The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 278911 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 #1100 on: 11/05/2013 02:47:47 »
That one isn't silly at all, although it should be noticeable, locally, as matter compressed. And the distance between planets would increase even though gravity should stay the same, I think?  Ah well, it's late here :) better get some sleep.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1101 on: 11/05/2013 02:54:34 »
Just reconsidered the point about an object shrinking as it appeared to move away from our frame of reference. If we consider that it is impossible to know which object is really moving, unless acceleration is present, the object thought to be at rest might be expanding instead of the, thought to be moving object, shrinking. This would align with the idea that energy was being added to the stationary object. It would be difficult to explain why an object would shrink but much easier to understand how one might expand where energy might be added to the system.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1102 on: 11/05/2013 02:55:33 »
That one isn't silly at all, although it should be noticeable, locally, as matter compressed. And the distance between planets would increase even though gravity should stay the same, I think?  Ah well, it's late here :) better get some sleep.
Sleep well my friend........................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 #1103 on: 11/05/2013 11:34:51 »
Physics do not have a answer to where that energy is stored, as long as we assume that 'energy' is something measurably there. You instead find 'potential energy' which to me is a imaginary component as I can't measure it. To me it's all a question of proving it by a experiment, also a question of if it exist, if you can't prove it, or in this case, where it 'exist'?

The mathematics we use is meant to describe our world, or any world, as good as we can. And they have a logic and hopefully a answer, or probabilities of answers. Can space be stressed? How do you stress what isn't there? You can see it as we must have a 'energy' in space to make all of those questions sensible, or you can go after what experiment we can make. Think of it this way, you either refer to a energy stored in each of the objects, expressed through a collision. Or the energy you refer to is a result of a whole SpaceTime in a equilibrium, accelerating locally, expressed by a collision from uniform motion. Because that is what you get in a collision, accelerations and decelerations.
 

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 #1104 on: 11/05/2013 11:39:36 »
Because 'space', or a vacuum, doesn't end. It's everywhere. It's not so that as soon as you meet a atmosphere that vacuum cease to exist, microscopically it still must be there. So what ever energy you refer to as a 'vacuum energy' should exist in matter too as I think. Macroscopic borders are not the same as the microscopic, use that magnifier and take a look,
 

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 #1105 on: 11/05/2013 11:50:07 »
Do I need to store a energy in a vacuum? That one goes back to how you define this universe, is it closed? Is there only a set amount of energy existing in it? Can there be some other way to describe it that allow for conservation laws, without being closed? What defines a universe?
 

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 #1106 on: 11/05/2013 12:24:42 »
If you can imagine light not propagating then you can imagine all 'forces' expressed otherwise. One description does not exclude the other. What you get in the end should still describe what we see. I would have no problem with vacuum energy if I only knew what experiment that proved it. Casimir effect is the one most used, but how do you exclude it being a result of matter acting on matter? The experiment I look on is called 'uniform motion' and there is no energy measurably stored in such a 'motion', as far as I know. If there is a energy stored from it then a uniform motion can't be seen as being equivalent anymore, as different 'speeds' then store different amounts of energy. But if you can't proof that energy by experiment, then it won't matter if your equation makes sense of the collision, there is still no experimental evidence. That's one of the trickiest, most irritating things I know of.
 

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 #1107 on: 11/05/2013 12:35:05 »
There is a experiment called the dynamical Casimir effect though, in where you let the equivalence of a mirror oscillate, creating 'photons' from 'virtual particles' as you 'transfer' the kinetic energy to the vacuum.

Maybe we should take it in its temporal order..
http://www.chalmers.se/en/news/pages/chalmers-scientists-create-light-from-vacuum.aspx

Then.

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-nihilo-dynamical-casimir-effect-metamaterial.html
« Last Edit: 11/05/2013 12:40:56 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 #1108 on: 11/05/2013 12:43:22 »
If it is that way, then we might say that we live in a regime, motion wise, in where we can't measure those 'potential' energies, created by motion, although they should exist. And then we have a way to differ uniform motions. So, how about combining a Casimir effect with this dynamical effect. Do both in tandem to see if the Casimir effect then will give a different value in the vacuum close to that mirror?
« Last Edit: 11/05/2013 12:46:26 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 #1109 on: 11/05/2013 12:54:46 »
But the dynamical Casimir effect is a result from accelerating, not uniform motion.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1110 on: 11/05/2013 14:08:56 »
There is a experiment called the dynamical Casimir effect though, in where you let the equivalence of a mirror oscillate, creating 'photons' from 'virtual particles' as you 'transfer' the kinetic energy to the vacuum.

Maybe we should take it in its temporal order..
http://www.chalmers.se/en/news/pages/chalmers-scientists-create-light-from-vacuum.aspx

Then.

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-nihilo-dynamical-casimir-effect-metamaterial.html
Interesting article yor_on, it causes one to reconsider the aether concept. Not necessarily the same however, because the Michelson Morley experiment debunked the notion of space being akin to a fluid of sorts. Nevertheless, space is composed of something, otherwise virtual particles could not be generated from it. There is another thread currently running here trying to define Energy. And somewhere between this thread and that one, there lies a great scientific secret that entices curious people like us to continue searching for the ultimate truth.

However, in this experiment that you linked us to, might it be possible that these virtual photons are not pulled out of the vacuum? Just as a thought experiment, is it possible that they are generated only thru the action of the vibrating mirror, transforming the energy of motion into these elementary particles? Do we really need the vacuum as the source or origin of the supply that turns itself into photons? In which case, maybe the vacuum is truly empty and void, only a place where matter and energy can move around?

I'm not sure which makes more sense???????
 

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 #1111 on: 11/05/2013 14:25:50 »
We have a very good standard theory describing effects from 'virtual particles' Ethos. Myself I think of it as 'indeterminacy' though. Both define 'something' from where a energy can express itself, but indeterminacy is the better concept to me. Because we think in archetypes, and it's high time we stopped. We define motion right :) We also define a Big Bang, from 'nothing'. I say the 'nothing' is still here, under our feet so to speak. The old Greeks wasn't that far away from it, thinking of it as shadows on a wall, as I see it. But I start with defining what I call 'reality', because I need something that defines it, and that is to me what I call 'locality'. And 'reality' can be measured, and experimented on, but only locally defined. Then we come to frames of reference, and that is about quantum logic to me, and scaling. We tend to think of stuff in terms of time, as "there 'was' a Big Bang, but now we're far away from it temporally". Not so, the arrow is one of the dimensions or 'degrees of freedom'  defining my universe. To me it's part of it and indivisible from the other 'dimensions', so linear time is a local description, although it sharing constants with all other frames of reference, becomes a global one. With some discrepancies that Einstein was the first to prove, and Lorentz quantified.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1112 on: 11/05/2013 14:29:54 »
I do see where science get's this notion about space being something other than empty however. Imagine you're waving your hand thru a body of water, the movement of your hand will create eddies and waves forming structure of sorts. But for space to be similar to this, it must consist of something like a fluid but that has already been disproved. We need another look at things, we need to start thinking out of the box. We are certainly missing something very important here, but I don't have an answer, only questions at the present.
 

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 #1113 on: 11/05/2013 14:34:45 »
well :) We can make this one into a nice SF if we like, or fantasy maybe. On the whole I tend to enjoy fantasy more than 'hard core' SF, unless someone really used his imagination. Btw: That doesn't mean that a arrow is a illusion, it's a constant, equivalent to 'c'. But the universe as a whole might just be one.
 

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 #1114 on: 11/05/2013 14:43:57 »
Or you can define it as a symmetry break, with its 'roots' still resting, through 'scaling', in a different type of order. And there I do not see a 'arrow', I see indeterminacy. Maybe we need both, the place from where a probability can resolve itself, relative the macroscopic place in where relations define what 'probability' should materialize? Looking at this way we come from probability, and we go back to probability, and the universe we describe macroscopically is a symmetry to the part we can't measure on.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1115 on: 11/05/2013 14:44:17 »
well :) We can make this one into a nice SF if we like, or fantasy maybe. On the whole I tend to enjoy fantasy more than 'hard core' SF, unless someone really used his imagination. Btw: That doesn't mean that a arrow is a illusion, it's a constant, equivalent to 'c'. But the universe as a whole might just be one.
Absolutely, and I do believe in this arrow and the paths that we find ourselves existing in. And now that you mention fantasy, which I also like myself, you said something a while back about the consciousness creating order. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately and as applied to SF, maybe you're on to something here. Maybe our thoughts have much more to do with reality than we have ever given them credit for?????
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1116 on: 11/05/2013 14:47:37 »
and we go back to probability, and the universe we describe macroscopically is a symmetry to the part we can't measure on.
And what better way to understand probability than to link it to consciousness?
 

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 #1117 on: 11/05/2013 14:52:31 »
Yes, it's hard to ignore consciousness. it seems as a added complexity to life, both expressions defined through linear time, Just as we use to define a entropy (tentatively so).
 

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 #1118 on: 11/05/2013 14:59:48 »
If you choose a symmetry break to define it then nothing is a illusion. But we're missing out on the part of a universe that we need, to define the one we have. Thoughts, and action and reaction, entropy, all speaks from a arrow as i see it, linear causality creating complexity.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1119 on: 11/05/2013 15:02:23 »
Yes, it's hard to ignore consciousness. it seems as a added complexity to life, both expressions defined through linear time, Just as we use to define a entropy (tentatively so).
I agree, when considering the most astonishing facts of reality, consciousness is by far the grandest of all. For us to even question our own existence, to ask the universe: "Why am I here and what is my purpose?" It's like the universe asking itself a question, very astonishing by all means.
 

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 #1120 on: 12/05/2013 00:20:30 »
Energy is weird. We define kinetic energy, potential energy, radiant energy, and ? Depending on choice we can go on. But it should be transformations of one thing, shouldn't it? Except that potential energy, that still seem locally imaginary to me, although correct mathematically and experimentally from a system. A 'force' then, is that a 'energy'?

Everything should be 'energy' I think? Except possibly a vacuum :) EM energy propagates a vacuum, that's the main stream definition. Heat does it. But that universe is described from dimensions, and 'infinity' using a clock and a ruler. If it now is so that you can describe this universe as something coexisting with its origin. Scales defining where that origin is. Then you can use another description, because all distances should then be equivalently distant from those points, or expressed otherwise, they are constantly with us.  And what we find to be distance and dimensions should then break down at Planck scale. And if you think of light as a quanta? Dimension less, but still defined from a speed, it too breaks down at Planck scale. What do you expect to exist after it stopped making sense physically, and mathematically? You should have that quanta 'frozen' from such a description, and there you meet indeterminism. It's another way to discuss what distances are, because no points are further away from Plank scale, than any other.
 

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 #1121 on: 12/05/2013 00:32:29 »
Let us assume we scale down to Planck scale, you able to measure a position (as the macroscopic observer, using your local clock and ruler) in 'space' and 'time'. Would you expect one such position to differ from another? If one do one also should be able to assume that we can surpass that definition into something else, 'under' Planck scale, as I see it. What would it mean if you found that what you measure at that scale is indistinguishable from any other positional point you can choose to measure?
 

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 #1122 on: 12/05/2013 05:56:41 »
Or should they be different? Those points. It depends on how you think, assuming a difference at that scale between measurements? Either becoming as some sheet then, assuming that we can't pass that scale, and that would, in a way at least, define a dimension or else assume a further depth, passing that scale. But if what you get at that scale is HUP and indeterminism then? Probabilities and super positions? would they differ? I don't think so, although it would need to be a local experiment as in joining that 'frame of reference'. Because I'm not sure how I would be able to measure it over frames of reference? When you measure something normally you use your local (macroscopic) arrow as reference. And that clock 'tick' equivalent to 'c' defining your measurements if you see how I mean. Sounds weird but there it is, if we measure over frames of reference we can't avoid a arrow, with that arrow then being a result of scales. It's possible to think of the arrow as not 'stopping' at Planck scale too naturally, in a way that was what I first thought of as 'time'. But to me the arrow ('c' as a speed) do seem as a natural result of scaling. You need to remember that this is pure speculations, and furthermore a rather nice book :) if I ever got to write 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 #1123 on: 12/05/2013 06:06:56 »
It's not that the arrow really disappear at Planck scale to me. As long as I find it possible to define a light quanta, 'c' and the clock exist, but there will be no 'temporal motion' locally. And that is the arrow to me, as defined locally. 'Time' as a logic definition, or principle, from where we get this arrow will still be present though as I think. Very speculative this one I admit.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1124 on: 12/05/2013 19:00:08 »
A 'force' then, is that a 'energy'?
Force is something that influences an object. It is associated with the conversion of energy from one form to another when work is done.

Quote
Everything should be 'energy' I think? Except possibly a vacuum :)
Everything has its energy equivalent. In a quantum universe, even the vacuum has energy equivalence.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1124 on: 12/05/2013 19:00:08 »

 

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