The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280679 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 #1750 on: 09/03/2016 16:33:46 »
If you assume the universe to have some sort of boundaries, a accelerating expansion must cost it. The 'energy' needed for it has to be taken from somewhere, won't you agree? If you alternatively ignore boundaries, define the universe as limitless, then? What is a 'cost'?
 

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 #1751 on: 09/03/2016 16:36:24 »
The problem does not become any easier assuming that we can 'lend' from something else, for example assuming that the universe is a 'emergence', or a 'fault' in something else. Because logically you only move the question one step further, into that realm from where 'our universe' then might come. The question will still be there.
 

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 #1752 on: 09/03/2016 16:42:05 »
Time only moves one way, the next three 'dimensions' we measure, each one, have two 'endpoints, and it doesn't matter from what direction you measure, any way is as good as the other.
 

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 #1753 on: 09/03/2016 16:52:31 »
Then there also is the truth that in a SpaceTime universe, defined as a whole continuum, there will be no way of return. It doesn't matter if you define boundaries or not, time moves, and you move with 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 #1754 on: 09/03/2016 16:56:12 »
presuming that you can return, to a same 'point' is time travel, which then also must presume that you should be able to be with yourself ad infinitum. That's a very simple logic, and some people go a long way trying to avoid accepting it :) keeping 'time travels' at the same time as invoking some cosmic censorship disallowing this from happening.
 

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 #1755 on: 09/03/2016 16:57:12 »
The reason they need to do so is simple. We have no proofs of time travels.
 

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 #1756 on: 09/03/2016 16:58:36 »
Unless we refer to the one pointing from birth to death. That one is proved by each one of us.
 

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 #1757 on: 09/03/2016 17:31:37 »
In fact, a universe allowing time travels is a universe not only bifurcating (splitting) into 'new ones' due to probabilities, but now also due to 'time travels'
 

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 #1758 on: 09/03/2016 17:33:38 »
In a way I like it. It becomes very convoluted though. And when you consider that it should(?) take 'energy' to create it, it also becomes somewhat of a headache.
 

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 #1759 on: 09/03/2016 17:47:59 »
With a static universe one could assume that everything exist, even 'time travels'. That as it is in one way similar to a 'magical universe', in that everything 'coexist'. The thing 'moving' would then be ones local arrow, but we still need to invoke a cosmic censorship in that we only see 'our' universe. It's a possibility, and in one way you then might be able to define 'energy' as times transformations, but what about traveling back in time?Then again, it's rather convoluted, is it not?
 

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 #1760 on: 09/03/2016 17:56:43 »
Alternatively all of you existing exist as you are now due to my choices, them bifurcating everything in this universe to fit.
How's that for a headache :)

And the same goes for you naturally, I will then exist in some manner related to what choices you make. Although I can't be sure who of 'you' I'm referring to here, can I? As the same must go for me. At the very least though, it's a very local solution to what a universe might be :)
 

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 #1761 on: 09/03/2016 18:39:41 »
Why I don't find it to fit is that I prefer a solution in where only one 'reality' falls out, the one with the highest probability overall, doesn't mean that some of the things happening in it can't have a very low probability. In such a reality you can't assume a person to be able to 'time travel' to meet himself. You need one where there are several 'universes' coexisting as it must 'bifurcate' at that point. The true problem with assuming this person meeting himself though is that it then will exist at least one universe in where time travel will be a provable fact. But, as it's not our universe :) why then should it be any other? You have to start from what you can prove, not from what you might find preferable.
 

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 #1762 on: 09/03/2016 18:53:37 »
And finally, there's one more problem with it. Although that depends on if you believe in 'free will' versus if you believe in predestination? A universe in where I go back to meet myself, can be seen as me creating something never before existing, from the bifurcation it should lead to. In a 'static predestined universe' this argument loses its coherence, as it all must have been 'predestined' any way. You can prove anything using predestination it seems :) logic won't help you there.
 

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 #1763 on: 09/03/2016 19:06:55 »
That means that the way I think of a static universe should be one without time travel. As long as I expect free will to exist, and uncertainty. Turn it around and you will have to throw uncertainty away. With everything bifurcating ad infinitum (many worlds) you can keep uncertainty as an effect of us only seeing one of those ' reality's ' though, but as it very fast becomes infinitely convoluted, and as there is no way to give a priority to anything in such a universe, that I see, I find it hard to accept.
 

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 #1764 on: 10/03/2016 13:24:16 »
The problem with a world in where both high probabilities, as well as low, falls out it's not a static reality's problem only. It's everyone's problem as I think. We live in a world where you can win at lotto for example, although the probability for just you to do so should be rather low. On the other tentacle, someone has to win, at some time. If you think of entropy then there is a possibility of entropy going 'backwards' locally, although 'globally' over a universe, it has only one direction. The same can't be said about 'time' 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 #1765 on: 10/03/2016 13:26:09 »
Time, as far as I know, has only one direction. When you find it 'slowing' somewhere else, it's because you compare that 'clock' to your own wristwatch. And your wristwatch never change its time, eh, time rate :).
 

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 #1766 on: 10/03/2016 13:36:30 »
I prefer then one universe, created from a infinite ocean of probabilities, in where, if we want it to fit where we are, must allow for all possibilities. Those with a very low probability as well as those with a very high. 'Many worlds' doesn't answer why we get this blend, as far as I know, and I have problems with it too :). You might assume that somewhere there is a perfect universe though, where only the highest ranking probabilities falls out, you could alternatively assume that 'Machs universe/principle' in some way is applicable here too, so that even though we only observe our universe the 'principle' allows for some sort of 'communication/interactions' with other universes, somehow creating this mix of probabilities.
 

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 #1767 on: 10/03/2016 13:39:22 »
The probability of something builds on statistics, not on a clever algorithm. First you take the statistics, then you create the algorithm, in a similar way to me throwing away the idea of a propagation, keeping the constant.
 

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 #1768 on: 11/03/2016 14:54:54 »
One has to remember that this are only thoughts, and sometimes quite confused :) Take for example Newtons bucket. One idea of it, very simplified (which I tend to like) is that even in a space without proper mass, a perfect vacuum, if you have a rope with two stones that you start to spin (don't ask me how you will do it) the rope will stretch as it spins. In Mach universe the rope shouldn't stretch as there is nothing to 'attract' it, no matter available. In SR it stretches too, as the rope with buckets spin around a 'center', and this spin represent a acceleration in Newtonian, as well as in, SR terms. But in Mach universe it doesn't. What Einstein final thoughts on this became was a mix of both Newtons, as well as Mach ideas though. Far away stars do attract, but something spinning around its axis is constantly breaking its path (geodesics), and so must become a acceleration. But then again, does it it drag 'space' around it too? It seems it does, it's called 'framedragging'. But now we have some confusion of mine, a acceleration must expend energy? So will this rope finally stop spinning? in this empty universe? It should, shouldn't it? it doesn't follow a geodesic.
 

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 #1769 on: 11/03/2016 15:06:40 »
Now the question become, due to what does it stop spinning? A perfect vacuum? And if it doesn't then?
 

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 #1770 on: 11/03/2016 15:14:15 »
I wrote ' 'Many worlds' doesn't answer why we get this blend, as far as I know, and I have problems with it too :). You might assume that somewhere there is a perfect universe though, where only the highest ranking probabilities falls out, you could alternatively assume that 'Machs universe/principle' in some way is applicable here too, so that even though we only observe our universe the 'principle' allows for some sort of 'communication/interactions' with other universes, somehow creating this mix of probabilities.'

At first sight this might sound slightly slow of me, but to me it has to do with the question of if we have a priority, or not? I don't think we have, although there is no way to prove it, that I see now at least? Even if we do have a priority, it doesn't answer why you get this mix. If we were living in a universe where only the highest ranking probabilities fell out, maybe we could argue a priority? But 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 #1771 on: 11/03/2016 15:17:16 »
'Coexistence' it has to be, and if that is the way it is, then what we can measure and observe is only the tip of the iceberg. In such a universe propagation is a questionable thing to me. And so is 'time' naturally, but constants isn't.
 

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 #1772 on: 11/03/2016 15:29:07 »
And 'time' then, what is it? The universe won't agree with your wristwatch, neither will mine. But locally defined your arrow doesn't change relative yourself. Your lifespan is, loosely speaking, 'constant'. To what should we track it? Some smallest 'point', or just using 'constants'? If we want to define it to points, then I don't know. To me those imaginary points of 'magnifying' SpaceTime are constants. In some weird way they permeate SpaceTime, everywhere. If they do, then that too tells us something of the universe.It tells us that 'magnifying' won't be the answer.
 

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 #1773 on: 11/03/2016 15:32:04 »
There has to be a simpler way.
 

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 #1774 on: 11/03/2016 15:41:13 »
Geodesics are weird stuff. I can imagine (not really, but for the sake of my argument) a infinity of geodesics, through some center. All of them without resistance and friction, all coexisting in each point of SpaceTime. We don't need to consider matter for this, gravitationally 'acting and reacting' on each other, just those geodesics. There must be a possible infinity of geodesics through every 'center' thought up.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1774 on: 11/03/2016 15:41:13 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length