The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 281108 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #200 on: 10/01/2011 11:53:08 »
The important thing here is that if you accept that gravity don't need 'forces' then you better start asking yourself why you expect it to be particles? I don't need it to be any particles at all. I just need a constant describing where the limit goes, and the limit for gravity is lights speed as I see it. Think of that matter 'accelerating' to its ultimate state of 'rest' versus gravity. I will suggest that the ultimate, although never reachable state for matter is light. That is gravity is circumstanced by lights speed in a vacuum. Nothing more.
==

Thinking some more on it it seems to open for a new way to describe motion for me. If I call the velocity matter reach falling into into that infinite gravity 'rest' what does that make of motion? This one was rather weird :) and I most certainly will need to think about it. to be at rest is to define something against something else, normally we use it with matter but here I used matter against gravity? A very weird one indeed, would that make all other velocity, the matters need to find a position of rest versus gravity? And what would it make an acceleration? Yeah, I should get some sleep huh :)
==

Okay so who needs sleep? It's overrated anyway :)

QM needs its quantum, and then Space too needs to be in 'pieces'
In General realtivity Space is a 'smooth' thingie without breaks.

So what?

Don't get that one, you can have QM and general relativity both I think. I mean, we have both and they do a good job explaining a lot of reality. Look that you want to define a granularity is no problem, just don't apply it on space. Space is a classical nothing, think of lights speed in a vacuum, do you want to assign a granularity to that too? Why not, in which way is that different to space? Both exist, don't they? that we can't say that here is 'lights speed' doesn't make it go away, and the same can be said for space. Pick any point in a empty space and tell me what you got. Nothing..

Also, what happens to the granularity in a Lorentz contraction/Doppler effect?
Both exists, both 'seems to' concentrate and deliver more energy?
If information is SpaceTime, what do I have left, as close to light speed I can come?
A infinite point representing SpaceTime?

Hmm, I think both time and space is a 'smooth' thingie, no granularity to it.
What this do is to mix what I call 'emergences', demanding them to be the same.
That's not gonna work. It's against all what seems to create us.
Ah, us.. We who looks at it and wonder why :)

==

"According to general relativity when stuff falls into a blackhole everything about it’s existence (with the exception of mass, charge, and momentum) is completely erased.  That doesn’t sound so bad.  We tend to think of blackholes as being like galactic garbage disposals.  However, if all the information about something is destroyed, then you lose time-reversibility.  Time-reversal is the idea that if you run time backwards, all the basic physical laws of the universe continue to work the same.  More obscurely, you can predict the future based on what you know now, and time reversal means that you can derive what happened in the past as well.  QM requires that time-reversibility (or “unitarity”, to a professional) holds.  So QM requires that blackholes cannot destroy information.  One way around this is amazingly complicated entanglement between all of the in-falling matter, and all of the Hawking Radiation that comes out later.  Again, we’ll never be able to measure this.  To get results we would have to exactly measure at least half of all of the photons generated by Hawking radiation over the essentially infinite life time of the blackhole (every blackhole that exists today will be around long, long after the heat death of the universe)."

Not a good argument. Hawking radiation is about a balance, not about 'meaningful information'. Okay, it's a sort of information, but in no way meaningful. Also the particle antiparticle annihilation should leave a rest of positive energy inside the EV, is that not information? And considering the way plants move energy through entanglements I would call 'energy' pretty da*n meaningful? What Hawking radiation seems to do is to set a opposite spin for the surviving twin outside the EV. Not the same, the opposite. So assume that the universe is a software program, can you reverse bits of your code and still expect the program to work the same? If you want to assume that what you get from the radiation is meaningful you better define how, and if you think energy you better consider the 'rest energy' left inside that Black Hole
==

Okay, mostly I argue because I don't like it :)
Why would one way of seeing it be the only one?

It's like we have a universe that works on many planes, some of them undefinable other than mathematically. does that mean that we will need two descriptions of one 'reality'?

Myself I hope not, and I like my space 'empty'. It makes for a free topology to me, and in it we have one definition for what gravity is. It's something that are 'at rest' with matter at the speed of light. I know, I'm just testing here :) to see where it might take me. So what would it make a velocity? Matter is defined by inertia, isn't it? Light, as I see it do not have inertia.

Which makes perfect sense if I define all light as being 'at rest'.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2011 20:59:28 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #201 on: 13/01/2011 14:34:02 »
So what is matter?

After all, light is supposed to be intrinsically timeless.
Space we can't assign a 'time' to in itself, only to the phenomena and objects we observe in it.
Then we have matter?
 
"Using magnetic fields, though, we have managed to trap a small amount of anti-matter. Indeed, in 1995, scientists at the CERN accelerator in Switzerland made nine anti-hydrogen atoms. How long would it take to make three grams (the mass of a penny) of anti-hydrogen? CERN makes about ten million anti-protons in a second. If CERN could keep generating anti-protons at that rate non-stop, they could make three grams in about six billion years. Fermilab could do the job in a tenth the time, since they make 100 million anti-protons per second. Still, six hundred million years is a long time to make three grams of mass.

Thus, we don't make much mass in particle accelerators, because it takes too much energy. The lights of Chicago may not actually dim when they run the Chicago's big accelerator at Fermilab, but the accelerator is a "significant drain" on the electricity grid, says Koji Mukai of NASA'S Goddard's Space Center. Consider how much energy is in a kilogram (2.2 lbs) of water. If we could convert that mass into the equivalent energy, we'd have enough energy to drive a car for about 100,000 years without stopping, say CERN scientists."

Okay so we can make 'matter' if we by that mean particles.
But what is it?

"The mass of a proton is about 938 MeV. It consists of three quarks, each of which have a mass on the order of 3 MeV (more or less, not very accurate.) There is a huge discrepancy between 938 and 9. The remainder of the mass of the proton is the potential and kinetic energy of the gluons holding the whole thing together. The correct vision of a proton is a little subatomic gluonic lightning storm, buffeting three nearly insignificant quarks. "

Ahh, okay :)

But what is it? Let's simply say that it seems to have a lot to do with 'energy'. Okay, so what is energy then? Well, as I see it energy is a relation, not a 'thingie'. It's how we measure what surrounds the idea we call the 'energy', and that one is easily proved by red and blue shift. Or by what we call 'potential energy'. that's the energy we find to be in a interaction, as defined in some positional space and time. But is potential energy the same as 'energy'? Not really, it doesn't exist until in the interaction. why do I say it doesn't exist?

Well, if it did we should notice it as for example radiation, But we do, don't we? Like when heating something for example, won't that make radiation? Yeah, but that's not what I'm talking about. On earth we have all those different 'densities', gases like air, fire, and matter, and fluids, all coexisting. When we bring them together they will produce radiation, however small amount it might be. Because they all have that 'stored energy' in them (particles) that will 'collide' in form of atoms, molecules etc. But take a spaceship, give it a velocity relative Earth. Make it go really really fast, will the atoms in that ship start to 'jingle' as we now have a lot more 'potential energy' 'stored' in the ship (relative Earth)?

Nope, not that I know. There is no 'jingling' to be seen in that ships atoms. No 'energy' transfered from its 'motion' through space. So there are no 'potential energy' stored in that ship. That we use the idea is an effect of the math that we use, in it this kind of thinking makes a lot of sense. but in reality there isn't any such thing, as I know at least.
==

But we still think that 'particles' have this close relation to the thing that 'doesn't exist' don't we? 'Energy' I mean.

How?
What is Space?
 
We know that a atom is 99.999~ something 'Space', and that in that 'space' we have all this 'energy' and some ,very few, moving 'particles' that we can observe. Under those, at the same plane as I understands it, as 'virtual particles', we expect there to be other 'things' called 'gluons' etc, that somehow keeps it all together. Making those particles, all put together, into a lasting 'piece of matter'. So how do they do it? Those particles, how do they know how to form themselves into a lasting piece of matter? What 'binds' them together?
« Last Edit: 13/01/2011 15:06:19 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #202 on: 13/01/2011 15:59:23 »
'Virtual particles'? what is virtual particles, and gluons? And leptons?
And do they have anything to do with matter?

Let's take a look. First of all, when discussing those things we have a principle. It's a really important one too. It's called Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and states that it won't, never ever, be possible to measure a simultaneous definite value for both the position and momentum of a particle. That idea have since then been widened to count in a lot of other properties/combinations too. Here's how he looked at his idea.

"For example, there is a passage (Heisenberg, 1927, p. 197), where he discusses the idea that, behind our observational data, there might still exist a hidden reality in which quantum systems have definite values for position and momentum, unaffected by the uncertainty relations. He emphatically dismisses this conception as an unfruitful and meaningless speculation, because, as he says, the aim of physics is only to describe observable data.

Similarly, in the Chicago Lectures (Heisenberg 1930, p. 11), he warns against the fact that the human language permits the utterance of statements which have no empirical content at all, but nevertheless produce a picture in our imagination. He notes, "One should be especially careful in using the words ‘reality’, ‘actually’, etc., since these words very often lead to statements of the type just mentioned." So, Heisenberg also endorsed an interpretation of his relations as rejecting a reality in which particles have simultaneous definite values for position and momentum." So now you know why I so often put 'reality' in brackets. I have that same feeling as he seemed to have. Reality is a really weird idea :)

This principle is what allows 'virtual particles' to influence 'real particles'. So how many fundamental 'real particles' do we have that make up matter? Twelve, as far as I understand.

"In the modern theory, known as the Standard Model there are 12 fundamental matter particle types and their corresponding antiparticles. The matter particles divide into two classes: quarks and leptons. There are six particles of each class and six corresponding antiparticles. In addition, there are gluons, photons, and W and Z bosons, the force carrier particles that are responsible for strong, electromagnetic, and weak interactions respectively.

These force carriers are also fundamental particles. All we know is that quarks and leptons are smaller than 10^-19 meters in radius. As far as we can tell, they have no internal structure or even any size. It is possible that future evidence will, once again, show this understanding to be an illusion and demonstrate that there is substructure within the particles that we now view as fundamental."

"Leptons are spin-1⁄2 particles. The spin-statistics theorem thus implies that they are fermions and thus that they are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle; no two leptons of the same species can be in exactly the same state at the same time. Furthermore, it means that a lepton can have only two possible spin states, namely up or down.#

And

"Leptons have various intrinsic properties, including electric charge, spin, and mass. Unlike quarks however, leptons are not subject to the strong interaction, but they are subject to the other three fundamental interactions: gravitation, electromagnetism (excluding neutrinos, which are electrically neutral), and the weak interaction.

For every lepton flavor there is a corresponding type of antiparticle, known as antilepton, that differs from the lepton only in that some of its properties have equal magnitude but opposite sign. However, according to certain theories, neutrinos may be their own antiparticle, but it is not currently known whether this is the case or not.

The first charged lepton, the electron, was theorized in the mid-19th century by several scientists and was discovered in 1897 by J. J. Thomson. The next lepton to be observed was the muon, discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1936, but it was erroneously classified as a meson at the time. After investigation, it was realized that the muon did not have the expected properties of a meson, but rather behaved like an electron, only with higher mass.

It took until 1947 for the concept of "leptons" as a family of particle to be proposed. The first neutrino, the electron neutrino, was proposed by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 to explain certain characteristics of beta decay. It was first observed in the Cowan–Reines neutrino experiment conducted by Clyde Cowan and Frederick Reines in 1956.The muon neutrino was discovered in 1962 by Leon M. Lederman, Melvin Schwartz and Jack Steinberger, and the tau discovered between 1974 and 1977 by Martin Lewis Perl and his colleagues from the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The tau neutrino remained elusive until July 2000, when the DONUT collaboration from Fermilab announced its discovery.

Leptons are an important part of the Standard Model. Electrons are one of the components of atoms, alongside protons and neutrons. Exotic atoms with muons and tauons instead of electrons can also be synthesized, as well as lepton–antilepton particles such as positronium."
« Last Edit: 13/01/2011 17:55:16 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #203 on: 13/01/2011 17:22:43 »
So what happened to those protons and neutrons then? Wasn't they the ones making up the atoms nucleus? (And how many atoms do we have? Ninety two, naturally occurring). After all, isn't all matter made out of atoms, in where we find protons and neutrons?

Well, according to the standard theory those protons and neutrons in 'reality' are made out of quarks. The proton has two 'up quarks' and one 'down quark', the neutron has two 'down quarks' and one 'up quark'. The proton also carries an electrical charge, which mean that at least some of the quarks should be 'electrically charged'. As the neutron, as it sounds, is 'neutral', having no charge, also is built of the same quarks as the proton there had to be something else making them differ, and that was how you combined those quarks.

Before the discovery of quarks all charges was thought to be multiples of the proton charge but finding that it was made of quarks the protons charge had to be split up. The standard model describe three basic amounts for a charge. + 2/3, −1/3, and −1. When it comes to electrons they are similar to the muon and the tau, having the same electrical charge and acting similarly, although the electron having a different mass and that the muon and tau could decay into other particles, whereas the electron was stable and unchanging.

So .. "Everything around us is made of matter particles. These occur in two basic types called quarks and leptons. Each group consists of six particles, which are related in pairs, or ‘generations’. The lightest and most stable particles make up the first generation, whereas the heavier and less stable particles belong to the second and third generations. All stable matter in the Universe is made from particles that belong to the first generation; any heavier particles quickly decay to the next most stable level.

The six quarks are paired in the three generations – the 'up quark' and the 'down quark' form the first generation, followed by the 'charm quark' and 'strange quark', then the 'top quark' and 'bottom quark'. The six leptons are similarly arranged in three generations – the 'electron' and the 'electron-neutrino', the 'muon' and the 'muon-neutrino', and the 'tau' and the 'tau-neutrino'. The electron, the muon and the tau all have an electric charge and a mass, whereas the neutrinos are electrically neutral with very little mass."
« Last Edit: 13/01/2011 17:50:29 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #204 on: 21/02/2011 10:18:43 »
As it is the place for new ideas, sort of :) I'll present a question i have. Ever heard of Feynman's partons? "In particle physics, the parton model was proposed by Richard Feynman in 1969 as a way to analyze high-energy hadron collisions.[1] It was later recognized that partons describe the same objects now more commonly referred to as quarks and gluons. Therefore a more detailed presentation of the properties and physical theories pertaining indirectly to partons can be found under quarks."

Now, I came to this one discussing Lorentz contraction. Here's how the 'inventor' Hendrik Lorentz imagined his concept once.  "The Spherical Wave Structure of Matter tells us that there is no discrete particle and instead we are considering the behavior of the wave-center. Thus we realize that the motion of the particle through Space is actually the apparent motion of successive wave-centers which are determined by where each successive spherical (in reality ellipsoidal) In-wave meets at its respective wave-center. As the spherical In and Out waves combine and then cancel one another, the particle effect of the wave-center appears in a discrete point in Space, then disappears, then re-appears again as the next In-waves meets at its wave-center (roughly 1020 times per second).

As Wertheim explains;

In the quantum world, subatomic particles lurch about, suddenly disappearing from their starting points and reappearing as if by magic somewhere else. (Wertheim, 1997)

Further, this apparent motion of the wave-center (particle) is caused by a difference in velocity of the In-waves from one direction, and this also necessarily changes the spherical shape of the In-waves (they become squashed or stretched spheres / ellipsoids)

Fig:1.1 The Ellipsoidal Shape of a Moving wave-center: If the In-waves on the right are slowed down as they travel in through Space then they change ellipsoidal shape (rather than being exactly spherical) and have a shorter wavelength. It is this change in velocity, ellipsoidal shape and wavelength of the In-wave which causes the apparent motion of the wave-center and the Lorentz Transformations.

The Lorentz Transformations provide formulas for the change of ellipsoidal shape of matter (SSWs) with the apparent 'motion' of the 'particle' (wave-center) and how this affects Mass, Time and Length/Dimension. This explains the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment as Lorentz explains;

In order to explain this absence of any effect of the Earth's translation (in the Michelson/Morley experiment), I have ventured the hypothesis, that the dimensions of a solid body undergo slight change, of the order of v2/c2, when it moves through the ether. From this point of view it is natural to suppose that, just like the electromagnetic forces, the molecular attractions and repulsions are somewhat modified by a translation imparted to the body, and this may very well result in a change of dimensions. The electrons themselves become flattened ellipsoids."

Now I had some reservations to the picture. In a Lorentz contraction even space 'contracts' right? How would that work? Those explanations I've seen try to use the idea of everything being able to reduced to some 'smallest constituent', like 'light/photons', for explaining for example the 'pole in the barn experiment', discussing how the shock waves from the pole meting the rear, now closed door, will travel back in the pole as 'information', telling the pole that its 'speed' now is over and done with, more or less. Not satisfactory to me by several reasons. One being the idea of space contracting, then we have the problem with atoms contracting without their 'widening' as one might expect in a more common world explanation of how matter would react. There are several other arguments I can point out, but that's neither here nor now. I'll let them be for the moment, the main point is the idea of using 'information' in form of particles telling the pole what to do or not to do relative 'speed' is not good, neither do I find it straight forward.

Einsteins SpaceTime is not a divided entity. You do not have three singular dimensions and then a time dimension, instead you have a SpaceTime.
« Last Edit: 21/02/2011 10:21:29 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #205 on: 21/02/2011 10:42:40 »
The interesting thing with his 'parton model' is the way Feynman seems to use 'contraction' and 'time dilation' explaining them. "In this model, a hadron (for example, a proton) is composed of a number of point-like constituents, termed "partons". Additionally, the hadron is in a reference frame where it has infinite momentum — a valid approximation at high energies. Thus, parton motion is slowed by time dilation, and the hadron charge distribution is Lorentz-contracted, so incoming particles will be scattered "instantaneously and incoherently".

The parton model was immediately applied to electron-proton deep inelastic scattering by Bjorken and Paschos. Later, with the experimental observation of Bjorken scaling, the validation of the quark model, and the confirmation of asymptotic freedom in quantum chromodynamics, partons were matched to quarks and gluons. The parton model remains a justifiable approximation at high energies, and others have extended the theory over the years."

Feynman, I think, had a really good mind, and he seems to have wondered about the same as I'm wondering about now as he found it necessary to introduce those concepts into our tiniest 'reality'. You see, when we move at those sizes it seems to me that the only ting we truly can see are the 'traces', and indirect evidence. We do not see them in other words, we infer them. And what he's doing there in fact is that he is introducing something never measured 'time dilation & Lorentz contraction' as entities having an existence in their own right. In a way this becomes as meta physical as it ever can be, we introduce what is not 'here' to explain what we 'can't see' directly, only guess our way too, by making mathematical models and predictions based on statistics and probability. It's surprising how fast some guys & gals are to deem out 'meta physics', at the same time as they move further and further out in the minefields.

But I think Feynman was right. You need those concepts to describe 'particles'. What started as a description from 'matter' by Lorentz in his try to define a aether has, to me at least, became a much more subtle proposal, where the 'contraction' isn't a 'materialistic' effect with some 'real particles ready for whittling' but instead a description of what's already there. A fractal behavior if you like, a 'contraction' hidden in what we call the 'contraction'.
==

Take a look at the Physical Basis for Feynman's Parton Picture.   
« Last Edit: 21/02/2011 11:05:43 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #206 on: 22/02/2011 04:22:27 »
So I keep coming back to speed. That's after all what our contraction seems to build on, isn't it?
Take a 'inertial frame', meaning a planet, moving uniformly through Space. We can give it all kind of speeds depending on what we will use as a reference point, but does that state that the universe can't differ between those 'speeds'?

Assume that you have this planet, going at half the speed of light, relative the CBR and blue-shift you measure. then send away a star-ship from it. That starship is built to accelerate for 6 hours 'ship time' to reach 99.9999 of lights speed in a vacuum. And it does as defined by the CBR and the blue shift it measures.

Take another planet, define its speed relative the CBR, and blue-shift, at a quarter of the speed of light instead. Then send the same exact star ship away. Will it after six hours reach 99.9999 of lights speed in a vacuum? Why would you expect that? If it doesn't, can the universe differ between 'speeds'?

If it can't differ between speeds then it shouldn't matter what speed your 'inertial frame' had, as compared to any other frame. You should then still reach 'light speed' in about the same hour's, no matter the initial 'speed' you measured for your 'origin' of take off. Or we will have to assume a universe that somehow have a marvelously clever way of adapting your acceleration to where you start from, compensating so that no matter the 'inertial frames' mass and relative 'speed' you always reach the same percentage of lights speed, in about the same time. Or we have a universe where only 'gravity' aka 'invariant mass' define your start position, speed being meaningless for defining it.

So what do you think? Can the universe differ between speeds? I'm pretty sure it can. If it couldn't 'speed' shouldn't exist I think. And for that it doesn't matter what we call, or ultimately expect, that 'speed' to be. As a measurable phenomena it exist and so our question is relevant. So why do we say that all speeds are the same then, well, in a uniform motion? That's the 'black box scenario' isn't it? Where you're enclosed in a black box moving uniformly through Space. From that point of view no speed exist, as there is no way I know of proving a speed, except relative tidal forces, but assume it to be somewhere with a unmeasurable gravity (relative you) for this.

So now we've done away with the question if the universe can and will differ between speeds.
Yes it can, and will. And if you differ with my estimate there you will have to define how speeds can differ as well as explain my examples away, without using the universe as a reference point

Does that mean that it can differ between uniform speeds too?
Sure.

But we can't, can we? So why can the universe do what we can't? Well, if you found a way to push our universe into that 'black box' and then let it move uniformly, in itself, maybe it would get into trouble? :) Or better, another universe, exactly the same as itself. But if the universe can differ between frames, shouldn't it also be able to define a 'zero motion'?

That one is really tricky. Either it can but we haven't succeeded in finding out how it does so, or 'zero motion' is just a 'relation'. How did our universe fare in that black box, btw? Could it differ between 'speeds' there? Nah ...

So how does the universe differs between speeds out of that black box then?
How about it having 'relations'?
==

Also, that absence of a gold standard when it comes to 'speed' and 'zero motion', as we define it, I see as very important for what 'speed' really is. Without a 'zero motion' no 'speed' can be defined as a 'true speed'. It can only be defined relative a arbitrarily 'moving' frame, that we then for this question define as having a 'zero motion' relative our star-ship. Like our Earth..

But we do have a 'stop' for speed, don't we :)

Lights speed in a vacuum is that stop. So will that 'stop' come at different times for our star-ship, depending on what we took of from, like Earth or some 'speeding star-station', being at half light-speed relative Earth? Sure, it will matter, even though both of those frames could be defined as being 'zero motion' relative our starship taking off from any of them.

We have a 'stop'. That's important, but we do not have a 'beginning'. Can that tell us something about 'speed'? Try your imagination, what is 'motion', if there is nothing defining a 'zero motion'? Only something saying 'to here, but no further'.



« Last Edit: 22/02/2011 04:41:15 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #207 on: 22/02/2011 21:13:13 »
I don't know what a distance is but I'm pretty sure it's connected to time. The only way you can see a length contraction, or time dilation, is between frames. The effect seems to create a symmetry in that the length contraction is as from the moving observer whilst the time dilation is the complementary effect his 'opponent/frame' will observe, or not :) Depending on the definition of a common origin needed.

Inside your own 'frame' there is no time dilation and neither will you observe a time dilation. The only true way to measure anything is by direct observation, and in that frame none of those are possible to measure as your measurements change with the time dilation/Lorentz contraction. So what is a 'distance'? Unchanging at all times for you, but according to you speeding relative the universe 'shrinking' even though your measuring tells you otherwise.

So what do we use to prove that it have 'shrunk'? Our history, right? The memories and recorded truths we have about how the universe looked before us speeding away. And we trust our history, we have too :) Without it nothing can be measured, as all measurements then will lose relevance as soon as we 'moves on temporally' finished with observing them. So, the universe shrinks with speed, and with gravity, but our own 'frame' won't?

Imagine yourself move infinitely close to light speed. The universe should soon be over, a contracted point in front of you. If you are moving uniformly now there is no energy expended and there is no 'end' to your motion. That speck you see should be the universe you too are in, but if you measure it? By light perhaps, can you tell me where you are in it?

==

And as you are in a uniform motion, I now declare you being at rest. And that should be true as far as I know :)
« Last Edit: 22/02/2011 22:42:20 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #208 on: 23/02/2011 06:59:22 »
Yeah I know. I don't seem to get 'there', do I? :) But it's the path that matters, not the end. What I'm wondering is simple, we have 'something' & 'virtuality' then we have QM (entanglements, undefined arrow, tunneling) and then we have Macroscopicallity, with Einsteins SpaceTime.

And the only thing I know about Space macroscopically is that it contain 'distance' or, if you like, that it have a real part of our three dimensional 'space' working inside our arrow. any try to diminish (a pun) a Lorentz contraction will need to explain how it 'shrinks' the distance in 'Space'. And you can't, not as I know it? There is no 'light' to labor with there.

So why do space 'shrink' with motion? What was speed regulated by? It wasn't 'Zero Motion' right? In fact only regulated by one thing 'lights speed in a vacuum'. Look at that as a fish looks at the underside of water, as something 'real'. Then look at the opposite, no 'motion'. We don't have that, no 'motion' becomes a way of describing infinity to us in that we can't reach it. And that elusive 'distance'? What happened with motion, from your perspective. Nothing to your arrow that you could see, but your universe became so small. So what is a distance? Something contracting and magnifying?

Yep.

At least I think so, take our cube of jello representing SpaceTime, imagine we put it under a equally spread pressure in all points. It 'shrinks' until its matter breaks down into a singularity. And that is what 'motion' seems to create, a tension in your SpaceTime. I say yours because we do not share the same, not as I understands it. The mediator of our common SpaceTime is radiation, and if you like, with that 'information', all taking place macroscopically regulated by lights speed in a vacuum.

That is not true under QM. There the universe entangles, as well as tunnel when needed. Proteins folds by quantum jumps instead of following a linear logic, plants transport 'energy' by entanglements. I wouldn't be surprised if, was it Penrose? is right in that we too at that plane use entanglements and tunneling. QM laughs at 'distance' and 'times arrow'.

So how do we get from there to here?  'Magnify & contract'.
=

And if that is true you need to stop looking at distance as only a straight line. It can't be that. A distance will be a representation of a ? Cone ?? (let's use cone for the moment, to give us that real 3D feeling, real 'cone' reality is of course 4D, but a 3D cone will suffice for our imagination:) widening or shrinking with your motion and also 'time' as part of it. Motion being a 'cone' plastered with 'time'. There is nothing 'one dimensional' in our macroscopic world. As soon as you're over Plank size I expect every point to be in glorious 3-D plastered in 'time' and propagated in macroscopic 'times arrow'.

You need to think about this for a while, as I :)
But I think I'm right here.

=
Some wild speculation, okay, wilder then :)

If you look at motion from the concept of energy, where will that energy be near light? Contracted in front of you, right? What will you see looking to the rear of your ship? Nothing of what should be there I think, you will see the bended light representing what's in front of you. Possibly you will see some red shifted light, but the closer you come to lights speed the less it should be, and at some point I would expect that red light to become unmeasurable for you too. And at near light your 'SpaceTime cone' ahem :) should end in yourself. That will mean that though you, possibly, I'm not sure what will happen as a universe 'stops', or if it does? Possibly can go on 'forever', until your natural death at least, inside your 'arrow of time & frame of reference' aka room time geometry 'times arrow'  as observed from another 'frame' will lose its meaning. Do you see what I mean? That 'times arrow' need a 'space' too, and your own 'SpaceTime' is so contracted there that you shouldn't even be observable from any other 'frame of reference'. In fact I suspect you have stopped to 'exist' for any other 'frame' in our common SpaceTime, speeding that fast.
==

You might want to argue that if we only had another ship speeding beside it, being at rest with it, it still would 'exist'. And that's true, but neither of those ships will be measurable. You might ask yourself what measuring means for this one. And as I see it a measurement is defined by your measuring, simple as that. If you can't make that measurement, well, then it's not 'there', simple as that again. Prove me wrong :)

You might, to see this question, imagine what would happen to you if that ship, contracted as it is relative you, you still being at rest relative it at Earth, passes through Earth. At what contraction will it stop being noticed by Earths matter? Or do you expect that enormous 'relative mass'/energy-momentum' to express itself, any contraction notwithstanding? I'm not sure about that, if there is a momentum 'collected' in its 'compression' then that added 'energy' expresses itself strangely in that, assuming your ship is moving in a uniform motion, there will be none to be measured, and that from any frame of reference. The only time you will get a measurement is in a 'interaction', as I understands it? And, as you're constantly getting closer to light you must contract, as I expect becoming as small as a 'particle' relative your origin, or smaller possibly all the way 'down' to Planck scale, as seen from our Earthly 'frame', being at rest.

==

There is a problem here though :)
The contraction is only working in the direction of your motion.
Shows you the danger of letting your imagination run free.

So your 'width'  will be the same. That shoots down that example, but still, I think the idea works and also, what happens to a contraction taken to its extreme? Is there a 'stop' for it relative the speed of light, and the observer watching it, being 'at rest' relative it.
==

Still, another question, what will happen with something moving close to light speed relative you, contracted in its motion, if you also start to spin it close to light. And how many rotations could you do on it? Two? How about spheres inside spheres? they should crack right, but rockets spinning round their axle then, should be the same though, shouldn't it?
« Last Edit: 23/02/2011 09:49:44 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #209 on: 24/02/2011 09:30:08 »
Anyone ever wondered about alchemy :)

We seem to be doing the modern equivalent of it, in white coats instead of mantles with stars on but? And weirdest of all, it seems to work out? Then, on the other hand, what did you expect? A mechanical clock with you as the automata bending to some constructors instructions? Naaah, any universe worth living in should present us a free will, and the sheer possibility of us able to questioning it should show you that we have it too. It leaves a lot on our shoulders, it will be us that define right from wrong, justice from injustice. There are no 'laws' of how to be 'a real human being', it's just us, creating them as we live. That's also why the world looks like it does. The western ideas of democracy and liberty is just one of the ways to live, and without you realizing and defending those ideals it will soon be gone. That includes testing that democracy, constantly. If it fails those tests? Well, then it will be something else, no matter what you like to call it.

To me we're just animals, honed for self preservation primarily, and if that includes working in groups so be it. A lot of animals can present the same flock behavior as us. But, we have also this strange ability of 'conserving' our past, remembering it, writing it down and using it to create a better future. Only, that future can only be as good as your ideals. We've just lifted ourselves from the medieval way of thinking, in where we treated each other as 'resources' and 'property'. And I hope we're trying to do better now, but we're still missing out on most of the rest of the flora and fauna of this planet.

We're no guardians of Earth, never was, the last three four hundred years we've moved from being a part of its animal kingdom to becoming a sore on it, using it shortsightedly for our own enrichment. But the planet is very small today, and with its resources shrinking getting smaller for each fleeting hour.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #210 on: 11/03/2011 06:13:48 »
Some weird questions and musings, or something?

Anyway, let's start with SpaceTime. I will now state that any position in SpaceTime is decided by possibly 'four things' or two. Your position in space and your time. Your position in space can only be 'relative' something else as I understand it, but how about time? Is that also a relative thing? If you look at time dilation it seems so, doesn't it? In quantum physics you can have two systems being in the exactly same state initially, but bifurcating into different states. If you have that, what differ them?

Their position in SpaceTime? As if time had a relation to your overall position? But a time dilation is relative motion, isn't it? So something more than only position spatially and temporally, or else ? A different 'SpaceTime'? Because that is what you see with a time dilation/Lorentz contraction isn't it? You have two choices here, either look at it with eyes of a God. Then everything in SpaceTime will be relative your observation 'outside' it, and you see the 'time dilation', and also Lorentz contraction, in a 'universal sand box' or you're inside this universe. Then you will see a different SpaceTime for every phenomena at the same time as your own 'time' always will be the same. Can a quantum system be relativistic? The sizes we look at is very small so you could say that all 'distances' is magnified relative what you look at, do you agree?

If you look at it that way, a small difference in position should give a large result, if that assumption was right.
==

Think of time as being of one measure, exchange magnifying for a larger chunk of time instead, just as you did when you considered the relative 'distance' for a particle relative it 'size'. This is my feeling, that time can be exchanged in this way. Don't know how much sense it makes, but it binds together time dilation and Lorentz contraction, I think, with the 'relative size'. There is more to it of course. Smolin is very interesting in his musings. It's just that I don't like the idea of 'crisscrossing dimensions'. Otherwise I think he makes a lot of sense, well, to me he does. He's one of the few taking Einstein seriously it seems, and trying to fit SpaceTime to the very small. And any assumptions doing otherwise introduce two concepts. People gets confused by Einsteins views on QM and assume that because he didn't find QM 'appropriate' it can't be the same as SpaceTime. But I think he was just human, we all have our assumptions, and those regulate our choices. I start with assuming that SpaceTime is real, and that Einsteins ideas macroscopically was correct. Then I look at QM and wonder where it fits in. Because in a universe built on relations you must have them geometrically too. At least I assume so.
==

It's more than than that. I assume a fractal universe, and why I do so is because that seems to be the way our universe transfer 'information'. Look at yourself, you're one big piece of 'information' but once you were only a egg fertilized by a spermatozoa. And look at nature, everything start so small, growing in information from that. You have two choices, either you expect all information to be already there, at anythings beginning, or you define everything as 'fractally growing'. I believe everything use that way, SpaceTime too, that means exactly what it say by the way. Space does it, time does it, 'dimensions' does it. Yeah, I'm the ultimate 'copy cat', I think the universe knows what it's doing, we just have to look at it the right way, sort of :)
==

So let us take a look at superpositions and HUP (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) from my new perspective. If everything is fractal, what do the universe need to create us? Think about it. Instead of looking at those 'property's' as mysteries they become the minimalistic blueprints for what a universe need (to become as ours). They are 'constants' in a sense, defining our universe, just as the Planck scale do (well, I think it to do so anyway:)
==

Another question. Assume that I am right in that the 'expansion' comes to be with every point of it in glorious 3D, and time, immediately. That means all 'dimensions already 'there' in each point. What kind of universe would it need to be for this to happen? Not singular dimensions finding new 'space' crisscrossing and binding it to us, but every point already perfectly formed, as our SpaceTime 'notice' it. A little like a whale breaking 'surface', his back becoming the new 'distance'. Maybe it's possible to imagine it two ways? New 'space' coming to us, or us opening for new 'space'? Like we were 'sinking' into more space? Don't know, but I still think it has to be in 3D and time 'instantly', no delay. But how do you think such a universe should be 'constructed' to allow for such a behavior? It has to be a self like magnifying effect I think, a fractal behavior.
=

Depending on how fast you assume 'space' expanding, new 'distances' created, depending on that you also should notice 'gravity' change, shouldn't you? Inverted 'gravity waves' sort of as 'gravity' is presumed to 'propagate' at 'c'. But I don't think it does, I think the 'gravity' already existent in those new stretches 'instantly', already there. That doesn't mean that I doubt gravity waves, just that I doubt our new 'space' needing those propagating. But that is just a guess, building on my idea of a 'infinite gravity' as I believe a singularity/black hole to represent.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2011 08:06:21 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #211 on: 12/03/2011 14:10:53 »
So I've been discussing 'energy'. It's a interesting concept. Especially if we look at a Black hole. That is the 'end state' of a compression. So, how about a gravitational wave, would that 'compress' you too? So here goes nothing :)

"Einstein derived a formula for the rate of change (known as the quadrapole formula), and in the centenary of Einstein's birth, Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor reported that the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 bore out Einstein's predictions within a few percent.  Hulse and Taylor were awarded the Nobel prize in 1993."

This one gives me a big headache :) Because I'm not sure how Einstein thought about quadrapole gravitation,  ('Unlike EM, which is a vector field (and can cause dipole radiation), gravity as a rank-2 tensor field cannot radiate monopole or dipole'). Was it only applicable to motion, did he see matter as the source, what about uniform motion? Did he imagine gravity to radiate? No way. Not that I know at least. But the modern way seems to be to assume that gravity indeed can 'radiate'. And why that assumption is made seems to be the idea of everything being ultimately 'the same'. That means that if gravity can be translated into 'radiation' we have a equivalence to EM (electro magnetic) radiation. You got to be impressed by those finding themselves sufficiently advanced to 'correcting' general relativity into something, theoretically fitting, a possible 'Toe', but? Are they right?

Normally when you find yourself needing to correct something it's because it is wrong. So are GR wrong? Not that I know? Does it 'explain' what  gravity is then? Well, in a way it does. It tell us how to look at gravity, even though it doesn't pinpoint its exact cause. Gravity seems to be a result of 'energy' and 'matter'. The question then becomes how? If we assume that there are two causes we're complicating it but if we look at the end state we find 'energy'. So 'energy' then? But then we have the momentum changing it too, don't we? And in this case 'accelerations' not uniform motion but accelerations only. So, if a acceleration creates a gravitation and a gravitation is 'energy' in its end-state, then a acceleration must contain that weird property 'energy'. Do you agree?

Now we need to look at that spaceship accelerating again. Can we measure that 'energy' in it? Does its atoms 'jiggle', does it 'glow' with its acceleration? Has its 'invariant mass' increased? Not that I know.

So where is the 'energy' situated? Well, in the 'energy' and that should be? The stress energy tensor maybe? And what was that, well, it's a solution to gravity describing it as a combination of several 'effects' including momentum. So, not in the spacecraft but in ?? Space? Yep. In 'space'. But, in the 'space' of the spacecraft accelerating only, and that's important to me as it connects to my idea of every 'room time geometry' (frame of reference) being unique.

The next question, considering relativity should be. From which 'frame' will it be measurable? I just said it wasn't, didn't I? Well, it's not as far as I know, not in its 'eigenstate' but when that spacecraft accelerate we do feel a gravity, and a gravity becomes 'energy' solely, inside a black hole.
« Last Edit: 12/03/2011 15:41:41 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #212 on: 12/03/2011 14:39:24 »
But if 'gravity waves' doesn't radiate? How the he* do they 'propagate'?

Well, think of a jello that you hit at the side. You now introduced 'kinetic energy' in it 'propagating'. Don't get stuck on the captions like 'kinetic'. It's just our way of separating different types of Newtonian 'action and reaction'. But you won't find one single honest physicist, or mathematician able to tell you where you can lift up a ounce of 'energy' to look at. Still, if you take offense here, finding yourself 'knowing' what energy 'really is' I'm willing to debate, ah, in some other thread.

I see it as just 'energy'. We see it in transformations, and we think that it has a 'ground state' of its own, at least I do. Like it can 'exist' on its own, as in our black holes center, not that we will be able to 'see' it. But in a way I think we do, and I think we have a another name for it too, or at least for a expression of it. Gravity.
==

So how do they 'propagate', and why do we expect them to stay inside 'c' if so? 'C' is easy to answer, it's about our Jello, SpaceTime. Four properties it has (Yoda:) length, width, height and 'time'. And it's your own little cube, and mine, and his, and that rocks too. Yeah, it rocks :) Or if you like, our 'common' SpaceTime's. That's where you live, and everything you ever will experience are defined from inside that place, so if there is 'gravity waves' propagating in 'space' it too will have to obey those 'laws' constricting our Jello. And one of them, a really big one, is the speed of light in a vacuum. But entanglements and tunneling then? They are QM effects, not macroscopic, and whilst tunneling may be said to contain 'information' in a way, entanglements don't, I think? I'm not entirely sure there as there is the idea of entangle 'energy', so maybe both tunneling an entanglements are able to do so. But the 'energy' is still something expressed in a interaction locally, not having 'moved' as in 'propagating. One of the reasons I wonder if light really, reallly :) 'propagates'.

Yep, wild speculations he has (Yoda:)

So how does those 'waves' propagate? I think of it as 'SpaceTime' contractions 'propagating'. There is nothing moving at all, but there is a contraction that to us inside our arrow 'propagates' like a 'vibration' inside a spiders web. So is that a energy? After all, didn't I say I thought gravity and 'energy' was coming from the same source, or more correctly gravity being a property of 'energy'? Yep, I did :) But gravity is no 'force' and the 'energy' contained in gravity express itself only as a 'preferred direction', or as geodesics if you like. When that book falls of the table it's following a geodesic, it's 'potential energy' is a result of its position relative its final interaction, and so a description of relations between the invariant mass of the book, Earth's invariant mass, the 'space' it falls in, 'times arrow' and the final interaction as it meets the ground. No new 'energy' situated anywhere specific, but all of it relations relative motion.
==

To me there exist only one type of energy in a object, as I can see that is? The 'energy' expressed in a objects 'jiggling' or added in its 'invariant mass'. All other types seem to me as conceptual definitions of 'energy', expected, and inherent to any arbitrarily defined 'system' as observed under the arrow of time. Not existing in any isolated object in other words, but still there as a conceptual expectation of what the 'systems' interactions and transformations will result in. And 'energy' do get lost, if you want to define the conservation of energy as 'nothing disappearing', but accepts the idea of entropy there has to be a state where 'energy' as such stops being able to interact but still will be existent in 'SpaceTime' at some 'lowest state'.
« Last Edit: 12/03/2011 16:23:02 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #213 on: 12/03/2011 18:30:05 »
Look at it this way, define a system accelerating relative you. That system will have a different 'clock ticking' and also observe a different SpaceTime relative you. That you can transform their view, or any other view, into yours just tells you that there is a principle behind it. If a time dilation and Lorentz contraction is just a illusion then it wouldn't matter, but as far as I understand it isn't. And their 'gravity' will differ from yours too, as seen in the accelerated frame they will observe a gravity not experienced by you. But only in a accelerated frame. Let any acceleration/speed become uniformly moving and they will suddenly become equivalent. You won't be able to differ them inside your black room, ignoring tidal forces. And the light from your light bulb will shine the exact same as it did on Earth, no 'extra energy'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #214 on: 14/03/2011 01:01:16 »
You might not know this but I'm sort of particular when it comes to what I think is 'real energy' conserved, at least when it comes to objects of invariant mass :) Jiggling and 'invariant mass'. That's what I trust in. But then we have all those other definitions, like potential energy, kinetic, and how people seem to define and confine those to arbitrarily defined 'systems'.

Let us imagine a static universe. In 3D of course and with some lovely globes put up here and there. Nothing moving, so our warped 'space' will keep its perfect 'warpiness'. I like to think of everything being 'relations', don't I? Like a interaction only being defined by its relations, here and now.

Let us now assume that in this static 'SpaceTime' we still need some 'principles' keeping our objects where they are. Those principles could be seen as potentials too, that is relations, that will change character if I would move one of those celestial objects. Now you need to consider what limit that relation, is it only its closest neighbor that will be influenced as I moved it? Or is it the whole of that SpaceTime?

To define that we need to consider if a SpaceTime can 'know' itself. What do you think, can it know itself. If you say no you will have to create a definition for where the limit for it 'knowing about itself' goes, if you say yes you don't really have to do a thing :) The next question will be, radiation or gravity? Which one do you expect to define that SpaceTime. I say gravitation, that as I do not believe a SpaceTime can exist without 'gravity' being present. But it can exist without 'radiation', at least the classical macroscopic light.

Looked at this way 'potential energy' becomes slightly more palatable for me. It's a major definition we use for some of those relations that exist between all celestial objects, and Space, and motion. The problem I have with it is the idea that it somehow 'exist' before the interaction. That can't be true as I see it. But then we come to the stress energy tensor. If that 'potential energy' doesn't exist, where do the stress energy tensors 'energy' hide then? It's not in the mass, well, some is but not all, it's not in the motion (momentum), well, some is but not all. And then it's said to be in the stress acting on matter, and the pressure. It's also hidden in the metric of SpaceTimes warping as I understand it.

So can we use our static universe for this one? We agree that it is built out of the relations defining all objects relative each other, don't we? And those relations, is that what Einstein meant with the stress energy tensor? Why not, I think it is, what keeps our celestial objects 'aware' of each other is the 'stress energy tensor'. It doesn't matter that this new universe is static and unmoving, as long as 'gravity' binds it together it has a stress energy tensor. Am I right? So some of the relations in it becomes the 'potential energy'. You can define those there too, even though no interactions take place macroscopically, but, and here's my question, would you have invented it there? That we see 'potential energy' as 'existing' in a object I think has to do with our universe expressing itself in 'relative motion'.

us included :)
« Last Edit: 14/03/2011 01:09:02 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #215 on: 25/03/2011 15:24:26 »
Some things I wrote elsewhere still bothers me. Remember that it is questions, even when sounding like statements. I'm fickle :)

Most problems with how to see 'gravity' seems to come from that there has to be 'something' doing it, right? And if you want to see 'something' then quanta is near to use. Or a 'field'. Of those two I like 'fields' better, but what if everything is a field? SpaceTime as a 'field'? Then you would need to invent descriptions for the differences we see, wouldn't you? Space, matter etc.

So what would you call it? Densities? But that seem to assume that space too has a 'density'. Now those of you into QM will point out that it has :) but you still have to explain the classical view, which, if you want to be fair, is the one we really 'see'.

I'm not sure I like densities. I think we should use the word 'field' as in a Jello of four properties, or maybe two, three? gravity and 'distance' and 'time'. Of those three you can put gravity and distance as one and the same. So then we have two gravity and time. Those two and the 'field', or do they make the 'field'?

what happens with a particle when time is reversed?
=

As if 'gravity' would be the background  from where our 'particles' emerge, to dance under the causality chain of 'times arrow'.
=

If it was so, as a assumption, when we 'reverse time' we don't get rid of matter, do we? Feynman had an idea of 'time' communicating, as if a causality chain also could be seen as a 'process'. A whole 'chunk' of SpaceTime sort of. It depends on how you look at 'time'. I have this weird idea of 'SpaceTime' coming to be fractally, as some weird dot expanding everywhere, with the arrow giving us the causality we need to create linear orderings. Like as if the real thing was at a 90 degree angle to our 'reality'. And I'm not thinking new 'dimensions' here. Take a rectangular box and turn it, it will look different to you. Make that box into four properties, our 'classical ones. Time, length, width and height. That's all we need to define a 'SpaceTime', maybe? With 'gravity' and 'energy' being two important properties manifesting in it. To get the box we need 'something'. Maybe 'energy', maybe 'gravity' but something. That's the 'field'. Can 'time' create structures?
=

To me time is a 'field' encompassing all properties. It's the 'ocean' in where SpaceTime swim. SpaceTime get its definitions from the way we observe our arrow. We find that the arrow isn't 'everywhere', but we also need to remember that whatever we measure, we do it under that arrow. All definitions you draw of 'reality' is created from one point of view. Inside our arrow, so?

(Typical wanted to modify it, but clicked on 'delete' :)

Anyway, assume that all is radiation. Then our 'virtuality' is radiation too, so, what differs them?

Time.

It has to be time, and its arrow, and that 'arrow' has to be a property of 'SpaceTime' classically.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #216 on: 25/03/2011 15:36:39 »
How about this then?

Radiation and times arrow defines your observations, and SpaceTime. We all see different 'SpaceTimes' as proven classically by Einstein. Accepting that all uniform motions can have different time dilations, as well as 'speeds' relative some common origin, but still being impossible to separate inside a 'black box' makes it possible for me to state that a Lorentz contraction must be real. It also questions what 'gravity' really is. Because all uniformly moving frames are the same, no gravity there, and they can all be defined as being 'at rest'.
==

It all depend on how far one should take equivalence and symmetry.

"These days Einstein’s once-lonely quest engages thousands of physicists around the world, most of them string theorists. While their work is grounded in quantum mechanics, it relies heavily on some of the same components that Einstein used. According to string theory, the fundamental constituents of the physical world are not pointlike particles, but infinitesimal, one dimensional loops, or strings. All the particles and forces in the universe arise from these strings vibrating at different frequencies. But here’s the catch, and no doubt it would have made Einstein smile: The strings need 11 dimensions in which to vibrate. And these extra dimensions are described by essentially the same mathematics that Einstein used in his own five dimensional unified field theory."

I think you need to take it the whole way. Because you can't really trust the 'arrow of time' not to skew 'reality'. At the same time as it is the very thing making it possible for us to question and 'think' it is also a description of an island. A temporal one with you being in the exact middle of two cones, both widening. One is called history, or your past, and it widens the further back you look. The other one is called the 'future' and it is infinitively wide, even though limited by that same history you carry with you. The future is an 'infinity', there is no known limit to it. You might expect your history to become its limit, but that's not the truth. There is no way to grant a certain outcome other than 'probabilities' and although probability and statistics may 'normalize' the choices available, here and now, they are no guarantee for anything. The impossible may happen, if it does it's no longer impossible, but your reality. That it in 99 ~ % doesn't is not the guarantee.

And 'time' is something different from 'times arrow'.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2011 16:35:12 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #217 on: 08/05/2011 03:07:22 »
Well, I've seen a lot of new thinking recently. Now, I'm sort of old fashion, I think Einsteins theories still hold. I find space to be empty, period. I do not find the equivalence principle to be questionable, rather the opposite, the more equivalences you find the closer you will be to a truth. I have some great difficulties with defining 'frames of reference' though, but I have a solution that might work for me, so let's start with that one.

Imagine the universe as dots. Each dot represent a locality as defined from you. Each dot can be described by a position relative you, a time relative you (or it), and a gravity. Now define it so that whenever I discuss a 'dot' I do in form of 'fermions'(matter particles). even though some of my arguments will discuss the properties of bosons (light) I'm still talking fermions here.

In my all so weird universe I will now define each dot as unique. Well sure, it is you say but you haven't heard it all, yet :) Let's look at why I call it unique. First of all, each dot will have its own local gravity, the gravity coupled to matter and possibly energy. Then it also will have a 'local' time. This time that I call 'local' I expect to have a, what I call, 'ground state'. I can't prove that assumption more than pointing out that if you agree on, if superimposing a dot upon another dot they will both share the exact same experience, then you can see where I start from. In Einsteins universe the closer those dots are together the closer their descriptions will be, assuming them to be at rest relative each other.

The other assumption I make is that what the superimposed dots share in form of time and space actually will be equal to any other superimposed dot. And to see the relevance here you just need to take any dot, anywhere in this SpaceTime positional system and superimpose it on the two dots I already created. So far so good :) I hope this to be relatively sane.

In my universe each dot represent a own universe. That means that no fermion can be said to share the same universe. And there is my definition of 'frames of reference'. How about bosons then? Well, those are what binds our islands together, isn't they? Your universe, as well as mine, is coupled by bosons.

But if it is as I think, that light doesn't propagate? How the he* do they do it? And that's where our arrow takes form. The arrow used for defining 'SpaceTime' is one big mysterious constant. Unchanging as far as we can prove, always with the same 'speed' relative any measurement made. Be it measured from a inertial frame, like we define Earth to be, or from a speeding rocket, it will always present us with the same constant 'speed'.


So how can radiation connect fermions over 'distances' if it doesn't propagate? And here the real fun starts :) If this is right you can forget your definitions of distance. They are real for us but they are also a expression of a room time geometry, unique for each observer. As I said earlier I don't really know what one should call it instead of 'distance' but I'm leaning to magnifying/contracting effects in time.

And yes, all of this is purely conceptual, although grounded in what I understand as the theory of relativity. But to me it's very interesting as it describes a universe where our macroscopic definitions lose their relevance. Your 'time' becomes, although 'locally' invariant, a fluid phenomena when compared to any other 'frame of reference' and any 'distance' will only be true relative your gravity and motion (and possibly energy). And all positional systems made will be seen slightly differently as we cannot be superimposed on each other.

My universe becomes a conceptual illusion, at least if assumed to be one and the same for us all. If you can accept that your and mine will be different, then the question becomes what we see? What is it, this universe?
« Last Edit: 08/05/2011 03:09:33 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #218 on: 08/05/2011 21:19:34 »
One big problem with a definition like mine is that we will need something that creates the coherence we see macroscopically. that means all those different 'dots' that all see 'SpaceTime' slightly different. If there was no organizational principle those 'dots' should never be able to be assembled into matter.

So?

What would that principle be? We know one thing though, depending on 'size' things seem to change, as well as principles. So 'size' seems to have to do with it, and 'time'?

« Last Edit: 09/05/2011 07:00:14 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #219 on: 09/05/2011 07:01:11 »

I have one more thing that I'm truly wondering about. What is gravity?

I'm starting to think that gravity and space is one and the same? And that is a very weird thought :) But assume that it is, that gravity is what defines space. Then nothing without gravity will ever exist for us. But every geodesic is a state of 'no gravity'? But there we come to my definition, although I might change it slightly later, as for now I think of geodesics as places where 'gravity' still is existent although, due to the objects geodesic, unmeasurable, ignoring tidal forces.

I can define it as a geodesic being at rest with gravity, and then I will define a object gravitationally accelerating towards a event horizon as trying to be 'at rest' relative gravity too. And we know where the limit goes, don't we :)

Yep, the unvarying constant speed of light in a vacuum. And that speed is the clock that tells you your arrow too. You have only one arrow, the one you can measure first handedly. That arrow never changes although all other frames of reference will relative yours as you move, or change gravitational potential.

I really like this idea, you can combine it with motion, Lorentz contraction and the Bekenstein bound, play with it a little and see where it takes you. You might also do well to consider that if motion is a way of changing a geometry, could gravity be the other side of that coin? As I said , weiird :)

==

When I say 'the other side of that coin' I'm actually wondering over QM.
Try to see why I would do so. It will blow your mind away if you see the same as I, it did mine )
But it's just a thought experiment.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #220 on: 10/05/2011 12:31:15 »
I said that I expected SpaceTime to be able to exist without radiation above. I don't think that is true reconsidering it. Every interaction we know we expect to use radiation as force carriers. So with no radiation no exchange of energy. But it opens for one interesting question. Consider a 'SpaceTime' where there is no exchange of energy, will it have a 'time'?
==

Another thing I'm wondering about. In a Lorentz contraction you either can define the distances you observe being 'contracted' to belong to your 'frame of reference' or, it being itself that actually is 'contracted'  you keeping your 'size' as always. To observe a 'distance', finding it contracted, should mean that it is the relation between you and whatever object you're aiming for that have changed, shouldn't it?

How would a distance contract otherwise, as observed inside that space craft. To me 'frames of reference' is a interplay by 'force carriers/virtual photons' and 'real photons'. But 'virtual photons' may not need to obey our light constant whereas what we define as real, observable, photons all do so.

Why? Think of a Rindler explorer, watching virtual light becoming real. measurable, light. What differs that light from 'regular photons'? Nothing as far as I can understand. You can use it to drive your solar cell. So why does this light adapt itself too the light constant?

What changed its behavior. In itself it had no 'constant', as we define virtual light. And why didn't it have a constant? Time? It was outside of our arrow, right? And by inducing 'motion' we changed the way the virtual light acted, introducing it to our arrow? Or did we change our own room time geometry?

I think the later, and if that is true then a Lorentz contraction has to be a whole experience including you. That should mean that you too are affected by it. Not that I see how?
« Last Edit: 10/05/2011 20:47:19 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #221 on: 14/05/2011 20:34:31 »
Above I wrote "Does that mean that it (the universe) can differ between uniform speeds too?
Sure."

Thinking of it I might change my mind there. You can also see it as if Einsteins description of equivalence for all uniform motion is absolute, If you do so then we have two states only. Uniform motion which is a state where all motion is equivalent, and as I tend to, able to be defined as at rest relative gravity (in a geodesic), and the acceleration which then become a time dilation relative any other frame you compare yourself too, or vice versa. As well as a Lorentz contraction as observed by you, which I then define as your own unique 'room time geometry' changes with your acceleration.

That you in your uniform motion, as I think of it now, will keep your time dilation relative other frames, as well as the Lorentz contraction doesn't state that those two phenomena is the same. One is creating a gravity, the other is being at rest relative the gravity. The funny thing there is that we know that this being 'at rest' relative the gravity has a 'stop'. Lights speed in a vacuum, right? :)

So? Could I interchange 'zero speed' for uniform motion?
==

Let's spin on that one for a while. Define all 'speed' as being relative a gravity, then define zero 'speed' as being in a geodesic. What does it leave us with? Accelerations, doesn't it? So, will a time dilation be defined as relative a acceleration only? And what is the difference between a gravity and a acceleration? Or are they the same.

A constant uniform acceleration is according to the principle of equivalence inseparable from a gravity, so, what is 'motion'? We use the word to describe both 'uniform motion' and a 'acceleration', but not for describing a 'gravity' as such. We differ between invariant mass, distorting a space, creating a 'gravitational acceleration' and a non / constant acceleration, creating a motion. We know that 'motion' as such will bring us from 'A' to 'B', no matter if were coasting or accelerating. But the earth is indeed 'accelerating' too, at one constant gravity. But the time dilation is not the same for a object set into motion from 'A' to 'B' at one constant gravity, as it will be for us staying on earth.

« Last Edit: 20/05/2011 04:46:55 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #222 on: 21/05/2011 02:09:37 »
I think I will finish this of with pointing out one thing.

I talk about 'time' as being on of only one 'size'. That 'size' is the same wherever you go and whatever you do. In causality there is only the now in where you perceive something. Assume that a star explodes in front of your eyes, a million light years away. Although an astronomer might define that as something happening a million years ago it will, according to how I see it, happen 'now. The simple proof for how i see it is the hard radiation depicting its death. That radiation you receive 'now', no matter that around the source there might have been such one million years ago, according to the sources own 'frame of reference'.

Causality agree with me there, and so does the definition I use of 'time' as always being of the 'exact same durations.'

And with that I'll take my leave, for now :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #223 on: 29/05/2011 22:52:11 »
I have some weird thoughts i need to get rid of. I will start with a assumption of mine. there are no two, or one, dimensional 'systems' inside SpaceTime. That doesn't mean there can't be other dimensions than what we perceive, just that we won't perceive them. ´The other assumption I will make for now is that those 'unseen dimensions' 'existing', if so, should be of a higher order. Then there is one more that I can't remember for the moment :) Typical ain't it? As they say, had it on my tongue just a moment ago. I think I will blame that one on having a too male mind..

Anyway, hopefully i will remember it, someday. Oh, now i remember, the other assumption is that in any 'system' described by 'dimensions' you always will find then 'undividable'. I'm not sure of the idea of they needing to be higher, although I am sure on us not having one or two dimensional systems existing here.

To me it's like axioms. But then we come to time, in Einsteins universe 'times arrow', or time itself, is a dimension. imagine this universe as a box, then you can count on its corners and get a number, half that number and you will get a square. It goes like this, a straight line has two 'endpoints', give it a width and you got four, make it a box and you got eight. That would then represent a three dimensional 'universe'.

You can define 'infinity' several ways it seems. Maybe nothing is 'infinite' if one add a dimension. Depending on how you look at it you could define 'earth as 'infinite'. After all, you will never be able to walk to its 'end', no matter how long you walk. But if we define a 'dimensional system' after its corners, or 'endpoints'. How do we treat a sphere?

And how do we treat time? There is something really elusive with time, if we are to trust relativity, as I understands it, then your time as well as mine have only one constant duration, unchangeable. That one must be true, everything we ever see tell us so. That you are born, live a while, and then die. But then we have the fact that Einsteins 'room time' can be 'displaced' relative your motion, and mass/energy. That it can be so is defined by the geometries changing shape relative the observer. And that just means that as you 'move' very fast that room in where your personal clock ticks change shape relative other observers rooms. and yes, mass/energy can do the same.

If this is true then there are two ways to look at it, as an illusion or as something 'real'. As Einstein defines it, it must be real. If it is real then you need to ask yourself what are changing in it. Your time doesn't, it will always have the same durations as you measure it. But if you're the observer looking at someone in a 'fast motion' relative you, then you will define it as that light clock ticking slower. But as he looks at you, he will find it to be your light clock ticking slower. Why? Because it's a geometry consisting of two 'end points', you and him, and the 'relative motion' introduced between you defines SpaceTimes geometry equally for both sides. But it's not only you that are affected. One simple proof for defining whose moving relative whom could be to look at which ones 'room time' is most 'equally distorted' in all directions, as it will be the one moving 'for real' that will find the geometry most affected, as it seems to me?


But accepting such a definition we come to SpaceTime where no ones geometry can be the same, same as there can be no exact same 'frames of reference'. Your own invariant clock-ticks and the speed of light in a vacuum. Both seems a 'constants' to me. So is 'time' also a dimension? How? We see that 'distances' can change with motion, mass/energy, but time doesn't?

If that was true, what would a 'time dilation' be? Something related to radiation? Why would radiation create that?
« Last Edit: 29/05/2011 23:53:40 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #224 on: 29/05/2011 23:22:14 »
You might point out that we won't ever be able to perceive any one dimensional systems, and there I will have to agree. So okay, maybe there is a possibility of one dimensionality? But not two dimensionality. And assuming that dimensions, as there is that 'one-D' possibility, then also sh(c)ould be 'joined', i will now answer that the fact that we don't find any two dimensional systems elegantly proves my point.

Although, assuming that any sort of 'SpaceTime', can be of whatever dimensions, as long as we don't treat them as 'crisscrossing' themselves into that 'higher dimensional SpaceTime' do allow both one and three dimensions to exist simultaneously, but still not two dimensional as those would be perceivable for us.

So could we live in a one dimensional space? In where time and radiation combined becomes a three dimensionality? That one is so weird :)

It all seems to come down to what we define as the 'constants'. I'm sure of light being one, then we have prim numbers that also seems to define our world, And the repeating patterns from chaos theory that you can't divide into a causality chain, meaning that the bifurcations (splits) in themselves are unpredictable and impossible to backtrack to their 'origin' looking back in history, although their overall pattern is predictable.
==

As for a one dimensional world. The primary objection I have against it is that it seems too complicated. Remember that we all 'moves' relative each other. And there we can differ between voluntary motion, and the motion of dead matter. To me it becomes horridly complicated to imagine a universe in where those 'strings' then not only would knit itselfes into shapes, but also assume that some of those shapes had a 'free will', not to speak about inheriting genes DNA/RNA, chemistry and all that other stuff related to 'living'.

Nature does it simple, it seems to use fractal patterns for creating life. I don't think the universe makes it harder upon itself than it needs. Everything seems to be steered by simplicity, as the conservation laws, symmetries, and the concept of 'least energy expended'.
« Last Edit: 29/05/2011 23:47:54 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #224 on: 29/05/2011 23:22:14 »

 

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