The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 278908 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 #1225 on: 02/06/2013 14:39:14 »
What would a big bang be from scaling? What do you find at Planck scale, a arrow? Thinking like this, admittedly weird way, we have the Big Bang under our feet, and it never 'stopped', still there.
 

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 #1226 on: 02/06/2013 14:41:45 »
On the other hand, it never 'started' either, we did.
 

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 #1227 on: 06/06/2013 22:55:01 »
So, dimensions?

We have them, we also have Planck scale. Do you find 'dimensions' at that scale? The problem with defining anything, be it clocks or dimensions, is that we do it 'locally'. We use a platform, macroscopic, containing a clock and a ruler, and it is from that one you explain your observations. It's a difference defining a arrow as disappearing (as I like to do), instead of defining it as 'stopping'. To define a arrow as stopping presumes it to exist, although not ticking, and that is you measuring a event horizon in my thoughts. But to refer to the arrow as 'disappearing' I only can use Planck scale.

And then we have dimensions :)

Seen from Planck scale (if we just could:)  no point is further away than any other, a entanglement being a perfect description of that. I like Weinstein's idea of our four dimensions embedded in fourteen, not because I like dimensions, well, as I've seen them described. More because we both seem to share a idea of dimensions not being 'glued together', as from some isolated description of singular dimensions 'fitting' a SpaceTime. The one I've seen using 'glue' wasn't Einsteins description, and it ain't mine either. And I see each 'point' in SpaceTime as something whole, although breaking down at Plank scale.
 

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 #1228 on: 06/06/2013 23:01:24 »
Think about it, if I now want to define a 'frame of reference' as belonging to some smallest meaningful scale. What would four singular 'dimensions', somehow 'joined' make such a description? Is that the simpler answer? When Weinstein describe it as embedded, I see a mathematical analogue to something four-dimensionally whole in itself, as described from where we observe. That makes it easier to digest for me, assuming you can 'glue dimensions' together. In the end it might just be semantics though
 

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 #1229 on: 06/06/2013 23:12:51 »
We can prove Planck scale, we can prove entanglements, we can prove SpaceTime. I do not think we have a 'delayed choice experiment' proven though. A Common Fallacy in Quantum Mechanics: Why Delayed Choice Experiments do NOT imply Retrocausality

I like quantum mechanics, but I don't expect you to ever measure time running backwards. It's impossible from all current measurements, using a local clock and ruler. But I do expect a arrow to be able to disappear. And I do not think we have four separated 'dimensions' 'clinging together' either, although I find it hard to define what it should be seen as otherwise. Maybe it's a question about how to describe it though.
 

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 #1230 on: 06/06/2013 23:19:44 »
Then maybe strings are a better definition, or loops?
Something under 'pressure', and defined as SpaceTime macroscopically, quantum mechanically something else.
Maybe the question should be, where does dimensions disappear?
 

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 #1231 on: 06/06/2013 23:33:49 »
The problem to me with defining such entities (at and under Plank scale) is that we use words we use to describe macroscopic phenomena. On the other hand it is those words we have, as well as mathematics. But entanglements, quantum mechanics, statistics, probabilities, allows for new interpretations and meanings of 'old words', don't they? Take 'pressure' for example, a pressure relative what? Is there a 'back ground' to that, some other 'frame of reference' from where we can define it? Or is it us lifting down old words to describe something different?
 

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 #1232 on: 06/06/2013 23:40:06 »
And we define them from a macroscopic platform.
 

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 #1233 on: 10/06/2013 16:10:07 »
Let's consider lights propagation from a idea of accelerations defining 'real time dilations'. What such an idea state is that depending on your acceleration it then also must set a subsequent clock rate, that must exist at your later uniform motion too. That as different (subsequent) uniform passages will give a twin experiment different 'real' time dilations, as the traveling twin returns. That statement invalidates the principle of equivalence of all uniform motions, as well as defines the the 'time dilation' as belonging to both a acceleration and a uniform motion.

That should mean that if you find a universe to consist of different 'relative motions', you also must assume that they, presuming everything needs a acceleration to present us with different uniform 'relative motions', also are of a different 'time', as locally defined from their different uniform motions relative you.

So can you prove that?
Nope.

All uniform motions are locally equivalent, and there will be no local discrepancies regarding a locally measured time rate after some acceleration. It is also so that your uniform motion can be set at anything, from null to ?? depending on what 'frame of reference' you define it from. Incoming light can be used, CBR (cosmic background radiation) can be used, any sun or planet can be used, but there is no absolute set 'frame of reference' that you can use, to tell you your 'absolute speed' from, as far as I can see. You might use a average of all incoming light to define it, but you can with as much right use just one stars light, in relative motion' to define that 'speed' you want your uniform motion to have.

On the other hand, I'm all for that time dilations exist, measurably so in both uniform motions as well as in accelerations. So where is the difference? The difference is that I don't need a acceleration for it, and so I do not need to define a universe as first 'accelerating' to get a 'time dilation'. The other thing I do is to define it as locally measured, all arrows being the same, using 'c' as the 'time device', splitting it. So I do not need to assume that your acceleration, as locally measured also 'slows down' your clock. I go out from what the experiment states instead. I refer to time dilations as a result of interactions between frame of references, solely, as defined from 'c' locally measured. That also mean that I put a lot of importance in those interactions between 'frames of reference', and that I presume them to 'exist'. That makes the universe we see a mosaic to me, in where your measurement and definition of a universe is uniquely yours, as mine is uniquely mine. And the thing defining it as commonly same is lights speed in a vacuum, as it communicates over frames of reference.
==

Simplified, if accelerations is what sets a 'clock rate' for a subsequent uniform motion, you now have defined a universe of 'time islands', including all relative motion. In such a universe we then need a explanation to why no local measurements ever give us different results, time wise. And we have not made a arrow into a illusion, as your local clock still ticks for you, same as always. And we have invalidated our ideas of 'repeatable experiments', as we expect them to give us a same outcome in different (relative) uniform motions (inertially defined). And you will give me a headache :) as I then must find 'time islands' existing everywhere (gravitational time dilations) without me ever being able to measure them locally. I don't like that.
=

Furthermore, you now have introduced a variable light speed, globally defined, as you locally defined, (even though not locally measurable) have defined 'time pockets' using acceleration as setting a subsequent 'time rate' for that uniform motion.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2013 16:53:32 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 #1234 on: 10/06/2013 16:57:21 »
Whatever universe that is, I don't see it as Einsteins. And it's not the one I prefer, I like it simpler.
 

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 #1235 on: 10/06/2013 22:11:42 »
Another point well made is that if I want to define a arrow as 'illusionary' I only can do so 'globally', from a commonly same universal perspective. If I also do it locally I actually also invalidate what we build science on, 'repeatable experiments'. I will then need to find another ground of commonality, defining how they are possible. Because they are, and we create nano technology, quantum logic, as well as atomic power, from those experiments and ideas.

I use a local clock, you use a local clock. We define a same outcome from a 'same' (similar) experiment, made inertially on earth, calling that a proof. Without a arrow, where would that proof lie? To define it as same entropy :) seems more of a question of nomenclature, than anything real. And it won't make it simpler. We use some presumptions defining a universe, one is simplicity. If you have two explanations predicting the same result, then we normally choose the simpler one, until proven wrong. That one makes eminent sense to me.
 

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 #1236 on: 11/06/2013 00:12:36 »
You can't have it both ways, defining a globally same universe, using light as a constant, also finding it to set different 'time pockets' by different 'relative motions'. If that is a truth, then those 'time pockets' in uniform motion should be measurable locally, but they are not. And even if we assume them to exist, without us being able to measure it, you still will need to redefine what you mean by a 'repeatable experiment', and lights constant. That as you with differing (uniformly moving) 'time rates' need a variable light speed to compensate for it, to still present you with 'c', locally measured. Imagine the complications using such a reasoning as you can't even define that 'uniform speed', other than relative some arbitrarily chosen 'frame of reference', as the CBR, or incoming light? That is what relative motion states, that there is no absolute 'frame of reference', defining a 'absolute speed'.
 

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 #1237 on: 11/06/2013 00:31:25 »
I do not define a 'globally same' universe. Instead I define a 'commonality' to lights speed in a vacuum, as locally measured, to present our impression of that 'same universe'. It is that constant that informs us, and defines that 'common' universe we agree on. In it we need Lorentz transformations to agree on events. I do not agree to a local arrow being an illusion, instead I define it to 'c', locally measured. I do not agree to time reversibility, as being able to reverse the clock, from you locally measuring. Instead I refer time reversibility to causality, us needing a logic to be able to exist. Those two are not the same.
 

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 #1238 on: 18/06/2013 18:03:39 »
Don't you find this interesting :) "In his doctoral dissertation, submitted to the University of Zurich in 1905, Einstein developed a statistical molecular theory of liquids. Then, in a separate paper, he applied the molecular theory of heat to liquids in obtaining an explanation of what had been, unknown to Einstein, a decades-old puzzle. Observing microscopic bits of plant pollen suspended in still water, English botanist Robert Brown had noticed in 1828 that even tinier particles mixed in with the pollen exhibited an incessant, irregular "swarming" motion — since called "Brownian motion." Although atoms and molecules were still open to objection in 1905, Einstein predicted that the random motions of molecules in a liquid impacting on larger suspended particles would result in irregular, random motions of the particles, which could be directly observed under a microscope. The predicted motion corresponded precisely with the puzzling Brownian motion! From this motion Einstein accurately determined the dimensions of the hypothetical molecules.3

By 1908 the molecules could no longer be considered hypothetical. The evidence gleaned from Brownian motion on the basis of Einstein's work was so compelling that Mach, Ostwald, and their followers were thrown into retreat, and material atoms soon became a permanent fixture of our knowledge of the physical world. Today, with the advent of scanning tunneling microscopes, scientists are nearly able to see and even to manipulate actual, individual atoms for the first time—a circumstance that would satisfy even the most entrenched Machian skeptic......

Experimentalists had found that when solid bodies were cooled, the amount of heat they lost failed to fit a simple formula that followed from Newtonian mechanics. Einstein showed that the experiments could be explained only on the assumption that the oscillating atoms of the solid lattice can have only certain, specific energies, and nothing in between. In other words, even the motions of atoms—which are continuous in Newtonian mechanics—exhibit a quantum structure. Mechanics and electrodynamics both required radical revision, Einstein now concluded: neither could yet account for the existence of electrons or energy quanta. " from David Cassidy's book, "Einstein and Our World."

Let us assume a frame of reference to be a physically meaningful object, definable to Planck scale. At its very least consisting of 'c', and a equivalently 'constant' local arrow. What would such a reasoning make of those 'discrete energies'?
 

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 #1239 on: 22/06/2013 12:22:06 »
What would a Big Bang be, described from 'frames of reference'? The 'first frame' must have been unitary, homogeneous and isotropic. We can either assume several 'frames of reference' or just look at one. In a observer dependent universe time starts with us being able to measure 'c', if we use my definitions. It becomes unclear how to define a causality, and a arrow, practically, from just one frame of reference. If using my definition of a frame of reference having a 'real independent existence', related to Plank scale.

 

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 #1240 on: 22/06/2013 12:32:01 »
'Time' above should be read as being the arrow, as locally defined. Would there be a difference assuming several 'frames of reference' coexisting at that first moment, all unitary, isotropic and homogeneous? We have two definitions of a 'frame of reference', one called being 'at rest', the other being related to something whole/coherent in itself, 'inertial frames' as we sometimes loosely define a planet to be.

Assume a lot of frames of reference, all coexisting, all 'unitary isotropic and homogeneous', 'at rest'  with each other. That, ignoring 'scales' could, I think? Be described as consisting of one single frame of reference. Maybe one could express it as a 'arrow of time' isn't the exact same as 'causality'? Because you would have frames of reference, you should have a local arrow, but you would see no causality?
 

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 #1241 on: 22/06/2013 12:36:40 »
Scales is then something related to being able to differentiate between frames of reference. And that makes a scale a result of frames of reference interacting.
 

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 #1242 on: 22/06/2013 12:42:26 »
So scales becomes at once both diffuse and real. I like that :) Because using such a view I then are able to define, whatever amount of frames of reference we may call it, to a same 'scale', as long as they are homogeneous isotropic and unitary. One 'frame' or several, it doesn't matter. They can only come to differentiate as they interact.
 

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 #1243 on: 22/06/2013 12:44:52 »
It all goes back to how I see that 'widening cone' becoming a SpaceTime naturally, each local description unique.
 

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 #1244 on: 22/06/2013 14:00:01 »
If you get scales from frames of reference interacting then it won't matter what 'size' you would like to define something to. The Big Bang can be defined as a multitude of frames of reference, or, as one 'single frame'. What will differ is when causality steps in to differentiate it from the observer. And one frame of reference, as defined to being something 'objectively existing' at a Planck scale doesn't tick, according to my definitions.

And if seen as a macroscopically undifferentiated same 'frame of reference' then? As my definition of the arrow goes out from 'c', the question should be if you can measure a light speed at that instant of a Big Bang inflating.  One need to remember that I'm using a definition of a 'frame of reference' here, from a Big Bang, as something unitary, homogeneous and isotropic.

Would a clock 'tick' there?
Especially if I assume that scales is a result of frames of reference differentiating from each 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 #1245 on: 22/06/2013 14:31:56 »
There is a very important difference between SR and GR. GR is SpaceTime. And GR involves gravity. Gravity is not something indefinably same in a universe, not as long we discus mass. We can assume a flat space if we like, without mass, but could such a space be measurably existing? I doubt it could.

In a SpaceTime you can define something as 'flat', but 'flat' how? Assume I could lay out a isotropically even 'uniform field' of gravity in a space. You can measure it to be equivalent everywhere. Does that mean that you have your 'flat space' equivalent to a space without gravity?
 

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 #1246 on: 22/06/2013 15:42:42 »
I define gravity as a preferred direction. Does that mean that it doesn't exist to me? No, it exist to me too, but as I don't see it as a 'force', I use it as defining directions instead.
 

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 #1247 on: 23/06/2013 01:57:30 »
And, I think I'm getting pompous here too?

Ah well. You start with confusion and you end in confusion :) On the other hand, laughing helps.
 

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 #1248 on: 24/06/2013 15:02:23 »
A Big Bang.

If I define a frame of reference as being of a set scale (Plank scale) then what does this make of a inflation and accelerating expansion? More 'frames of reference' coming into play? If I now define it as relating to mass then, not 'space'? Well, what is 'gravity'? A preferred direction, or a 'force' on its own?
 

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 #1249 on: 24/06/2013 22:57:26 »
Gravity is a clock of sorts, don't you agree? And if it is a clock, how can we measure it? By something being there, right? So it is a relation between a 'space' defined by the metric of gravity, relative something of matter involved, giving us our local measurements of it, locally defined.

Does gravity create a 'space'? Can a space without gravity (no mass anywhere) really be measurable?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1249 on: 24/06/2013 22:57:26 »

 

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