The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 278912 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1025 on: 21/04/2013 22:37:26 »
But to connect those frames to each other, creating a universe you need a explanation for why 'force carriers' are allowed in between, if it all would be a local definition. And that would then give us a common space with distance and speeds, relative motion, vectors and velocities.

I've kept the clock 'c', accelerations, uniform motion, and length, in a way at least. It all depend on how you define it, from a clock enabling you to measure, or as some ideal state of one, or more, 'dimensions'. that's also why I like 'distances' better, than defining it in 'dimensions' gluing together this common universe. For frames I just make one assumption, that they are all locally equivalent.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1026 on: 21/04/2013 22:51:34 »
A really strange idea, and now you will find me in dire need of a handler. Think of each 'point' as being its own 'dimension', then give it all (the commonality of 'dimensions') a fractal pattern and shared arrow defining force carriers, also resembling a holographic image, all of us becoming so called 'reference beams' for each other existence.

Very complicated that one :)
Ahh, I don't know really, but it wouldn't surprise me if we're deluding ourselves, defining it as a 'common universe'.
That one needs to go.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1027 on: 21/04/2013 22:58:21 »
If there is a simple way to define it locally there should exist a similarly simple way to define what allows local definitions to create a multitude with observer dependencies. I can't just point to 'c', although I can use 'relations' and paths' to define it. But those ignore dimensions. And they exist for us.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1028 on: 21/04/2013 23:01:33 »
Then again, scale yourself down, What will you be left with?  It may be a question of probability, and some self organizing principle creating it. Maybe dimensions are what we need to get away from?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1029 on: 21/04/2013 23:08:31 »
You can assume that the principle of a acceleration, especially if connected to gravity, is a true ideal definition (constant?), existing even as you scale yourself down to Planck scale. I can also keep a uniform motion (being still locally). they both assume displacements but to get those you first need to introduce a scale on where those properties exist, meaning that you first will need that clock to measure from.
=

Or using what I think is the most proper definition, and Einsteins as I get it, when you scale it up, you will not only get the clock ticking, you will also get the other three dimensions. they are there, together with the clock.
« Last Edit: 21/04/2013 23:44:01 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1030 on: 21/04/2013 23:19:49 »
From locality you then can refer to a Planck scaled point as being of a 'flat Space-Time', as a thought. But when comparing frames, finding some observer hanging on a event horizon then? His clock has 'stopped' from my local definitions, although, not from his. From his local reference frame everything is as usual, as I see it. So locally your scale don't lie, but frames of reference does. Which mean that all comparisons, using frames of reference outside your local, should be, what? Illusions? I don't think so, we relate and define ourselves relative those other frames. they're real to us, although always locally defined.
=

Meaning, there is no way defining a 'I' without introducing those other frames of reference, as I suspect.
« Last Edit: 21/04/2013 23:21:50 by yor_on »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1031 on: 21/04/2013 23:21:33 »
A really strange idea, and now you will find me in dire need of a handler. Think of each 'point' as being its own 'dimension', then give it all (the commonality of 'dimensions') a fractal pattern and shared arrow defining force carriers, also resembling a holographic image, all of us becoming so called 'reference beams' for each other existence.

Actually, I view this proposition as likely. Allow me to now define how communication takes place within the wave. I personally prefer to start from the center of the sphere. With light radiating in all possible directions from the center out, a wave will form in the shape of a sphere. We understand that from the origin, 'center out', the wave travels at c. If we now scrutinize the character of the sphere, we have an expanding spherical wave. But this sphere must remain in communication with every and all points of it's totality or it would collapse. And this complex of information stored in the wave is a representation of it's origin. If this wave impinges upon an object, it will collapse into a photon particle which intern generates an electron in it's wake.

The notion of information being transferred at faster than light speed arises when the totality of the wave condenses upon the stationary object. If the wave is several light years across at this time, it will still collapse in an instant. This means that the information stored in the wave one light year distant will collapse upon the object instantaneously.

No matter how one chooses to measure the shape of the wave, the measurement from the origin will be less than the measurement to the extremities the wave.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1032 on: 21/04/2013 23:26:39 »
Well Ethos, I agree on 'c' being what defines it, and I can see that you think of it in form of some wave function collapsing instantly, communicating. The question would then be what you think it is communicating?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1033 on: 21/04/2013 23:28:54 »
Well Ethos, I agree on 'c' being what defines it, and I can see that you think of it in form of some wave function collapsing instantly, communicating. The question would then be what you think it is communicating?
It's communicating the necessary information to maintain it's form and energy. When it impinges upon other matter, it will collapse.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1034 on: 21/04/2013 23:30:13 »
When it comes to FTL though?

I do not see that as something carrying information, as stated before. If it did we should be able to throw 'c' at the scrap heap :) And we can't, not without destroying all thoughts I have on this subject.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1035 on: 21/04/2013 23:35:25 »
True, but there is another way to view this. We know that the ruler changes it's length with velocity. I tend to believe that c has not been violated in the scenario. What this image does portray is however, the concept of the holographic reality. The wave being a representation of it's source.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1036 on: 21/04/2013 23:37:53 »
It depends on how you define information. Is a spin information? Don't think so, although? What about energy, would that be a information? I think it would, assuming it propagating instantly from source to sink. But you defined it as propagating at 'c', if I got you right? That a wave function can break down instantly, or be defined to encompass a whole universe is not impossible, from a theoretical point. but inside our universe it seems as if information becoming useful to us propagate at 'c'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1037 on: 21/04/2013 23:46:23 »
No, the ruler doesn't change its length in my definitions Ethos, not locally measured. What change will be the relations your ruler and clock have to other rulers and clocks, including a whole common universe for that.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1038 on: 21/04/2013 23:50:10 »
But the word "instantly" in scientific terms defines c. The way we reconcile this is we define an equality for the path from center out and it's circumference. In my mind, the collapse occurs at c also. Unless we assume this equality, like you say, we have to trash everything we presently believe about c.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1039 on: 21/04/2013 23:55:26 »
I relate a local 'time' and clock to 'c'. And 'c' must be 'c' locally, relative your clock and ruler at all 4D positions for this. So your relations relative other frames of reference may change, but your heartbeats relative your life span will not. It will give you a more or less constant magnitude. And I think you will need to give some references to how you think there. Instantly is not 'c', although if you define it as the ultimate 'speed', it will be as instant as anything can be 'speeding'.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1040 on: 22/04/2013 00:05:39 »

 Instantly is not 'c', although if you define it as the ultimate 'speed', it will be as instant as anything can be 'speeding'.
When defining time relative to c, a photon experiences no passage of time. I've heard this argued both ways, but what I can't decide for myself is how this can be explained any other way.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1041 on: 22/04/2013 00:12:43 »
Yes. that's a definition from astronomical observations. and using my thoughts a definition from scales too.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1042 on: 22/04/2013 00:16:01 »
But using scales 'c' becomes a clock in my thinking, stopping at Planck scale (using locality). Using astronomical evidence we define a propagation and then relate sources to sinks finding the light from the Big bang to still be propagating, more or less :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1043 on: 22/04/2013 00:24:38 »
I relate a speed to scale Ethos. One can think of it as measuring a distance with a clock. The clock we use will be lights speed (in a vacuum). When we have split it down to equal Plank Times we're also down to equal Plank Length. And if you think of yourself trying to measure one Plank length, but your Plank time refuse to 'tick'?

How will you measure it locally? And that's also why I want to define a 'frame of reference' as something 'physically definable' not only using being macroscopically 'at rest'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1044 on: 22/04/2013 00:37:53 »
The way I can think of it as instantly, is from a pattern. assuming that light doesn't propagate, instead giving us a constant oscillation, you don't need to relate a distance and a clock to a speed, from locality that is :). and so you might have thought of it? But I'm not redefining frames of reference, because what communicate change in this pattern is still governed by this constant we call 'c'. It's like two reference frames, constantly criss crossing each other, being our focus. One represented by the 'cone' represented by me imagining scaling it up from Plank scale, the other being the way we describe a propagation and 'frames of reference' from lights speed in a vacuum. Both work, and will describe it correctly, as far as I can see that is :)
=
Oscillation is not a good choice here, because it gives one ideas about a time in which it oscillate, and at Planck Time there is no 'oscillation' to be found. Maybe annihilating is better?
« Last Edit: 22/04/2013 00:47:45 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1045 on: 22/04/2013 00:43:51 »
The timelessness I expect is related to the scale here, and it seems to work with most definitions I know, as well as gravity. So I think it's correct so far. Then I just love to speculate too, as we all do, having the freedom for it. :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1046 on: 22/04/2013 00:58:29 »
What I can say from my definitions is that I do not expect time to become space, passing a event horizon. To do so I would have to transform 'c' into space, as it seems to me? But I can easily use my definition to define why I expect your local arrow to stay invariant at all (4D)positions, although a acceleration should be a special circumstance from locality too? That one is still tricky to me, and I haven't made up my mind, if I now ever will?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1047 on: 22/04/2013 01:14:14 »
The timelessness I expect is related to the scale here, and it seems to work with most definitions I know, as well as gravity. So I think it's correct so far. Then I just love to speculate too, as we all do, having the freedom for it. :)
Absolutely..........One curious think about the math concerning the difference's in dimensions between the radius and the circumference ending up with the same velocity is the following:

Velocity = distance / time

distance = velocity X time

Therefore:

distance of the radius = velocity X zero time (at c)

and;

distance of circumference = velocity X zero time (at c)

Any value times zero equals zero, so both time and distance appear the same to the photon.

Because zero time passes in either case, the distance has no effect on the outcome of the equation. Therefore, c will remain the same whether referring to the radius or the circumference because zero time will have elapsed.
« Last Edit: 22/04/2013 01:22:47 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1048 on: 22/04/2013 01:50:40 »
Light has no place where you can define it as being 'at rest', from a main stream definition. Although you can, using Planck scale, define it to a point like existence it doesn't mean that this invalidate the definition before. And even there you will find that for this pattern to emerge you need a reason. So even though the arrow may stop, and 'c', as a microscopic definition from a static local representation of one Planck time, what defines 'c' macroscopically should still be there. As for how a photon sees it, I don't know, I like to wonder about it too but I found no meaningful description. I can minimize it, scale it down in my mind, stop the clock (locally described, not by the guy measuring it though), but I don't know what makes 'c', and how 'c' should be defined from its own point of view (frame of reference). And as 'c' is a dimensionless quality, I guess Planck scale still is too huge :) but it is where our descriptions breaks down physically. So anything less and I will be bicycling in the great younder, although, that haven't stopped me before :)
=

That's why I call it a 'constant' locally (microscopically), including a arrow in its definition, as well as macroscopically. It exist as both definitions simultaneously for me.
« Last Edit: 22/04/2013 02:16:59 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1049 on: 22/04/2013 02:05:23 »
What I mean is that I don't define a photon being as 'at rest' at Planck scale. Instead I define it such as the arrow disappearing, as Planck scale is the smallest meaningful description I know of. You can from that go to loops and strings, or a holographic universe, but then we're discussing pure theory, or hypothesis's. Which I'm perfectly prepared to do, although then calling it 'paths and relations' :) not having defined it more than that.

But I do not discuss what a photon frame of reference would be Ethos, because I have no idea actually.
==

thinking some more, I'm not sure I really can pass Planck scale?
Under that I don't know what happens, from my definitions.

The 'paths' I use, although coming from, mostly, about loop quantum theory, (Smolin) is not related to what is under Planck scale really. I don't know what should be there, can be strings, can be loops, can also be nothing (that we are able to describe) at all.

Plank scale though, makes sense to me and from there I like to start.
« Last Edit: 22/04/2013 02:30:09 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1049 on: 22/04/2013 02:05:23 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums