The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280657 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1125 on: 12/05/2013 19:32:26 »
"Force is something that influences an object. It is associated with the conversion of energy from one form to another when work is done." Nice definition dlorde.

The second I'm not as sure on though. I'm thinking of it in form of 'frames of reference' and they are 'distorted', globally described, although perfectly fitting your local clock and ruler. And I'm trying to define from first principles as they say, starting with what a universe should be seen as. Locally defined you and me see different universes, although joined through 'c', locally as well as between 'frames of reference'. Because radiation is force and information carriers, as well as a local limit, and for this it won't matter what scale I would like to define a 'frame of reference' too. But if i want to play with a eye of God I should see a mosaic, assuming I could be locally 'everywhere simultaneously'. My 'frame' makes perfect sense to me, as your frame will do to you. And my experiments, locally made, will be the same experiments you locally can do, if repeatable. And that's the way we define 'reality', as in using locally made 'repeatable experiments'. From that we use Lorentz transformations to define a 'global reality', and from there we build up various 'global' theoretical frameworks. But we do communicate, and we are 'here' together. The question, to me, is how to define a universe from locality, and what and why frames of reference exist. You can use 'c' for it, but that will not explain it, only set a limit.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1126 on: 12/05/2013 19:48:17 »
Although 'work' is a tricky one to me. Take a atom and imagine the particles relations, are they 'doing work' defining that atom? I think of it from of accelerations and uniform motion, defining the particles inside a atom as being in a uniform motion, equivalent to being 'still'. That's one big reason why I want a experiment proving a added 'vacuum energy' in different uniform motions. Because if it is so I will have to change that definition and look for something else. As I most tentatively are thinking, for now, though, I define accelerations to all living, 'uniform motions' to particles. Why that is, is because I want principles, locally made. And I'm presuming a acceleration, and uniform motion, to be two locally definable 'constants' there.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1127 on: 12/05/2013 19:56:43 »
And accelerations/decelerations would then be a equivalence to 'doing work', although only if you define work done as a 'change'.
=

The problem with 'change' is that you can define it differently macroscopically 'doing work' relative microscopically. Me pressing a hand against a wall, is that doing work? Not macroscopically, but what happens to a rod you compress? Is that doing work? And what happens microscopically in my arm as I'm pressing that hand against the wall? Assume superman to do it, grafted with a mere human arm :), or maybe even with his own? After all, he can't be made out of unobtanium rigidious, can he?

A acceleration is simple to me, and I want it as simple as I can get it:)
« Last Edit: 12/05/2013 20:09:28 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 #1128 on: 12/05/2013 23:12:07 »
And accelerations/decelerations would then be a equivalence to 'doing work', although only if you define work done as a 'change'.

And without an observer, a body can't perceive it's uniform motion. In a hypothetical space where only two objects exist, motion can be detected but knowledge of which one is moving can't.  Only when acceleration or deceleration takes place can a body perceive is own motion. For acceleration of a body adds energy to it's mass and, deceleration subtracts or dissipates it.

So,.........what are we to understand about motion? 

Adding energy to a body will be felt as acceleration.
Subtracting energy from a body will be felt as deceleration.

I suppose, and I could be wrong here, that one might leave out the word motion altogether and simply replace it with; "energy added or subtracted".

In a hypothetical universe where only a single body exists, one could correctly say: "Motion is nonexistent, even when experiencing acceleration, only energy has been added to the body."

And in the same hypothetical universe, energy and time are so closely connected that they can't be separated. Without time, no added energy, no change. One might say that time is evidence for energies existence. One might go so far as to say that the arrow of time chooses the change.

I suppose one could say that we have sufficient evidence that the arrow of time contains all energy, they may be only a single identity. Not so for motion however, I can see where the need to define motion might be unnecessary. And maybe, the reality is that motion is only an illusion???????????

 
« Last Edit: 12/05/2013 23:14:50 by Ethos_ »
 

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 #1129 on: 13/05/2013 14:12:20 »
And accelerations/decelerations would then be a equivalence to 'doing work', although only if you define work done as a 'change'.
Work is done when force moves something. So when a force acts to accelerate or decelerate something, it does work and energy is converted.
 

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 #1130 on: 13/05/2013 14:16:53 »
... maybe, the reality is that motion is only an illusion???????????
Absolute motion maybe. Relative motion, no. You could test that by walking into traffic, but I advise against it  ;)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1131 on: 13/05/2013 15:18:25 »
Yeah, that's very true dlorde. Relative motion exist, and is definably measurable relative any inertial, or not, observer. I'm solving that one by staying in one frame of reference, defining it from there. That one bugged me for the longest time, as I both found all uniform motion 'equivalent(ly)' still, locally defined and measured. At the same time you found different speeds, comparing between them. But defining both accelerations and uniform motion as 'local properties' gives me the freedom to relate them as a sort of constant local properties, belonging to all frames of reference.

But using this definition you also need to define how 'frames of reference' would present us with that 'relative motion' though. And that one I don't know a answer for. I would love to find one though :) because then it would be simpler for me.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1132 on: 13/05/2013 15:40:29 »
Although, you could define it as 'relative motion' existing, not nosediving into trying to define it from frames of reference. You can also define energies to a vacuum, keeping the equivalence between all uniform motions locally measured, but I want to know where and how that 'energy' is expressed from a local perspective. I don't see how it would be expressed globally as that is observer dependencies to me. Accepting that they exist there should be some way to express it though, without invoking Lorentz transformations, as we indeed can communicate over frames of reference. What I mean there is just that it might be more than one way of defining a universe, hopefully :)
=

Meaning a experiment defining a vacuum energy, also proving it to differ in different uniform (relative) motions.
« Last Edit: 13/05/2013 15:47:07 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1133 on: 13/05/2013 16:02:37 »
As for uniform motions on earth, or any mass for that sake, I would say they involve accelerations to work. Only relative a mass in a vacuum, and our definition of a 'geodesic' as a path of no resistance, can we find something uniformly moving, not gaining or losing energy locally. One thing, to me speaking of 'gravity' as no 'field' I know of, is the way you can imagine 'gravity' as some sort of 'field lines' defining paths for mass. Just fill that universe with billions of mass, in different relative motion, having all sorts of different directions, and try to see how all of them, from your point defining it, find those geodesics simultaneously, never meeting any 'resistance'. And that also goes back to what 'energy' should be seen as to me.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1134 on: 13/05/2013 16:14:51 »
Because that is the point, as I see it, with a geodesic. Ignoring atmospheres resistance we can define it such as a 'ideal geodesic in vacuum' is without resistance or friction. And mass have both a active as well as a so called passive, (mass) gravity. Acting on a vacuum, as well as being acted upon by other mass. But geodesics are everywhere in this universe as far as I can see, on Earth and outside it, and ideally defined without friction/resistance. That one also hurts me head.
« Last Edit: 13/05/2013 16:21:47 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 #1135 on: 13/05/2013 18:04:42 »
... maybe, the reality is that motion is only an illusion???????????
Absolute motion maybe. Relative motion, no. You could test that by walking into traffic, but I advise against it  ;)
True,....but in my example, I set the stage with only two bodies in empty space. My point here is; without acceleration or deceleration, we can't determine which one is moving. It is possible that they both are moving or it may be only one or the other. This example also holds true for the busy universe within which we live. Without acceleration or deceleration, it is impossible to prove self related motion of any particular object. An observer may determine that you have moved, which is defined as relative motion, but how can he prove that it is you and not he that has moved? So,...........yes relative motion is real, but without acceleration or deceleration one can't know whether it is themselves or the other doing the moving.
 

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 #1136 on: 13/05/2013 19:48:01 »
My point here is; without acceleration or deceleration, we can't determine which one is moving. It is possible that they both are moving or it may be only one or the other.
Since motion is entirely relative and neither space nor time are absolute, it makes no sense to ask which one is moving without giving a frame of reference. They may be moving relative to each other or they may not. If one changes velocity to match the speed of the other, it is equally valid to say it has decelerated to match that speed as to say it accelerated to that speed. Knowing the acceleration history of the bodies from some arbitrary past point in time may tell you which object has changed velocity since then, but whether it is now 'moving' depends on your frame of reference.

Quote
An observer may determine that you have moved, which is defined as relative motion, but how can he prove that it is you and not he that has moved?
The point is, when you ask 'who moved?' in this context, you're really asking 'who accelerated?', so it becomes obvious that to answer the question you need to know who accelerated...
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1137 on: 13/05/2013 23:39:16 »

The point is, when you ask 'who moved?' in this context, you're really asking 'who accelerated?', so it becomes obvious that to answer the question you need to know who accelerated...
I think you are missing the whole point of my example and I confess that may be my fault. I did make mention of how accelerations and decelerations affect the results we determine by their influence upon bodies. But my example was about two bodies in uniform motion, of which neither was accelerating nor decelerating. In this scenario, neither can determine which one is moving even though relative motion can be established. Hopefully, this agrees with your interpretation of reality but if it does not, I wish not to argue the point.
« Last Edit: 14/05/2013 00:46:02 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1138 on: 14/05/2013 01:37:46 »
"And in the same hypothetical universe, energy and time are so closely connected that they can't be separated. Without time, no added energy, no change. One might say that time is evidence for energies existence. One might go so far as to say that the arrow of time chooses the change. " You're thinking of it in terms similar to mine when you talk about time, if we define it as a arrow of time. I relate it to 'c' locally, so for your example the only presumption we need to make is that 'c' regulate 'this universe' too. Doing so you can define accelerations as expressions needing 'c' (as a speed limit naturally, but most importantly for me, as its local time keeper, a clock.) Using that I see the clock as the carrier of force and information, and it won't matter how many objects I introduce. The only thing that happens introducing more rest mass will be definitions relating to how that local constant, and clock, will treat other local definitions, creating time dilations and Lorentz contractions.
=

That's one very good reason for why I find it important for me to see if I can imagine a scale, making sense, defining a local frame of reference.
« Last Edit: 14/05/2013 01:43:04 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 #1139 on: 14/05/2013 05:08:26 »
You're thinking of it in terms similar to mine when you talk about time, if we define it as a arrow of time. I relate it to 'c' locally, so for your example the only presumption we need to make is that 'c' regulate 'this universe' too.

Yes,....and this arrow not only has a speed limit as you've said, it also influences things like the rate of relative motion. Thinking from the observational perspective of the photon, the relative motion of all other bodies in the universe becomes instantaneous. This raises the question: When relative motion becomes instantaneous, can we still call it motion. Similarly, in the quantum world, experiment sometimes finds particles existing in two places at the same time. What does this tell us about relative motion?

We define motion as the process of linear change along a described path. If we eliminate the path by having only a point of origin and an end, can we really be certain that movement occurred along the assumed straight line path? Certainly, it depends upon which local frame one does the observing from doesn't it. And from the frame of the photon, does it really observe motion? And in the case of a particle existing in two places at once, can we really say that relative motion was involved? How does a particle move from one place to another while still remaining at it's origin?

I'm with you yor_on, the speed of light and time are the ultimate judge here.

The obvious question would be; Why would I suggest that we view things from the perspective that light has on reality?

My answer:
Light is the ultimate judge, it's what we use to observe almost every detail in nature. It's the closest thing to being eternal as we can presently understand. A beam of light will continue if unobstructed for almost eternity. I say "almost" for obvious reasons. We can still see the first light from our very beginnings. So I say; "I will try to understand nature from the position of it's most basic and unchanging medium............Light"
« Last Edit: 14/05/2013 05:39:56 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1140 on: 14/05/2013 09:56:16 »
One thing Ethos, to me it's very difficult discussing what a photon might 'see'. I know that they are force and information carriers inside as well outside 'frames of reference, described globally with the eyes of a God. From my own perspective though, locally measured, There are no other frames of reference versus 'c'. When I, or you, locally measure that speed it will be the same over all 'frames of reference', even though you and me might define it differently relative each other time wise, as well as contractions.

But light have a defined speed relative me, and it must interact with me, so the definition making most sense to me is the one where I use it locally. And using it as a clock it doesn't necessarily need to have a own frame of reference, you might think of that as light flickering instead, annihilating each time it interact, and also presenting us with a speed as it seem to propagate relative our local description. Which is a really weird way of thinking of it I admit :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1141 on: 14/05/2013 10:04:48 »
I could actually use that to describe 'relative motion'. But then you include accelerations too in it, as we now are discussing something 'static', in where light becomes what created all motion as well as propagation. Using it I would have no problems, I think, with a uniform motion, but how would I describe a acceleration? As I define both a uniform motion, as well as accelerations as 'local constants' of a sort, together with 'c'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1142 on: 14/05/2013 10:07:46 »
And I would also need to define what 'mass' should be from such a perspective, which I don't know how to do? Doesn't mean you can't imagine :) though.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1143 on: 14/05/2013 10:21:16 »
What I mean is that I still would need something more than a 'flickering universe'. Thinking of it as 'dimensions', or degrees of freedom, and using a local definition I might want to describe it as a uniform motion becoming what a universe 'is', its 'ground state' sort of, with accelerations becoming something locally defined that find some other degree of freedom to express itself in locally. That as I only discuss it from a local definition. It would then give me two degrees of freedom, possibly :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1144 on: 14/05/2013 10:37:34 »
Using it this way, 'relative motion' aka 'uniform motion' and accelerations all becomes a expression of two states, or 'degrees of freedom' defined locally. I have 'c' locally as a 'speed' and a 'clock'. I have uniform motion and accelerations as two degrees of freedom relative a locally defined Planck scale 'frame of reference'. I also have 'static patterns' defined locally, that the 'clock' ('c') puts together into a seamless 'arrow of time'. Creating and driving a 'propagation', as well as motion, defining 'relative motion' and 'speeds', as I doubt we ever will notice the flickering, as in experimentally prove it. It's sort of neat :) and weird.
 

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 #1145 on: 14/05/2013 15:03:28 »
... my example was about two bodies in uniform motion, of which neither was accelerating nor decelerating. In this scenario, neither can determine which one is moving even though relative motion can be established.

My point was to try and clarify your scenario; i.e. neither can determine which one is moving relative to what?

I ask for this clarification because the phrasing seems to imply some absolute 'stationary' frame... whereas if the two bodies are simply in relative motion, A is moving relative to B and vice-versa. They can both determine that there is relative motion; and from the frame of each one, the other is moving.
« Last Edit: 14/05/2013 15:16:51 by dlorde »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1146 on: 19/05/2013 00:24:09 »
Just want to lift up a proposition I've seen proposed. As I'm interested in defining a scale for a frame of reference. Not that I expect us to measure it fully, but, assuming that its premiss's are correct we will at least get closer to a definition. It's, ahem, physically fiendishly clever :) and hopefully even feasible?

Quantum Complementarity Meets Gravitational Redshift.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1147 on: 19/05/2013 20:08:00 »
Wrote this elsewhere

wonder how infalling matter is seen from a event horizon?

Assuming light to blueshift everything outside the event horizon should speed up, locally measured from the Event Horizon, and infalling mass should then seem to arrive, as good as, instantly. That is if it speed up, locally defined? You can also imagine yourself accelerating, to get that effect, which then close to light speed would mean, what? Just think of some other frames trajectory or geodesic, then accelerate, if now your local clock slows down relative a universe, will those geodesics mass move faster, as defined by you? It's also a question of your motion relative theirs naturally, but what I'm wondering about is how a local clock will define other frames motion, when close to 'c'.

If you think it will, is there a point where that trajectory or geodesic, for you accelerating, will seem to move ftl? It can't be , unless 'c' is wrongly defined. Because we define it locally. We can also assume a uniform motion, after such a 'final' acceleration. Will your clock still 'tick' slower relative other frames of reference, equivalent to your accelerating, or do you expect that local clock to become of one rhythm, same for all uniform (relative) motions?
=


There is a paradox hidden here as it seems to me. 'c' puts a limit on everything I measure, and let's assume me close to 'c' in a uniform motion for this, But if my clock moves slower I can just as easily define yours to move faster. And that goes for all motion. Infinitely close to 'c' I would expect a universe's lifespan to pass me by in a twinkling of my eye.

Shouldn't that mean a 'infinite blue shift' for me, locally measured. As well as me assuming that as much light should be able to reach me, as if my clock hadn't slowed down, alternatively, the universe 'speeded up'. As I'm still part of the universe, no matter what speed I measure relative other frames of reference. Either you assume a equivalence between your clock slowing down, represented by your outside universe 'speeding up', or you stop at the definition of your local clock slowing down.

So, slowing down your clock, but not assuming the equivalence of a universe to speed up, what effects would that give you? Think of lights speed in a vacuum, should it change? Would you expect it to blue shift or red shift. How about mass (planets etc) moving, would they speed up? Is there a way to differ those two, either assuming a equivalence allowing me to define my 'slower clock', as yours 'faster'? Relative defining it as 'one universal clock' versus your 'slow'. To use such a definition from a acceleration may work, but from a uniform motion?

And this one was one weird example :) But it may work for me? Although it is not symmetric.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1148 on: 19/05/2013 20:15:43 »
And it is not 'time pockets'. It's still observer dependencies, and as you observe the universe someone else observe you, defining you from his 'local clock'. So what you define and what he define is not the same. But it might still be possible to define all other frames as coherently a universe, relative the local distortion measured by you?

Because his measurements is his truth, not yours. You have one answer that will fit where you are, he another. Yours do not fit his, his does not fit yours.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #1149 on: 20/05/2013 20:54:12 »
The problem with such a definition is that it is not what we measure. We measure a locally invariant 'clock', meaning it keeping a constant time, its oscillations the same in all uniform motion, no matter your speed. And when you measure other frames of reference you do it against that clock, no other. And defined from that view it is the 'universe' that change, not you. Your ruler and clock becoming something of 'local constants', defining all experiments, together with 'c'.
=

And your lifespan use that local 'constant' clock too.
« Last Edit: 20/05/2013 20:57:39 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1149 on: 20/05/2013 20:54:12 »

 

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