The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280658 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 #1275 on: 10/07/2013 13:12:17 »
But, it uses it from a 'global perspective', defined by that 'commonly same universe' we expect ourselves to agree on. Relativity doesn't agree to that description, as I read it. Lorentz transformations is a proof for a needed logic existing, relating my measurements of a universe to yours, but it is not 'the universe' if you catch my drift? Unless you propose that the 'real universe' only is a theoretical one? If you do, try to remember that the next time you stumble over something :)
 

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 #1276 on: 10/07/2013 13:16:56 »
Maybe it is possible to define it locally though? And then globally, as a 'field' of sorts? It depends on what you define a field as, and how you do it too? Locally or globally, both? Myself I would want it locally definable first (properties?), and then from there look for the 'global definition'.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1277 on: 10/07/2013 17:06:12 »
It depends on what you define a field as, and how you do it too? Locally or globally, both?
Hello once again my friend, I've been away for a while.

About the question of how to define a field, that one has confounded me for many years. Every description I've read always leaves something out, for the convenience of it's author I suppose. Nevertheless, I've considered one possibility and maybe you will have a thought or two to offer about it?

Suppose the absolute scale of all matter, whether large or small, is constantly expanding. Given this expansion, we would never be able to observe it because all surrounding evidence of the expansion would be cancelled out by our own personal expansion. This expansion would account for the gravitational effect by inducing inertia of acceleration at the surface of all bodies. And the fields we detect would be constructed of the advancing scaling in the wake of past dimensions.

Just a thought for us all to digest...................

 

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 #1278 on: 10/07/2013 19:52:03 »
Well, each particle should have a own 'acceleration' :) depending on mass (gravity). What I might have against it is that it builds on how we define speeds and accelerations normally, and also on 'what' you would define accelerating (growing) here, the shell of a ??? Somehow I have difficulties imagining the universe being this forthcoming, also it should have a cost to it, I think? But the idea is there, if we trust the equivalence principle, a particle can be treated as a 'acceleration'.

Also, you now suggest a rather tricky universe in where everything accelerates, by equally 'growing'? without us noticing, at the same time as we define a normal acceleration to something. :)

in the end it comes down to if we can find a way to measure it. if it is unmeasurable, does it exist?

(Let me put it this way, if it is unmeasurable, then it won't matter. To get to a plausible definition you will need direct or, in a worst case scenario, indirect evidence supporting your idea. For example, the idea of something growing always need another frame relative it can be shown to 'grow'. What would that frame be? Assuming a 'growth' without a change in mass is conceptually tricky for me too? A tricky one indeed, although? I don't really know Ethos? it depends on what definitions of distance etc, you use, to get to such an idea.)

=

(TNS should tweak the parameters for how long you can edit, it's too fast for me, at least :)
« Last Edit: 10/07/2013 20:26:28 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 #1279 on: 10/07/2013 21:27:41 »



in the end it comes down to if we can find a way to measure it. if it is unmeasurable, does it exist?


Very true my friend,.............without a way to measure it, there would be no evidence to support the idea. Nothing more than a thought experiment.
 

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 #1280 on: 12/07/2013 08:33:20 »
Ethos, don't read me wrong there. What you lift up is just the same sort of thing I too find strange. What is a motion? Imagining something like your suggested 'growing', without us ever being able to find it measuring, is very like a 'property' of something, as a 'spin'. The thing disturbing me is just the way we want it to make sense from our ideas of what a motion should mean, to make sense.

If you look at a uniform motion, it locally is the same thing no matter what speed we define to it, relative our measurements. But 'motion' exist, and we define it relative ourselves, or some fixed star or CBR etc. And if you use local frames defining 'properties' of motion then each frame should have the ability of a acceleration, although? A 'relative uniform motion' then might become a relation between frames of reference? I don't know. So you're pretty close to how I think too, although I don't want to use the definitions we use macroscopically, as if a frame of reference can be said to contain a acceleration, it will be a 'isolated frame', with the ability being 'intrinsic' to 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 #1281 on: 12/07/2013 08:40:57 »
The point there is that if inertia is what act, it acts inside a frame of reference, whereas a 'relative motion' possibly can be defined as a illusion. Everything we do involve accelerations, when we have a uniform motion on earth it's not the same type of uniform motion earth find in a geodesic as you have friction etc involved here. That friction forces us practically to either accelerate or to stop our motion, becoming 'at rest' with earth.
=

A further point to it is that a acceleration must involve to leave being 'at rest', whatever reason there might be for that, as a collision. And whatever a frame of reference should be it then involves each frame as I think. A uniform motion is ultimately being 'at rest' with a geodesic, and that is the closest thing I can see to being 'still', locally defined.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2013 08:45:40 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 #1282 on: 12/07/2013 08:53:30 »
Now, using the Higgs to define it then? A 'syrup' coagulating around a 'acceleration' creating a 'inertial reaction', inside a frame? Or would that be something without frames of reference existing at all? Is the Higgs a 'flow' or is it 'discrete' aka 'bits'? It's bosons, alternatively a 'field', or both.
 

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 #1283 on: 12/07/2013 09:00:04 »
Think of it this way. The universe is a (relative) uniform motion, being still. To involve a change from such a equilibrium takes more than just relating the change to something created between frames of reference. To me it has to be a intrinsic property.
 

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 #1284 on: 12/07/2013 09:14:32 »
Alternatively one could imagine it as every frame of reference has a 'ground level', called 'uniform motion'? If a change happens, as in a collision, then each frames 'ground level' will change into  a 'acceleration'. That gives us two 'properties' to each frame of reference, or maybe they are one same property? Then we have a uniformly moving, locally 'still' universe, but in relative motion, with different 'speeds'. When colliding releasing energy in form of 'local accelerations'?
 

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 #1285 on: 12/07/2013 09:28:27 »
All of it build on 'frames of reference' being more than imaginary reference points naturally. Locally defined a frame of reference is just that, as 'real as real can be' in this universe I mean :). 'Globally' you may want to argue that a 'frame of reference' only can be described through a Lorentz transformation. But I use a very local definition, which is the one all experiments comes from too.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2013 09:30:09 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 #1286 on: 13/07/2013 15:46:14 »
If I assume that each frame should be slightly offset from its neighboring frame, time dilation wise and per Lorentz contraction. Which I suspect I need to assume, if I define singular existence's to all 'frames of reference', being measurably real from your local definition. Where will our measurements break down? How down in scale can we get to experimentally define one single frame?

There are two arguments here.
One is that frames of reference must have 'objective' existence, locally measured,
The other is that we accept the local definition as being the experimentally real definition.

And experiments is what define science.
==

But it is also so that we have being 'at rest' with something. You being at rest with Earth is a easier one to accept though than you being 'at rest' with a accelerating rocket. In that rocket the 'acceleration' is a 'force' of sorts propagating in matter. Using my way of looking at it the frames of reference making up for that rocket now have turned from 'uniform motion' to 'acceleration' intrinsically', and as the rocket isn't perfectly rigid, consisting of 'normal' matter, none coordinate point inside that matter having the exact same acceleration as the next one.

So, can you be 'at rest' in a acceleration? In a uniform motion I think it's perfectly possible to be so, but I'm not as sure with a acceleration?
 

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 #1287 on: 13/07/2013 15:55:02 »
Eh, that should be a macroscopically defined 'at rest' though :) Going down to Planck scale, or preferably somewhere just above, I'm not as sure that 'at rest' can exist? It's also a question of what it becomes at such a scale? I assume 'bits' because, not using that, frames of reference becomes a purely theoretical exercise to me, but then again? At such a scale particles should have 'dissolved' into, what?

We can't measure at that scale so it becomes theoretical anyway. But we can try to track what makes for a frame of reference, as far down in scale we can experimentally, to get a definition of it. I do presume a 'flow' at some scale but I also presume us to be able to measure it as 'bits' above it. Scales are very strange.
 

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 #1288 on: 13/07/2013 16:04:01 »
Then we come to a very remarkable exception to this. A uniform constant acceleration becoming the equivalence to a gravity. Using my arguments you then either have to assume that the gravity you experience on earth is a result of a 'acceleration' too, with all what that implies of your coordinate points being unequal. And doing so finding defining something being 'at rest' with something else, as on earth, becoming increasingly tricky, even when 'inertially' defined. That as all matter, even test particles, must be included here.
 

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 #1289 on: 13/07/2013 16:07:11 »
The equivalence principle, or being 'at rest'?
Which one makes most sense?

The equivalence principle works for me :) being 'at rest' though, seems to me a more questionable definition, in where you first need to define what scale you relate this 'rest' too.
 

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 #1290 on: 13/07/2013 16:20:13 »
"Using my way of looking at it the frames of reference making up for that rocket now have turned from 'uniform motion' to 'acceleration' intrinsically', and as the rocket isn't perfectly rigid, consisting of 'normal' matter, none coordinate point inside that matter having the exact same acceleration as the next one."

One other very speculative way to define it might be that there are only two states to each coordinate point, as 'frame of reference'. Uniform motion or acceleration, both being 'constants'. And that the result differing one point of acceleration from another, you measuring it locally from some origin, is a relation to a whole SpaceTime interacting? And that one is truly strange, a speculation, but with me coming back to it, time to time, wondering if, and how, that ever could be possible?
 

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 #1291 on: 13/07/2013 16:41:17 »
One reason for wanting it that way would be to minimize the 'constants' needed. Assuming finding different 'accelerations' is no different from finding different 'speeds' in a way. I prefer a frame of reference to intrinsically present us with 'properties', and preferably as few as possible naturally :) Then we have uniform motion, and acceleration, we have a arrow of time and 'c' coming from a same 'constant'. Maybe you could call uniform motion and acceleration a symmetry? 'c' and our arrow a equivalence?
 

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 #1292 on: 13/07/2013 16:46:34 »
And 'different speeds' is indeed a proof for something called 'motion'. But, when using 'relative motion' we find that 'motion' is not very clearly defined, not to me at least. And both of those go back to what preconceptions you might use, the most common being the presumption of that 'commonly same universe' we exist in. We have a really hard time reformulate that universe to relativity, some of us refusing to do 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 #1293 on: 13/07/2013 16:59:58 »
I have two things, so far, covering and and joining 'frames of reference'. 'Gravity' and 'c' (radiation). Assume that each frame consist of some constants, then explain our universe :) as a result of those 'static definitions' interacting with each other through a arrow, 'mass and gravity', and 'c'. Also consider how a entanglement should be related to a macroscopic definition of a universe, and remember the origin of measuring and experimentally defining, meaning local definitions. Then we need something more, entropy? Some principle of 'growing', into either simplicity or complexity, depending on how you look at 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 #1294 on: 13/07/2013 17:12:57 »
I can't argue that the arrow of time is entropy, I think? Because using it as a constant, relating it to 'c', is not the same as a principle creating life to me. One is a constant 'static' definition, life contain more properties than just a arrow though. And there 'entropy' seems to catch a little more of it, although I've seen too many definitions of entropy recently, to really know what it should mean :)

But I don't think you can state that entropy ---> is the arrow, either. the arrow can be simply defined, entropy 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 #1295 on: 13/07/2013 18:00:55 »
Fractals?
 

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 #1296 on: 13/07/2013 22:02:44 »
It all depends on what you believe in, doesn't it? Take geometry and topology for example, I got two guys I'm really impressed with there, one is Einstein, the other one is Grigori Perelman. You can 'fold and unfold' stuff geometrically, you can then logically define a coordinate system you use for one shape to another shape, that you now unfold from the first. It's theoretical, but understandable, giving it some time and thought. I know, it's not very fair stating that there's only those two making a difference, but both has become some sort of catalyst's in physics and mathematics, well, as I think then :)

Getting Into Shapes: From Hyperbolic Geometry to Cube Complexes and Back. by: Erica Klarreich It's quite nice reading.

So, what is a universe? Four dimensions? Or?

And if it only is experimentally definable (verifiable), locally?

Whose four dimensions are we discussing?

« Last Edit: 13/07/2013 22:07:16 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 #1297 on: 13/07/2013 22:18:08 »
Assume that we want one global description of this universe. Further assume that the global description is the one creating the universe we experience directly. Can you topologically refer all possible Lorentz contractions and time dilations to one 'set universe'? Because you picking a coordinate system use a 'shape' for it, then 'place' that coordinate system at another shape. What I'm asking here though is if there is a way to 'back track' a given set of observer dependent coordinate systems into one origin?

It can't be as simple as using 'uniform motion' for a 'origin', not as long as we have different speeds. They bring with them the same problems of time dilations and Lorentz contractions as acceleration does. So, what do you need for a 'origin'?

And if it all is a projection then? Assuming frames of reference to have a objective reality, locally defined. What do you need then, to get to a 'global definition'. And would it matter which way you defined it, meaning, can there be a complementary definition? One 'global', one from 'locality'?
« Last Edit: 14/07/2013 00:19:13 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 #1298 on: 13/07/2013 22:28:03 »
Then there is one more thing. What if we assume that this 'real universe', the 'origin' if you like, is 'static'. Ignoring a arrow for it I mean. Without a arrow, no change. And that's what I use scales for, getting rid of the arrow, and 'c'. Then again, what shape can something have, me not having a arrow in which to observe it? Because this definition must take away all observers clocks to become a original observation. Introduce a 'local clock' for your observation, and you introduce a observer dependency, as I see 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 #1299 on: 13/07/2013 22:45:53 »
What I do taking away the clock, is to introduce what is not here. A definition of 'one original frame of reference' I think. Relativity isn't based on that, it is based on local observations, using a local clock and ruler, versus other frames of reference. Without that clock no gravity, or if you like, one same gravity. In a way it becomes a meaningless definition as without a clock nothing should be differentiable from anything else. It's outcomes that define a universe, and they need a arrow.

Then again, in what way can you argue that QM is different?
All experiments you refer to should have used a local clock and ruler for their observation.
And whatever outcome such a experiment present you with, still need that arrow.
« Last Edit: 13/07/2013 23:19:18 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1299 on: 13/07/2013 22:45:53 »

 

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