The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280281 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1250 on: 24/06/2013 23:22:16 »
What is sweet here is that you can set a local constant, 'c', as defining both a 'distance and speed' at the same time it becomes your constant 'clock'. You can use that to define a astronomical time horizon, same for all observers (meaning using the same constants defining it), defining the 'size' of your universe. Your universe will be just as big as the 'time' you locally measure it to have ticked away, until now. And there is no way you can make it bigger measuring. If the universe was isotropic and homogeneous from its first 'instant' of a arrow ticking, then no observational points inside it should give you another answer, than you observing from any other point, right? That reasoning gives you a 'instant infinity' globally defined. Then a inflation and expansion is local parameters, although shared by all observers, locally measuring.
« Last Edit: 25/06/2013 00:38:50 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1251 on: 24/06/2013 23:31:25 »
So what we see form such a definition of a Big Bang is any observer there, observing a already infinite universe, finding it more 'compact' (ignoring pure energy density as I don't see how one can measure it) but 'separating' with time. Any observer nota bene, I don't care how one would like to define distance there, we're still talking a globally infinite universe, from its very beginning. Using the 'uniformly isotropic and homogeneous' definition we presume this early universe to have presented us with, as well as now. With a infinite amount of observers, all observing a inflation and subsequent accelerating expansion.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1252 on: 24/06/2013 23:56:18 »
There are two things used to define something. The one I like most is measurements, from that you can form hypothesis's. Some of them will be very hard to prove, others may be easier. We can manipulate the universe we see, and try to look at from some other place by computer modeling to see if it still will be 'the same'. I expect that one to be done already, somewhere :) When you have proved a hypothesis, it forms a new step, from where you might form a new hypothesis.

I like my idea of what a inflation is. You use what you can measure, then you test if it will be the same from some other location, if the model agrees with your ideas then you can take a breath. And the idea behind changing location is the assumption that physics will be the same anywhere. It shouldn't matter where you are, the constants defining your universe locally 'follows you', or if you like, are the exact same everywhere.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1253 on: 25/06/2013 00:15:05 »
Globally defined, using 'time pockets' this definition might be questionable though. Assume you live at a neutron star, defining a universe relative your local clock. The universe you observe must 'speed up', relative what a Earthly observer measure, and your distances must vary relative the Earth observer too. That as you can translate a constant gravity into a uniformly, constantly, accelerating rocket according to the equivalence principle.

So from such a (global) definition there are no set 'astronomical time horizons', although you can translate yours to what the Earth observer observes, via Lorentz transformations. I prefer the one in where I define it from 'c' myself, as locally measured.

You need to consider how I define it. I define it from constants, and those we define to be the same everywhere, locally measured.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1254 on: 25/06/2013 00:35:27 »
In fact, if the universe at the Big Bang and just after was perfectly homogeneous and isotropic, assuming a uniform gravity, then all 'clocks', globally as well as locally, must have ticked the same. What happens after that first instant is matter, and gravity, as well as relative motion and accelerations, redefining that concept into one where we (globally defined) find our 'time pockets', giving us different descriptions globally, when compared to each other.

Locally though, your definition of a clock (time rate) is the same as your definition of 'c' to me. And as we define that as a constant, locally measured, your measured time rate never varies for you. And so your 'astronomical time horizon' is real, for you. But it still questions that global definition, doesn't it :)

But the effects suggested is one between frames of reference to me.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1255 on: 25/06/2013 15:22:59 »
Another thing, if gravity is what shape a universe, defining it a 'closed' or open. Isn't then gravity also what make 'space' exist? Or how would you define a universe shaped into a ball (closed) by the metric of gravity? What exactly do you think will stop you from breaking 'gravity's barrier' there? A ball shaped universe was the one where you started out in one direction, just to end up at the same point from where you started, as I remember it. And the one in where you 'step out' to the right, just to come in to the left then? What defines it? Gravity? Dimensions?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1256 on: 26/06/2013 02:58:04 »
I think we all can share this one :)

"Well do I know that I am mortal, a creature of one day.
But if my mind follows the winding paths of the stars
Then my feet no longer rest on earth, but standing by
Zeus himself I take my fill of ambrosia, the divine dish."

It's what imagination and empathy we have that that limit our understanding, using it for whatever matter to you, you delimit yourself, and make it grow.

Eh, I think?
nevermind, we're here to have a laugh, and some friends.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8131
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1257 on: 26/06/2013 03:37:02 »
... I take my fill of ambrosia ...

No thanks if it's the   frogspawn   tapioca version ...

  [xx(]
« Last Edit: 26/06/2013 03:39:00 by RD »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1258 on: 03/07/2013 10:19:03 »
And for a self-acclaimed geek then :)
Jolt?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1259 on: 10/07/2013 10:01:59 »
Inertia and gravity?

if gravity is a 'geodesic', what I think of as a preferred direction, what does it mean? a preferred direction relative what? If I can transform away 'gravity' by being in a free fall, is it then gone?

It's relative the observer, is it not?

So what does gravity becomes, described 'globally' (one common universe). Predefined 'gravitational field lines' co-existing at any (and all) moments in time? Or observer dependent?

And how would you describe it locally defined.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1260 on: 10/07/2013 10:13:19 »
In a 'commonly shared space' you will find matter having geodesics, and uniform motion. Why do they have it? And if I can exchange any 'uniform motion' in a space, just by changing my reference system, into being 'unmoving'. Do I really have a motion? We can use the idea of several objects in that space, having differing 'speeds' relative some arbitrarily defined reference point, to find that speeds do exist. And to get to a speed you have some predefined archetypes a 'speed' must build from. You need 'space', aka measurable distances. you need some reference from where you define it, a locally definable clock, and you need a 'motion'. And most of all, you need a 'commonly shared space' aka a universe in where those objects exist.

From a local point of definition I don't think you need to assume one common universe, although you still will need a definition of how frames of reference joins into one seamless 'universe', observer dependent.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1261 on: 10/07/2013 10:25:22 »
In the end we come back to 'c', and its 'information carriers', don't we? That is what communicates over frames of reference, as far as I see. And thinking like me, also 'scales'. Because it's the scale you use that will give you that common universe you describe, observer dependent. Constants too of course, all of them originally defined from 'locality', but presumed to be defined from that 'commonly shared' universe we define us living in.

So, either way I look at it, 'globally' or 'locally', I must find constants to get to this universe I see. But? Locally defined and described those 'constants' become something different. To me they state something about what hides under that commonality we presume, if defined strictly from locality. What you might want to call 'principles', creating a 'SpaceTime'. And those principles must share a global definition, somehow, and somewhere.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1262 on: 10/07/2013 10:33:42 »
A geodesic is ideally defined (eh, not defied:) from some point particle following one frictionless path through a 'common universe'. But if we use a planet in stead then. Such a lot of particles together, but still moving 'frictionlessly' through a 'common universe'? And if I create a space filled with planets, all in different motions relative some reference point then? No friction anywhere? Or can I assume that 'gravity' creates a 'friction'?

I can't.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2013 12:05:04 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1263 on: 10/07/2013 10:36:50 »
A geodesic, to be true, must be without resistance, no friction. So how do a binary star system 'bleed energy' through both following those geodesics?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1264 on: 10/07/2013 10:39:05 »
Can you see why Einstein had a hard time accepting 'gravitational waves'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1265 on: 10/07/2013 12:16:07 »
Accepting 'gravitational waves' we have two things then? That 'communicates' over frames of reference. 'Gravity' and 'c'. In which case 'c' will be? Bosons? And 'gravity' then? What about the Higgs boson/field? A universe becoming a 'field' with particles becoming? Some density of that field maybe? In such a universe we have 'a common universe', as long as we ignore observer dependencies. But as far as I have seen the Higgs does not identify gravity, as the planetary gravity you find standing on earth. It defines the 'inertia' you experience in a acceleration instead. And then, jumping from 'inertia' and Einsteins equivalence principle, describing the equivalence between a constant uniformly accelerating object and planetary gravity, the assumption seems to be that we now must have a definition of 'gravity'. But that is mixing two theories, both consistent in them selves, into one, not consistent.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1266 on: 10/07/2013 12:18:15 »
As far as I see you can not use the Higgs to define the planetary gravity you must find on earth, uniformly moving through a space.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1267 on: 10/07/2013 12:26:59 »
But it is still possible I guess, although the way I look at it is from a 'local reference frame'. If I use that then I also have to define what 'communicates' over them, to give us our impression of a universe. But it makes for a universe in where most of our definitions are lacking, from what a 'distance' is, to what 'dimension' might mean. If you want to relate this way of thinking to something then relate it to relativity, and observer dependencies. Because, accepting those, what you once thought of as a universe can never become the same.

So?
Gravity and 'c'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1268 on: 10/07/2013 12:30:38 »
If there is a paradigm needed somewhere, I think it must start with with one accepting that the 'commonly same globally defined' universe we see, can't be what one think it is. and if it is not, then distance as described globally becomes a illusion, and a globally same time won't exist either.

But both are true, locally defined.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1269 on: 10/07/2013 12:40:29 »
It also depends on how you think of a acceleration. If we take a planet as earth, we find it to have a equivalence to a acceleration, at one constant G. If we now start to split earth into its constituents, 'particles', then each 'particle' must have a a equivalence to that constant acceleration.

So.

'c', 'gravity', accelerations, But? What then is a 'uniform motion'?

If we now assume some 'test particle' uniformly moving (remember that we defined motion to exist?) in a 'space'. What would we have? Something (globally defined) as 'uniformly moving through space', consisting of a (strictly local) equivalence to a 'acceleration'?

Yep.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1270 on: 10/07/2013 12:43:44 »
And as I define things 'locally' as far as possible :)

accelerations, particles, 'gravity', geodesics, 'c' and uniform motion.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1271 on: 10/07/2013 12:50:36 »
You could formulate it as a question. What does scales mean, me defining it from locality? And at what scale does our local definitions of constants break down?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1272 on: 10/07/2013 12:57:55 »
We have a 'locally true' universe, as defined by each one of us. When you scale your universe down it disappear, as I think, at Planck scale. We do not have a globally 'true' definition though, of that 'commonly same, shared'¨universe we normally think to exist. And what about constants, do they exist under Planck scale? Even if constants finds a limit there, I still think there must be principles, defining what logic we find, through following scale from QM to Relativity.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1273 on: 10/07/2013 13:03:21 »
From a local point of view you might want to exchange 'principles' for 'properties', possibly?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #1274 on: 10/07/2013 13:07:01 »
And now the Higgs becomes interesting again. It uses accelerations, does it not?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1274 on: 10/07/2013 13:07:01 »

 

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