# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 278674 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1200 on: 27/05/2013 21:40:43 »
You can also consider it from our ideas of a locally defined speed, stopping somewhere just under 'c'. We do it relative incoming light, and possibly fixed stars. We define it as we can 'move' to that speed. That's nothing 'relative', that's absolute motion to me although, locally defined relative some other frame of reference. So we have that.

Then we have 'relative motion'. Assume we meet something moving close to the speed of light. Would we then expect ourselves to be the one moving? We can easily find this to be untrue relative locally measured blue shifts, versus 'fixed stars', so no, it's not relative to me. Not from a global description.

From a local definition though, all motion should disappear, locally measured. But to make it disappear I also need to define what a 'frame of reference' is, scale wise. Being 'at rest' is okay, approximately, for a macroscopic object, as me relative earth. But it's not precise enough to define where those 'frames of reference' stops interacting. Then we come to super positions, etc, microscopically. Maybe it's possible to define them as not having any motion from relativity too? At least I think it might be :) that is, if we define a uniform motion as being 'still', locally defined. but that also has to do with the scale you use for defining a 'frame of reference'. Like a weird puzzle :) but interesting.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1201 on: 27/05/2013 22:05:20 »
If you define uniform motion as being still. Then define a frame of reference as a object imaginary containing 'uniform motion', accelerations, 'c' and a equivalent clock. Then define that 'frame of reference' to a scale. You will have a local definition in where uniform motion should be a 'ground state', a acceleration something else, possibly defined from frames of reference interacting. With frames of reference interacting, changing into accelerations, defined over frames of reference becoming something 'growing' scale-wise into the universe we see :)

Can't help but like it, a imaginary puzzle, although no theory dlorde, just thoughts.
=

but you need to consider how 'uniform motion' then would fit QM, and the ideas we have of decoherence, etc. And that is also a question of how to define being 'at rest' macroscopically as I see it.
« Last Edit: 27/05/2013 22:08:28 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1202 on: 28/05/2013 19:56:21 »
I might regret writing this, then again, maybe not? :)

To me the confusion regarding time is not there. I use the local definition and in that one there is no confusion, 'c' equivalent to a clock, defining a life span, no matter where. What creates my confusion is instead how to explain the universe we agree on, the 'common one'. and there I find 'c', but 'c' is always a definition relative that local constant (clock). So I need something, 'dimensions'? Distances? Something more, to bind it all into one coherent definition of a universe.

Information carriers.

That's what 'c' becomes to me, and as I consider it the 'ultimate game', you need to ask yourself what you would need to create a game  like this.. Because, I expect us to be able too, knowing the rules.. Doesn't mean we decide outcomes, but we might be able to set the right parameters.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1203 on: 28/05/2013 20:16:51 »
Because that was what I started on, trying to define our arrow, or 'time'. So far I see a clock :) But not 'time'. Because, assuming a clock to be related to one frame of reference, locally defined and equivalent to 'c', it still doesn't answer where 'time' comes from, or how that one should be described. Using scales though, we find them end, physically and mathematically, at Plank scale.

So Planck scale.

And what we find there? It can't be the arrow, the arrow need frames of reference to get a 'motion'. It has to be 'time', but it's no 'time' understandable macroscopically. It's quantum logic, super positions, probabilities.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1204 on: 28/05/2013 20:24:13 »
Think of it as a strictly 'local' line. Thats the arrow at Planck scale, according to my definition. Then introduce 'frames of reference' and something joining them. That's 'c'. What you now have wandering 'upwards' is something that starts to 'tick'. But the definition of those 'ticks' are always locally defined, in some way becoming a 'cone' as you introduce more and more frames of reference, ending in a 'universe'. At Planck scale the definition for lights speed in a vacuum is 'one Planck step at one Plank time'. Physically it becomes meaningless to get past that, defining a arrow.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1205 on: 28/05/2013 20:31:43 »
Does this definition make strings redundant?
Nope, it's just that you need definitions for how they can 'interact' creating that Planck scale. and there we find 'probabilities' etc. Think of it as a symmetry too. The 'symmetry break' we become needing a Quantum and String/Loops universe to exist, and that, or those, needing us to define itself. And we 'stuck in the middle' of it, being consciousness..

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1206 on: 28/05/2013 20:41:56 »
Crazy stuff :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1207 on: 28/05/2013 20:44:36 »
But I'm pretty sure I got this right, you can test it by trying to define a 'frame of reference' as a 'position in space and time'. then try to define a arrow, and 'interactions' in it. I'm rather sure you won't be able too. But you will be able to introduce indeterminism, even there.
=

what I mean by a arrow here, is something 'ticking'. One Planck length in one Planck time can only start 'ticking' as you introduce one step more, that's a 'oscillation', and one more 'frame of reference', and that is what I expect to define a 'common universe' :) Frames of reference interacting.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2013 20:55:39 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1208 on: 28/05/2013 20:58:16 »
And that is what creates our 'linear arrow' and causality, to me.
=

although exactly why, well, to me it's the definition you have of a 'arrow', as defined locally, over frames of reference, 'c' becoming both a 'speed' and a 'clock' for you, as well as for me. That arrow becoming a locally defined geometry.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2013 21:04:38 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1209 on: 28/05/2013 21:09:52 »
And you can see why we need frames of reference for getting a clock running here. And you can see why we find Lorentz transformations too, if you think about it a little. But I don't have a answer to why there is 'frames of reference' interacting, although we can use 'c' defining how they do it.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1210 on: 28/05/2013 21:15:34 »
And remember, it may just be my delusions.
But it will still be a nice mind game, and in the end, that's why we up here live by, our minds :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1211 on: 28/05/2013 21:47:56 »
And you can see why 'time' won't tick backwards in my universe. There is no possibility of it, that I can see. The arrow becomes something getting a direction through frames of reference. The best we can do is to define it as 'stopping', as maybe at a event horizon, but only as defined by you not being there, observing from afar. QM should be where the arrow disappear, locally defined, but as you use a local clock measuring you will define it as 'stopping'.
=

There is a difference here though. Locally at a event horizon, the arrow exist as long as we have frames of reference interacting. Only when scaling it down will you be able to define where that arrow disappear 'for real'. And we're all just as close to that point, no matter how we define ourselves positionally in macroscopic 'space and time'. Sort of nice isn't it :) You only need to find a way to 'translate yourself' a very short way to 'transport' your 'information' to some other positional definition macroscopically. But that is a very tricky proposition quantum mechanically, but? I don't know, it depends on how well we will understand frames of reference in the future I think. And understand what makes them able to (co-)exist, well, in my universe that is :)
« Last Edit: 28/05/2013 21:57:57 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1212 on: 29/05/2013 11:20:28 »
Then we have dimensions. If you use the idea of all points equivalently close to Planck scale, dimensions becomes a really strange idea. Somehow they 'reach out' from it, creating a universe, allowing us (matter, dead and alive) to come to be as some secondary effect, presumably. When speaking about 'constants' from locality I'm not sure how it should work. 'c' is a local definition, measured over frames of reference, for example. It shouldn't matter how 'close' you place that local clock to yourself measuring, it should be a constant anyway, only getting a greater fit/precision relative yourself, A acceleration then, looking at it as some weird constant? As I want uniform motion to be some sort of original state for a frame of reference I have to refer to it as something created from interactions I think. To assume that a acceleration is possible 'inside' one single frame allow a interaction inside it, making it a multitude. Then again, what is a constant? A property of something, isn't it? Not something interacting measurably, yet giving us a constant answer. Ideas :) of a set relation, mathematically and experimentally.

And 'gravity'? What would that be?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1213 on: 29/05/2013 11:46:31 »
You could see it as me trying to define 'bits', locally of some same properties, that 'joined' and 'interacting' from those properties create a macroscopic universe. And as I want a frame of reference to make sense physically I limit it to Planck scale.

And then we have 'gravity', a relation to matter in our present universe, as far as I see. It also has a relation to 'energy' naturally, as in a Big Bang, but? I don't know what 'energy' is.

Possibly a origin and a property?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1214 on: 29/05/2013 12:16:03 »
It's also a relation. There are several ways to look at that one. You might want 'energy' to be what a universe 'is', behind symmetries, 'forces', matter/space. But I don't think of space as interacting, a point possible to define several ways, still, personally I do not expect us to gain added 'free energy' from it? To me energy seems as something described through transformations.

Let us assume that you by scaling down, get a 'flat space', as if gravity disappear. Would the same idea work for a event horizon? If you assume it does, what would that tell us about scales and gravity?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1215 on: 29/05/2013 17:48:42 »
How about the Casimir force? Assume it is a result of 'waves', not fitting in between, creating a pressure. Now, as the 'plates' meet, is this 'work done'? Or is it a result of a equilibrium? What about you applying a force to stop them meeting. Is that 'work done'?  And what have you spent, for what?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1216 on: 01/06/2013 13:09:08 »
You can ask yourself what you think the arrow is, one thing or several?

I define it as one thing, with a temporal direction pointing the same way everywhere. Doesn't matter if you measure a time dilation to 'stand still'  relative your local clock, it still have a same local direction. And when we then come to comparing accelerations to uniform motion we now will have to choose. Either a time dilation is the same thing, or not, for them. I define it as the exact same thing for both. And the idea, imagining different (in a uniform motion) distances, although keeping everything else (all accelerations/decelerations) the exact same for a twin experiment, should confirm that statement.

The second point about it to me, and the simplest one, is that if I define a arrow to be equivalent to 'c' then I have no other way to define it than everything you measuring, giving you different clock readings relative your own, must be equivalent. Also remembering that those clock readings only give you a provable 'local' difference, if we involve a acceleration (twin experiment), as we need something locally same to 'split' into two, one make a travel, to then come back to its origin, to locally measure a temporal difference.

That's not the same as assuming that we must have accelerations for time dilations to exist. And they are both the exact same time dilations, although only the twin experiment becoming provable, as uniform motion won't allow you to go back. And it doesn't matter really, because even if assuming that all uniform motions present you with a different 'time stamp', you measuring by your local watch. It still will be so that as you join this 'frame of reference' you and it will have a exact same (ideally) 'clock beat' and there will be no way for you to define any difference. Making it into a 'illusion' as globally defined. At the same time it will be your reality and locally defined 'constant' everywhere.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2013 19:16:16 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1217 on: 01/06/2013 13:29:13 »
The confusion about it also seem to go back to the way SR and GR differ. In GR your clock measurements are defined by gravity (mass), 'frames of reference', and 'motion'. One type of motion becoming a constant uniform acceleration, equivalent to a gravity. NIST tells us that we get different clock readings on earth, depending on elevations or gravitational potential, are those 'real'?

Sure, from my point of view all time dilations are real.

Are they measurably 'different'?
Yep

NIST did a 'twin experiment' using two synchronized clocks, moving one to then put it back with its 'twin', finding a measurable change.

This universe is defined by 'gravity' as I see it. It's the metric defining it. In it you will find what we call 'geodesics'. Paths where it is assumed that no 'resistance' exists. Those paths define a uniform motion, and they are everywhere. You can send a ball in any direction you like on Earth. It will follow a geodesic as soon as the acceleration disappear. And no directions are prohibited or forbidden by physics. So geodesics comes to be by your choice of direction/throw.

That one is worth thinking of. You have gravity as the metric, using my definitions and really ideally good clocks, you then should be able to find time dilations everywhere, in empty space too, relative your own 'clock beat'. At the same time as this universe is defined by geodesics, uniform motion, 'simultaneously' existing everywhere, no direction prohibited.
=

Can you see what I'm getting at here? If gravity is a metric of SpaceTime, then you will find 'accelerations' too, accepting time dilations, and as that was one way to define 'real differences' in time discrepancies? :) Ignoring that, we still can define a vacuum as belonging to GR (everything belongs to GR in my eyes though, SR and GR being one coherent description to me) And then the real clincher, a vacuum frame of reference as having a 'acceleration'?
==

It's pretty easy to see why it would be simpler defining accelerations 'gravity' to be what defines 'real differences' in SpaceTime. But I define it locally instead, and from that point of view, all time dilations are as 'unreal', or 'real', depending on how you define that universe we see. Globally commonly 'same', or from what I call 'locality'.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2013 16:30:27 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1218 on: 01/06/2013 13:48:57 »
I find my view the simpler solution. Why? Well, I don't differ uniform motion from accelerations when it comes to 'time'. Neither have I a problem describing a arrow as being 'real'. The only way you define anything in this universe is relative that local clock and ruler, all other descriptions becoming theoretical, involving 'information', by someone else (also locally defined).

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1219 on: 01/06/2013 14:07:49 »
And then we have 'gravity', as being some form of acceleration? That would put it back, inside, a frame of reference to me. Because that is 'matter'. And matter can be defined to 'move' spatially, but considering its constituents as 'accelerations', it become another type of 'motion' to me, not easily definable. It also wrecks havoc with my choice of 'uniform motion' as some ground-state of a 'frame of reference'.

Furthermore it question how 'energy' should be described. Because if we use a 'acceleration' to describe a change, how would we then describe one single frame of reference, consisting of both uniform motion as well as of a 'acceleration'? I could call it properties naturally, but I still need to define the 'energy' involved. Weird thoughts :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1220 on: 01/06/2013 15:58:39 »
When it comes to gravity as a metric, then that depends on how one define it. I define it as directional preference firstly, 'clocks' as a by-clause to the way a vacuum will present us with gravity, distances, and 'dimensions'. To me the question of what clock readings are more 'real' than others has no meaning, assuming we define a frame of reference to be able to exist at Planck scale, containing some properties as 'c', becoming a equivalent clock, defining a arrow. To that I definitely will add uniform motion, accelerations becoming a trickier question to me. The universe is a in a equilibrium, and as defined by our local clocks, in a 'dynamic equilibrium'. But in my universe there are no certainty of 'relative motion', not from local measurements, only relative your observations over frames of reference.

Now, that is a direct equivalence to the way we can find a 'time dilation' in my view :) Also using a local clock and ruler relative other those frames of reference. Although, even if thought of this way one would still need to define how frames of reference then can interact, locally described.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1221 on: 01/06/2013 16:10:31 »
Try defining our dimensions from this definition.

No points in SpaceTime are further away from Planck scale, than any other points.

All points in SpaceTime can be related to a smallest meaningful description.
All 'frames of reference' are equivalent, having the same properties (constants) locally measured.

'c' is  our force and information carrier locally, as well as 'globally' over frames of reference.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1222 on: 01/06/2013 16:17:10 »
When I do it I naively see this 'cone', defined from each frame of reference, finding other frames of reference as it widens up into a universe, with a 'arrow' starting to tick as we add them in.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1223 on: 01/06/2013 16:22:58 »
I was never very happy with the idea of dimensions as something you could 'glue together'. I'm happier with the above definition although it doesn't state what a 'dimension' should be, just describe one possible way to imagine them 'projected', as I think of it. But I don't see it as a holographic expression, although it seems somehow similar.
=

Instead it becomes more of a fractal to me, scaling it?
« Last Edit: 02/06/2013 00:43:31 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1224 on: 01/06/2013 16:39:59 »
Well, I do have some hypothesis's :)
as 'c' as a 'clock'

But not a theory, a theory needs a he* of a lot more than this, although I still find it logically consistent. Now, if someone could suggest a experiment proving some smallest frame of reference to me, also proving it won't 'tick'? That would certainly make me smile, as some Cheshire cat in the dark :)

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1224 on: 01/06/2013 16:39:59 »