# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 279542 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1300 on: 13/07/2013 23:10:48 »
that we are 'stuck' in a four dimensional universe doesn't state that this is all there is. But getting rid of the clock takes us to scales, takes us to QM. So, in what way differs QM from what we see macroscopically? Entanglements? 'time reversibility'?

Entanglements is indeed different, and purely QM to me. Time reversibility though makes no sense, other than as a needed logic, describing causality (and a arrow). I might still have to change my mind, but only when you can proof time loops existing in our universe, and with the possibility to eh, kill my grandfather :) Accepting that one also bring with it 'closed time loops' in where you cut one universe of, killing that grandfather. That, if you prefer logic to magic.

Maybe there is no arrow at Planck scale, but how can one prove it? Any observation must involve a local clock and ruler.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1301 on: 13/07/2013 23:33:49 »
I don't think we can prove that one, other than by using logic and what instruments we have, defining our universe. And that should be a clock, and ruler. A Planck time is the time it takes for light to travel one Planck length. Using my equivalence between lights speed in a vacuum 'c', and your locally defined clock, then something at that scale can't be said to propagate. To get to a propagation you need to see it arrive from A to B, and that should involve a clock tick more as I think. Alternatively you can define it as 'propagating', but not as observing a outcome. Planck scale is a very strange place to me. Maybe it's possible to define it even further down in scale, but I haven't found anyone doing so yet. Although string theory talks about vibrations etc, which seems to presume a time for things to vibrate in I haven't seen them define what a arrow would be at such a scale.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1302 on: 13/07/2013 23:37:39 »
Still, using my equivalence both a local arrow and 'c' should disappear at Plank scale.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1303 on: 14/07/2013 00:09:58 »
There are two ways to look at what comes after one Planck length in one Planck time. One might think that it should be a progressive evolvement of a arrow, and so 'c', as we introduce more and more clock ticks. But to me that thinking is wrong.

As soon as you are able to introduce one more 'frame of reference' measuring, you must have a 'propagation', giving you a speed, 'c'. So two locally defined clock ticks (two Planck times) should then be equivalent to you observing a 'frame of reference', as it is first there you will be able to prove that 'speed', being 'c'.

That is if we define it as you first after that second clock tick being able to measure another 'frame of reference'. Alternatively one might want the first description (one Plank time) to represent a frame of reference? Imagining just one clock tick though, takes me to place where nothing 'happens', as you need that consequent instant to observe it? It's similar to the question what 'now' is :) 'Now' is here, it has to be in each observer, to find a causality, but your experience of that 'now' must always be after it happening, as long as we use 'c' for communicating.

The closest you can observe using my definitions, another frame of reference, should then be two Planck lengths. The closest you can be though, to another frame of reference, must be one Plank length away. Which makes me wonder, again :) Will need to see if I can find a better way to make sense of that one. It's probably too late for writing anyway :):)
=

This way it make more sense, exchange Plank lengths above for Plank times instead.

Like this "The closest you can observe using my definitions, another frame of reference, should then be two Planck times. The closest you can be though, to another frame of reference, must be one Plank length away."

Phieeew :)
« Last Edit: 14/07/2013 00:27:00 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1304 on: 14/07/2013 00:47:06 »
Now imagine this as a static canvas you look at. Each point on the canvas representing a frame of reference. Then introduce a rhythm using 'c', 'photons', lightening it up, creating a arrow. The logic of a arrow pointing one way practically, then becomes a logic, nothing more. Whatever logic you define allows for those points to be lighted, in whatever manner that pleases you. But to get to the universe we observe, you need causality. So even though you no longer are 'restricted' to solely a 'time reversibility', in this imagined universe. Our normal arrow still will be needed if we want it to depict the universe we observe around us. And that one can then be defined to be 'reversible' as a movie making sense, even when played backwards, a logic existing then too.

Can you see why I question a time reversibility, as something allowing you 'dips' in the past, then 'coming back' to a present? The universe above is even less restricted, but if you introduce something needing a logic and causality, as our 'linear' arrow we must find only 'time reversibility'. Does that mean that there can't be other logics? Well, I suspect there might be, in such a universe, but I also think it will be very hard to see the relations creating it.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1305 on: 14/07/2013 01:00:16 »
Maybe it's easier to imagine if we call it patterns, created on a canvas? And each Planck time ticking for you brings with it a new canvas, overlaid on the old, changing the pattern you see on it. The way that pattern change becomes the logic. In a universe defined by time reversibility, you can back track the pattern one way, making for what I call a 'linear universe'. But you have a option to choose any pattern you like in this imaginary universe, as long as you can prove it to have a logic. But I would expect the pattern to be gone for you, as soon as you have experienced it. Although you can use it for describing something containing it all, and so static, the arrow is just 'c', life something irreversible, well, as I think.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1306 on: 14/07/2013 01:45:45 »
Imagine yourself choosing fractals to describe that pattern. They have a mathematical consistency, and so a logic. How would you back track them?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1307 on: 14/07/2013 13:41:48 »
What I was discussing here was just a arrow, not if our universe is fractal btw. If the universes matter would have a fractal distribution, then you would have matter distributions nestled inside matter distributions , inside ...., you able to zoom in on a self like matter distribution, ad infinitum. Although that is not perfectly true as we do have a lot of fractal objects in nature, all of a finite shape. It may be so that a fractal universe is one in where a even spread of matter can't exist, meaning that you may be able to question the cosmological principle, the idea of a homogeneous and isotropic universe, looking the same in, and from, all directions. And there are some immense 'uneven' structures of large quasar groups found recently, four billion light years large. But to jump from that to assuming that the cosmological principle is disproved is a rather big step, especially if a universe is infinite, as it is at 'large scale' of a universe that it is thought to be isotropic and homogeneous. It is also so that it does not destroy GR, even if true, not as I can see at least, although it will have direct consequences for the idea of a Big Bang, and so how a universe might have started.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1308 on: 14/07/2013 14:08:29 »
And to get back to the canvas. I'm poor at explaining I think, my point with it is that you use yourself as the 'anchor' of a universe. You will be the observer, the light you see describing it to you being a relation to you. And now we move into the abstract discussing what a arrow could be. If you can imagine 'time reversibility' as a description of 'linear time' having two arrows, pointing forward, and backward, making a whole logic, or symmetry creating causality. Then you also can imagine a universe in where the canvas you see lose that 'linear causality', let us imagine a arrow built on some fractal principle instead. How such a arrow would express itself I'm not sure but it would be a logic universe anyway. You can also assume dimensions for it if you want to up the stakes? Maybe defining it so that at a certain threshold, let's say four dimensions. we find a linear arrow, but going down in dimensions (not scales for this, although I find it very similar:) from four to , eh, two? we lose it.

It's all about what you think a arrow should be.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1309 on: 14/07/2013 14:22:22 »
My point is that I define it from logic. I don't really need anything more than that, it's very nice if your logic fits the universe you see, but it doesn't really have too. Logic is 'bigger' than just what we see, and it is built in in all mathematics, I think? Although, can one imagine a branch of mathematics built on illogic? We have a universe in where very small initial premises make for very large differences, a open ended universe to me.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1310 on: 14/07/2013 14:39:56 »
You might say I split arrow into two for this? One property I call a rhythm and another defining a logic. The rhythm is needed giving us a count, but causality may be different. Meaning that if I treat all incoming communication as 'light (photons)', be it originating from matter or not, then the patterns drawn may present you with another type of causality.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1311 on: 14/07/2013 15:17:31 »
And it all goes back to how I define that arrow naturally. If I define its 'rhythm' to 'c' then I have a countability. I can presume a continuous logic to the way light 'flickers', as we deem it to change position measuring at different points, but I do not need to presume that it also must present the 'time reversibility' we normally expect. Because that question will be answered by the pattern you measure, and if it change, then the logic describing a pattern should be different. So yes, I need two parts for this one, one part describing a rhythm, another part describing what the rhythm tells us about causality.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1312 on: 14/07/2013 15:23:23 »
And that goes back to scales for me. Is the logic you find at QM scales the same logic you find macroscopically?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1313 on: 14/07/2013 17:51:23 »
Looking at this way transform 'c' as a propagation, to me relating it equivalently to the linearity we expect of a arrow, to another point of view, in where I still define 'c' as the equivalence to what we call a linear arrow. The difference being that doing so, I now ignore that definition in favor for a further one, in where I translate it into a rhythm. I assume that rhythm to exist in any and all configurations of a causality we can imagine, and that knits back to me wondering if a arrow is 'enough' for describing the living universe we populate. I don't think it is, you need something more.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1314 on: 15/07/2013 11:49:39 »
Let's take a singularity.

A black hole.

You watching someone infalling. somewhere just before the event horizon you should find him to freeze, and then 'disappear' as your information (the light) becomes infinitely redshifted (an assumption naturally)

To you he should be stuck there. and you used your (Local) clock and ruler to define his time.

Does that mean that he will agree to your description? If he did, wouldn't you become the 'universal clock', defining all other clocks :) somewhat like a time keeping God.

time stops for no one, locally defined.

So how can we discuss a center of a black hole as not having a arrow?
=

The way I think of it has to do with scales. Using 'c' equivalent to a arrow, or 'rhythm', and scales, I would argue that defining a scale to a 'center' is meaningless. Depending on your mathematical definitions you can get a infinity inside that event horizon, although from the outside easily defined as having a finite circumference. It's local definitions that describe it for you. But if there is a 'place' where that mass is transformed into 'energy', and there must be, as we can't have a black hole where your mathematics breaks down into singularities and infinity's otherwise, then that 'place' have no scale. and where something is without scale?

Assuming a equivalence between 'c' and a arrow, finding Plank scale to be the last meaningful definition of 'c'?
No arrow.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1315 on: 15/07/2013 11:57:15 »
This is assuming that there can exist a geometry where mass breaks down into something without a scale. It does not state what exist between the measured circumference, following a 'event horizon' from a outside, and that 'center', or if it even is meaningful to define a 'center' where that 'energy' should exist. That one you can ponder as if there is no scale describing something, how the he* will you define it in a coordinate system? Even if done locally.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1316 on: 15/07/2013 12:08:13 »
Put another way. We're all as close to Planck scale, no matter excepted. All having a same 'local' distance as a assumption, to it. And at that scale? Do you expect a coordinate system (a arrow and a ruler) to exist? If you think you can prove that I will be very interested.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1317 on: 15/07/2013 12:23:18 »
Remember that when you measure you always use your local clock and ruler, and macroscopically it will 'tick' for you. That does not state that it 'locally defined', 'intrinsically' if you will, 'ticks' at Planck scale. Which indeed makes a arrow to be something belonging to a SpaceTime, just as I suspect Einstein thought of it too, although not from this perspective (strict locality and scales). When he defined it I read it as he used a 'global universe', in where the four dimensions was 'one thing', although having parameters or 'properties' that you could tweak, by 'motion' and mass for example, redefining space (rulers) as well as other frames 'clocks'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1318 on: 15/07/2013 21:35:37 »
Anyway, what is 'energy'?

If you use a black hole then?

"At the sub-atomic scale, matter acts wavelike, which means that it is spread out over space. This limits its ability to be compressed beyond certain point - colloquially, we say that no two ojects may occupy the same space at the same time. It's like marbles in a bag, no matter how hard you press in on them, they just don't get any smaller. There is, of course, a limit to this pressure, and when the maximum degeneracy pressure is exceeded, strange things happen. Specifically, when the maximum electron degeneracy pressure is exceeded in a large mass star, the core collapse begins (this is the initiation of a Type II supernova). When the the maximum neutron degeneracy pressure is exceeded in a neutron star, the star collapses into a black hole. "

So what happens?

"Electron degeneracy pressure is a quantum-mechanical effect arising from the Pauli exclusion principle. Since electrons are fermions, no two electrons can be in the same state, so not all electrons can be in the minimum-energy level. Rather, electrons must occupy a band of energy levels. Compression of the electron gas increases the number of electrons in a given volume and raises the maximum energy level in the occupied band. Therefore, the energy of the electrons will increase upon compression, so pressure must be exerted on the electron gas to compress it, producing electron degeneracy pressure. With sufficient compression, electrons are forced into nuclei in the process of electron capture, relieving the pressure."

"At the center of a black hole as described by general relativity lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity lying in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution. The singular region can thus be thought of as having.... infinite density."

Or energy?

Neutron Stars and White Dwarfs.

If you have something of zero radius and infinite density?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1319 on: 15/07/2013 21:41:44 »
We have a a really big assumption. The energy in a universe is constant. You can transform 'usable energy' into 'unusable', but as you do it it 'cost' nothing extra, considering that the magnitude should stay constant. I have a hard time accepting that a transformation won't bring with it a cost. That's what entropy is about to me, transformations.

Don't mix this with the cost of using some fuel, as gasoline, looking at what you get out from it in form of usable energy.
I have trouble with the concept per se. If we assume that the amount of energy is a constant, then what is a transformation? What makes it possible?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1320 on: 15/07/2013 21:45:41 »
Density of energy?
And no cost transforming it?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1321 on: 15/07/2013 21:54:07 »
You could say this one knit very closely to the idea of a 'closed universe', or not? Assume a 'infinite universe', assume a inflation, assume new energy to be needed in those new patches of 'space'. If the universe is unbounded, 'infinite', where would you get that 'energy' from? Don't you need some boundary for getting it? Alternatively you take this 'energy' needed to form a 'space' from something, why not 'gravity'? Well, still assuming a infinite universe, how would you do that? If gravity is a result of mass? Either you then get something from nothing, assuming mass to stay the same, or you need to assume that you lift out something from mass, somehow keeping a 'same' balance/equilibrium between  mass/gravity?

Or you give the universe a boundary, taking the energy from that somehow?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1322 on: 15/07/2013 21:58:00 »
assuming us to be able to transmute sounds very like alchemy, and magic. there must be a cost to a transformation, something need to be lost, and I'm not referring to heat. Because that heat is part of the 'energy' making up for a equation in where you do work, transforming, yet keeping the 'universal energy' at a same level. Why would it be so?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1323 on: 15/07/2013 21:59:22 »
We have a boundary.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1324 on: 15/07/2013 21:59:45 »
it's at Planck scale.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1324 on: 15/07/2013 21:59:45 »