# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280747 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1150 on: 20/05/2013 21:21:45 »
So let's go back to that event horizon. What would you see, defining it such as you have a constant called 'c' that also becomes a 'clock' of sorts split into Planck scale. The universe would have to speed up for you, would you agree to that? But the light coming at you would still be 'c'. It can't be anything else in this universe I assume. Let's say, just for the argument, that one minute to you locally would represent a million years for some sun, close enough but free from the gravity well you're in.

What happens with the light it produce? One million years of light for it, whatever amount reaching you doing so in one minute of your locally defined time? You can't 'time travel' locally. Your lifespan never change, locally measured. And we define, create, and measure experiments locally. That's how a repeatable experiment works, and works out for all others testing its truth.

What happens to that light?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1151 on: 20/05/2013 21:37:43 »
It is a paradox to me. Assuming the light produced under one million years (locally defined) to reach you in one minute. Either you have to define that light as propagating ftl, 'locally defined' which directly will contradict my statement that what you measure still will be 'c'. Or you will need a way to describe it that won't allow for a blueshifted 'curtain of light'. There might be one third statement possible though, and that is that what you measure is your reality, and in that one you must get a blue shifted curtain of light, coming at you at 'c', creating some sort of singularity isolating you from the rest of the universe.

That one should then define it such as when something not physically correct happens, as fitting the laws we find regulating a universe, then we must get a singularity. Or do you have a third, eh, fourth suggestion?
=

Thinking of it as 'slow time' as defined locally then?
In what way would you expect it to be different for you at the event horizon measuring?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1152 on: 20/05/2013 21:50:53 »
Reminds me of Olber's Paradox,  that one seems explained by there not being enough starlight reaching us, and that there never can be, as we have a expansion as well as stars dying, and entropy. But in this case I think we need another answer, accepting the stipulations I made.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1153 on: 20/05/2013 21:59:46 »
And that's another thing I've been wondering about. If the event horizon could be described as a equivalence to 'c'. Passing it no light paths can point 'back' to where you came from, and that becomes a 'singularity'. so sending a light signal back to where you come from, just as you pass, won't let it through. But if I assume it to be a equivalence then no mass should ever be able to pass a event horizon, not as matter at least.
« Last Edit: 20/05/2013 23:42:44 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1154 on: 20/05/2013 22:10:56 »
You could possibly get around that one defining matter as compressing, also passing the event horizon under that compression, making it impossible to radiate 'back out' to the universe we can measure on. Or using tidal forces possibly to define matter as breaking down, finally becoming radiation, still inside a event horizon though. Because I would expect a measurable radiation, if it happened outside a event horizon.
=

This one will be very interesting to measure I think
http://astronomy.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=58381&p=3&topicID=48519156
« Last Edit: 20/05/2013 22:15:37 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1155 on: 20/05/2013 23:30:37 »
From locality we have a logic that might define some few local parameters, And then 'c' locally defined, also becoming your information carrier between those frames of reference. But 'c' as a global presentation of a universe is not really the same in my description as in main-stream definitions, in where we go out from presuming a 'global universe', although with observer dependencies.

If I would make some stipulations for explaining it from locality I would state that you would need to consider 'c' from its local representation solely, using it as a local constant. It's not really a 'global' perspective to me. But it should mean that no representation can be made other than locally, and that all local descriptions are limited by the same (local) constants.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1156 on: 20/05/2013 23:58:35 »
Do 'c' notice frames of reference in a propagation? It follows geodesics, but can you define a geodesic as something untouched by gravity? If gravity is the metric of space? To me gravity must be existent in a 'flat space' too. Would a 'space' without gravity exist on its own?

#### dlorde

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1441
• Thanked: 9 times
• ex human-biologist & software developer
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1157 on: 21/05/2013 00:54:47 »
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.
It's called 'Relativity' ;-)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1158 on: 21/05/2013 02:28:22 »
heh.

Let's use light clocks to define a event horizon. In SR you can think of it as 'light' bouncing between two mirrors at a right angle to you. That becomes your clock. The contraption moving away, relative you, will force the light bouncing between the mirrors to 'traverse' more space as it does so, making for a slower 'clock', as defined by you staying at home. A simple idea that works.

Then you just put this light clock in a uniform constant acceleration, and watch it tick. That's gravity according to the equivalence principle. And GR.

So will that light clock tick slower for a far observer, watching it placed at a event horizon?
It should, as that is equivalent to uniform constant acceleration.

Now place yourself there looking out at the stars. Place one more imaginary light clock, 'at rest' with you, away from the event horizon, close but not too close to that sun we discussed earlier. Will the clock speed up, or will it be the same as your clock? There are two ways to see that, no, it won't. Or yes, it will, but only relative you. Assuming a global universe the 'sun clock' has no reason to speed up, as it is at rest with you, but placed outside your gravity well. But as we found that far observer observing your clock to go slow, you can now imagine that observer sitting on our 'sun (light)clock' looking back at you, observing your 'event horizon clock' still ticking slower than his local sun clock. So, what will you observe (at the event horizon)?

Well, which clock are you going to use to define his clock? your local one right? At the event horizon. And according to that one the 'sun clock' must have a faster pace. It is equivalent to a twin experiment loosely described, in where one twin accelerate to then come back, finding his earthbound twin older than himself traveling.
=

This is where there might be room for argument. although the far observer defines your clock to go slow, can I really assume a equivalence in where his then must go faster, as defined from my local clock (at the event horizon)? Logic and the equivalence principle seems to demand it though.
=

But none of them, locally measured, found anything to differ in lights speed. And that you define the sun clock to 'tick faster', does that mean that all will agree on it? Not to someone in a same gravitational potential, also being 'at rest', with the sun clock. To him it should 'tick' the same as his own. There should be a better way to define this one. But let's sleep on it and see if we can find some other way :)

One thing one can wonder about though, is if there exist some limit to those 'ticks' more than 'c', locally defined. What i mean is if there could be some 'minimum ground state' for a 'tick', as defined between frames of reference. but that hasn't really anything to do with the question at hand, has it :)
« Last Edit: 21/05/2013 03:07:55 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1159 on: 21/05/2013 02:33:05 »
And, thinking of it, how does the Higgs field handle this equivalence? Does it allow it or destroy it, and how does it define time?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1160 on: 21/05/2013 14:13:39 »
Although there is a added complication to it. You being at rest with a event horizon is not in 'uniform motion' anymore. To stay there you must 'accelerate' constantly, and if we want to be very practical it can't even be a uniform constant acceleration as you should have to fight tidal 'forces'. But we can imagine you to accelerate uniformly and constantly, hovering above it. Now that is a equivalence to a gravity, and you doing it constantly uniformly can then be seen as 'adding' to the gravity, or if you like, negating the black holes gravity. In the end it should come to a same situation, as I think, though. You being at rest with that horizon. If you now imagine yourself hovering as it being described by gravitational arrows you can draw one arrow pointing to the black holes 'center' (ideally) representing the gravitational potential the dark hole act on you. Then another arrow coming from that black hole, going in the opposite direction, representing the 'force' your uniform constant acceleration act upon the 'space' and black holes gravity, countermanding it.

So, will you be weightless :) Two arrows, taking each other out. If now gravity is a 'force'?
« Last Edit: 21/05/2013 14:15:43 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1161 on: 21/05/2013 16:24:41 »
The point made here is that there is several experiments validating the equivalence principle. Gravitational red and blue shifts for example, and NIST. It works and it predicts effects on a regular basis practically. So I expect it to be true that a clock in a gravity well must be slower, as measured by a far observer. Can you see why I question the Higg? You can't keep both GR and Higg bosons, at least not as I get it.

And this one that I got by the grace of Jarek :)
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Hestenes_Electron_time_essa.pdf

It's very interesting, discussing 'clocks'
=

And one more thing, I'm interested in the logic describing something. I don't really need it to be 'here', as long as the logic makes sense. That's why non propagating light makes sense to me. And that's why I might assume the way it exist as 'rhythm' instead of a propagation to describe a arrow. What we need for defining a 'clock' is here though, lights speed in a vacuum.
« Last Edit: 21/05/2013 17:02:36 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1162 on: 21/05/2013 17:11:28 »
Then we have the idea that information can't be destroyed. If you write a equation on a clump of ice, is that information? Does that matter to the ice? What patterns you or nature inscribe? And thoughts, are those information?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1163 on: 21/05/2013 17:17:17 »
Why not define it such as logic can't be destroyed instead? Because that is what we build on, logic. Statistics is our final frontier proving a logic, and statistics and the logic it delivers also prove the concept of time. Because statistics is something belonging to the history of something, a past. That past we use to define a future. Whatever statistics you use will always be a past, brought into the 'present' by you handling it. How else would you get a probability of something, not using histories?

So what is probability a proof of?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1164 on: 21/05/2013 17:22:34 »
A super position is probability of outcomes. A outcome is the finish of a super position. And I relate that concept to scales. Because I don't think you can define a macroscopic object as being in a super position, as a piece of wood.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1165 on: 21/05/2013 17:32:06 »
Using scales as our tool we get a geometry, defining super positions at one end, the opposite end defining macroscopic objects. We also get something 'time less' at one end, a existent arrow on the other. Do motion need a arrow?

#### dlorde

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1441
• Thanked: 9 times
• ex human-biologist & software developer
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1166 on: 21/05/2013 18:21:03 »
... although the far observer defines your clock to go slow, can I really assume a equivalence in where his then must go faster, as defined from my local clock (at the event horizon)? Logic and the equivalence principle seems to demand it though.
I can't comment on this sun/event-horizon/clock arrangement, because I can't picture exactly what you mean, but just because you see his clock run slow doesn't mean he must see your clock run fast. Consider the twins paradox: (assuming the bulk of the out and return legs are at constant velocity) each sees the other's clock run slow during the outward and return journey; the temporal difference when they meet is due to the turn-around phase of the travelling twin.

#### dlorde

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1441
• Thanked: 9 times
• ex human-biologist & software developer
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1167 on: 21/05/2013 18:23:22 »
So, will you be weightless :)
A joke? It seems to me you'll only be weightless under constant acceleration if you're in orbital freefall.

#### dlorde

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1441
• Thanked: 9 times
• ex human-biologist & software developer
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1168 on: 21/05/2013 18:30:34 »
... I don't think you can define a macroscopic object as being in a super position, as a piece of wood.
How big is macroscopic? visible to the naked eye?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1169 on: 22/05/2013 00:40:57 »
That you can define several ways dlorde. I refer to a piece of wood here, but you can argue for that all matter are 'matter waves' if you like. You can also point out that we ideally can hear a molecule and, almost, see a single photon. Think there has been experiments pointing to that. To me it's a question of scales and I refer superpositions to the microscopic scale, not to that wood. It's not so much a question of defining where a macroscopic scale 'is', as you can manipulate it by super cooling it etc. as in that experiment you pointed me too "O'Connell's experiments required delicate control and a temperature of just 25 millikelvin to measure the state in the few nanoseconds before it was broken down by disruptive influences from outside." But you should be able to use scales for defining where you find it normally on earth.

Maybe it need to be defined? Then I would refer that to the amount of relations that restricts it, from a quantum mechanical point of view. And that should differ for what type of material it is, as well as temperature, etc. but you won't get a ordinary stick to be in a superposition, as far as I know that is :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1170 on: 22/05/2013 00:43:26 »
And yep, it was a joke :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1171 on: 22/05/2013 01:04:22 »
And no, not to me. It's not the acceleration/deceleration that makes the time dilation for the guy traveling, relative his twin staying at home. Different uniform motions must give you time dilations and Lorentz contractions too. I think I've discussed that before in this thread, and if you use light clocks for it, you find a very handy description for it.

But I've seen some arguments supporting your view, and in a way it would be much easier for me if I could agree on it just being accelerations/decelerations that creates it. A relative motion is always relative something else, and that is what creates time dilations, two objects in relative motion. to me that might be seen as another proof of 'motion' existing, but depending on how you define a universe, globally, or strictly locally? From a local definition we have 'constants' with one, 'c', also communicating between those local instances. All as I see it.

Pete expressed it very well when he pointed out to me that relativity always must be about 'something, relative, something else'. When I'm discussing 'locality' I'm trying to see if you can find something constant for just one frame of reference. And what I think is 'constants', (of a sort:), that I then refer as equivalent 'constants' for all frames of reference locally defined.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1172 on: 22/05/2013 01:25:22 »
From my point of view then, 'c' is a clock to me, locally definable as a constant. And a time dilation is created when you introduce two such clocks, both locally definable to be 'c', comparing one to the other, using relative motion, accelerations(decelerations), and mass. I'm avoiding 'energy' for now, and I'm also not discussing relative mass, even though both definitions are valid according to relativity. And it is a mystery to me, that a local constant, interacting over frames of reference create both time dilations and Lorentz contractions, so I try scales :) to see if it makes sense defining it this way. And that's also why I want a definition of a scale for a smallest, physically meaningful, frame of reference. Because you have two definitions as i see it. Being 'at rest' with something else, and defining frames of reference as points defined by a (local) arrow and position in three dimensions. But that does not state if a frame of reference has a scale by itself, we might refer it to a string, if we can't agree on where that frame loses its coherence. I use Planck scale.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1173 on: 22/05/2013 02:37:33 »
But yes, I'm also wondering if there would be a possibility of defining it as not being a symmetry, but if you consider uniform motion, measuring some other clock, we find a symmetry in that both should define the other ones clock as going slow. And it doesn't matter what speed you define the other object to have, it will still be a symmetry. But then we have the question if 'motion' exist, to consider.

And assuming that I can accelerate close to 'c', to then uniformly move, can I now expect a Lorentz contraction to disappear? If so maybe I can ignore a locally defined time dilation relative some other frame of reference too, as it according to my first definition then must be a illusion, caused by 'relative motion'.

To me it doesn't matter how I got that speed, even though I normally defined need a 'acceleration' of some sort to get to such a speed. The fact still stays that those two descriptions are contradictory when put together. And as I define everything relative my own 'clock' I find uniform motion to be as responsible for a time dilation, and Lorentz contraction, as a acceleration. The MMX experiment was done in uniform motion, and it was from that Lorentz first defined a Lorentz contraction.

But there is one more thing to it. I assume a Lorentz contraction and a time dilation to be complementary, you need both to define that muon for example, depending on what frame of reference you use. That may be wrong, although I expect it to be true.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11999
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1174 on: 22/05/2013 03:06:38 »
The  weirdest thing with my 'constants' dlorde is that I think that I can define 'c' (clock), uniform motion, and accelerations(decelerations) as being 'local constants'. And there I also can define, at least provisionally, uniform motion as being equivalent to locally 'still'. But introduce one single little frame of reference more, and we must find 'motion', or 'relative motion' as it is called. Frames of reference are weird.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1174 on: 22/05/2013 03:06:38 »