid 1970s, theorists realized that they could obtain a quantum gravity theory by postulating that the fundamental building blocks of nature are not point particles, a traditional notion that goes back at least as far as the ancient Greeks, but instead are tiny strands of string. These strings are not simply a smaller version of, say, our shoelaces. Rather, they are geometrical objects that represent a fundamentally different way of thinking about matter. This family of theories grew out of the physics of the strong interactions. In these theories, two quarks interacting strongly are connected by a stream of carriers of the strong force, which forms a "flux tube." The potential energy between the two quarks, therefore, grows linearly with the distance between the quarks" from http://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=4&secNum=3
Now, what is the degree of freedom for this one, if it is correct?
-
Well, I would like to add the idea of there being measurable, and non measurable degrees of freedom. With a addendum of not using dimensions for describing it. Dimensions is a archetype to me, it's about 'limits'. Well, I don't think there are any 'limits', probabilities sure, 'insides' too. But not 'dimensional sand boxes' containing us, with a 'outside'.
-
We define dimensions from a inside, assuming that we can have more, unmeasurable 'insides', coexisting, which I'm afraid I'm doing here, for now and this :) Also defining 'them' from some probability of existing, as measured from some 'inside'. Although, don't ask me to define how this 'probability' comes to be though. I'm just making a presumption of probability being the most correct way to describe it, just as I like to think of it as properties, principles, rules, creating those SpaceTimes. It makes for a very interesting universe at least :)
-
And now we stop light from 'propagating' too.
-
But let's keep logic, and a arrow for it. you need both. If I would presume a logic unnecessary, I also would invalidate the need for a arrow. Because 'c' gives us a logic.
-
A strictly local logic naturally, but one that we all can, and must, agree on. Without there are no repeatable experiments possible. And as I think of 'c', locally measured, as being my arrow, it narrows it down, scale-wise, doesn't it?
-
So we stopped light from propagating. Now, where are those dimensions? Use my definition of locality and define them from that, I don't think you can.
-
I can't do it any way. I can still find degrees of freedom though. And connections. Also called 'frames of reference', and to my eyes those are questions about scales, and the question interesting there is naturally the question if one 'frame of reference' exists? Does it? It must, if we're referring to the idea of ones local clock and ruler. Is that then a 'bit'?
-
I can relate the idea of bits to a sheet, a 'plane' of some sort. Maybe we could call that a dimension if it wasn't for the fact that, at this extremely small local scale, the 'bit' might exist, in fact a 'ideal plane' to me, 'time' as something ('c') 'propagating' and so 'ticking' should disappear. Without a arrow, how do you measure?
-
To measure locally at a extremely small scale you need to free yourself from your 'local clock' to fit my ideas of scaling. It can't be there as I see it. You would in fact need to superimpose yourself, the 'observer', on the observed. and doing so? Will there be a local arrow?
Your local arrow always exist as a macroscopic local complement to what you observe, we have no other way of defining it that I can see. But assuming a frame of reference to exist, magnified into a ideal configuration, you must accept it to be what defines that local clock you use to measure with.
-
Weird isn't it? What makes that clock 'tick', doesn't 'tick' at all, ideally defined? So why do we think it 'ticks'? Because it does.
-
to see my ideal definition you just need to make 'c' equivalent to a clock, ticking away as a locally even and constant speed. Then assume that there is a limit to how far we can spit light into even chunks. That limit, or scale, at where light no longer is found to propagate is my definition of a frame of reference.
-
and that frame of reference is the closest I can get to a 'bit'. It does not state that 'reality' stops there, just that the physics we have should break down, as I presume. and Plack scale is a very nice foundation for it.
-
And there I see it as you have a 'reality' in where light does not 'propagate', co-existing with your macroscopic reality. Neither one lying. All a matter of scales.
-
So what do I mean? Without a arrow, where is the logic? Heh :)
I did say "If I would presume a logic unnecessary, I also would invalidate the need for a arrow. Because 'c' gives us a logic."
Yep, but I can still presume a logic without a arrow. That one is possible, but the one in where we assume there to be no logic, and so no need for a arrow, our 'magical universe', shouldn't be possible.
I mean, If it would be, I most definitely will arrive to a monumental headache.
-
So what do we need for a universe, at all scales?
A arrow?
Not as I think. We may not need 'action and reaction' but we do need a logic, that makes it explainable. Changes is what define us macroscopically, but considering my view, we're also 'time less'.
-
Well, I'm sure I've told I'm weird :)
-
It's like you have a canvas on which a 'SpaceTime' builds itself, or get filled, with 'information'. The information uses constants as 'c', adding properties and principles, to join that information into a useful linearly describable universe. But I think we do need to presume principles for it, as chaos mathematics for example, entropy? It's a universe using information, not dimensions, and it goes from simplicity to complexity. The 'degrees of freedom' I think of those days seems more than spatial to me
-
You can also think of it as a symmetry between the measurable and the not-measurable. The not-measurable is 'one frame of reference' in where you are forced to superimpose the observer on the observed. We can't do that, we always have a local clock. The symmetry is the 'universe' to me :) and we're the ones confirming its existence. Well, you might prefer some less mystical description, but to me the last question becomes 'what's the use of it'?
The universe observes itself.
-
And if you accept the idea of information being what the universe consists of, organizing itself into ever more complex patterns, you better accept ethics.
-
Because what we ultimately becomes in such a universe is, as I think, a question of our ethics.
-
But that arrow then, where does it come from? Well, I see it as coming from 'c'. And 'c' is the distance measured in time that light 'propagates' in a vacuum. Around 300 000 km per second. And all agreeable on for us all, locally measured. To propagate it must cross those frames of reference I'm discussing as 'local bits'. So we need frames of reference communicating, and behind that a principle. 'c' is what makes it happen but the principle, looked at from just one frame of reference, needs to exist there too. So 'time' is a local property, in my universe that is :) with a arrow becoming a result of frames of reference interacting.
-
To assume it otherwise would to me crave a magical universe, one without logic. Frames of reference exist measurably, although they becomes a ideal definition as you scrutinize their 'location'. We measure between them, and we see the results of our measurements, validating the concept. So your local clock and ruler is what defines those repeatable experiments physics builds on.
-
As an observer I exist as a one second frame of reference. This co-moving frame is centered in time with my body's center of mass. This co-moving frame also appears to have motion even when I stand still because my consciousness is co-moving with the photons while my mass is co-moving with the earth. If emission only happens in the present then I as a receiver, observer, only see the past. Our minds trick us into thinking we see emission with a pseudo-emission point within our eyes but make no mistake we all sense the past not the present.
-
A kind of poetry Petm :)
not sure what the mind would be moving with, but 'c' seems as a limit, and it's correct that information carriers must obey it as useful information. and yes, you can only see the 'past', when thinking. Every instant you make conscious have already passed. On the other tentacle, without a present existing, how would we get to a past?
-
That's a damn good question actually, if you think of it from a point of view in where a arrow becomes a result of frames of reference interacting. That's what your brain consist of, frames of reference communicating, just as all other objects you can find. Those that are defined as 'dimension less' is slightly different as I find it hard to define a frame to them. Need to think about that one :)
=
Nah, they're definable too, if we define dimensions from connections. In that universe we will use scales for defining a limit, not dimensions. We don't need them there, they're a artifact and archetype, an idea created from the things we touch. It's because that would be a universe of information, and you can't split useful information. A stone is a piece of useful information too. And without dimensions upholding our 'reality' we're living in a dream, of sorts :)
Hard to take, that one :)
First we made 'time' into a illusion, then we looked at distances aka Lorentz contractions, and made those into a illusion. Now we're going one step further and questioning dimensions.
But it is still a universe following a logic, with clear limits as described from a inside.
-
the point of it is that we're always just as close to that 'surface' where there is no arrow, no 'c', and where light doesn't propagate. It's a co-existence, and there must be a dependence to create our SpaceTime.
-
And as a arrow disappear there, dimensions does to. You can't define what's at such a scale from your clock and ruler, because you're using the wrong tools.
-
And to get back to the past, present, and the future. Frames of reference, using them as what creates ones local arrow, can it contain a present? I'm not sure, I don't think it can actually.
-
Ideally we can define a present naturally. Just as we can define 'one frame of reference' as needed to exist, for us to get to ones local clock and ruler. But practically?
-
Thinking of a consciousness as a 'dimension less' focus, then that focus can be said to always be in the 'present'. Thinking of it as information needing frames of reference to create a arrow, that becomes a lie.
-
Or we can get it both ways. As long as you're not thinking you're in the 'present' :) Use your mind and you slip away from it into a constant 'past' :)
-
Let's turn it about. If I would assume that there is a scale at where the arrow, and everything else that needs it, disappear. How would the place we exist in look from there? Would you be able to split it in a past, a present, and a future? I don't think so, and to be stricter, I'm not sure we can do it from here either. What we have is choices, and change, steered by properties, laws, rules, principles. A probability of something doesn't come from God :) given to us Earthlings, it's coming from our experiences of how things usually behave, at least the way I look at it. So, if you like, and I think I do, you should be able to refer to a probability of something as belonging to laws too.
Spin up or Spin down is a excellent example of something with a even probability (50/50) of behaving one way or another. But if we use my definition that still isn't a question of a free choice, it's a law somewhere, a 'hidden variable'. Now you might want to question that one, but if we can agree on that there is no way for us to untangle what law(s) that defines it, then it won't matter what we call it. Although, defining it this way it's not a equivalence to a 'free choice', in my eyes.
The point here is that maybe it's useless to try to define a free choice? In the end we get to a question if there are laws defining a universe, a logic. What would we call a logic that doesn't have underlying principles for how it behaves? I would call it magic. And looked at from that angle, all physics building on a idea of laws principles etc etc, would become a lie. Because if we assume that there is no laws and principles, then there shouldn't be it further away from some 'lawless origin' either. The red spot on Jupiter is not there by chance, although, it is :) I's a principle expressing itself, if not there, then somewhere else. You need properties, principles and laws if you want a order.
Would you call probability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_total_probability)a law?
-
Or maybe I'm wrong? Maybe Spin up/Spin down is a excellent choice of what 'free will' is?
-
It also depends on what you mean by a hidden variable. What I mean by using it is that there must be properties, similar to the idea of spin, defining it. It won't come from nowhere. I do not mean that there is a 'hidden mechanism' defining the way a spin must be. There's a subtle difference in which way you look at that. The older meaning of a hidden variable is just such a mechanism 'deciding', and it fits the Newtonian era perfectly. My use of a 'hidden variable' is a assumption of there being properties laws and principles defining probability, nothing more than that. But it is still a 'hidden variable' in its cleanest form.
-
And so it comes down to a question of free will. Is that spin a excellent example of free will, or not? Do you expect that there needs to be a linearly existing consciousness to have a free will, making a free choice? Or would you accept this as a example of free will too?
-
Is probability by chance alone, or does it have/follow laws?
If it has laws, why do they exist?
Can anything following principles laws etc, be defined as having a 'free choice', as in that spins outcome? because that is how we define it, isn't it? As if there is no way knowing the spin beforehand, unless we somehow manipulate it (weak experiments).
-
Ok, from that we can look at ourselves. Do you expect us to be cut of from the rest of the universe, by us having a ability to consciously choose? And what makes that final choice, kismet? Or you, weighting alternatives against each other? Is the ability to choose the same as a free will? Depends on if you're following a logic or not, wouldn't you say? There's different types of logics, and what I think we use normally is colored not only by self interests, although they are a major part of how we decide. What you find important for yourself short term, may change if you think of it long term.
-
Defining it this way, a really 'free will' must be proven to use no logic.
-
And that would most probably place the person enacting it into the category collected by nice friendly men, in white coats :)
-
And that would most probably place the person enacting it into the category collected by nice friendly men, in white coats :)
Exactly....................Every choice we make is bases upon information we gather from our environment and our senses. Therefore, the criterion we use in making these decisions is outside of our so-called free will. One must really ask; What does the term "free will" really mean? If it is based upon this external information, I suggest that it is not free at all. And if it is based entirely upon feelings irrespective of objective information, then the decisions made are done so irrationally and point to actions taken with no regard for the evidence.
I suggest we mistakenly elevate the sovereignty of the self when we assume our capacity for free will. There is nothing in this world nor the cosmos that is free, and that, in my opinion, includes the will of the individual.
-
Maybe Ethos, but we use choices, and there are always alternatives. It may well be so that the universe is so filled with information that any attempt to quantify it, from where and how we measure, becomes meaningless. If there is no limit theoretically to what your choice might become, and you're the one deciding your path. Isn't that as close as we can come to 'free will'? Inside a logic. Think of how we use small and large infinities, a meaningless concept inside such a one, as it from the inside must be infinite any which way.
Or think of it this way, something chooses, your will or whatever one would like to call it. And for this it doesn't matter if your choices are limited or not.
-
Let's go back to spin. If there is a principle defining spin, does it have to be a mechanism too? I differ between the idea of a 'hidden variable' becoming a hidden mechanism, and it being a property myself. In the second definition, as a mechanism, we have a way to predict the spin beforehand. In the one defining it as a property I don't think we will find a way.
And it fits my ideas, because a linear logic should disappear at that scale, although you still need properties defining what linear logic you meet 'inside' our SpaceTime.
-
Assume that weak experiments work. That you can influence it to give you a predefined spin. Is that a example of spin being a (predestined) mechanism? Or is it a example of free will influencing that spin.
-
And what does it make spin?
A example of free will?
I don't know, we just defined free will as something without logic, didn't we? Maybe that one needs to be redefined if so :) Let's instead call it something without a linear logic. No action and reaction.
-
And there is one more thing. What does a free will need?
To be able to be defined as existing?
Outcomes?
And choices?
Laws, principles, rules and properties?
It definitely need outcomes.
-
Without outcomes, does free will exist? We're going the other way here, aren't we? :) Using a linear logic to define what origin 'free will' might have.
-
Outcomes need the SpaceTime we live in, defined by a arrow and 'c'.
-
So, how do I want to define a 'free will'? As something needing outcomes, or not? If I think outcomes must be there for it, then 'free will' becomes a description from and inside a linear universe, having no other application. If I disregard outcomes for it, then a ideal 'free will' is something not following a linear logic.
-
And if I think of it as a symmetry?
-
"Assume that weak experiments work. That you can influence it to give you a predefined spin. Is that a example of spin being a (predestined) mechanism? Or is it a example of free will influencing that spin."
It's not a example of predestination, but it can be seen as using 'free will' to finalize a outcome, which then is the spin you will measure it to have. But I need to use the 'symmetry' to define it this way, or presume that only outcomes can define free will. And the later one is wrong in my eyes, A free will is not the outcome.
-
A free will defined this way becomes very close to the idea of spin, as a 50/50 probability, not the exact same but close. It's not the outcome that defines it, although inside our universe it is just that, that once made us start to wonder about what a free will mean.
-
It's the exact same sort of reasoning that I use to point out that you can't avoid your local clock and ruler, measuring. But scaling down, superimposing frames of reference into one frame, the clock must disappear. You need 'c' to get to the most ideal clock I can imagine inside this universe. And 'c' is a description of light propagating over frames of reference.
-
So, how about a revolution :)
That will entitle you, starting to think by yourself. You ready for that? It doesn't involve weapons, or killing anyone. Just you, using that mind of yours. And it will crumble empires.
-
You just need to understand that you are born here, and die here, for it. You also need to see that there is noting differing one birth from another, or one death from another. When you live you live, and when you're dead you're dead. It's nothing to be scared of.
That's all there is to a real revolution. The rest is up to you, and your ethics.
-
A lot of people see Snowden as a traitor, or want to portrait him as a stupid geek, becoming a 'evil hacker'. I don't, I think he know about what I wrote, maybe not in the same terms, but I'm sure he thought about it. Actually, you can't avoid it, it will come to you sooner or later. And what he chose was one kind of ethics, following his own ideals of democracy and justice. I think they are mine too, and I find those ideas more important than any empire existing, now or ever.
-
you see, in the end you're here to dream. And those dreams will define you.
-
have you ever thought of those not wanting to live here? You will find a lot, if you just look, you never wondered why? Or do you think you know? Then you also have a definition for what differ one birth from another, right? :) and one death from another I'm sure. And in your mind a revolution will not be possible.
-
It's all in your mind.
-
you see, in the end you're here to dream. And those dreams will define you.
I agree yor_on...........And in reality, maybe this place of dreams is where true freedom of will resides. The limits that reality puts on us in the physical world evaporates in the realm of our imagination and our dreams. Maybe this is where free will has it's proper domain, for there is little to be exercised during our waking moments.
-
Ah well, been wondering about two things. Pete's definitions of mass, and photons :)
Pete defines mass as everything including a energy, and uses 'relativistic mass' to describe it. He has a really good point in that the mass of the sun also must include the 'photons' momentum as well as particles kinetic energy. Using this definition we also get a new understanding of the stress energy tensor. On the other hand, the definition of a rest mass is also a very understandable concept.
A invariant rest mass is good for me from the point of avoiding to define what I refer to as 'container ideas'. A container, in my thinking, might be seen as something proposing us all to be existent inside some sort of containing reference. What I suspect Einstein might have felt when saying that the moon must be there even if he looked away. Although it's even deeper that that to me. A container model is a archetype to me, inbuilt into us, even when referring to a 'limitless universe without bonds'.
I think I can use restmass for both descriptions, locally described as well as from a 'container model', but I find it harder to use relativistic mass, unless as used as a mathematical book keeping. You might say that from my view relativistic mass is a description of interactions between frames of reference.
Then we come to photons. Read a guy wondering about how 'seeing something' would be described, if we now only used photons to describe it? I don't think that's possible, you need to introduce waves to make it possible. On the other hand, that is what lights duality is all about. Two 'simultaneous' descriptions of a reality, depending on experimental setup/observer.
So yes, physics isn't about one singular definition of reality, it's adapting to you, in a way. This is not a popular attitude to it. Most want to find a mathematical expression, equation, that will cover it all, and explain observer dependencies. But maybe that will be found lacking, I think that point of view is lacking. It's not accepting the experiment, instead passing them by to look for some deeper, possibly theoretical, unification.
And that, as I see it, has to do with how much you rely on experiments, to define reality.
-
But after reading this guy I started to think about photons, as caught on a photographic frame. I could assume that a photon has a limit (Planck scale preferably:). I then could imagine photons propagating as such 'frames' reaching the photographers device, getting measured (caught) as a photograph. So, where should such a description break down?
And what do you need for it?
Time, right? A arrow. You have those 'frames' propagating. Assuming that there is a limit for exposure, giving you a coherent image on the photographers photo. Where does this limit exist?
-
But I still don't think that the 'energy' in those photons propagating will be enough to explain the image you observe. And that gets me to a point :) Photons are locality, waves are descriptions over frames of reference.
-
Using this I would now want us all to ponder 'from simplicity to complexity', and what scaling really is?
=
Pompous me middlename :) Nevertheless, just think about it. If dimensions are frames of reference interacting. If arrow(s) defining your SpaceTime comes from frames of reference interacting with your local 'constant' 'c', which also is your, and mine, definition of a time keeping.
What is scaling?
-
So photon's doesn't propagate, waves does though. Well, in my universe that is :). Now you can argue that you have a device letting of singular photons propagating. But, I don't think you really need that argument. Photons are always local 'excitations', no matter how you reach their existence. But the idea of a wave must cross 'frames of reference' to exist.
-
To get to a commonly described universe, or SpaceTime, from reasoning like this I must accept the idea of there being co-existing descriptions, both as valid. The simplest one, I think, is lights duality. And if you accept this you do not need pilot waves, or an aether. The only thing you need is a explanation what joins frames of reference. And 'c' is a description of the limits for that joining, but not the reason why they coexist.
-
I think there is a additional element to the question how we can see. If we imagine a photon annihilating at/in my eye. then the original annihilation, as well as the subsequent, all should take place at 'c', don't you agree? The electrochemical processes will take longer as the information is transfered and processed. So we have a element of time involved here. The 'local arrow' as it is. And a wave should to my thinking be a representation over frames of reference, and so I would like to describe that arrow, as a result of frames of reference interacting. Let's get back to those frames of photons 'moving' towards the photographers plate.
-
Is there a possibility of using two values, in this case 'energy' and 'momentum', creating a grid, to be processed into a image having colors? The momentum is reliant on the energy, so in reality we have representations of energy only, but of varying discrete energies, right? How do you get to colors from that?
=
Could I define a color from one photon? Wouldn't that be a interesting experiment? It's a question of your local arrow to me. No matter if photons propagate, or not. They still 'tick' at 'c'. As the shutter of your camera, delivering you photographic plate after photographic plate at 'c', processed by you electrochemically at a much slower rate 'consciously'. As if your eye would become a grid, constantly filled with new discrete energies.
A really weird thought? The arrow, could photons arrangement (energies) in time result in me also defining colors to them? That doesn't seem very probable, does it? Different types of receptors see different wavelengths, so photons can't be the answer, can they?
=
Ouch, maybe it is possible? After all, photons are adapted to the receptors, and vice versa :)
Weird idea this one. Two ways then, either I can define a color to one singular photon, or I can't. If I can't I still have receptors adapted to specific types of photons energies, right? So, assuming this we can get past the question of different wavelengths (frequency's) for different eyes. But how would it create colors? A combination of energies over some specified time slots, as processed by my brain? Weirder and weirder said Alice. (afraid this has became a double post as it originally belongs to that other guys question, but it's pretty interesting to me)
-
There's a really nice experiment in where you look at a photo on a computer screen. Each time you blink, and we all do that, something is taken away from it. A tree, a buss etc. Asked if something have changed in this photo, most all says no. Why?
It has to do with the way the brain process information from the eye, right?
-
Then you have taste. Taste is a geometry, translated by your brain into sweet, sour, etc etc. You have receptors in your mouth having different 'fits' to the small particles giving you a taste. So the taste you experience is a result of the brain processing a geometry, as far as I can see.
-
But it doesn't change the fact that we can agree on a color, or a taste. I think I can go anywhere in the world? And find people agreeing on that sugar is sweet, or that the night is black, blood is red. How much of it is archetype, and how much of it is real?
Da*'d if I know :)
-
It doesn't really matter as long as we can agree on what we see as being a same color, does it? Even if my 'red' isn't yours processing, as long as we both call it 'red' we agree.
-
So, we can agree on things, all over the world. Colors is one of those things, although, if you're a painter you might disagree :) But let's presume we can.
-
Let us assume that taste and colors have much in common. They are then a expression of complexity, created by, and in, your brain, answering to some simple original blueprints, as the geometry relative your receptor.
-
And with different energies, treating my eye as a grid with excitations, over a time period I must get to a image(processed and synthesized by my brain). But how do I get to a color? How can the brain differ there?
-
We have the spin too, naturally. A very weird thing spin, everything spins. Integer spin particles are bosons like our photon, following Bose-Einstein statistics (taking no place), while half integer spins are called Fermions like electrons, following Fermi-Dirac statistics (they take a 'place').
-
Take a look at the explanation for Why don’t “cheats” ever work on the uncertainty principle? (http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/06/q-why-dont-cheats-ever-work-on-the-uncertainty-principle-whats-uncertain-in-the-uncertainty-principle/) Particularly to how it explains polarization, because that is a spin as far as I know.
-
Then look at What is “spin” in particle physics? Why is it different from just ordinary rotation? (http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/10/q-what-is-spin-in-particle-physics-why-is-it-different-from-just-ordinary-rotation/)
Then I got interested in something called Thomas precession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_precession), as it seemed integral to the idea of some sort of modern equivalence between ordinary angular momentum (i.e a carousel spinning), and the idea of a atomic, or otherwise, microscopic spin.
That finally lead me to look at Regarding Llewellyn Thomas’s paper of 1927 and the “hidden momentum” of a magnetic dipole in an electric field (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0927)
You can read it, without solving the equations.
-
So?
Can we use spin?
-
Actually the question if there is a real equivalence between spin and classical angular momentum, or not, is something of a sidetrack to that question. Never been that good on walking the straight line :) But I got interested, and so I had to see what I could understand from it. And if you read it I'm sure you're interested too.
-
The most important part of a polarization, or spin, I find to be given in Why don’t “cheats” ever work on the uncertainty principle? (http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/06/q-why-dont-cheats-ever-work-on-the-uncertainty-principle-whats-uncertain-in-the-uncertainty-principle/) for this question at least. It's a mindtwist of sorts, a way to describe a polarization as a result of matter interaction with light, giving it 'two directions'.
-
I had a really concise description of interference combined with Feynman's approach to 'sum over paths', that actually presented interference as a way light must act. As usual I can't find it when I need it :) but it connects strongly to the link above, in my mind. You need both I think, to twist your mind the right way. This one take you through a longer journey than the one I had in mind, but at a first look it is very similar in its final conclusions. Just allow it some time, and thought. Reality Is—The Feynman Path Integral. (http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2013/07/16/reality-is-the-feynman-path-integral/)
==
I'll throw in this one for free, just because I've always liked mathpages. They have some really good descriptions, and history lessons, there. Feynman’s Ants. (http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath/kmath320.htm)
Still haven't found the one I was thinking of though :(
===
And no. I don't really care whether it can be explained by photons solely. Even if it can be done it does not invalidate a wave picture, it's just me being curious, wanting to see if it could be done? :) You live in a universe populated by a lot more than just you, and to me that is 'frames of reference' interacting. So waves is just as good as photons for describing it. And if you think of it, locality can not even be you. Practically speaking, using scaling, you're just too big, and no diet will help there.
-
So what is reality? If your taste is a geometry, and your sight? When you look at a astronomical photo they're often in colors, representing different types of mass, as a gas etc. But it's not space as you would see it yourself. It's like using sonar to help blind persons get a new 'sight', and the question if they then also will gain a ability to differ colors through it. What will they see? if we take a new born, getting, and adapting, to this possibility of sight, as he grows up?
-
The miracle here, isn't whatever underlying simplicity we will find through physics. The real miracle is the way we process and 'reconstruct' our reality into a ever growing complexity. Because we can do more complex things, the more we learn about nature. And your brain is the source from where it all comes, if there is any 'magic' to this world I would definitely place it inside the way a brain process information. :) Not in nature by itself, broken down into its smallest parts.
-
As a afterthought, considering how we reconstruct our environment, what would a quantum computer see? Just consider it a supplementary study, no time limit.
-
One thing I'm wondering about, is whether spin can be considered equivalent to a angular momentum, or if we're looking at it backwards. Meaning, if a angular momentum comes from an idea of spin :) In one case we have common very old knowledge that we connect to a new to explain it. In the other we have new knowledge that then tells us that we know very little about what we though was old common knowledge.
So, which one is it?
-
Or, they are in no way connected?
-
You know, I'm not thinking too good today. I've somehow lost my my momentum. And I don't really know if physics is the answer. I've found that I go to physics when I can't handle the way life crush innocents. Now, what is more important, the way we handle innocents, or physics?
I don't really know. I want to understand, but I also want to live. And life is short.
-
Bravery, do you have it?
-
Let us put it another way. I know a guy, Jarmo, he does not know what fear is. People instinctively recognize him for what he is. Does that exclude him from my question? Nope, he asked me once in what circumstances a lie would be acceptable. I told him to never lie, because a lie diminish you. If you can't tell the truth, be quiet. Then again, what are you true though? your lies, or your truth?
Why do you live?
-
Bravery, do you have it?
Bravery??? If I might draw a parallel: Bravery can be described as observer dependent in many cases.
So exactly what is bravery?
-
Yes Ethos, it may be observer dependent :)
From the observation of those not involved, but I think it always will involve a sacrifice of some sort.
In other words, it will cost you.
-
Yes Ethos, it may be observer dependent :)
From the observation of those not involved, but I think it always will involve a sacrifice of some sort.
In other words, it will cost you.
Truly,.......Every noble deed has a price. And if humanity is to advance, the cost can be deemed a worthy bargain.
-
You may put it this way. Truth is uncomfortable, lies carry better. It depends on what we relies on to define humanity I suspect.
-
Let us make a simple assumption. Can you own a piece of land? Sure, as long as you use it, and live.
-
You may put it this way. Truth is uncomfortable, lies carry better. It depends on what we relies on to define humanity I suspect.
Another way to express this is: Philosophy and Science are eternally destined to compete in their love hate relationship.
-
Can you own a piece of land?
Only to the extent that you're successful in defending it for your own personal use.
-
Hmm:)
Or they are, in my terms, predestined to meet :)
You can't avoid them, assuming a level of competence. I have no real answer to why some individuals find a pleasure in mayhem and despair. But I know that it isn't my answer, the question is, what would you prefer?
-
The point is that you do not really need to 'defend' anything. You just need the acceptance and support of the society defining you.
-
Another, just as important point, is that this is not a answer. If it was we all would belong to caste societies.
-
The point is that you do not really need to 'defend' anything. You just need the acceptance and support of the society defining you.
Precisely why the Pilgrims left England and settled America, to define a society that accepted private ownership of land and freedom to worship as they chose. Nevertheless, this ideal still needs defending because wolves will steal what the shepherd is to lazy to defend.
-
I don't know Ethos?
I don't really care where I go, as long as I live in peace, and find it a sufficient place to live? I don't really know the history behind those pilgrims, but I will presume that they wanted something more that what they found at home? Whatever it was, they took private ownership with them, and applied it on their new environment, as I understand?
That's a big difference between nomads and settlers. And it's not a truth, it's an ideal.
-
Thanks Ethos, you made it bearable for tonight.
-
I remember when I first started to take a interest in physics, well, again that is. I was interested for a while when I was young, specifically in Relativity. But then life came in between, work and kids, and other stories I'm not going to discuss:)
We all wonder about life don't we? At least those of us writing or reading here, and we all find our own ways to deal with it. Some goes to drugs, other to mysticism, or both, and then there is religions. So what makes physics differ? Maybe this, we demand experiments proving the concepts, don't we? And we're not satisfied with only one, we want them to be repeatable experiments.
The whole idea of a repeatable experiment steps out from the notion of this universe being here, and now, and that my now, now, will be yours too, as you do a equivalent experiment. By that meaning that your 'identical replica' of my experiment will be as true for you as it was for me. If it isn't, then it can't be a repeatable experiment.
So repeatable experiments goes out from a axiom.
-
The problem with mysticism, and similar, is that it seldom is found to be experimentally repeatable. In the cases where it/they indeed is found to be repeatable we will search for a logical explanation. Relativity states some things that are as mystical as it ever can become. It state that no matter my motion the speed of light is the same. It will be measured as 'c' by me moving, and by others not moving with me.
It also states as a fact, that depending on who that measure, a 'same' rod can be found to have a different length. It also state that depending on whom you observe, you will find their 'time/clocks' to tick differently from yours.
Now, if that isn't mystical, I don't know what is :)
So what differs it from mysticism? Logic, there's a logic found, and repeatable experiments able to validate the logic.
-
So what do I trust in?
Repeatable experiments, logic, and that we all are communicating. Communication, is everything, it allows you sight, hearing, sensing. I think communication must make a universe out of itself, as soon it exist.
-
Why I expect it to be so is at least two folded. One is that without some logic to a communication I would not expect it to be useful. The second is what I assume must be there for any universe to experimentally, and perceivably, exist, a logic.
doesn't matter what makes it, but I think you need it.
-
Repeatable experiments are the proof of that axiom, if they wouldn't exist, we should not be here.
-
But 'c'?
'c' must have been a leap of faith for Einstein. 'c' gives us a logic, and repeatable experiments do validate it, but the whole idea of 'lights constant and uniform speed in a perfect vacuum', no matter your motion, was a leap of faith, just as big as the one bringing you closer to an idea of God. Because physics has so far no answer to why 'c' is 'c', only Maxwell's equations and our experiments validating the concept.
doesn't mean there aren't theories and hypotheses, but I don't know of any that explains it.
-
What 'c' did though, was to open up to a new universe. It's no longer our old one, no clockwork universe ticking in a box. It's a universe in where what makes a repeatable experiment are each ones of us 'local constants'. but not as shared from ones old 'global sense of a common universe', the one we can experience as we go out at night to look at the stars, agreeing on the universe we think us see and exist in.
-
Can you see what I'm pointing at?
We're here, and we communicate. But the common universe we perceive is a transformation by our brain through our senses. But we still have some truths, as repeatable experiments and logic. They share a same ground, even if it isn't the exact same as we once thought us to observe. Without that logic ground we would disappear.
-
So we have a logic, chains of events making sense, linear time. It makes us 'real'.
-
That's where I once started my wanderings from. The idea of time being real, as it is. And everything I discuss is about this, linear time, the chain of events creating my universe, in communication with yours.
-
So much of our concepts are pre-relativity to me. The whole idea of a commonly same universe for example. That one is the one making sense intuitively, locally practically. So we choose it as it describes most of what we ever will experience. Even though we know better, we still cling to it.
Dimensions?
Do we create them in our observation, are they there even without matter? We do create a lot of things, as you should know if you've read me.
-
Your taste is a construct, does that makes it less real?
And, if we can agree on something being sweet, something else being sour, Isn't that a proof for the idea of your taste, as a local experience, shared by us all? Can you see what I'm asking there? Even though it is a geometry that transforms into a 'taste' by you. If we all agree on it, isn't it also as real as can be?
-
The only logic that is accessible describing that 'shared space' we exist in, aka our universe, is local. Local logic creates the universe, local logic gives you repeatable experiments, local logic builds physics. As soon as you stray from that premise into something 'commonly existing, same for all, universe' you leave the experiments, going into hypothesis's.
So Astronomy is hypothes's. It assumes a consistent space, aka a box of some type, in where heavenly bodies move.
-
Now, isn't the moon there when I don't look?
-
That brings me to there being more ways than one to describe something. Because we are the proofs for it, as is astronomy.
-
The motion of light is a hypothesis too. It's dependent on your premises, how you will look at it. From a local definition we have light quanta that annihilates, presenting your senses and physics with information. We do not have a wave, as a wave needs frames of reference. It's a very microscopic definition of a reality. What builds our macroscopic definition though is all about frames of reference, communicating and transforming into useful information.
A wave is a macroscopic description, depicting something having a constant uniform speed, propagating over frames of reference. A light quanta is a local annihilation.
-
And a wave of radiation is not a observable in itself. It is what we find to be the closest analogue, equivalent to for example ocean waves. From a standpoint of experiments you only have the subsequent annihilation, and the recoil shown before that by matter, as energy (photons) disappear from it. It's not a rope undulating in a space.
-
So how do you want to look at it, from a local point of view?
I don't look at it as a speed there, I think of it in terms of 'c' becoming a clock instead. As if there is a time setter, that keeps a logic between ? 'end points' maybe ? translating into a speed when described over frames of reference.
and that 'time setter' is the same for us all, locally defined. That's why you die.
-
That's also why I expect there to be a limit, which then Planck scale present as one possibility. Because just as we find light quanta to be of a discrete energy, then, treating 'c' as 'clock ticks', I will want it to be of a discreteness. Can you see why?
But it does not mean that it stops there.
-
If it stopped there a quantum computer wouldn't exist.
-
The duality of light exist macroscopically, will it also exist microscopically? Assuming that there is a discreteness/limit?
-
Alternatively, two modes presented as one universe. Photons and waves, lights duality. Lights duality is about frames of reference.
-
Turn it around, think about it as probabilities of outcomes. Some 'space' in where everything coexist. the universe you believe in is a result of outcomes. The outcomes is a result of local constants, rules and principles, and properties.
-
It's not as simple as saying that we found QM the same way we found the Newtonian universe, or even relativity. Newtonian universes are 'sane', the ball rolls down the slope, and we can count on it :) Relativity becomes a slightly twisted form of that, introducing frames of reference, and observer dependencies, with QM consisting of probabilities, and statistics, that we find from experiments, then build theoretical frameworks around to test further if they hold.
If you find Relativity to be weird, take a look at how we define QM.
-
What we can assume though is that there should be some sort of logic binding the macroscopic to the microscopic. If that logic is holographic, or discrete, or 'smooth' all seem to depend on from where you look.
-
Are waves smooth phenomena?
-
If you and me agree on that something is locally repeatable, assuming a equivalent setup. Is that a repeatable experiment? What about us both tasting sugar? Finding it to be 'sweet'?
A repeatable experiment?
-
Can you get any closer to a smooth reality than the idea of a space in where everything coexist, only having different probabilities of 'materializing', becoming a observable? Talking about a quantum computer in form of interference of waves is one approach to it, but it's not real. And calling it a space isn't very real either.
Why would it need a space? Only if assuming it to have a volume, area whatever, will you need a space. And interference builds from that mind concept, as does waves 'propagating', and interacting inside it. But there is no time to that space, it's outside of any discrete definition, just as a 'free will' must be.
If you think of people as automata, proper mass following definable logical physical processes, and transformations, where would that free will reside? It becomes a intangible to me assuming it to exist. And I do assume it to exist.
what about thoughts? "I think, therefore I am." Without that, who would know? Why are you able to think?
-
What I'm wondering about here is whether what makes us think, and gives us that free will we so like to flaunt, is not the outcomes. We may be closer to QM than we think, eh, so to speak :)
-
It becomes a weird and 'fragmented' universe, locally described. What defines it is those local values, constants as 'c', and our equivalent 'local clocks', shared by us all. What connects should be frames of reference interacting with each other.
And there is the mystery. How do frames of reference connect, microscopically defined? How would you describe it without waves? Without propagation? And possibly, from an 'instant' of an event, as that photon annihilating.
-
What we use macroscopically to describe it fails there. The first thing I think I would need for describing it is a discreteness at some scale, 'grains'. Even then, assuming those grains to consist of equivalent constants and rules etc, how can I make them act as different particles, and how do I make those particles define a space to exist in :) Crazy, isn't it?
-
Anyone seen this?
""It's breathtaking to think that things we thought are not connected, can in fact be converted to each other: matter and energy, particles and light. Would we be able in the future to convert energy into time and vice versa?""
It's a comment to converting light into particles?
Energy is not 'time'. Locally defined your time will not care about the 'energy' it consists in. Locally measured your clock always give you a same time keeping. The only time, if I now may, that this isn't true is when you compare your local clock and ruler to someone else's, finding a time dilation and complementary Lorentz contraction.
and you don't need a infinite energy for this fact, you just need another frame of reference to compare yours to.
-
The same old problem keeps coming back doesn't it? Even by highly educated physicists and mathematicians. The idea of 'this commonly shared container universe' in where we exist. Looked at from such a proposition the idea may make sense, but it's not about experiments when you think this way, it's about your beliefs.
If you use experiments, then they are local definitions.
When we share our experiments with each other, finding them agreeing, we get to a repeatable experiment. But nowhere does this state that the universe is our 'container' in any practical sense. It's communication that defines the universe we think us exist in, not the experiments.
-
You really need to understand this. It's what makes you die, no matter where you are, or how fast you go. If you miss out on this simple truth, then you will get lost in your forrest of facts, adapting to beliefs.
-
Time is a constant, and all constants are locally defined, but not 'globally'. Globally described this universe you think yourself to exist in is fragmented by uncountable time dilations and Lorentz contractions, all 'locally' defined by each and every 'observer'. Can you see what I'm stating here?
-
Ones physics, and mathematics, can only be as good as ones presumptions allows them to be. Locally there are no ambiguities, they do come into play, assuming this 'container' though.
-
In a way it's like there 'somewhere' only exist one homogeneous 'point', that's locality, and constants. To that you then need to add communication over frames of reference, to get to distances and dimensions. The ideal equivalence of all frames of reference (locally defined constants) gives us the repeatable experiments on which we build physics. There is not one logic to it, it's more. You have those 'constants' giving you one logic, then you have communication over frames of reference creating a universe. Both are needed.
'c' is a constant, equivalent to your local time keeping, aka all ours 'local clock'. That clock is not a speed, neither is it ticking locally defined. As I see it the ticking , just as this constant 'speed' we find light to have both are results of communicating over frames of reference.
It their simplest terms they are a same (local) constant. And as we all share that same constant, with a absolute equivalence, how do we 'split' it? Same question as always, isn't it :)
-
A very simple proof of locality, is remembering that as soon as you and me both share a same frame of reference we will be indistinguishable from each other, you can think of it in terms of superimposing to make it more digestible. and this proof is applicable all over the universe, doesn't matter where you do the experiment.
-
Just a question.
Does Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tell us something about what 'time' is?
"a basic assumption of physics since Newton has been that a "real world" exists independently of us, regardless of whether or not we observe it. (This assumption did not go unchallenged, however, by some philsophers.) Heisenberg now argued that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them."
The observation is a function of time, isn't it? Everything we can observe is in a past tense, practically speaking. You can either define a 'momentum' or a 'place/position' to a particle, but not both simultaneously. From a past tense though, is there no possibility of defining both? And isn't it this kind of thinking that lead to 'weak experiments'?
We have a momentum but no position or a position but no momentum. In a world where we expect both to exist together, as part of each other macroscopically.
-
The question here seems to become become one of what you think is more real. Depending on your assumptions you can define both (position and momentum), accepting that there is no way to measure that can be said to exist in a present (now), or you define it such as the principle will hold. I don't think it is semantics to point out that there is no observation that actually exist 'now'. They must always be in a past tense, when observed.
A now, can it exist?
-
It's like we're always a instant behind that 'now', isn't it? It becomes theoretical. The world I observe is past that now, and there is no way a outcome can be described as happening as I observe it, unless you want to define the observation to a consciousness perceiving it. All the same we have interactions all around us, as well as inside us, constantly happening following a defined direction we call time. and as they happen, shouldn't there be a now for when they actualize? No matter if I observe it or not?
-
Does 'now' exist, or does it not? Is the past a function of my observation, or does it have a independent existence. The last one is more of a Newtonian universe to my thinking, one in which we can be certain of things 'existing', doing their thing with or without us.
-
Think of it in terms of a field then. Does the particle we measure on then integrate in that field. Can you really give it a individual existence outside that field? And how will you define this particles limits? You know it is 'there', although always in a past tense. But if it is a expression of a field?
-
You may want to think of it as observer dependent too. But we need to presume that behind the observer dependencies there is a origin, from where we can make this observer dependent observation. Without such a presumption you are free to assume that everything is a construct by your mind.
-
In a larger sense, where would the limits for a field be? Assume the universe we measure on to be one consistent field, does it create the inside? Or does it exist in a inside?
-
I think, although this is just my assumption, that Einstein would have preferred the first. It creates the inside. The field creates all that we measure on, including its dimensions.
-
A field becomes like a plane in some way. That plane is about our constants. From a local perspective the fields origin must be constants, locally equivalently shared, everywhere in a measurable universe. That's what I think is a necessary assumption from where to start. Because it gives me a consistent logic.
-
We're a special kind of people I think. We've looked at what people think important, but I don't think we agree? I don't.
-
Or maybe It's just me, being mis-adjusted? Never mind, I sooner go the grave thinking my own way, than adopt to any dogma.
-
I don't know. It might be single malt speaking here, but I remember me expecting the world to be understandable? Do you, really as by your self, find it it understandable? I mean, we see a logic, and I'm prepared to let me lead me wherever it like, but is it the world I grew up in? The world we're zooming in on is less than the world we thought ourselves to live in, but also infinite :)
If that doesn't give you a headache, well, it still gives me one
-
In the end, from the point of consciousness, it might all be about reproduction. It's easy to see how religions lift reproduction up as something holy, not to be trifled with. But as for one singular world, taking care of us all, it's a doomed proposition. then again, theres so much to admire with those of us wanting to protect. It's about emotions, feelings, bravery, against logic. Still, I expect logic to 'win', whatever that now means.
-
That does not mean that I find logic to be the only answer. Live your dreams, but make them good ones, please.
-
In the end you will walk alone. Just as the way you came in.
The rest is up to you
-
There are some truths about life. some things that makes it simpler.
don't lie.
If you can't tell the truth, keep quiet,
It's simple, but only a very few can make it hold.
are you one of them?
-
Before all though.
Try to see how much of your truths that are true. That will change, with age and experience. You can either decide that logic will be your answer, or feelings. I prefer logic myself, but I don't think logic is all. When it comes to those things that touch me most, I don't really know? Some people think that love is the answer? I don't know there either?
You came alone, and you will leave alone.
What is your answer?
-
And yes, it's all about dying :)
Are you afraid?
-
Can you see why democracy is a good thing?
not because it makes me bigger, just because it listen to us all.
Crazy isn't it? To expect us to consider others.
-
I'm most probably boring here :)
Well, this is where it stops, and I'm getting old. Give me a reason why frames of reference communicate? Why does they? That's the next Nobel prize.
-
The point may be. Either you can face death, without hiding behind some belief, or you are unable?
And it doesn't really matter what your protection is called here.
Are you a man?
-
One more thing, you came here without a protection, and you made it just fine. why do you think you need it to leave?
-
To put into simplicity :)
Be unto others as you want them to be unto you.
Nobody seems to get that one, do they?
-
The thing is, I don't need a reward in heaven to realize why the above is a sane approach.
Can you see why it makes me wonder about us?
Are we that behavioristic as a species? We won't do anything unless we get a reward? Be it ugly or good. Yeah, physics is pretty simple, compared to humanity
-
Anyone read "Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem_WIA-Conclusions-summary" you can find it here (http://www.tfsp.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/WIA-Conclusions-summary.pdf)
Anyway, made me wonder about us again. We associate the 'free market' with democracy, self interests with justice, and believe that money is what shows the way forward. And it's not just western democracies that does this, the old USSR consisted of a blatant elite society, with only a few having access to real privileges, and let's not start on discussing China.
what do we get from this type of philosophy?
-
Find me a real democracy.
-
The worst thing about this kind of reports are that they almost invariably tend to be considered belonging to some fringe group, not needed to be taken seriously. We can see it even when it comes to global warming. And those fighting for a status quo, advertising their views in all kinds of ways, what have they to lose by taking it seriously?
Money.
and what have we as a species to lose?
-
Modern society's are built on bureaucracies. Ideally presumed incorruptible, practically adapting to diverse influences, be it political, monetary, as well as the opinions and beliefs shared by their peers. They are supposed to be governed by the people, the same way as politicians are supposed to be instruments of the people, doing the peoples will.
Then again, there exist no democracies, but there exist representative democracies.
It's a big difference.
-
And still we have democracy in reach, if we tried. We have the Internet, we have asymmetric encryption, guaranteeing the individual voting. So what do we do with this Internet? Well, we corrupt international open standards, we start to collect all information there is, storing it indefinitley just in case.
Some people think that they are 'small fishes in a big ocean'. Not any longer, there are no fishes too small to be noticed, using algorithms. you can design them to 'fish' for whatever your little heart decide, and information, that's real power.
-
And then we have those that say they have nothing to hide :)
Well, there might be a few saints amongst us, but I'm not one, and neither are you.
-
Yep, physics is easier.
-
This one is interesting to me. Not that, as I understands, that this is the only incompatibility between QM and GR?
A Conflict Between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. (http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.se/2014/06/a-conflict-between-general-relativity.html)
It's about my ideas in a way, as I define the arrow to be a local constant, equivalent to 'c'.
-
What would a field be from my ideas on 'locality'?
I think it should be the 'gizmo' that connects frames of reference :) If you can tell me how one local frame connects to another, creating both this geometry as well as fermions and bosons. (not just lifting up 'photons', virtual or not, and 'c', which actually tells me very little) Then I single handedly will force the Nobel Committee to award you, and I'm a Swede :) So I have to know them, don't I?
-
you have to turn your head to see it my way. I define a constant but exclusively local. On the other tentacle, prove me a 'universal constant' that isn't experimentally defined locally? I will state that a lot of the confusion rests on our preconceptions of this 'universe' we define, this 'container'. Looked at from any 'container' idea, containing us as well as everything else, time becomes a mystery. But defined from locality it's a constant. So you have to go the other way, from locality towards what unites, and that then will become a very weird problem, both for defining dimensions and for defining this universe we so seamlessly exist in.
time is not a problem.
-
And 'excitations in a field' gets a new meaning as there is no ordinary field existing in my view. It's not about a container model at all. Although, to us it is.
-
And the same then should be for a Lorentz contraction. I view them as complementary to time dilations, observer dependent. You get two for the price of one, so to speak :) And they are not a problem either, if you leave this 'common container universe' you define yourself to exist in. They should then be a result of whatever principle that connects frames of reference relative 'speeds' and 'mass' ('energy')
Neither do I need to place this 'energy' geometrically, as it is 'potential' between whatever you define to 'move' relative what. If I would want to define the kinetic energy created in two objects colliding, then it is the sum of their relative motion (and mass naturally), versus each other, but not intrinsic to any of them experimentally. I don't need to define 'where' this 'energy' is stored. To me it becomes a result of rules, properties and principles, for how frames of reference connects instead.
And it doesn't really matter if you define something to accelerate or not, unless you expect 'gravity' to be 'pure energy'? Well, I don't think it does, for now :) at least. But we can look at it from relative motion to keep it simple.
and there you will have no way to experimentally prove a intrinsic energy stored due to different uniform motion, unless in a interaction as a collision. When you see light blue-shift or red-shift, then that is a interaction too, even a expansion should be one.
-
The point is that locally the 'mass energy' of Earth won't change with a higher uniform motion. In a collision we will see a higher kinetic energy expressed but locally there will be no experimental evidence for it. Now, thinking of this fact from a container model you then have to define this 'energy' to somewhere, don't you? :) I don't need to.
-
That's also why I'm questioning what a vacuum is.
-
A wave theory wants a vacuum to consist of bosons (waves) and energy states (Mexican hat for example). And so it questions 'nothing'. It becomes a question if a 'nothing' can exist? In my view a nothing can exist, it's what we call a perfect vacuum. And I think (well hopefully so:) it has to be a result of frames of reference creating a geometry.
-
Einstein wrote about us being 'inside' a universe. That is how we observe. The 'eye of a God' doesn't exist for us as far as I know, even though we sometimes use it theoretically, trying to describe a universe. But it's also so that we all assume this universe to be something in its own right, it's really hard not to do that btw, defined by dimensions and some possible size, from unlimited to ? What really defines the size is how far we can look out, that means the age of the farthest light reaching us now.
If we use the idea of a inflation/expansion having no center then it doesn't matter where you place yourself, You won't meet a end of this universe, in a way you're taking the 'center of the universe' with you as you move to see further in some direction. 13.7 billion light years of possible sight, wherever you place yourself.
-
Those 13.7 billion lightyears is the time it has existed since the Big Bang, approximately. So even if the universe is 'unlimited' in one way, it still have a beginning astronomically, time wise.
-
So, no matter what QM might contrast as a ideal time keeping, versus relativity. It builds on a misunderstanding of what a proper time is, according to me then :) Einsteins proper time, the one measured by your wristwatch, is my definition of a local constant.
And it's 'universal' :)
-
Can you see how my idea of what should be called 'universal' differ? From ones normal conception of what universal means? The things/constants universal are simply those locally equivalent wherever you go. It's not a field of evenness, it's not the geometry that needs to present it, it's when we can agree on experiments giving us a equivalent result, that will gives us 'universal constants', and allow this universe its logic.
-
If you use this logic it becomes easier to see how we can have a constant arrow, locally defined, that is valid throughout a universe, yet enabling time dilations and Lorentz contractions when comparing your clock (time) and ruler against some other.
-
And time dilations is not isolated to accelerations. I've tried to make them so as it would make for a simpler definition, but I can't. It is as involved in uniform motions as it is in accelerations, and it's just like that 'potential energy' I discussed before. Either you want to localize it geometrically, as belonging to 'something/somewhere', or you can see it as a result of frames of reference communicating. That's what I do.
-
But, it's very local this universe. And if you believe in discreteness, then you will try to find some smallest common nominator defining a 'grain' of time. And if you do as Einstein, you can get to both a 'flow' and discreteness, although that one is a hard idea to digest.
-
Or maybe a grain of 'existence' :)
So QM is perfectly correct to use a ideal clock. Without it there would be no universe, at least not one like this. It has a local logic, that then somehow add up to the seamlessness we see when we look out at the stars at night, that unlimited line of sight, 13.7 billion lightyears back in time.
-
The wave universe has to be wrong. Anything trying to define a universe ignoring the duality is wrong. Your measurements setup will define the outcome as I see it. And it's a real duality.
Although :) Looking at it from shrinking my measurements, aka QM, to some ideal 'discrete bit', well, that's the 'photon' isn't it? And a wave is something undulating, to do so you need frames of reference. But that is the universe we see also, unlimited. So, it's a duality.
Thought Experiments in Einstein's work. By John Norton (http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/TE_in_AE.pdf)
-
What about a confinement for the Big Bang? If I would assume that the Big Bang somehow related to a proton, then you find that only a very tiny bit of it consist of rest mass, the rest is then 'energy' confined inside it, creating the equivalence to a mass. Can a confinement then represent a dimension? Pretty weird one.
It's this question about what dimensions are that's nagging at me again :) Either you need them to preexist, to confine this 'energy' that then presumably transform into real particles of rest mass, nota bene without the concept of heat and temperature involved in this first creation, as there is no matter existing initially. You need a assemblage of particles to interact with that 'energy' before you can define that way as I see it, and even then it is doubtful, although possibly possible :) That as it demands me to come up with how this 'pure energy' then can interact at that initial state? The only thing I can come up with by this time, is this idea of 'confinements', as in a proton.
And if we then use the description from how there is no center to this universe (inflation-expansion) you get to a multifaceted situation in where this initial state coexist 'everywhere' initially, as it seems to me? Or a assumed confinement of this energy has noting to do with dimensions? Or, the descriptions for dimensions are misleading, and confinements might be a better idea, although it doesn't answer how it can exist?
=
there's this alternative way to think of too, using locality. Then I might assume that confinements are the bits and ends of this universe :) And what then gives us dimensions are those confinements starting to communicate (under a locally equivalent arrow)?
That should make the vacuum into 'something'. Esthetically I don't find it that alluring, I much prefer to consider a vacuum a nothing. Hopefully I will argue my way out of this one somehow.
-
Now, I'm not happy with 'virtual particles', also sometimes seemingly assumed to 'move' close to light speed, as I saw someone explain it for a protons mass to exist. If I think of a atom with electrons then they do not 'move' in any ordinary sense, they 'exist', and will give you (register) a momentum, or a position, but after your experiment has finalized. Thinking of that 'energy' confined inside a proton this way you should be able to get to a mass anyhow, without involving moving virtual particles.
If enough rest mass materialize, statistically and constantly, then you also should find it more massive, shouldn't you? Then again, is there no cost for this? What is that confinement?
-
To make it work we need to assume that this energy then spontaneously transform into rest mass, much alike the idea of virtual particles being able to become momentarily real to then disappear again. What allows this confinement to give us a mass is then the local arrow, as measured by the observer. As I like to treat it as a statistical phenomena, you must involve time. So back to the Big Bang, where did time come into the picture?
-
There is another caveat to it though :)
Conservation of energy. 'the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to be conserved over time.'
So, a isolated system was it? Is a proton a isolated system?
How?
-
The Big Bang or the proton :)
Both need to be isolated systems, both need conservation of energy. What differs is then that our proton under its life span constantly creates 'excitations' that to us measure up as part of its rest-mass? Is a proton a equivalence to what a Big Bang might have been?
Don't know :) Although, I don't think so. But they do seem to have something in common. This ability to create a measurable 'rest-mass'.
-
And that has to do with a confinement, energy 'transformation', and as always, that local arrow. You still want to call the arrow imaginary?
-
Now, if you're like me, rambling around, you immediately starts to wonder about that protons life length. there are so many implications to what it could have to do with this. "Recent experiments at the Super-Kamiokande water Cherenkov radiation detector in Japan gave lower limits for proton half-life, at 90% confidence level, of 6.6×1033 years via antimuon decay and 8.2×1033 years via positron decay. Newer, preliminary results estimate a half-life of no less than 1.29×1034 years via positron decay."
'(For comparison, the accepted figure for the current age of the universe is about 1.3x109 years.)' In other words, as a best guess the universe is somewhere around 13 billions year old.
Now isn't this interesting :) A very long life, with constant rest-mass manifestations under this time, but no cost? If it decay we could assume that there is a cost to it naturally, Although this is still not proved experimentally. I would call it best guesses from guys who most probably started to look into it from theories that demanded a decay.
=
I'll add this too I think, there is no such thing as knowing too much, although with the addendum of espionage, and contra espionage existing, to prove a opposite. But, that's a human invention, not physics
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question28.html
-
Let's make it real simple. Time started 13.7 billion years ago.
-
"What is a space time continuum?
In 1906, soon after Albert Einstein announced his special theory of relativity, his former college teacher in mathematics, Hermann Minkowski, developed a new scheme for thinking about space and time that emphasized its geometric qualities. In his famous quotation delivered at a public lecture on relativity, he announced that,
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."
This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.
Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not." from http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html by Dr. Sten Odenwald.
Seems like a really nice description to me.
-
You just need to understand that I think of the above as a description from the 'eye of a God' :) someone that 'sees' the universe as a unity, then find that to explain this universe as a 'common container' one also will need to consider observer dependencies relative 'time' and 'distance' (ruler and clock).
I go out from my locality, and there time is a constant.
-
And instead of dimensions I need something to join frames of references. I practically presume that dimensions will be a result of that joining, imposing rules on the communication.
-
It's closer to QM than one might think, relativity. If one treat the arrow as locally equivalent to 'c'.
-
And then the smallest, locally measurable, length also must become a smallest 'clock tick', I presume :) If you like discreteness. If you like a flow? Well, what was before a Big Bang? I can use 'before' from inside this universe even though it might be a meaningless subject in some thought up opposite.
-
Now, if I was to write a nice SF I could imagine a 'quantum universe', consisting of 'no time', in where I somehow create a four dimensional continuum or 'symmetry break', using three room dimensions and one time dimension. If I then want to let the mirror mirror the mirror, I further invent intelligent beings inside this four dimensional continuum, that in their turn, invent the concept of 'quantum computers' :)
Disregarding the following headache, it would nice book to read, wouldn't it?
-
so, we're back at the Big Bang, where it all started. Rambling my middle name :)
-
We have those experiments from Lund though, 'photographing electrons' finding them to move. Well, in a way, they made a moving picture of their still images, but that doesn't necessary mean that this movie deliver a truth :) Or you can think of it as delivering several truths. It is a truth that the probability of where a particle will exist change with time, but it is also a truth that there is possible different paths, positions, etc, co-existing. Although the one(s) with the highest probability should be the one we find, usually.
So you can get to a 'moving picture' from probability.
-
Ever wondered how we can have a civilization? It's been on my mind for some time now. How is it possible? Well, how is it possible for ants to construct their 'ant-hill'? That's a pretty sophisticated work of engineering, isn't it? Do you think they sit down to plan it out before building a new one? We like to speak about ourselves as 'planning for the future', but? I don't know, the structures that has survived longest is the pyramids, and roman aqueducts possibly? And it's not a result of planning for the future, well, maybe the pyramids, and megalith stones? but to what purpose? As some memorial, that's the pyramids. As some scientific instrument? That's possibly Stonehenge.
What do you think would happen with the mono cultures we grow those days, and our modern infra structure, treating the globe as one place where from we get our food and sustainability, as Spain for vegetables? The second world war happened in a time when mono cultures of that scale didn't exist?
And if we use the ants again, do they really plan? Or do they just adapt to what is needed for the moment, trying to live their lives as good as they can? We call it instincts, don't we :) What about humans, do they have it too? What is that urge to reproduce? Are we that different from other animals really, or do we just 'dress it in'? So what about that politician telling you that he, or her, have a 'vision' for your future?
-
Do politicians, and governments, plan, or do they just adapt to circumstances?
It's a really important question today, and it has direct connections to my question of how civilizations can exist, as complicated as ours. Because we need to turn our heads a little, we're not 'explorers' of infinite riches any more, and there is no 'white mans burden'. Industrialized countries worked because they were the first to exploit the earth 'whole sale', and that made a lot of things possible in Europe and USA. But if you use the same behavior today for developing countries? And they on their side look at you, telling you that what you did is what they are going to do too.
-
My own thesis there would be that we're really good at adapting, but we're actually pretty lousy on planning for longer than some decades, and consistently lousy on realizing why this is so much more important today, than it was yesterday.
It's a shrinking planet.
-
We're on a collision course as I see it, with our old ideals and ways of thinking. This planet is your home, the best home you ever will get. Anyone fool enough to think of a man made spaceship as a human habitat is fool enough to make me happy to get rid of him :) Build it and be gone.
-
You won't build a new Earth.
the only reasonable thing we can do, in my mind, is to try to take as good care as we can of the one we have.
We need to become caretakers.
-
And that craves what we are so consistently lousy at doing, plans for the future. And it craves you to turn your own head, to realize that it really is a shrinking planet. We need new solutions, that are practical, but before that happens you need to understand in your bones that this is the only way forward.
-
Strange how correct the bible can be on that point, or rather the new testament. The whole idea of what Jesus preached was just, that before turning the head of others you badly needed to turn your own head. To tell someone to do what you say, not what you do, is a dead end.
-
And as I'm no saint :) I'm most probably not the right person to tell you. But, I think it's still the most important thing anyone can do with their life. To turn ones head a little, and realize that it is a shrinking planet. And it has a direct connection to if we plan or not. If we don't plan, which is my thesis, then this is the only way we ever will be able to make a change.
Do you get this?
Read it again.
-
Crazy demands, isn't it? :) Well, that's what practical solutions are good for. One kid per person is a decision you can take by yourself. If we agreed on that one we would do something monumental. We would enlarge this planet, its resources, and create a better living for us all. Because our population would shrink.
The old ways, the church way, and the free markets way, was (still is, depending) more and more consumers. Reproduce, as often and fast as possible, enabling me to become that happy millionaire selling my ideas, and materials. And remember, you can become one too, following this glorious plan for our future, btw, I promise, it's enjoyable too :)
Old ideals, and old ways.
That was before prophylactics :) And modern societies so involved in making careers that family life takes a second position to ones self interests (career).
A life worth living?
-
Where does heat go?
when you have a material that gets heated then you have a interaction between radiation and matter, or matter matter but that also must by necessity involve vibrational states transfered by radiation. If you then want to call this radiation photons or waves I will leave aside for the moment.
Then you have phase transitions. Those are states where, as a example, water getting heated starts to produce water vapor (steam). As such states occur the temperature (heat transfer from one material to another) won't change as measure by your thermometer. The reason is explained as what happens at those points are internal, in this case the phase transition from water to steam is occurring.
Phase transitions is about states relating to rest mass, as I think?
How would a universe of pure radiation be able to have a phase transition?
Can it? And even worse, how would you define 'energy' to have it?
You have to differ the concept of 'energy' from radiation. Radiation contain energy, everything I know of is presumed to contain energy, it's the coin of exchange. But 'energy' without anything expressing it? No photons and no waves?
can that exist?
-
Then we have the idea of a 'heat death'. How is that possible in a infinite universe? If I presume expansion and inflation to be correct, as well as the definition of there being no center to the universe, how does this heat mellows out, so to speak? If we had walls to this universe you might have one definition of it, but then we also would have to consider the kinetic energy of radiation, or 'radiative pressure' :) acting on those 'walls'. Without 'walls', and with a infinite universe one idea might be that the expansion is driven by heat? It's a really weird one, as you either need to assume that this 'energy', in a expanding universe, assuming you want to keep the universe in a equilibrium, will be 'inserted' from 'nowhere' as needed to fit a expansion, alternatively that it isn't 'inserted', which then accelerate the heat loss? And if so, how could a inflation work? A inflation faster than light of the room we exist in.
And what about conservation of energy here? If I want to take that seriously, can I allow new 'energy to 'materialize from nowhere' to keep our infinite universe in a equilibrium? The whole idea of conservation of energy more or less presumes the universe to have way of stopping leaks, doesn't it? So we would need to have a very weird mechanism, considering that this new 'energy' needed, just would have to be 'inserted' as to fit our internal equilibrium, no more and no less, assuming conservation laws
And how does a heat death ends up? What is its final state? It needs matter to exist as I think. If I want to think of a heat death, doesn't I have to assume that everything exist in a same state then? What about those internal phase transitions? The 'energy' of this universe can't go down, not if you think it conserved, it can only transform. Assuming a expansion and a infinite amount of energy, as fitting a infinite universe, but still in a equilibrium as that follow logically from conservation laws, you need a way to keep that equilibrium. you might assume that it could drive a expansion somehow though? But then you also must assume that we would see that in, for example, a otherwise unexplainable heat loss?
Why it follows logically? Well, as I think then. You want a 'closed universe' in some indefinable (for now) way, if you want conservation laws. Because without that there can be no conservation of energy. And if you treat that universe instant by instant, then each instant should present a equilibrium existing. You can't have parts differing, some 'new' without 'energy' getting 'filled' by that set amount energy you then assume the universe to constantly have. Maybe the question should be how a expansion fits conservation laws?
If I on the other hand think of it as a symmetry break? Then it shouldn't be a isolated existence, although it easily could be so described from a inside of it, which are where we are. It's about getting something from 'nowhere' then :)
Or if it is a projection of sorts?
this idea of indefinable walls 'existing' in a infinite expanding, once inflating ftl, universe makes me head ache. And presuming there being no center to it, the expansion occurring in each point, what are those walls?
Yeah, weird thoughts indeed?
-
And then there is a last thought. The whole idea of transformations without loss of energy, as it should only be transformed. Isn't that a sort of perpetuum mobile. Not that is doesn't stop, as per entropy, but it seems that there is no ultimate cost involved in it? Because if there was, I would assume some energy to be lost irrecoverably, 'disappearing', if you see how I think here?
But energy don't get lost?
It transforms :)
-
And that should bring us to the concept of information loss. Useful information relative unuseable. In a 'conserved' universe, can there be a loss of information? Writing something on ice cube, is the information lost as the ice melt?
-
Every definition we have presume time, doesn't it?
-
Still, we live by our minds. Most of the things we believe in are mind concepts, thoughts. Mathematics is a way to describe logics, because that is what we presume this universe to build on. So is there a ultimate logic describing everything? Would you want to state that entropy explains complexity? From a seed to a tree? Or the way you can imagine up something, or the way we exchange information?
-
Is it a information universe? Think of a quantum computer, assume all paths taken 'simultaneously, the probability defining a outcome. Consider that 'timeless instant' as another way to look at the universe. Would you then expect all thoughts there ever have been and will be, to co-exist there too?
Probability builds on experience collected through time, statistics. Studying the statistics one can theorize about what logical laws there should be, describing why the statistics behave as they do.
Everything involves time.
-
Entropy Is Simple — If We Avoid The Briar Patches! (http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/content.htm)
-
It's really nice that link. Did you read it? :) Had it before and will probably link it whenever entropy is discussed. Entropy is a way of life it seems, or better expressed, a way of time.
=
Notice how easy he makes it, that's the sign of a clear mind to me. We have some people here that have that ability :) maybe not me though, heh.
-
If you read it you might be able to answer if complexity and entropy is the same. At least I think so, it's not the same. If you take a plant it uses entropy to add to its complexity, the complexity of it goes up at the same time as the entropy increase. Now this may sound as it is the same but it's not. When entropy increase it disperses, like milk, spontaneously mixing with coffee. Complexity is something else, and it's about everything of matter, living and growing. I don't know how else to express it?
-
Let us assume all processes going backwards? the broken cup assembles. You grow young instead of old. Now that is a reversal of time, and some think it's possible. I don't find it possible myself, and that you can reverse the movie is to me just a result of there existing a logic. For the universe to contain a logic you should be able to reverse it, assuming you have all parameters involved (very theoretically naturally). Sometimes you also see time reversals described as still fitting entropy, those of you reading this link above, would you agree to that?
-
So, what about it?
Does God exist?
Depends on what attributes you expect it him, or her, to have, doesn't it? You want God to know every sparrow that falls to the ground? Then you probably also want him/her to be responsible for this universe we exist in too. I wouldn't want any God to feel responsible for that :) It should reasonably quick put him/her (it?) under the care of a divine shrink, if he/her though she/he was. I think we are responsible, although that's a rather unpopular view of life, isn't it?
We always want someone, or something, to blame, don't we?
But I do think we have to take the responsibility here. We are what we make it to be. If you think this way then the next question becomes, what do we want it to be? And that's a lot trickier? What do we want to become? Animals, fighting for existence? Well, that not too bad, as long as no animal sticks out from the horde, as we do. Because we do, we're not the same as the other animals, we invent things, we have 'ideals' and 'visions' :)
All to often those include greed and expanding ones territory, one way or another. Not too different from any other animal, is it? If they just could. So what do you think, can we become caretakers? If so, on whose terms? Earths as a whole, or just from the perspective of what a human may want, as always, shortsightedly.
-
Complexity isn't about physics per se. It's about thoughts, and words, creating new ideas and possibilities. It's about that, not theoretical, yet very theoretical layer, that creates your mathematics, and your ideals, and your dreams, and hopes for the future. And that one grows in the direction of the arrow, it doesn't dissolve.
-
Let's assume the universe consist of information. Why does it use complexity? And why does the complexity grow? It's about logics, and also about emotions and feelings. It may well be so that you can translate those into a logic, creating them. Just as your taste can be translated to geometrical formations, more or less, fitting your taste buds.
Would that make love meaningless?
Or hope?
It's like mirrors of a same universe, one consisting of the mathematics defining it, the other consisting of what comes from a constantly growing complexity.
-
In a way it is about those shadows on the wall, but the shadows are us. We don't define a taste from some mathematical or chemical definition of a geometrical formation, we define it from what we experience as we taste it. It's 'sweet' or 'sour' or 'salt', add infinitum.
No use ignoring this fact.
-
And pain, does it hurt you? All animals should be able to experience pain, the question might be in what way (how) they translate it. and that one belongs to their complexity as living organisms I think. But pain will still be pain.
-
What might the the goal of complexity be? The goal of entropy seems to be a quiet dissolving, but what about complexity?
What is the state of a true quantum computer, before we find it to deliver a outcome?
-
I believe in time, I think it is time that enables intelligence, emotions, dreams and hope. Take that arrow away and nothing will 'exist', at least not as we define a existence. It's time that allows you to have a goal, it allows you to study, it allows your mathematics. Take it away and mathematics won't exist. I think we live in a symmetry break, it has a logic, the logic is describable mathematically. that does not state that mathematics is what the universe is, we don't know what the universe is, nobody does. It's like those 'gurus' that pops up constantly, telling you how life should be lived. Are they immortal then? They better be to have all those answers. And in western democracies we exhange gurus for 'experts', treating them as eastern cultures treat 'gurus'. I like science, and physics, and there one ground rule is that nothing ever is set in stone. It may be true, but only until proven wrong. So forget gurus and experts, keep an open mind instead, and try to decide what your mark will be on this world, before you leave it.
-
You know, the world is still a wondrous and marvelous place, if we allow it to be so. We can stop it shrinking, each one can do that, no need of a masters voice. It's like the idea of democracy, a individual vote for what I think is right. Maybe we find, or at least have found, representative democracy the best way, but maybe it's time to take another step. You can't compare what you have against what's worse, and then state yourself satisfied. There is always a need to move forward, to do it better. That is complexity's demands to me, and it's more spiritual than anything else I know of.
Because we have moved forward, all of us have. The dark ages are mostly behind us, unless we throw ourselves into some new war of course. I sincerely hope we can avoid that. Think of a country littered with Fukushima's to see why.
-
Let's talk about Russia for a second or two, but first I would like you to read Tightness and Looseness. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tightness-and-looseness-a-new-way-to-understand-differences-across-the-50-united-states/). Would you agree on this one?
Let us assume that they are, generally speaking, on the right track. Then apply it on Russia's. They've lost, or given up, their former empire, to find themselves surrounded by new EEC states, that furthermore also want to join NATO. Sweden take all Internet traffic, 80 % of it goes through us, bundle it up wholesale, and ship it to UK and the States.
Would you define Russia as a 'loose' or 'tight' Country?
What happens when such a Country starts to feel 'pressed in'?
How would USA behave if it was placed in this kind of situation?
How did it behave at the Cuba crisis?
(Disregarding Russia point of view here, this whole new technique of collecting all information there is, from the Internet and mobile phones etc, to store it indefinitely, until needed. It's no longer a conventional 'targeting intelligence', unless you want to consider us all targets, for your whole life.)
-
The question above has nothing to do with what ideals one might have of a world order. Solely with people. I better repeat it :) it's not about whether Russia, as a 'democratic country', should be treated one way or another. It's about putting someone under pressure, and the question of if it is the right way to go.
-
What happens when such a Country starts to feel 'pressed in'? That I think has (at the very least) two sides to it, what happens internally, with those citizens not toeing the official line? And what happens externally, the relations to neighboring states? To that you can add what possibilities of pressure Russia can apply, economic as with their pipelines of natural gas etc, as well as military.
Let us assume Europe free itself from its dependencies of Russian delivery's here. How will that be looked at internally from Russia side? Will it diminish the pressure they think themselves under, or will it increase it? Free trade, when working, is a good thing. Using it for political blackmail will backfire, sooner or later.
-
Assume that space expands in every point, gravity acting as buoys (with matter) keeping the solar system together. How does that fit with the notion of old light? It's simple, thinking of it for a while, but still got me momentarily confused. When we look out on the universe we don't see what 'is', we're seeing what 'has been'. So what you see is related to the distance of the source. But a inflation and expansion actually supports my definition of time, locally equivalent to 'c'. Because you have it happening (evolving) in each point, locally defined at a 'same time', everywhere.
so distance gives us our possibility to look 'backward in time'. And so it, to me that is :) also makes it plausible that as there is no center, you equivalently should be able to state that everywhere is a center. You are the center of what you observe, and you will see the same wherever you go. So, leaving for the suburbs of our visible universe you should find the exact same vista as you do here. A 'infinite' universe, all around you.
the second one relates to what I wrote about conservation of energy, and with it all conservation laws I presume? With a assumed entropy, how can there be no cost to it? Something must be lost if you assume a direction. We call it useful energy transforming into non useful energy as I understand. But generally thinking I can't see any process with a defined behavior in time, that hasn't some sort of cost associated with it?
So, what is the cost here? Assume that time is connected to processes, interactions. Does all interactions stop as entropy dissolve, equals out, a universe? What about the uncertainty principle? Does that disappear?
If there are no outcomes?
=
Need to learn how to spell, and not to mix Swedish words with English, at some time :)
Not today though.
-
Looked at this way, it's all local. All your definitions are local. And locally is what gives you your constants. And those constants creates a universe interacting in time. But I still don't see what connects frames of reference? It would be preferable with a simpler universe, like a box :) in where we can place ourselves, but that isn't what expansion and inflation states.
-
Can you see why I don't like the idea of a vacuum as 'energy' here? I don't think it fit.
-
Ideas trying to define a equilibrium are also ideas involving a 'container universe' to me. Although the container here is very vague it still exist in such descriptions, but to me inflation and expansion must question it. It becomes very tricky understanding how a equilibrium can exist in a expanding universe, unless you either assume a 'outside' of some sort interacting in some unknown way with our universe, alternatively assume that a expansion somehow 'lends' from this very vaguely described container model of a universe.
-
so what can we come up with? Assuming that the conservation laws are correct?
A holographic universe? A universe of information? What do we have left if we throw away all ideas of a container?
-
I don't really know. I know that I consider this a symmetry break, and also as a projection. But I do not assume a outside. If there is one it I think will have to be defined as co-existing with us in each point, or avoiding that, just call it 'everywhere'. A symmetry break because we have a direction, we find all sorts of directions :) and a projection because the only definitions making sense to me are local, including constants. That makes what connects frames of reference the most intriguing, and confusing, thing I can think of.
-
What you do when you throw away the container is also to question what dimensions should be seen as. Because any dimension builds on the assumption of us being to define at least some sort of 'area/extension' for it, doesn't it? String theory defines a one dimensional string this way "A string is a one-dimensional object, meaning that if you want to travel along a string, you can only go forwards or backwards in the direction of the string, there is no sideways or up and down on a string."
Well, as soon as I can move on it I will presume it to extend in some direction, if not area then at least a 'space' to move in. And you need it to extend to get all those different models, of strings, loops, and branes. Or that description may be wrong, I'm not sure how a string, or loop, theorist imagine it.
but I do like the idea of some sort of first building blocks, although if we think of the uncertainty principle and indeterminism, it also seem to become a result of frames of reference interacting, creating this reality we live in. Decoherence, as QM speculates about.
also, any extension measured must be a result of a time involved.
-
I don't think you need description 'limiting' the infinity of this universe. No need to walk out to the right to come in to the left. Better to use the idea of a real infinity, you being the center of this universe. The center is just a concept, a complex focus point consisting of 'you' observing the universe around you. Because 'you' is more than the sum of your parts. You are the thoughts, the mind, the focus that observe, and measure. It's exactly like the idea of a proper time existing. That proper time we refer to exist for each one of us, equivalently so. But you can't define it to some 'point' in this four dimensional universe we find. It's like decoherence, it comes to be as a focus.
-
It's all about complexity, isn't it?
-
Alternatively you can think of a proper time as something existing in all points, locally defined. And that one is about whether there exist a discreteness to this universe. If it does, then the question becomes if that is a end to it, or if it is a duality of sorts with what I call a 'flow'. We have a way to look at it, the way inwards, magnifying. And when we do I think we see a duality there too. What some call a field.
-
It's a weird concept :)
You are more than the sum of your parts, consciousness add something. But so is your proper time. And there is a discreteness, as I think, but that one is also part of a flow. I'm slightly starting to understand the old lady who thought Earth rested on a elephant. "It's elephants the whole way down, my young man.'
Well?
-
So what have I against a field? I don't like container models, that's about it. Give me a way to think of a universe consisting of a observer dependent field, able to be measured differently by different observers, without giving it limits. Otherwise I like it a lot.
-
As I see it then, a field is what you should get as frames of reference interact, locally defined.
-
Think of a expansion again. Assume it to happen in each point. Can you see yourself falling in? Do you expect it to have an end?
-
Is that a direction?
What about a perfect sphere of (even density) matter in a flat space.
Which way points gravity?
-
Why I'm using a perfect sphere here is not because its geometry, although it is about its geometry :)
Shrink it, then shrink it some more, then shrink it again.
-
Maybe you could call it a symmetry? It has a perfect even matter distribution in a other wise ' perfectly empty vacuum, or universe '
And if you turn it around, then a 'perfect point' should when magnified become as this perfect sphere, to us inside this four dimensional universe, I think that is :)
==
Not really though, it's a simplification. I'm just using it descriptively, to point out something that I find strange. You accept a expansion? Then maybe you see what I'm getting at? There is no less logic in gravity's direction here than there is in the expansions. And to me it's about how we define dimensions.
I think 'degrees of freedom' is a, so much, better description.
-
Then we have uncertainty, and indeterminism. It keeps coming back, doesn't it?
Read this one, then read it again. I know I did :)
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/resonances.html
-
If you read it then Andreas wrote something really fundamental there.
"Assuming the subject is logical, as physics is supposed to be, the fundamentals are the basic ideas that allow one to reconcile seemingly contradictory end results."
So what would a observer dependent field need to be from logic? It would need to agree on basic observations, even if ones measurements would disagree. As for example the amount of planets. If we stretch this notion somewhat further, also the amount of particles existing. As per a Lorentz transformation.
would you agree to that?
-
So, assuming this is correct. Then we have us one definition of this 'container', wouldn't you say? Also we would need to presume that all observers would agree to what they see containing the same dimensions, that means four, length, width, height, and a arrow in which to measure those.
So is it a container?
A very strange one if so, it has a consistent logic, but that is a must. I can as easily exchange a container for rules, laws, and principles.
-
Andreas is so right in what he writes. Physics presumes a logic. Just as we should find a time reversal, logic demands it to me. Or do you know a way to define a process, evolving in time, that becomes impossible to reverse, as in catching it on a screen unable to reverse the movie? Even if you do, what is its probability? If you want this universe to consist of a logic, can you allow it to not be reversible?
-
Then again, I don't consider it reversible practically. That means that you can't travel back in time, well, as far as I'm concerned. You have to differ between a logics demands of causality (Cause and effect), and that local arrow acting on you. The logic must be there, but the arrow has only one direction. Whereas entropy locally can decrease, although overall must increase, your local arrow constantly will 'tick' at a same rate as 'c', all as I see it.
-
To clarify, when you measure that local entropy decreasing, you do it using your local clock and ruler. So entropy and the arrow is not equivalent. 'c' and the arrow though, is.
=
better get some sleep huh :)
-
It all comes down to what you think define this universe. I use strict locality to define it from. I don't use a assumption of a 'container universe'. If I did I think I should lose my definition of a arrows equivalence to 'c', as you there find both 'time dilations' and 'Lorentz contractions'. But I know that my definition must be correct, you're a living proof of it, as is me :) We both have a birth, and a end, locally defined.
-
Relativity is a theory of extremes, or maybe a theory of where the limits of our observable universe are? Like 'c', like what Ehrenfest paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox) discuss. It's implications are philosophical, it's about what life consist of, and the universe, but you won't see it at/in the 'regime' we live, normally defined at least. You need to get close to the 'relativistic envelope' to observe it. To me it's important, maybe not so much to you. I would say relativity is a question of life, why we exist and where we are going.
It invites all of us to wonder.
-
The first thing you need to define, a basic, is whether you expect there to be a logic, or not? Without a logic, without a time reversibility the universe becomes magical to me. With a time reversibility I find a logic that fits to the arrow we measure locally. A place where causality breaks down must also become place without measurable statistics, as I see no way to guarantee a result there. Probability also builds on a assumption of there being a logic existing, causality holding, and when it comes to very low probabilities, actually need this base to be able to define such.
-
How else did you think you would be able to define that almost magical probability of all molecules getting collected in a corner of your room? It there was no bell shaped curve defining its probability?
-
so what about Feynman's ' many paths (http://www.aip.org/cip/pdf/vol_12/iss_2/190_1.pdf)' then? Isn't that a example of a state where it becomes extremely difficult discussing a arrow? Sure, that's what I naively think of as a example of a symmetry, and a symmetry break. The symmetry exist, still does, with us and our local arrow, becoming something of a needed counterpart to it.
Without that arrow, would a consciousness exist?
-
This universe is defined through outcomes. The outcomes follows a logic that should be reversible to fit my thinking. Even though this logic is strictly local (as in a local arrow), to get to a 'seamless container universe' you need it to connect all 'events', as instants of outcomes, in a understandable way for all observers. That's what relativity does (Lorentz transformations). Behind it all though is our presumption of this is the way it must work for us. It has to make sense.
-
there is actually a possibility of the universe being magical :) A 'wizard of sorts' having a laugh on us, creating a symmetry break out of thin air, stringing us up to a logic, as puppets to a show. I don't think it is so, I think of it as a symmetry, and I find no way to see how this wizard should be able to exist, to formulate this symmetry break, without a arrow involved. That mathematical space of 'many paths' should then be its whole existence, as I think.
No, it's a symmetry, and we are needed. We're the symmetry break making it all possible, to me, that is :)
-
the reason is rather simple, which is to my liking. 'many paths' presume exactly what exist, namely us and our universe. Take it away and that mathematical space shouldn't exist either.
-
It's a basic, and a presumption.
But it got to be there.
If you on the other tentacle love containers, then you also probably want to define something making it.
-
So what is a dimension?
I would define it as a distance. A distance is something you measure under a arrow. Without a arrow a distance won't make sense. We have four dimensions. On the other tentacle, three of them are the same, equivalent distances, the fourth is that arrow which makes them exist. A distance is observer dependent, as we all know from relativity. It belongs to 'you' measuring it, relative your 'proper time' and local ruler.
-
Together with time, mass, 'speeds' and 'energy', they form our geometry. 'Speeds' as you can break that one into two categories, uniform motions equivalent to no discernible local change and so equivalent to being still, accelerations (which include decelerations) expressing itself as a locally definable inertia, and under special definitions 'gravity'.
-
the Higgs fail miserably with defining what mass is under a uniform motion. If you would imagine it as a viscosity then you also need to explain why rest mass under different uniform motion still will be of the same gravity. As a explanation for inertia it becomes different, there it seem to fit, but that will then split gravity and inertia. You don't get both as far as I know, with a Higgs boson.
There is also that, that a Higgs boson is a try for explanation versus 'forces'. You might say that it is a return to Newtonian outlook of a 'container universe' in where there are force carrying particles, as the Higgs Boson that then regulate inertia, and as some want, also somehow (?) create gravity.
This sort of reasoning is not relativistic, it's a return to a universe that is a container. On the other tentacle, didn't we agree on that it has some properties that we definitely would expect a 'container' of sorts to express? Even Einstein defined the universe as 'one thing', making a 'relativistic sense'.
-
Let's see, you're constantly 'infalling' :), when using my definition of a expansion, remember? At the same time as you, standing on Earth, is accelerating constantly and uniformly, according to the equivalence principle, with gravity's arrow, defined from some ideal sphere of a even density in a flat space, pointing in the opposite direction from your 'acceleration'. I can see why a Newtonian outlook seems to make more sense :)
-
But relativity has hold all tests I've heard of.
-
So where does my interpretation of Einsteins relativity differ? It's one word.
Locality.
And that one is about presumptions. I presume that it becomes simpler to explain as defined locally than presuming a container, and then try to explain it. Doing so frames of reference ability to communicate becomes the big mystery, presenting us the illusion of a seamlessly existing universe in where we all are 'contained'.
You use a container? Then time becomes a illusion. You use locality, then time becomes a (local naturally:) constant. Which one do you prefer, and which one fits your life?
-
It's simpler because it unite your arrow with 'c'. It gives you a simple logic (although understanding why 'c' is 'c' still is a mystery) explaining why you will find yourself to age wherever you go, at whatever mass, and speed.
-
And just as a expansion, and gravity, and constants, it's a local expression. What makes our seamless universe is the way they connect. And that is 'frames of reference'.
-
It's also dependent on what you want to call a 'illusion'. Reality, as far as I can see, is about communication. Connect frames of reference, enable it to communicate, and evolve, and you should have yourself a logic, a arrow, and a universe.
-
And from that you should be able to define 'force carrying particles' be they bosons or rest mass (fermions).
-
And our measurements will define dimensions.
-
Can a 'photon gas' have a temperature?
Not really, at least not from where I stand. But it will present us with a temperature as soon as it interacts. Photons do not interact with each other, normally defined. If they did we should see all kinds of interesting phenomena happening in a vacuum, as space, as I think. although to test it you really need to create a 'perfect vacuum'.
A BEC is consisting of particles obeying Bose-Einstein particle statistics, similar to bosons as photons, with Fermions (matter) obeying the Fermi-Dirac particle statistics and the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that you can't have identical properties for two particles of rest mass, normally. They each need to occupy a unique state. that's, as far as I get it, what builds our 'touchable' matter.
It also means that fermions can't share a identical ground state, in contrast to a bosonic BEC in where all particles, at extremely low temperature, will do so. Fermions are defined from their spin which are described as half-integrals (1/2 = half integer spin). Helium 3 is a atom of rest mass, consisting of two protons, one neutron and two electrons. It's particles adds up to an uneven number creating this atom, and therefore can not be made into a BEC. Bosons spin, on the other tentacle, is defined by whole numbers, integer spin, from zero and up. So, if you can find a atom with the correct number particles creating it, getting a integer net spin out from the 'gas' of atoms, you have the possibility of a BEC.
Helium 4 is such a atom, consisting of two protons, two neutrons and two electrons. Cooling an assemble of such atoms down will lead to them losing their individual identity, following Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP).
HUP is a statement about uncertainty. One explanation is that as you cool those atoms down the number of possible energy states existing for them drastically shrink. As a result of this their velocities becomes more definite, and with that follow that their positions must become more and more uncertain, in the end resulting in a BEC. Another partial explanation come from the QM statistics itself, stating that when treating bosons as a 'ideal gas' there will be a limit for the total number of particles moving at excited states (kinetic energy). And this allowed number shrink with the temperature shrinking. Passing the allowed limit will then start to force particles down to a zero-momentum ground state. Those not stopping their motion will not become the BEC, just those forced down.
-
It's about that Big Bang, and temperatures, heat, and interactions actually :) I can't be the only one wondering about what transitions you can expect 'pure energy' to be able to do? Or ignoring that, a 'photon/wave' universe?
If there are no interactions?
Then again, we have the idea of spontaneous particle creation to consider too. Although I find that one rather weak, and weird:) it is a possibility. Is gravity equivalent to energy? Also, are there proofs of virtual particles becoming real out of a vacuum?
-
It's like temperatures, isn't it? To measure it you need to produce that thermometer. doing so you introduce a interaction between radiation and rest mass, that result in giving you a temperature. Radiation on its own does not have a temperature, unless extremely theoretical. Experimentally you need rest mass for producing it as I think?
-
and to proof your 'virtual particles' you will need rest mass for it to interact with too.
-
And it all goes back to what a Big Bang means? Well, except for the obvious :)
-
A simple definition of why I'm correct is to consider the vacuum existing. You have space just some tens of (swedish) miles away. Further out you have a sun. We assume that light propagates between that sun and here, constantly, unerringly :)
So, does it heat up the vacuum?
-
Do that mysterious energy 'stored' in the vacuum interact with the suns radiation then?
N000Oooope :)
If it did we would notice.
-
Any time you see a sun flare you see a interaction between radiation and matter, as far as I know. You need some type of rest mass. But a Big Bang, without rest mass? How did it ever get to producing it? From what type of reaction? Energy + energy = rest mass, can't be right. Radiation + energy then? Makes no more sense to me :) Radiation + Radiation then. Really? And from where did we get that radiation?
Actually, the last one isn't that stupid. It just depends on how you define a universe.
-
Everything is possible to translate to the coin of exchange, 'energy'. But you have to be pretty mixed up if you define matter and photons, radiation, as one and the same. They are not the same.
-
Yes, I know of waves interacting :) quenching and reinforcing, as in a two slit experiment, and I will need to write about that too. But photons do not interact as far as I know. And you need to set it into my world view, in where locality is all, well, all I go out from that is. But I really need to write about waves too.
Another thing. I wrote that Higgs doesn't explain rest mass. that depends maybe. Assuming you believe in 'real' virtual particles, with a momentum discernible by a Higgs boson/field? And if we to that add that those imaginary directions take themselves out?
Well, curioser and curioser possibly, but who knows?
I just don't find it good enough.
-
Alternatively, assume that everything 'vibrate'. Atoms, their particles, electron clouds, whatever rest mass you can think of. We need to impose the same restriction naturally, that those directions they may present 'vibrating', evens out. then you could possibly argue that a Higgs field react with it, creating a mass. Naturally we then need to assume that some bosons, as photons, shouldn't 'vibrate' too, as it (a photon) has no discernible rest mass. It can't have it, it's never 'at rest'.
-
So, momentum or position :) A Higgs would then 'see' what?
Why?
Thinking of HUP.
-
Would you then need a 'container model' explaining this field? Or can you do the same without? If you believe HUP then there is probabilities that define what we see. there are no certainties, although possibly decoherence can be seen as a try for a, statistically defined, certainty, all as I get it.
-
It's not the Higg's per se that gets me frustrated :) It's the thinking behind, the presumption of a container it implies to me.. What defines this universe is not a container, it's logic.
-
How about this then. I had an idea, old one, about this being a flickering universe. You could translate that into a discrete model, where it all becomes quanta that flickers, of and on, at for example Planck scale. To that add that motion then represent differing positions in this 'field'. Planck scale seem a natural choice for it. What would a Higg field be then? Maybe a flickering can be translated into motion by a Higg? but it does not fit. The Higg fit a model in where you presume, preexisting, dimensions, in where we find a field, or rather several types of fields, that together create our rest-mass, and our reality. Because the Higg does not explain particles, it's here to explain inertia, and possibly gravity.
-
How do I translate a Higg field to a photon following a bent path, passing our sun for example? It has no mass, you can argue that it has a energy naturally, equivalent to a mass. but why would a vacuum give that path if the reason to gravity it this field, acting on particles? To answer that you could argue that the 'vacuum energy' close to a rest mass must stronger, think of a event horizon and spontaneous pair production for that. And so producing a higher amount of 'virtual particles' that a Higg field can interact with, creating that photon path?
I don't know, I don't like 'virtual particles', especially as they only exist in combination with rest mass, as far as I've read, experimentally. you want a vacuum to have it, then please find some way to prove it from a vacuum, not from interacting with rest mass. It's like photons 'propagating', no way to prove in unless you define source and a sink of matter, as there is no object as a 'photon' measurable in itself, unless in a annihilation. Which to me always will be a very local experience. Then we have waves, they demand frames of reference to exist, if something really should be said to 'propagate' then I would think of waves firstly.
-
That takes us back to the initial moment of a Big Bang :)
Without rest-mass, and also without radiation?
How would energy, if that now can be assumed to exist as some entity, on its own, produce it?
Relates directly to if you should be able to prove 'virtual particles' without matter interactions.
-
So what am I saying here? That this universe you experiment on can't be the one creating it? Alternatively, prove virtual particles, without involving matter interactions, that should give you a good argument for 'energy' being able to create the rest.
-
So what does the Higg rest on? The standard model? And the results from LHC? And, maybe, also on the presumption of virtual particles able to interact with it? That is if you want it to relate to rest mass in uniform motion, also called relative motion.
Read this one first http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/03/the-biggest-firework-of-them-all-the-higgs/
then this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/03/higgs-boson-particles-techni-quark_n_5085812.html
seems I wasn't too far from how some think when it comes to 'virtual particles'?
no surprise there, it's all about a container model, isn't it? real 'motions', of 'real', as well as 'virtual' particles, treated the same way. Ignoring the logic that states you can't use that model, unless you ignore relativity's observer dependencies. Shouldn't the mass measured then, change with ones (relative) motion in a vacuum? the whole idea of force carrying particles moving around as unmeasurable bosons seem to crave a simple container model.
To me it seems diametrical to what relativity state about motion. That it is observer dependent. You are free, in a uniform motion, to define that 'relative motion' any way you like, from being still to speeding away. It all depends on what you measure yourself against, as long as there is no absolute rest frame for this universe. And all experiments I know of agree on that one. There is no 'absolute motion', unless we're referring to accelerations which are provable, locally.
(And again we see that word, 'locally' :)
On the other tentacle, maybe there is a definition of the Higg that consider relativity. I would like to see it.
It also states that "To remove the need for fine-tuning and still answer the Higgs-mass question, physicists have suggested extensions of the Standard Model, the most popular of which is supersymmetry. This theory proposes a heavier superparticle, or "sparticle," for every particle in the Standard Model. Sparticles would then cancel out the effect of the virtual particles in the vacuum, bringing down the Higgs mass and removing the need for any fine-tuning."
But "Ethan Siegel from SB calls for shutting down the LHC (of course he cannot openly do so). He writes that the discovery of the Higgs boson is
… a nightmare scenario for everything else, including supersymmetry, extra dimensions, and string theory. Because finding the standard model Higgs at this energy means that there’s no need for any of those things. A Higgs at 125 GeV and nothing else at the LHC, totally consistent with the standard model, mean that if supersymmetry exists, it needs to be at such a high energy that it no longer solves the problem it was designed to solve!
He means the Hierarchy problem, and he is basically saying, though he cannot dare to actually say it (He may officially deny this interpretation), that with the Higgs, everything of interest that may still be out there is beyond the reach of the Large Hype Constructor (LHC), so we may as well scrap it!"
From http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/physicists_demand_lhc_shut_down_after_higgs_and_higgs_nonsense-91748
Now, this doesn't state that there can't be other models than the Standard model though. But it do seem to state that they also will have to fit what the standard model describes. And there we now see a Higg particle, or 'field', with virtual photons just as real as our normal photons.
-
The point is that I can accept it proving inertia, at least it seems to be possible. But if it is so, then that, to my thoughts, goes against Einsteins definition of inertia in a constant uniform acceleration becoming 'gravity', as described through the equivalence principle? And that one isn't wrong, too many experiments proving it.
=
you might say I'm of two minds, every time I think of a higgs particle, or any 'field', for that sake.
-
or we have to redefine gravity? One type relating to rest-mass, another relating to Higgs bosons with 'real motions', also forced to add a sub category, equivalent to a rest-mass as defined from the equivalence principle?
I don't know, but hey, that's no surprise :)
-
Actually, assuming that the Higgs would define all types of mass. Then I also think I will have to assume that we have found 'the gold standard' for absolute motion? Which then probably should annihilate relativity? At least major parts of it.
=
Not sure on this one though :)
Will have to think it out.
-
It's like everything else the Higgs. You have to wait a while and try to see what people mean after the hype has gone away. Luboš Motl has this to say about it "The Higgs boson is a particular particle – state in the Hilbert space – in a correct quantum mechanical theory describing Nature. I mean the Standard Model or its extensions. Any discussion of the Higgs boson would be totally impossible without quantum mechanics. All properties of the Higgs boson crucially depend on principles and special effects of quantum mechanics.
The Higgs boson is a particle associated with the Higgs field. To see the emergence of particles from fields, one has to discuss physics at the level of quantum mechanics; see the previous point. However, even in classical physics, one may add the Higgs field to the general theory of relativity, much like the electromagnetic fields. The Higgs field is a source of gravity and other things. But it's just "another added player"; the main field in the general theory of relativity is the metric tensor, i.e. the spacetime geometry, not the Higgs field." Then he goes on to discuss string theory http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31897/whats-next-after-higgs-boson-discovery
Another pretty good explanation to why a Higgs is expected http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-exactly-is-the-higgs/
But I think the most honest one is http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/higgs.html
=
So, if you now still feel suspicious to this idea, what more can you look at? Well, it presumes 'regimes', doesn't it? It goes out from temperatures. And a 'container' of it, that inflated. I do not doubt a inflation, or expansion as defined from a inside of a universe. But I've still to understand the rest of it.
how do you define a temperature to a photon universe?
how do you define its ability to create rest mass that doesn't revert into photons again, spontaneously. It's also called spontaneous pair production, and presumed to be able to happen now too, although reverting.
how could it be hot?
and what do you mean by it existing in some 'tight spot' initially?
=
I would call those questionable.
-
It's not that we don't find regimes, and symmetry breaking, now. But what about those initial parameters?
-
you can't work it out from using matter/radiation, and then back track. It's not a given that what we see now was the initial state, meaning that without rest mass I would expect you to need a different physics approach to explain it.
-
and what about this 'tight spot'. Doesn't fit the definition of a expanding universe to well, does it? assuming that it expands equivalently at all positions, gravity acting as 'buoys'. Looking at it from locality, all 'spots' you go out from, to then back track in time to some specified initial location, are as plausible. There is no 'initial tight spot' in the usual meaning that starts it. Because you can pick any position you like in this universe to backtrack from, and assuming you like the concept of a 'container universe' you should have a logical fallacy if you then want to define the time wise 'tight spot' to where ever you 'end up'. You have to think it out for yourself, to see what I mean, but it's worth the trouble I think.
-
And that's the fallacy to me. This preconception of a container. It seems to pop up everywhere in the presumptions. You can build a very nice logic from it, if you never question your basics.
-
You see, if you want a very high temperature, if you want a 'tight spot' in where it happens, then I think you want a container. But the container we define is a logic container, it's not a physical one, as having touchable, measurable, walls limiting it.
-
It's not a 'chamber' in where we have a explosion. That's a very Newtonian concept to me :)
-
Easier to see perhaps if you understand what I mean by that you can move anywhere in this universe, to the furthest edges of its visibility. and still find a exactly same view as you do from here, with stars existing all around you to the time wise and visible edge of the universe. There is no center.
-
It's really 'infinite'. It has to be, if inflation and expansion is correct.
-
Now, this is my view of it, and it builds from locality. You want another, I would say you also want a container universe, and with it, your tight spot. but that one is a logical fallacy.
-
That makes the universe something different from the container idea. No defined chamber at all, from where it 'spreads out'. what we have that could be said to 'narrow down', is a time line. And that time line you must find where ever you go to look out at the universe. Fits my ideas perfectly actually :) Time is as 'real' as can be, it's a constant that you can confirm, no matter where you go. And equivalent to 'c'.
-
Don't lose yourself in the mathematics, use your logic.
-
And, it's always a local definition. and that is what a inflation is too, and a expansion, and a constant. But, equivalently shared everywhere. So, no center to any of it, or if you prefer, everywhere you are observing is the center, locally defined. Try to see it this way and a lot of things will take a different meaning.
-
It all magnifies into a universe from locality. With you being the definer of that universe you describe. what makes it seamless is that it contain a logic, not a shared chamber.
-
It's a weird place this universe. And it builds on logic, although not the straightforward linear variant, in where you can be certain of a definite answer. I suspect renormalization to be, in a way, a statistical approach to reality, you use experiences of how it is, to set limits for your mathematics and so getting answers that makes sense. Looked at that way a renormalization is some motto self-fulfilling, on the other hand it gives a tool that works with what one know.
That's the only presumption I think should be, btw, for any physics. That there is a logic to the universe, the rest of our presumptions are more questionable. And that also answers whether mathematics is the tool of the trade, sure, it is, but as with all tools you need to use the right one for the job.
-
But it is also so that if this universe would be a 'linear mathematical box', containing no uncertainty, and no indeterminism, those thinking that free will can't exist most probably would be right. HUP is to me a invitation to that state before a outcome, or choice, has been made. Also a promise of your free will.
-
That does not state that you can't imagine a mathematical 'space' consisting of all choices there ever to be, or has been. And being in that space you might want to argue that everything is 'known', and so a free will is a illusion. But that would then be from what I call an 'eye of a God', not from me standing inside this universe acting on will.
Every time you make a choice, you're defining this universe we find ourselves in a little further. Doesn't really matter if you imagine yourself to have countless copies of yourself, taking all possible choices. You're not them.
-
But what makes the free will. Is not the outcome. It's that 'space' in between a action and a reaction, it's uncertainty and indeterminism, and somehow also disconnected from my usual thoughts of time. In a very strange way, ones free will connects to the very small. On the other hand or tentacle :) treat it all as a surface. Everything becoming a sheet, then nothing is further away from the very small than anything other. Just unfold 'dimensions' into a plane.
-
It's really 'infinite'. It has to be, if inflation and expansion is correct.
I agree, and the way I see it is thus:
The Big Bang was a local event in an infinite bulk. And inflation and expansion are also only local events on the grandest of scales. Many other so-called Big Bangs are not only possible in this bulk but, IMHO, inevitable. But we shall never witness such events because light speed restricts this possibility.
-
Actually there's no need for treating it that way. No need of a sheet as I see it. There already is no position in this SpaceTime, further away from 'QM'., than any other. You just need to turn your head ever so slightly to realize it. Doesn't matter if that position is outside your body, or inside it.
But what it might be translated into should be a plane, sheet, surface.
Whatever you prefer to call it.
-
Possibly Ethos. Although there's a need to define what a Big Bang is though. In a way this Big Bang still is going on, unfolding as we write :)
=
Also, by using 'bulk' you seem to define a container of some sort? I don't think you need a preexisting container for it. My thoughts on that one is that whatever 'container' we measure ourselves to exist in, creates itself by communication, so to speak. Making geometry a result of a logic unfolding inside a arrow.
-
Possibly Ethos. Although there's a need to define what a Big Bang is though. In a way this Big Bang still is going on, unfolding as we write :)
Truly yor_on,..........I've always wondered if a Black Hole had a limit to it's size and mass. Could we be seeing the explosion of a really huge supermassive Black Hole? A White Hole as it were, located in the infinite bulk that we interpret as our local universe. Just a thought...........
-
Heh :)
You need to define what you mean by bulk Ethos.
Do you suspect it to preexist?
-
There's nothing I can see stopping your idea of other 'universes acting out a same logic that this one, but there is neither anything, that I see now, that will connect them to us and our universe. The 'bulk' would then, from my point of view, represent this possibility, but not some defined dimension(s) in which it all take place.
-
Looked at that way you can see a Black Hole several ways I think. the one making most sense for the moment, for me (maybe I'll change my mind later:) is the one discussing them as singularities. As some cosmic censorship. It's results of the logic this universe use, and although part of it, censured.
-
By similar logic you might be able to argue that if communication is what define a geometry, then any 'many worlds' theory, that births new worlds to fit all possible outcomes, also must present a logic why, if now their physics are exact the same as their 'parents', they lose communication with us.
the way around it might just be defining dimensions as preexisting universes, although that one is severely convoluted to me. So maybe I need to retract the statement of several possible identical universes, for a same reason? That as soon as we have means of communication that are 'identical' as having a same physics, there should be communication possible, presuming dimensions are treated as 'constructions' created in a universes communication? Three of the dimensions 'distances' can be measured from any direction, the fourth that we call time has only one direction, which gives time a privileged place in my thinking.
-
Because, as soon as I do away with 'containers' there is nothing more than the logic (physics, mathematics, chemistry etc), defining a communication. There, the 'space' created for a universe becomes its physical artifact, having no meaning from any thought up 'outside'. And furthermore I don't think there can exist a 'outside', using this logic. What's nice with it is that it leads us to communication, using laws, rules, properties and principles.
=
And I think you can treat time this way too. As a physical artifact, having no meaning 'outside'. But I also define it as a local constant, adding that I don't know of any global constants that isn't equally local.
You have two choices here. Either defining laws, rules, properties and principles from the whole, a container of sorts, or, defining it locally to then introduce several frames of reference, co-existing and communicating, presenting us our SpaceTime.
Both definitions will lead us to a definition in where it doesn't matter where you are, the physics you meet must be the same, but the one using locality is sharper to me, less of a theoretical point. Because if locality is right it can be no other way, as far as I see.
-
Alternatively you might want a plane, or a point, and call it some sort of projective reality? Many worlds scenarios becomes somewhat of 'holograms inside holograms' to my thinking, also presuming no interference etc. Or fractals?
-
You can think of it as a symmetry break too. Then dimensions should be a proof of us being in one.
-
I think the last one is the simplest one actually. And whatever 'symmetry' should then be about HUP and indeterminacy to me. It's not that there isn't anything more, just that it isn't 'outside'. Using logic, rules, a local arrow, etc, the universe create its dimensions, and us, and sets its limitations for measuring. So the inside could then be described as being the outside too, :) in a slightly convoluted way.
-
Heh :)
You need to define what you mean by bulk Ethos.
Do you suspect it to preexist?
Yes; I believe it to have an eternal past and an eternal future.
I can imagine this Bulk to be an infinity of nothingness wherein many, if not an infinity, of universes could exist. This is where true space exists, the empty void where a vast number of universes might reside.
I've made a point in other threads to suggest that I believe there is no space empty of field. But this remark is only applicable to the space within our own universe. It may or not be true within the Bulk.
I prefer to think that the Bulk is devoid of field, where no spatial fabric exists, only emptiness separating the many possible universes. But alas, this is only conjecture on my part without proper substantiation and will likely remain so for a very long time.
-
Never mind Ethos :)
Just make it into a mathematical space, equivalent to that mathematical space in where many worlds theory lives. That's a better type of bulk than any other I can come up with.
-
although, if you do, you need to leave the arrow. That type of bulk isn't about a arrow. There will be no way to sort things as being before something else. It's more of a static reality in where everything that ever has been and ever will come to be 'co-exist'.
It's the same 'bulk', if so, that I think of when referring to HUP and indeterminacy.
-
that's another problem with the many worlds theory actually. As far as I get it, it is about outcomes, ordered as a string of pearls, each 'pearl' then initiating its own mathematical space in where all outcomes, imaginary possible from that event, will initiate somewhere, with universes included. There are other ways to look at it, but they are all unsatisfactory to me. They don't have the logic I prefer.
As a static mathematic space though of its own, no arrow involved, I have no problems with it though. I think that way is simpler, and also, highly possible.
but when it comes to events creating a infinity of alternative events I find the logic lacking in simplicity and beauty. As well as it has to use a arrow. but the arrow isn't in that mathematical space at all.
-
Why people like it, and why I too has a sweet spot for it. I think is a result of it promising some sort of 'eternal justice' and equilibrium. As we all then are in equilibrium, no one totally a victim and no one totally a perpetrator, as long as we accept those 'alternatives' as being part of ourselves.
But if you don't, and I don't, then it has no specific ethics of 'justice' involved. Although it still could be seen as some sort of equilibrium. But the equilibrium we refer to here, doesn't need this string of pearls to exist. It's already apparent in HUP and indeterminacy.
-
Using a mathematical space, without involving arrows, makes it impossible to define a many worlds theory I suspect. They may exist, but if dimensions are a result of a SpaceTime, and with it this arrow, obeying a same physics, then why can't those 'universes' communicate?
Because to call them 'separated' involves limitations, and if it isn't non-equivalent physics, then? What have you left? Degrees of freedoms maybe, or 'dimensions', separating them.
-
the important thing to remember before losing oneself into the mathematics, is that I presume dimensions to be coupled to a SpaceTimes existence, as described from its inside. And that is connected to a arrow. So you can't really invoke any eye of a God, to look at a infinite sea of 'alternative universes' constantly bifurcating under some eternal arrow.
The arrow is a result of a universe existing. That's also why it makes most sense discussing it as a symmetry break.
-
And why I do it? A long story, but it started with observer dependencies. Either you believe them to be true, or you think of them as an man made and physical artifact. I tried to find a reason for them and this is what it lead me too. It's as real as anything you ever will know in this universe. Einstein seems overall to be a person QM find uncomfortable, but he really isn't. He's perfectly on the spot when it comes to how the universe works, the thing with him that first confused me was his preference for a 'container universe' in where time dilation and Lorentz contractions becomes a proof for times illusionary existence. But that I think, goes back to his trust in logic, and that there's should be a reason for things happening. In the end maybe also on a trust in something more than just us.
The only thing needed to make a better sense of Einstein from a quantum realm is to exchange the container idea to one where the container is the artifact, created from physics. The problem there is that it is not only Einstein that thinks of containers, of different kinds. You can find it, if you look hard enough, almost everywhere.
-
You might summarize it into a question of time. Either time is a illusion, or it is a constant.
and as I adhere to the point of there being several way to describe this universe, yet expect one of them to make more sense, to me :) I use it as a constant, and that one is so simple. from that follows that a Lorentz contraction and a time dilation is a result of frames of reference interacting. And decoherence makes a lot of sense too, as it is about conglomerates, giving you that ideal constant of a arrow, locally defined as equivalent to the concept of 'c'.
And doing so there became more and more questions to my mind, about preconceptions that we don't even notice in ourselves. The final one, I think? Is the one about 'containers'. Lose the container and you will find new ways to define a universe. Although it might end in a 'container description', that container should be one of logic building from the very small.
-
Actually it made me start to reread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
Neither Erik Verlinde, nor Gerard 't Hooft, are easy to fool I think. I still have a problem with holography, and objective dimensions existing, as the reason though.
-
And naturally, determinism as the reason for a universe. I think that what allows the concept of free will is indeterminism. That 'space' in where everything co-exist is where we go to find that free will, ideally described. You might also consider it from the opposite, a totally logic, linear, deterministic system, in where only the outcome chosen ever could be? Does that fit you, and your actions? All assuming that we still can define probabilities. A perfect system like that shouldn't have probabilities btw. Because a probability assume that there are several opportunities equally existing, only differed by how we find nature to behave most of the time.
So a perfectly deterministic system should be one where probability won't exist at all, only one outcome possible.
-
That should mean that QM cease to exist. As well as Einsteins observer dependencies. And your free will.
=
Maybe you could incorporate some type of determinism locally though? I see it as we have local constants after all, but when combining it into this seamless picture of a universe described by observer dependencies?
Then again, would a perfect determinism allow HUP?
-
There is one more point to it. Indeterminism does not state that 'this is what it is'. Determinism though, does. To me it seem to want what I call a 'container logic', a 'isolated system' that is 'controlled' in all aspects, unknowable for now but when known, taking us back to a 'Newtonian era' of full understanding.
Maybe the universe is like me :) not entirely sure on anything and so like to keep its possibilities open,. that's also what I mean when asking if you might be able to introduce some kind of determinism locally. As what I think we should meet, isolating a 'point', are just constants.
But we also find a indeterminism there, don't we?
As HUP?
It also depends on how you want to define HUP naturally. As a indeterministic principle in itself, or as a deterministic principle statistically seen? Or both?
-
Entanglements are a perfect illustration to why I think we can't know it all. A deterministic model of a entanglement must rest on hidden variables, that steer the down converted photon into opposite spins. In such a model there should be no possibility of randomness. As well as I also see it as a support for our free will, as there is no known way to predict the spin beforehand, although there should be statistical rules for its proportionality, 'up' or 'down' when repeating experiments a sufficient amount of times.
That is not too far from that situation in where you find yourself 'of two minds', not sure of what you will choose, uncertain. So what you find to be macroscopically true isn't isolated to that, it exist everywhere.
-
You might say that the universe make at least one choice. that choice isn't about this opposite spin we expect the unmeasured photon to have. It's about the spin you will see as you measure. Because even though the probability for 'up' or 'down' is 50% each way, once you've measured it it is set. And the choice of how that spin would turn out wasn't yours, unless you cheated. That the other photon then 'knows' the way it turned out is a added treat.
-
And I don't think it matter for this how you want to 'isolate' your system. If you want to include the experimenter as well as the equipment, or how ever you want to set limits. It won't change the fact that there is no way to know that first measured spin, before you do it. So you can build out this 'isolated system' as far as you like, as far as I can see it won't change a thing here.
-
Looking at it statistically we always 'know' the opposite spin, because as far as experiment goes this is what we see repeating itself, ideally now. Practically there are all kinds of complications involved in this kind of experiments. But we can also remark that this 50& probability of what the first spin will be measured as, is unknowable. but something 'decided' it, otherwise we wouldn't have a outcome.
-
So you don't only, in a deterministic system, need hidden parameters for why there always seem to be opposite spins, you also need some hidden parameter for defining the first spin. If you don't set that, only set why the spins are opposite you end up with a incomplete deterministic system.
-
To assume that hidden parameters would be a result of the whole of the universe communicating, 'everything' setting the state of 'everything', somehow, is a possibility naturally. But as a entanglement is presumed 'instant' you then need parameters that communicates faster than 'c'. Although iIf you to it add modern ideas, differing between communication that is useful/meaningful in some motto, from communication that you can't use for anything meaningful, then it might work?
That one can be seen two ways, as a conventional 'container model' of this universe. Or, possibly also working from some local definition. Maybe you will need both to prove it, if so.
And it doesn't change that I seem to presume ftl for it. A more preferable way (to me) would be to prove that is is a consequence of the way the universe exist. Not ftl as such, instead a question of what makes a universe, and dimensions?
-
what does that state about our preconceptions? The idea that we can differ between meaningful and not meaningful information? Allowing the non meaningful to be faster than light in a vacuum? To me it says that we believe this universe to be logical, the things that makes a difference to us must make sense. And what about those things that doesn't make sense? As a entanglement?
Well, they are allowed, but they won't make a difference to us.
-
We build it on logic, even when we do not see how it can exist.
-
The same could be said for a singularity. They exist, but they are censored.
-
This thread is a perfect example of why I stopped talking to you on this forum, yor_on. This thread is merely you talking to yourself, and nobody else cares about the subject. So that means its only an online diary for your thoughts on something that nobody else cares about.
-
:)
It's ok Pete. you have your ways, I have mine. It's a big universe.
-
:)
It's ok Pete. you have your ways, I have mine. It's a big universe.
And btw, I for one am interested in the questions yor_on is asking. Without such questions, science would have never discovered any facts whatsoever. I am a man of questions myself and admire yor_on's search for the truth.
If one has no curiosity for what lies behind the closed door, chances are that door will remain closed until one with a greater curiosity arrives upon the scene.
-
It's like all other subjects of personal interest :) We all take our own thoughts seriously, well, sometimes at least. I don't know why the universe act as it does, but I do expect a logic. The alternative is a universe without, but as far as I've seen that's not what we have found, so far? And mathematics is the tool we use, describing the logic.
Apropos all and nothing..
Anyone read this one? http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982
It made me wonder.
-
And btw, I for one am interested in the questions yor_on is asking.
You don't understand. I have no problems with questions. However yor_on makes threads difficult to read because he creates post after post after post never really asking a question nor waiting for an answer. What he's doing is philosophizing incoherently. For instance - what question did you see him post that you thought was intriguing or interesting?
Without such questions, science would have never discovered any facts whatsoever. I am a man of questions myself and admire yor_on's search for the truth.
Again, I have no objections to questions. Why would you conclude such a thing? Didn't you read what I posted to him, i.e. This thread is merely you talking to yourself, and nobody else cares about the subject. What about that suggests in any way that I object to questions?
The worst part about it is that he has no concern for others in this respect. It's fine in this sub forum because that's the purpose of it. However in the forums for science it's inappropriate.
-
Pete, I think you should take your considerations to a moderator instead. And let them decide what should be deemed appropriate for TNS. I would prefer if you didn't use this thread for it, it easily becomes a flame war :) Discussing (and doing so in the exactly same thread, nota bene) whether such should be allowed to exist or not, although it would make a slightly comic sense to me, if we all would do so, in a same thread we want to dispose of. As for the rest of it I really hope the universe is big enough for both of us? :)
=
Anyway, what made me wonder wasn't about whether religions could be said to repress or not. Just the idea that we all should carry some innate need for it. When it comes to individuals, not organizations.
=
Spirituality may be the word for it?
-
What you use to decide is probably logic. Which society, of those existing, do you want to bring your kids up in? Assuming you're poor naturally. the whole thing loses its meaning if we assume us all to be prosperous. That's the 'dream society' in my mind, the one where we all become millionaires. So if you want that society, I think you're bicycling in great beyond.
-
And yes, it's a question of how you would like to define spirituality? As a form of logic, or not?
-
You really need to look into this. Once behaviorism was about pure logic of 'change'. Today it encompass a lot more, and Skinner may turn in his grave, not that it bother me, thinking of his daughter :)
==
Have a treat on me :)
http://www.snopes.com/science/skinner.asp
-
It depends doesn't it?
What someone outside thinks, and what those inside describe it as?
-
So, what is justice, and a fair deal?
-
I'm slightly inconsiderate here, but I can't help but remembering the experiments in where a factory got repainted, and so increased the 'productivity'? Depends on what you think you're here for, doesn't it? To increase productivity? To reproduce?
What is spirituality?
-
You really want to put your daughter into a weather insulated box yourself? I don't know, the concept disturbs me.
-
To define existence as we are here because we are here invalidate any science. It's a mirror to defining such as existence has no purpose, and no meaning. you might call it a proof for the futility of life.
-
invalidate any science because it ultimately invalidate logic to me. At least the logic I use, in where things do have a purpose, and a meaning, following causality.
-
the whole idea of a complexity building inside a arrow, gives science a meaning. It tells us that it is worthwhile wondering about the universe, and to try to decipher its logic. and the life you live now should tell you the same thing, assuming you live at the right place naturally. A concentration camp is not the place to feel optimistic in, neither I would say, is a dictatorship.
-
Yeah, what is spirituality? And do you think you can give it a logic?
-
Pete, I think you should take your considerations to a moderator instead. And let them decide what should be deemed appropriate for TNS. I would prefer if you didn't use this thread for it, it easily becomes a flame war :) Discussing (and doing so in the exactly same thread, nota bene) whether such should be allowed to exist or not, although it would make a slightly comic sense to me, if we all would do so, in a same thread we want to dispose of. As for the rest of it I really hope the universe is big enough for both of us? :)
It only becomes a flame war when you start insulting me. Moderators only step in when people are breaking rules. I'm not saying you're breaking a rule. I'm saying that when you do this in science forums it makes it hard to read and you become disruptive and that shows little or no concern for your fellow posters. This is a discussion forum and not your own personal blog. Therefore I have every right to say this on this forum, whether you like it or not. It's your total lack of concern for every single person on the forum that bothers me and your total lack of caring how people feel about it. Shame on you.
-
Sorry Pete, no meaning to insult anyone here. When it comes to this thread it's no big thing? I use it to ponder about what I find strange, and interesting. As for the rest of your views, I don't know what to say really. It's you reading me, then complaining that you read me? Don't read me, and the irritation should pass.
=
Thinking about it. I don't really know how to define a blog. Everyone starting a thread might be said to start a blog, the rest being a discussion on what this person thought about something? If you look at the latest blog I linked too, I think I find it just as lively as any discussion I've meet on TNS, for example? With the 'author' of the idea/question/whatever also arguing, if now just ever so slightly, for his views. Probably there is some nice definition about it, it's just me missing it :)
-
Anyway Pete, you want this writing to disappear, then I still think that it is the moderators ire you need to invoke. As for this blog, as you call it? It may continue, it may disappear. Sometimes people comment and then there's what you might call a discussion? As it could be seen to be now too, although not on what I was writing about specifically?
Three major choices I think?
1. Keep arguing your view in this thread, until someone notice :)
2. Or, discuss it with the moderators, and let their decision rule.
3. Or just let it go, and do the stuff that really interest you instead.
=
And it's not meant to insult you, it's just that I find this discussion to be at the wrong place. If my writing is at fault in, or for, some fashion, then I expect moderators to be the ones reacting. That's why they are here. If it is personal in some way you had the possibility to post personally, one option that you chose to ignore, right?
That I read as you want it into the open, so to speak, a debate, using this thread as an example, correct? Maybe open your own thread on forum policies, and where you consider them misused, could be a further option here?
-
I think it's a interesting subject, spirituality. The question to me is whether it could be applied as a logic? Why I'm asking this is because I consider almost everything I know of to have some sort of logic. Even a entanglement have a logic, it may not make the best of sense to me, but the logic is there to be tested, and that at least makes sense :)
And if we look at behaviorism before and the one we see today, I think I would like to define the type I see today as a more 'ethical behaviorism', taking into consideration a lot of human parameters that the old type didn't really find relevant. As for example what cost a society the most, being homeless for example, maybe also self-medicating, stealing to survive. Or a society that tries to plan for it not to go that far. A society whose answer to deviations of the social norm is prison, or rehabilitation.
-
The point is that the logic that didn't exist before, do exist now. And it makes sense, both economically and humanly. So, can the same be true for what we think of as spiritual questions? That I think was what Nury in that blog I linked to, at least partially, was wondering about. If there behind everything we do and think, compassion and empathy, actually exist a logic.
And if there is, is it also cost-beneficent?
-
That question also depends on your view of what society should include naturally. If you only include your peers the question becomes moot, as they all should be in a similar situation to you. If you on the other hand include everyone living in some community where you exist? Or taking it a step further, everyone sharing a same nationality?
And if you take those steps? Well :) I believe we should be getting closer to becoming, what I call, care takers.
-
I took up entanglements as a example. Doing it I started to wonder exactly how Einstein came up with this notion, and how we from his thoughts on it got so far as we actually have done? Entanglements are spooky :) I know the history, I think? But I keep forgetting, so I decided to try to track it down once more.
Anyway The Spooky truth. (http://www.livescience.com/5499-einsteins-spooky-physics-entangled.html)
-
The problem, for me, is that entanglements are so closely related to the debate between Bohr and Einstein, on the reality of it. Einstein could not accept the idea of spooky action at a distance. He meant that is collided with a reality in where you find action and reactions track-able, and where you have physically meaningful limits for it. He, as me, seem to have considered QM to be a statistical interpretation of reality, that still needed to be filled in to become a 'realistic theory'.
It may be that his demands on what should be deemed realistic differed from my thoughts though. As my definition of what I see as 'locality' does? He most probably would give me a real lecture if he ever read me :)
The EPR (Einstein Poldolsky Rosen) papers rests on two assumptions, as I gather.
Separability and locality: That if two systems are separated in a space, one must assume that each one exist separately from the other, ideally without influencing each other. From that follows that a measurement on one must be independent of the other.
For a better description, with links, I think you should read Einstein on the Completeness of Quantum Theory. (http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/quantum_theory_completeness/)
-
But that's where I find history lacking. Because the EPR paper is a reaction on what the, then newfangled QM theory, was predicting. It makes little sense to start at the EPR papers, although that is what you will find if you search the net. Schrödinger's cat in a box (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat) was a subsequent try for a intuitive description of one side of what the EPR paper discussed, not any reason why the EPR paper came to be.
-
So, what started the idea of entanglements?
-
Well, it's a lot of things, studying the very small, that clashes with how we normally expect the world to behave. Maybe we should look at the 'Copenhagen model' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation)?
"there are several basic principles that are generally accepted as being part of the interpretation:
1. A system is completely described by a wave function, representing the state of the system, which evolves smoothly in time, except when a measurement is made, at which point it instantaneously collapses to an eigenstate of the observable that is measured.
2. The description of nature is essentially probabilistic, with the probability of a given outcome of a measurement given by the square of the modulus of the amplitude of the wave function. (The Born rule, after Max Born)
3. It is not possible to know the value of all the properties of the system at the same time; those properties that are not known exactly must be described by probabilities. (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)
4. Matter exhibits a wave–particle duality. An experiment can show the particle-like properties of matter, or the wave-like properties; in some experiments both of these complementary viewpoints must be invoked to explain the results, according to the complementarity principle of Niels Bohr.
5. Measuring devices are essentially classical devices, and measure only classical properties such as position and momentum.
6. The quantum mechanical description of large systems will closely approximate the classical description. (This is the correspondence principle of Bohr and Heisenberg.) "
-
Seems it should be 1.
Don't you agree?
"A system is completely described by a wave function, representing the state of the system, which evolves smoothly in time, except when a measurement is made, at which point it instantaneously collapses to an eigenstate of the observable that is measured."
Think of down converting a 'photon' by splitting it in a prism, into two photons of half the original energy. (beam splitter). Then the question becomes what you consider to be the 'system' here naturally, but we just consider the original photon split into two here.
But we need something more, we need some principle that explains why, for example, the spins must be opposite, don't we?
Conservation laws?
-
And yes, I think we also need HUP? Or could we do without that?
"It is not possible to know the value of all the properties of the system at the same time; those properties that are not known exactly must be described by probabilities. (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)"
Because that is what defines the 'super position' of the entangled system, before a measurement, all as I think.
Indeterminacy.
-
But we can say some things about the 'system' of two photons, with certainty, can't we?
Opposite spins.
where does that come from?
-
But we can say some things about the 'system' of two photons, with certainty, can't we?
Opposite spins.
where does that come from?
Nature seeking balance!
-
Conservation of angular momentum. (http://www.informationphilosopher.com/problems/entanglement/) and entanglements.
-
Now imagine that you have a way to force the spin of one photon. You can choose it behave one specific way, 'up' or 'down'.
That's where the magic treads in.
Because, if entanglements are correct, then the other particle must adapt to this situation, even though it is spatially separated. And the common consensus is that it must do so 'instantly'
-
you don't need entanglements to define why the spin is opposite. But you do need it for this.
-
so what is a entanglement? A result of probability, resting on the experiment and angular conservation? I don't see how I can restrict it to just conservation laws, although those is what defines this spin in all situations described.
-
And so it becomes as you say Ethos, a question of a equilibrium, that ignoring normal information limits ('c') demands a balance. And it doesn't matter what we do, as far as I know? The spin(s) will be opposite each other..
-
Then again, how many spins exist? Is there only 'up' and 'down' to it? Or is that a simplification from the experiments we do.
-
What is “spin” in particle physics? (http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/10/q-what-is-spin-in-particle-physics-why-is-it-different-from-just-ordinary-rotation/) It's not the one I was thinking of originally, but it is good.
-
Theory of strongly correlated systems. (http://www.cmth.bnl.gov/theory.html) Just because I can :) And find it a interesting read. I'm not entirely sure how it connects but it should, in some way.
-
There is another more accurate description of how it works. That one builds on the probability of a spin being 'up or 'down'. It has a 50% probability any which way, and we have no way of knowing which one it will be unless we measure. The only thing you can say with certainty is that the others particles spin must be the opposite.
Now, that is close to what I imagined before, but not exactly the same to me. But the ideas defining a entanglement today, also use so called 'weak interactions/experiments' presumed to leave this wavefunction representing the 'system' of two photons alone, without destroying it. So I think me free to apply a thought up description of what I find mysterious, and so let the spin 'change instantly' for the far away particle.
It's not perfectly correct to say that it change though, as we have a 50% probability of it already being in that state. But we know that it always must fall out that way, forcing the first spin. I think that is mysterious enough for me :)
We have two ideas here. Weak experiments, and wave functions. We also have two ideas describing why the experiment falls out as it does. Conservation laws and 'entanglements'.
When it comes to conservation laws I automatically think of 'The Heritage Of Emmy Noether.' (http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.asg/noether.html)
-
This one may be more easily digested, and somewhat funnier. I especially enjoy 'because we are scientists' :)
Symmetries of the Laws of Physics and Noether's Theorem. (http://gfif.udea.edu.co/emmynoether/noeth.htm)
It's truly weird that she didn't get a Nobel prise for it. You could call it a definition what makes a 'relativistic container' I think? And I will have to argue my way around this, sooner or later :) then again, there are more ways than one to define a universe, isn't there? In a good theory all correct descriptions should fit, no matter from where they come.
-
In a way I do, by defining it as you must find a local equivalence, using that as a proof for why the universe must behave equivalently in all 'points' (locally defined). If it wasn't that way the universe would be different.
-
So what is the meaning of life?
I don't know, do you?
To have a laugh, with some friends, before it's too late?
To come?
To kill?
What is it?
-
I use an idea of complexity, but that isn't about individuals.
-
To care?
-
Do you care?
-
Either that, or we're lost.
-
Lost because we all need to be loved, not because we are going to revolutionize the world. Not because we have the answer to 'free energy'. Not even because we're going to leave a lot of money behind us. Just because we all need unrequited love, at some time in our life, to know that someone finds us worthy of living.
Weird stuff, isn't it?
=
Thinking a little, this day after :)
Unconditional love might be the better word here. Unrequited sounds a little too devoid of reciprocity to me, as I read myself. You should take this to heart. One should never read oneself the day after.
-
but we will response, if the love is without demands.
That is humanity.
-
And those without this, will be marked, by themselves, and others.
We're a pack animal.
-
So you don't think you can change anything, do you? :)
I think you can change the world.
-
That's my unrequited love.
And I'm counting on you.
-
In some weird way you could say that complexity is more than just the statistics, it's about how they become. About ideals, ethics, dreams and deeply felt needs.
-
My thesis here is that life is more than just a 'clock work orange'. Use blind fate, and statisitcs, when it's applicable, but involve intelligence, and the stuff that makes us believe, and I would expect the statistics to change. The coin is no longer 'fair'.
-
You can ignore this, but on your own peril. Because doing it should invalidate any ideas of a progress.
-
Lost because we all need to be loved,
Very true my friend. But there is one more thing we need even more than to be loved. We need to start loving others ourselves.
-
It's probably so that we can't Ethos, not all, and not everywhere. And I'm not even sure that I would want it? Some individuals actions speaks against them too such a degree, think of war crimes for example. Even without this security of 'knowing love', you should still have ethics to guide you.
-
Let's take child soldiers as a example. Who is to blame there, the children forced to soldier or those adults forcing them into a inhuman mold? Those adults are not only destroying their own humanity, but also the children's. And I'm not prepared to understand those adults, there's a limit to it.
-
The problem, as I see it, is that there is enough having a very little percentage of this kind of adults, to effect changes that will involve many. One can always argue that those adults may have had a terrible upbringing themselves, and it might even be correct. But we all have ethics, well, most of us do. Another thing is that the free market always seem available to this kind of actions, as long as there is a profit, and 'deniability', available for it.
-
Been thinking of logics. There are different kinds of logic but they all build on premises. Ones preconceptions as it might be expressed. Accepting this you then have to decide whose preconceptions make the most sense to you. People seems to think that because we can find some logic to a situation it then make it more acceptable, or even 'right'. But you can in reality twist together some logic defending whatever premise you want to argue. Statistics is a very good choice for arguing a logic, but to make the statistics unquestionable you need to build it on experiments, not your faith in whatever beliefs you might hold for the moment.
On the other tentacle, there is ethics to everything, and honor.
-
It's sort of scary, isn't it? Very little of how we expect life to be seems to be correct. And we hide behind other peoples logics instead of making our own. To grow up is to use your mind yourself, not get a new suit, to fit some others idea of how life 'is'.
-
and yes, it's about physics, in the end. Because it is there, and in philosophy and mathematics, you will find the clearest tries for defining what a logic should be. But as I like physics myself, I will define it such as it is statistics, from whatever experiments you can imagine up, that will decide the logic that creates us.
On the other tentacle, we also need to acknowledge that life is more than just ones logics, it's also about faith, loyalty, friendships, love, and finally, that last breathless moment, whatever ethics you lived by.
-
And as those build from life, they are here, for us. Would they exist without life? I don't know, sometimes I think that we are the universe, looking at ourselves.
-
Now, if that would be true :) wouldn't that make your life, and the way you live, and act, your ethics, the most precious definition of what a universe will be.
Which universe do you want to live in?
-
And naturally, as I think I should be able to give those 'intangibles' a logic too :) And if we can, then it also must be part of this universe we exist in. It means that you need more than entropy to describe it, if so. A universe with only entropy acting could do just as well without this 'life'. Unless we expect it to need a 'conscious observer' to be able to exist? Do we? Entropy is not enough, to me that is.
=
Realized I needed to add 'conscious', as my own definition of a observer is that any interaction measured, should consist of 'observers'. But one more common seems to assume that consciousness is the definer of what is 'observed'.
-
"The video is a real time capture of the moon rising over the Mount Victoria Lookout in the capital city of Wellington, New Zealand." (http://pdl.vimeocdn.com/99377/358/142289488.mp4?token2=1407473015_a74fba7bc55d2c97aa25a0da5c277c19&aksessionid=578d2aab71dea06f7a6a8dadc320f1d6520ec4ea)
No tricks involved, just optics and a digital camera recording of what those optics saw. From Full Moon Silhouettes from Mark Gee. (http://markg.com.au/2013/01/full-moon-silhouettes/)
The world are more than its parts :)
-
You know, Pete is perfectly correct in defining it as a blog. I agree, then again, it's a blog about things I don't understand. Yeah, I know, it seems as if I understand some things, but really, I don't :) Because my universe becomes a projection. And I have no answer to why it is this way. the only thing I think I will lean to is just those ethics.
They are what we might become, if we don't I'm sure the universe will make a new try
-
You could naturally assume that we already are 'enlightened', as per Feynman's 'many paths' and that timeless pause that it includes before a outcome. I won't agree to that for several reasons. the simplest becoming that for you and me time do exist. so, ignore that on your peril.
-
And to me it connects to the idea of mankind becoming 'caretakers', not 'conquerors'. Don't know what you liked as you lived your life, but looking back I think I always was partial to surprises, things that made me smile, and love. the stuff that made life a place to be.
-
Some have only hate, that's a very heavy feeling. there should be something more to life.
Don't you agree?
I think you do :)
-
And just to add to the mess I've may made :)
The naked Scientist makes a very special place, for us all, and I'm happy to have been a part of it.
we might not be perfect, or even correct, but we're at least interesting to read :)
And we're what we make of it. Nations ignored.
-
So, can you use constants to define ftl (faster than light)?
sure, no problem. Make a sheet, use a narrow light source and move it under that sheet. the further away the sheet is the faster that light will seem to move, for someone existing 'in' that sheet. Don't think you need to break any constants for it, just use 'dimensions' imaginatively.
But there is one restriction to it, if we want clocks and rulers making sense, our causality, as described 'seamlessly universally'. You must restrict useful information.
-
You don't even need motion for it. No propagating light source at all, lightening up that 'sheet'. You need 'change' though
-
Looked at that way, a universe suddenly becomes much more interesting, doesn't it :)
-
Change defined as motion, I've always liked that one. It makes so much sense, when thinking of relative motion.
-
But it becomes a very different universe from what you thought it to be. Any movement by you, you stretching out that arm to get yourself the mug of coffee, will then be described in terms of a field changing. Coordinates changing state.
-
The fields 'depth' or 'dimensionality' defined by the coordinates relations to each other. No external ('objectively' existing) 'room' necessary for it, as they are created from you, living 'inside' it, just as me. In fact, you don't need 'objectivity' as some archetype, or original mold, for it.
Don't you like it?
I do.
-
that way you can get to a expansion, but to get to that inflation you will need to define it differently. So what might differ a initial inflation from its subsequent expansion? If we want causality to survive it?
-
Ones main thesis here should be finding a way to keep constants, and causality, intact I think. Ftl no longer being ftl, more of a illusion as defined from inside. to me it seems as if constants is what builds everything.
-
Or maybe you can treat a inflation as an expansion? Probably you can. Ah well, it's Saturday and yesterday was as I vaguely remember a Friday, just sayin :)
-
Me discussing logics :)
Here's one description
Hand to mouth. (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/21/linda-tirado-poverty-hand-to-mouth-extract?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2)
worthy of thoughts I think.
-
Have a read "According to Einstein's theory, informally speaking, time runs slower closer to massive bodies. That means that natural clocks in the sun run slower than the same clocks on earth. Of course there are no ordinary clocks in the sun. But there is something much better. Excited atoms emit light in very specific frequencies and our measuring the frequency of that light is akin to our measuring the frequency of ticking of a clock. Any slowing of those atomic clocks would result in a change in the frequency of light emitted from the sun.
Einstein's theory predicts a very small degree of slowing of clocks in the sun. It manifests in the light from the sun being slightly reddened for observers watching from far afield on the earth. The red shift for light from the sun is merely 0.00002%, which proved extremely difficult to detect. The effect was found later in the light from stars far more massive than the sun. The figure shows light climbing out of the stronger gravitational field of the sun towards the earth."
Now this sounds as rather solid argument of clocks ticking 'differently fast' at different locations, doesn't it? Let's see what it presume, that energy isn't consistent with a given mass, but observer dependent? A interesting universe, but it's not mine. Three observers with differing uniform motion will define that sun differently, the frequency too. As all uniform motions are locally, and experimentally equivalent, there is nothing explaining this. Accepting clocks 'ticking differently' though uniform motion you also redefine 'c', from being a constant measured relative your uniform motion, to a variable, although it does not show itself to be so locally. So you have now to take farewell of all constants, as they all partly are a result of your clock and a ruler, as well as of any definition of a repeatable experiment. Then physics too should be gone as we define it today. Does it simplify the universe to think this way?
Against my arguments we can note that if all clocks and rulers are locally equivalent, you now have to place time dilations and Lorentz contractions between frames of reference, it becoming a result of a relation between your 'local reality', and what you measure to be the 'far away reality', aka between frames of reference. That doesn't fit the twin experiment, in where one twin (traveling) in the end is found biologically younger than the other. So, to find out what that is about we either have to invalidate that thought experiment, or find a way to define what happens between frames of reference, 'locality's relation to another frame of reference' as it might be. Then I suspect you have two general ways, a 'container model' representing a seamlessly existing 'commonly shared' four dimensional universe ,with some sort of real but observer dependent 'plasticity' built in, or a version defined through locally equivalent 'points', preferably reducing the 'dimensionality', at least trying for as simple as possible model.
for any definition of energy it shouldn't matter, I think, as the 'energy' should be there, both ways. In the end we have to return to a container definition, of some sort, as that is what we agree us on existing inside.
-
There's more to my arguments. One is the idea of something intrinsically consistent, the 'propagating photon'. Defined as I want it to be :) this 'photon' does not change 'frequency', nor 'energy' or momentum. Doesn't matter what mass it climbs to 'get out'. You don't really want it to be any other way, and neither want I. That's a very good argument I think for questioning any idea of being able to define far away clocks as being what really is happening locally, if instead measuring in same frame of reference. the other point is as always, you just need two observers of it, being in different uniform motion, to find them defining it differently.
-
But what it all comes back too, is what universe you want to define it versus. A 'container model'? Consisting of four dimensions inseparable where you locally become a 'slide' changing this universe by what mass speeds and accelerations you locally define? A little like some 'local' glass bubble wandering inside glass, finding it distort differently when measuring,
If you want this universe you have to remember that this is true for all frames of reference. All 'glass bubbles' existing inside it. And also that what each of them see is exactly what they get, in other words being as 'real' as can be for each one. It's a very fluid universe that one. If we to it define time dilations and Lorentz/Fitzgerald contractions as also being real, then logically the common universe disappear. Unless, you define time as non existent, and with it also any idea of a consistent measurement. A 'locally made gold standard' defining your repeatable experiment.
=
also, remember that it includes distance, they are complementary to Einsteins universe as I think. not only that clock disappearing, also your ruler lying to you. And if you now still want the universe to make sense, where will you look. Outside :) which doesn't even exist experimentally.
-
You really think your aging is a matter of will? Or of changing frame of reference to a event horizon? Nah, you grow old everywhere, and finally you die.
-
So yes, defining this commonly seamless universe my way, also expecting a arrow to exist, it gets as good as undone. It doesn't make sense, so why do we still believe in it? Because when you look you do it locally, you do not exchange 'place' with the far away observer, neither 'exchange' your experiment. And when you do it, you need to presume that what you measure on actually exist inside common 'bounds', whatever they might be.
-
A experiment build on presumptions. Like finding this seamless universe we exist inside. On the other tentacle we all agree on it existing, causality proving it so too. So, what more choices might we imagine, to define it from?
there I like locality, because you do find locally equivalent clocks in there, and rulers. And you do find repeatable experiments, and constants. they have to be there if all 'points' are equivalent.
-
The problem with any idea of locality, is how to define it. I would like those 'points' to exist, as some lowest common denominator. That would give us a anchor, and a discreteness to our universe, 'grainy'.
-
If you want a graininess, there might be different definitions. Decoherence is an idea of where Quantum mechanical rules , as indeterminacy and 'virtuality' get exchanged for a (macroscopic) linearity, more or less. It's you holding that apple, taking a bite, knowing it exist. It's possible that the same sort of idea can be applied, to a graininess, meaning that when we define that grain, it also will be a result of some type of decoherence.
-
would it matter if there would be some sort of 'flow' under what we define as a 'grain', if so? We want to define how we and the universe come to be, don't we? And there you might find that 'grain', giving you a answer.
-
It's no different from you defining yourself as being existent, and your friends, and foes :)
-
Yeah, life is weird, don't know about you but I know that physics is about life. And I really want to understand life. Sometimes it seems a mystery, but then I realize something I already knew, but in a new way, and life becomes interesting again. It's not muscles, but it's not brains either. Life is more than that.
Life is love.
-
It's like suicide. It's stigmatized in our society. But as I see it, it scares us. We don't want to see it and we don't want to accept it. Because every suicide tells us that we failed.
-
And we can't defend ourselves, because those that should listen to us are already dead. That's part of ethics. We don't want to be in that position where we have to defend ourselves.
-
But we can love, all of us can do it. We love our kids, even those relatives that gets on our nerves at times. Just give it some time.
-
Can you see what I see?
That the world consist of love?
And ego
-
So we need to make a place where we listen.
I do not know if we can.
-
Can you?
-
Listen good enough, and you will hear the grass grow. Don't know if it is true :) But I would like it to be.
-
Would you agree with me in that the people that means the most to you also are those that listened to you?
-
And also, they didn't became Einsteins by it, but they meant the world to you, and me.
-
Love.
-
This one is to Viola. I think and hope she will know, wherever she is, or was.
-
Ethics is a place where we are equal.
Where we all are worth something, no one able to look down at you as being inferior,
It's a weird place, assuming us all to be humans.
-
Reminds me of Goa, where someone told me that there are 'humans' and 'real human beings'.
Don't really believe in that, but I can understand the way they thought.
As if it takes a effort to become human,
Do you think so too?
-
Ah well, let's get back to container universes "All 'glass bubbles' existing inside it. And also that what each of them see is exactly what they get, in other words being as 'real' as can be for each one. It's a very fluid universe that one."
This time about relative motion. I've argued that even if you can't define any relative motion, you still can prove different relative (uniform) motions. Now, doesn't that idea need some 'universal container' of it? To define those different uniform motions from? Against it we can make any experiments we like, locally, without proving any uniform motion differing from any other. The second one does not speak about it as if something containing us, that we then could measure ones relative motion from.
It's also called a absolute frame that you then can use to measure all motion relative. If the universe now would be a sphere then, a boundary existing, could you now be able to prove absolute motion? That depends doesn't it, but assuming a equivalent inflation in all points possible (of that universe) it might be possible to reduce it to something 'absolute'. On the other hand, any idea of this type of inflation and you lose the boundary, unless you treat it as a emergence possibly.
-
You might say that the point with different relative motions also is about what type of universe you think should connect them to each other. Different relative motions inside a 'container' will have a absolute frame, of some sort, existing as I see it. A fluid (relativistic) universe on the other tentacle does not have it. There the lever you use will be your local clock and ruler, to prove those (other) differing uniform motions from. As they will do with you, from their clock and ruler.
You can use that to question any idea of a container universe.
So, what we have, without doubt, is causality. Causality and the limit it use which then is 'c'. And 'c' also becomes the best clock you can use, locally measuring, split into Planck scale. Looking at it this way a vacuum becomes very strange.
-
Because we now (presumably:) agree on that the universe isn't made out of a 'container'. If it was you then could define a absolute frame to it, with that frame also being able to define it all as one 'field', expressing itself differently depending on 'density'. But it would also invalidate relativity, as well as giving us yet another question to answer, what would then be the 'outside'?
-
Would you want to state that a vacuum can't exist without a 'energy'? Think of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is that one related to a vacuum on its own, or is it, as 'temperature', related to restmass versus a vacuum? If you think of it the last way, what then about the Casimir effect? Is it about a vacuum, or about a combination of a vacuum and rest mass? How would you go about proving a 'energy' to the vacuum, not using rest mass?
-
The real point is simple. Do you think there can be a vacuum, without 'intrinsic energy'?
-
From relativity, presuming Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction as complementary expressions to the time dilations we observe, whatever distance you locally will measure always is relative 'motion', mass and energy. and the same goes for all other observers existing. Can you split a vacuum into pieces? How?
And if that vacuums 'distance' always is a local relation to your measurement?
What would that 'unified field' we assume look like?
Is there a global description of it, or will there only be local?
-
Because if you only have local definitions of it, then there is no global, more than causality, which we hopefully agreed on using a locally measurable limit set to 'c', which also contain the clock defining your arrow of time.
-
So locally you're always moving in one direction, time wise. Called aging :)
-
Locally there are two things that I see, accelerations and a arrow, that defines it.
Can you accelerate a vacuum? Or age it?
-
From causality's point of view this universe is whatever can be causally connected through your measurements. If we take a hypothetical case where we have two observers of some third, in where one observe something happening which still haven't happened according to the other observer, do you think there could be a way for the one seeing it communicating this to the observer still not able to observe it.
What would that do to causality? Shouldn't be possible, should it?
So, causality and 'c' defining this universe.
-
Then again, if it was possible, what would it mean? Would you see it as a proof of a 'container universe', or would you then have to redefine it.
-
Accelerations are indeed weird. Assume 'locality', then treat it as a 'local field', then define what a accelerations is intrinsically. You think you can? I'll give you a Nobel prize if you find a way to do it from locality.
-
There are combinations existing to a locally defined reality. One is connections, defining a 'commonly existing seamless universe' that we expect ourselves to exist in. The other is the few definitions not resting on frames of reference, of which accelerations is one. I use 'c' but 'c' is, strictly defined, something defined over those frames of reference. The other ting I expect I can define is that arrow, but that one is also a result from 'c'.
-
So? do accelerations exist in 'one frame of reference' or not? If they don't, then everything I define is a result of frames of reference, and 'locality' as such is the focus from where you define the rest.
-
that doesn't make 'locality' non existent. But I lose any simple anchor to define it from. What is that clock?
-
I will now give a proof of sorts for 'c'.
imagine that you shrink that two way communication (two way mirror) defining 'c'.
Do you expect it to differ as you shrink your experiment?
-
Now use this type of defining, on accelerations.
Does it disappear?
-
Gravity should disappear though, will a acceleration?
-
Hopefully, it's not too boring, but one never knows :)
-
So what differ gravity from a acceleration here?
Well, when you define gravity as disappearing 'magnifying' some area, you use an idea of what is measurable locally. And there, assuming you magnify a geodesic enough, the locally bent area won't be noticed, as you don't notice that earth is a sphere, walking. Will that be the same for accelerations?
-
What type of gravitational field are acting on you in a uniformly, constantly accelerating rocket, at one gravity? Is it local or do you expect it to exist outside the frame of reference joining you with the rocket? It's local, don't you agree? The far away observer, or 'near', will not notice it as 'gravity'. Use this on the gravity acting on you here. Is it so that the near observer won't notice it?
Here you get two choices, either you choose the equivalence principle, that one is strictly local. Or you argue from a container model in where the gravity found locally in that rocket differ from what you would expect the 'near' observer to define (Earth).
-
so which one is right? Well, what do you think of repeatable experiments? And constants?
-
And yes, I think you can define a vacuum without a 'intrinsic energy' as just a 'distance', locally measured.
-
I would prefer not to use that one though, but I still think it must exist.
-
It's the 'property' of a vacuum.
-
The opposite proposition is that a vacuum doesn't exist.
It's a 'field'.
-
That would then reduce this world to one thing, no opposites, no ideas of yin and yang, and what symmetries should be from such a proposition I don't know? What is a symmetry? What is a opposite? You will have to rewrite history for it.
-
To do this, keeping symmetries and opposites in this universe, you need another way to look at light 'propagating'. Somewhat alike a field, but not as in a 'container model', but as a field lighted up from locality, and that one sound phreakingly mysterious :)
-
You look out, and you see. Every observer does that. If we now define a observer as something able to interact, then the interaction consist of observing.
-
It's action and reaction, in Newtonian terms, and also what normally is described as 'locality'. That something reacts, and the reaction spreads out, interacting with other observers.
-
In my universe this must be what create dimensions. Give us our boundaries. but it has local properties.
-
And those properties are also what I think of as the 'discreteness' we want to find.
-
and 'constants'
-
So, defining it this way there is no thing as 'infinite'. From where would you be able to define something as 'infinite' in such a universe? Upheld through locality, and causality? You would need that 'absolute frame' that won't exist in it. This universe will fit your nail, or it is several times bigger than it is, or it... To me it's created dynamically through 'c', which is your arrow, locally defined. Causality will keep it definable for us. But all of those rules are local properties.
-
It is 'infinite' in that you won't be able to define a boundary though. But the real point here is that 'infinity' is our idea, and we use it to differ from something 'finite'. We grew up in a world where we easily could define between what was finite and what was not, at least we could do the former if not the last. It's a symmetry too :) and I do believe in symmetries. But they don't always come out as one expect.
-
I would like light to be one way. 'c'.
We need sources and sinks, that's causality. But there are different ways to reach it. If a propagating photon also can be described as a local disturbance in a 'field' then those two ideas are not logically incompatible. You can keep that field, and you can also call it a propagation, even if there is nothing propagating more than a local arrow.
-
'c' becoming like a wave on a 'surface', the field becoming what it is immersed in. and there are still several ways to define that 'propagation'. Because what it is, broken down to its constituents, are displacements under a arrow.
-
Can you see that arrow? Always local, and a property.
-
Doesn't matter, I think? How one would like to define that arrow. As a result from frames of reference interacting, or as a 'local constant'. I prefer the last one myself. the reason is simple, A arrow as a local property starts itself. How would interactions start a arrow, without a arrow already present for those interactions, starting it :)
-
But I define it as a property, not as something 'touchable', but so we define all constants.
-
Because whatever 'points' we want to define as discrete need those properties. I doubt they need to be 'material' in some way. But they still need to be definable, just as we can define light as a particle, and a wave.
-
But, defining a arrow my way it's no longer 'moving', it's a local property. what makes it 'move' is interaction between frames of reference. Or you might want to think of it as having its own 'local dimension' in where it takes you with it, to your death. But it's no longer 'c' 'propagating', at least not solely 'c' 'propagating. Because 'c' and this arrow is equivalent to me. It's a clock, and measuring it interacting with other frames of reference, it will tick differently, locally it always have a same beat though.
=
Locality has one beat, not several. Superimpose light, join within a same frame of reference, one beat. Will be consistent for all positions in time and space. and it works as a definition, if you define it locally.
-
Otherwise you would be forced to define light as a variable, with its equivalent clock, still observer defined when comparing between frames of reference though. And that one is a real headache. Because you would now on one hand presume absolute frames to exist, on the other still keep observer dependencies as we know that 'motion' change a clock, as does mass. It's not logically consistent to me.
-
You need it be placed between frames of reference defining it my way, time dilation and Lorentz contractions. The problem is how to define that. Either you use motion and mass as local variables imposing on the local beat, or you need a new way to define what is a relation, if you as me want all local beats to be equivalent. I don't know how to define that one more than as a SpaceTime distortion of some sort, presenting us with a twin experiment giving different biological aging. Possibly I can keep a equivalent local beat the first way, using SpaceTime geometry to define light finding different paths locally with motion and mass. But I have a feeling :) that it's weirder than that, or maybe it isn't?
Because you could use light that way, if you define it as a clock, also involve different geometries, depending on mass, relative motion, accelerations, locally as well as observer dependent. As if we then would be as 'bubbles' in that glass. That would keep the clock as a constant equivalent to 'c'. But I'm not happy with it.
-
And you can still define dimensions as coming to be through local properties connecting. Maybe tomorrow I will know what I want there :)
-
Maybe it's me still stuck on this old idea of a universe? A container model as I call it. Locally defined the universe would consist of motion and mass, imposing on your local beat, as well as the distance you define between points.
-
But it would be geometry then, and geometry need dimensions, or it will be relations between points that then define dimensions. the first would be close to a container model, the last one avoids it.
-
defining it locally both 'c' and your time becomes properties, and 'constants'. Those can then be manipulated relative mass motion and ? Defined locally you don't move if so, it's the universe that does it, imposing itself on the local beat. So what would such a reasoning make of a gravitational acceleration? heh.
-
I'm not happy at all now :)
1. decoherence
2. mass
3. motion (all types)
I will avoid the vacuum because that one is pretty complicated to me, as it presume this container model existing, of some sort. If someone could prove that a vacuum can exist without 'energy' as 'virtual particles' or indeterminacy I would be much obliged. That would simplify it, I think? Or maybe just complicate it :)
The point is that one doesn't have to change anything to find this 'beat' I'm referring to. One can keep the idea of mass and motion locally redefining your clock, and so get to a twin experiment. The beat being 'c', in a wider perspective becoming causality, the problem is that I want to find some other way to define it.
I don't want light to solely 'propagate', which also can be connected to a 'container model'. Neither do I want pre-existing dimensions, for much the same reason. I want causality building it.
-
And yes, the idea of 'energy' is deeply connected to mass, motion, and a vacuum. Then again, assuming that you can build a universe through causality, including a vacuum in it to define distances, degrees of freedom, and dimensions, this vacuum becomes a inseparable part of a universe. Can't avoid it, can I :) But when thinking of Lorentz/Fitzgerald contractions, real and observer dependent, how do one think of that 'field' there? You can't use a global definition of a container model there, it won't fit. You can use local descriptions though, each one unique to the local observer, causality connecting them through 'c'.
-
Why I want a vacuum to be able to exist even without 'energy' defining it is simple. Then it becomes a opposite and a symmetry for me. the other way, assuming a vacuum to be 'energy', not able to exist without it is a lot more confusing as we have inflation and expansion to consider, injecting 'new energy' from nowhere, or 'somewhere', inside or outside a universe. the alternative might be that the universe gets diluted 'energy wise' as it expands. And that one will be a snakes nest.
-
All of the last is a snakes nest to me, as it both involves this 'container idea', as well as giving no understanding to what makes a inflation.
-
Without a vacuum demanding to be equilibrated with energy, it gets back to being 'nothing', no cost involved.
-
But then light won't propagate inside it, even though we define it that way, because you do not have a medium any longer.
=
Instead you have a beat, and causality defining the observable part of this infinite universe.
-
Think about it and see what you can make of it :)
-
Okay, then the other way. A vacuum consisting of 'something', whether you want to call that virtual particles, indeterminism (my choice), or 'energy'. Doesn't really matter as a start.
Read Why are loaded fridges difficult to budge? Because empty space impedes them. (http://www.calphysics.org/articles/chown2007.html) for one idea on it.
What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum? (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html) for another
Neither of those are what I think about, although if it now was the way I like to wonder then my ideas need to involve the ideas described above.
-
I would like the vacuum to be 'gone' :) myself, well ideally so. I would prefer it as a symmetry to matter, or 'rest mass'. It's the relation creating a universe, and it need both. You need a vacuum to get to this macroscopic universe.
-
What it goes back to, for me, is the question if it is correct to think of this universe as a 'container', or not. Actually it should be a duality if I was correct, meaning that it is possible to describe it both ways. After all, we already have a standard theory, using all sorts of descriptions, color forces, gluons and quarks, protons and neutrons, atoms and molecules creating taste and matter. And it works.
-
Because most of what physics do today, is treating room time as something pre existing, although 'plastic' according to relativity. I like another approach in where a 'SpaceTime' is a local construct, as real as can be, joined through causality and constants into a universe. That allow relativity to be perfectly consistent, without needing to refer it other 'dimensions', as some final 'super container' describing a universe through the 'eyes of a God'. Because that's another assumption you make referring to something that will 'join' relativity and quantum mechanics. And there is one more thing, seems as if people still believe that should be a finiteness ultimately.
-
And no, it's not that general relativity would be wrong. It's a 'container description' of how the 'energy' is distributed inside a universe. you might call it a description of levers and cogs, balancing a universe. Everything is a description, even 'atoms'. And 'electrons', no matter if you have 'photo graphical evidence' as from Lund university, of a electron 'orbiting'. It's a weird universe.
-
Einstein saw a 'container' of sorts, his reaction on the question of 'action on a distance' tells me that he did. Without a container model there is nothing forbidding it more than causality and constants. He also seem to have been somewhat agnostic if I read him right, as me too I suspect :)
-
It's hard not to be agnostic, considering the weirdness we meet. On the other hand it's really, really, hard believing in us humans as being some sort of 'crown of the universe'. Don't think many do that any more, too much evidence to the contrary.
-
Get rid of the 'container', define it locally and use constants and causality to define the universe. Causality is the only containment you need, with constants. And causality is about relations to me.
-
If you define the universe as a sheet, consisting of 'pixels', then you only need some simple rules defining 'change' to create dimensions as I expect. That doesn't guarantee that it must be a discrete universe, it's just easier to describe it that way. If distances wasn't observer dependent according to relativity you would be perfectly correct in finding me dreaming away here, but they are, observer dependent.
-
and what defines those distances are the anchors consisting of constants, motion, acceleration, and rest mass we (locally) use.
-
In there a relative motion is experimentally inseparable from being still, locally defined. When using comparisons inside a expected 'container universe' we do see differences though. Now, what do you think is correct there? One or the other, or both?
-
actually most physics, and especially astronomy, seem to ignore the first. They happily go on defining the 'container universe', but always locally measured.
-
And 'change' as such is not about lights 'propagation' in my universe :) It's just change creating it.
-
Think of it as a super position, then introduce a 'ground beat', locally equivalent for all SpaceTime positions, that beat also becomes a local arrow and a limit called 'c'. Through the local beat you will get outcomes. With a 'relation' defining your comparison between your local, versus, some other SpaceTime position. Somehow the vacuum, now ideally consisting of a 'nothing at all' not even indeterminism, come into play here. It's very weird idea, as it assume a vacuum to not be existent, but it fits your local reality in where a distance can be shrunk, not to a nothing, but very close to it.
-
Imagine yourself 'moving' uniformly, extremely fast relative the rest of your universe. Will the light bulb in your room have an extra energy? due to the motion you define outside that 'black room' looking at the rest of the universe?
-
What about the local arrow, will you now become immortal? due to that uniform motion putting you infinitely close to 'c'. and what about the universe you see, will it age faster? and what about the distances you measure in the direction of your relative motion, versus the universe? Should it shrink?
-
and that motion is still equivalent to no motion at all, locally defined. And locally defined experiments are what we use, for everything, all hypotheses, all theory's.
-
Doesn't matter if you call them 'repeatable', they are still locally made, although now assumably 'equivalently made'. But they create the physics you use.
-
But we see a universe, where we all exist together, and so we need Einsteins stress energy tensor. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/stress.energy.html) to define it. Or, we see the demands of causality, which probably is closer to the way I think of it.
-
One of the major problems I've had looking at physics is finding out what it builds from. and I don't mean its history here, although I think that is much more important than what one generally might assume. To me it builds on locality, with a presumption of a physical 'container universe', of one sort or another. The 'container' is an old, old, thing, and although its descriptions may have changed it still becomes a presumption to me, one from where you describe the universe.
=
It's not that there isn't a 'container', it's just that that one to me is about relations, causality, constants and possibly 'properties'. Properties are magic :) Or maybe not, they are at least 'intrinsic' to whatever you measure.
-
Would you call 'energy' a property?
-
Now this is a pretty weird idea, and I'm not sure. Think of light as a 'field', changing observer dependently, meaning that we need the 'observer' for it to exist, as well as what we define as a arrow (equivalent to 'c'). Assume that what we find to be dimensions all need mass. Mass cannot reach 'c'. Just writing it down because I just might want to remember it.
=
In this case I'm using the definition in where mass is 'rest mass' btw. Also :) as I don't want light to 'propagate' so, let's make it static, for this.
-
Now, how big would it need to be :)
-
You're perfectly correct if you're asking yourself from 'where'. Inside?
Outside?
Would this field need a 'outside'?
Or is it created from a 'inside'?
-
Assuming there to be a 'outside' you will add to the complexity, especially with a inflationary, subsequently expanding universe, that also can be presumed 'infinite'. To go around this you will have to invent further dimensional tricks that allow it to become something similar to a möbius ring.
defining it from solely a inside it has no problems being 'infinite' that I can see? And I don't need dimensional tricks.
-
With both a 'outside' (aka our Möbius ring) and a inside, it will not be enough with defining what our universe is. Actually it won't be enough even if you define that 'outside' containing it. Because, what contain the 'outside' you now have defined, ad infinitum.
-
It's all abstractions of course. We build the universe from abstractions. Using such the universe is as small, or 'infinite' you measure it to be. Then again, assuming LorentzFitzgerald contractions to be practically true, even when being infinitely close to 'c', would you expect a 'infinite universe' to have a end?
-
The question is, how much light do you need? Everything can be translated into 'energy', light too. A light quanta is measurable though, and we presume light, virtual or not, to be the force carriers that define us, as well as the universe we see. So the 'field of light' I'm wondering about, if so, is what you consist of. Without force carriers defining you you disappear.
-
Defining it as your clock (local arrow) is equivalent to 'c' it then seem to mean that stopping the clock should dissolve a universe. And the clock is you, as well as me.
-
because, taking away a propagation will still leave us a clock. the assumption of propagation is a global description, a 'container model'. The clock is a local definition, a local constant equivalent to 'c' globally.
=
This one is tricky. 'c' is also a local definition, repeatably so. It's a statement about what 'speed' light will have in a two way (mirror) experiment, no matter to what you define your own 'inertially (uniformly) moving' speed (and the experiments naturally as long as you are at rest with it). It doesn't matter how fast you go relative something else, you will still get 'c'.
But you can only get 'c' through using what I call 'global' parameters', you must use the container (common universe) to get that measurement of a speed. So even though it's local defined by your clock and ruler, it's also 'global', from thinking of the universe as a 'container model' using it that way.
And yes, the 'clock' is a equivalence, splitting 'c' in 'even chunks', building on it. But it's your local clock and you 'vibrate' with it. It's also so that from an assumption of a 'clock' you can, as I do, assume that there still need to be a property of 'time', or 'arrow', existing when magnifying reality into the really small, which then should be quantum mechanically, also becoming a question of if there can be some smallest discrete 'length', 'time', 'mass', etc. Maybe that one isn't necessary? I think it is myself though, for the moment being that is :)
-
Can you see how I think writing " assuming LorentzFitzgerald contractions to be practically true, even when being infinitely close to 'c', would you expect a 'infinite universe' to have a end?"
You contract the universe, but it won't end, not even then. It can't, not as long as rest mass is involved.
Light is different, it's constantly at 'c', no acceleration. We define accelerations, from rest mass. We see a equivalence to it in red and blue shifts, but from our observer dependencies as rest mass.
-
Assume the universe to be infinite, accept that it consist of force carriers communicating it. How much 'energy' would such a universe consist of? Is that question meaningful?
-
It's not a meaningful question, even though I could give that idea some symbol.
-
Same with infinity, not a meaningful question. Doesn't mean it's impossible to build a logic from it, or from defining different infinities. But for me, being inside any of those infinite universes, it won't matter. And assuming there to be no 'outside' to compare this universe from, those definitions definitely loses any meaning.
Still, if you believe in a 'container model' they will mean something to you, I don't.
-
To give the universe a shape you first need somewhere from you define it, as I see it. Assuming a 'inside' having a specific shape means you have to ask yourself, relative what? You are free to define it naturally, as soon as you created somewhere from you can compare. As for example using a container model. But you're not home free yet, you also need to define what this container is. In my case as I like to define it from local constants etc, turning the container model inside out sort of, the 'common container' we find should be a result of those, localities communicating, although I don't know how it can join? 'c' is communication, as well as a 'clock', as well as 'force carriers', but it doesn't state what makes it all possible.
-
It becomes a really weird universe, thinking this way. But if you accept 'c', and that one is tested, it already is as weird as it can be I think. Locality is an idea about where you find chain reactions, or 'waves', spreading from a center. And Einstein's relativity uses it too, when we look at how one define what is real for a observer aka 'observer dependencies'. But it's not the exact same, neither is the idea of a 'information universe' in where a entanglement is allowed because it breaks no laws of 'useful information' faster than 'c', although both is linked to the idea of what locality mean, as I read it.
the way I think of it (my homegrown version of locality) is as if the universe consist of one ground state, described by you being able to move anywhere inside it, to find your clock and ruler perfectly synchronized with wherever you are. In a wider context this relates to an idea of discreteness, although I'm not sure how that should express itself. You need some quantity that stays the same, wherever you go, and there constants are a nice choice.
In that manner those that think of LorentzFitzgerald contractions and time dilations as being 'illusionary' becomes correct, as long as we accept and hopefully can define, the limitations of that 'locality'. Superimposed you will fit perfectly everywhere, sort of, no place out of sync :) Einstein used being 'at rest' describing it.
But the universe, looked at this way, (and I can't actually see any other way to look at it, without invalidating one of the foundations of physics, namely repeatable experiments) suddenly consist, in QM terms, of something 'discrete', what I then call 'locally equivalent points', or even weirder just one 'point' that then builds the rest. And the last one is very weird, but it comes from me wondering about infinity :) and 'insides', using imaginary 'outsides' to describe it. The universe is indeed spaced out :)
=
Or maybe not, just as time dilations and LorentzFitzgerald contractions to me seem complementary, and just as light has a particlewave duality, and linearity and non-linearity weave in and out of each other, maybe the idea of discreteness relative a flow also is complementary? Depending on how you measure? And there the scale you choose seems very important to me. I'm still not sure what really I think of dimensions, but I'm pretty sure the scale you use are more important than what one usually assume.
-
There's a difference between such a definition, versus one in where we instead assume each point different from the other. This one is simple, to me it explains why repeatable experiments must exist, why physics inside the measurable portion of a universe must be the same, and it demands constants to exist.
what it doesn't explain is how those points are joined. No matter if the universe can be seen as infinite, simultaneously having no defined size as measured from some imaginary 'outside'. Inside it, where we live we do find dimensions, we have length, width, height, and 'time'. We find a vacuum, mass (EM included) and 'energy'. We find a envelope consisting of the earliest light reaching us, 'c', also defining a arrow. We find conservation laws.
-
So what is a property? When water becomes ice we call it a 'emergence'. Does it gain new properties? Was they there before?
The last question seems more important than what one might think. Was it there before? Would that be how you can identify a property? Think of 'c', as a clock. Split it, split it again, just keep splitting this 'clock speed' into smaller and smaller chunks. Does the property of 'c' disappear, the clock stop? Planck scale is defined as the place where light takes one Planck 'step' at one Planck 'time'.
does the clock disappear there?
What about the property of a clock?
-
Properties are tricky, if you ever used a cup you know that it has a property, its form and function. The form and function is a result of our demands, and it becomes the property of a container. But physical properties then? Like spin? And 'c', and emergences, giving us new properties?
-
It's about scales too. Using 'c' as a clock. If Planck scale is a real delimit of what's observable, and the clock stops, does the property disappear with it? Would you then call it a 'emergence' when it starts to 'tick' again?
-
You know what, I don't really give a sh*
I want you to be brave, I want you to push the barriers.
I will not promise you that it won't cost you.
-
We seem to be losing out to life.
What will we blame it on? The last one of us, the one standing on the isotropic and homogeneous dung heap we will leave? the others? Those that's no longer here? I don't know, what I know is that bravery is ageless, and you have it.
-
Go for it.
Make something change, and give us a chance.
-
As they say in all good stories.
The end.