The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 281374 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 #225 on: 31/05/2011 22:51:01 »
Ok, I'll try my hand on time dilation. I'm planning to stop this essay, but I'll continue guessing until I do so. So let's try on a time dilation, not from 'frames of reference', although they are everywhere and will need to be mentioned, but from a alternative point of view.

And some of it will seem quite weird.
With all right.

The first thing we need to agree on is that light is a constant. It never changes its pace. You need to see how surrealistic this is, and still understand that it is true. It won't matter if you're standing still, running, or at 99.9% of light speed. That light from your flashlight will still move from you at a speed of approximately 300 000 km/s. The funny thing is that if you light up a person going just as fast as you but in the opposite direction he too will find that light to be at 300 000 km/s. This is the first rule..

The second thing we need to agree on is that 'distance' define the time it take for light to go from 'A' to 'B'. The longer the distance the more 'clock ticks' will pass. That one is more easy to accept, I hope?

Now we just need to consider what happens when you have two mirrors bouncing a light-corn between each other. First they are still beside you and you watch them 'bounce', just like a metronome between those mirrors, one meter 'boiiing' and back 'boiiing' and back again another meter 'boiiiing' a.s.o


Now we let the mirrors accelerate away from you. They are still placed a meter apart and the light-corn is still 'bouncing' between them. So, is anything changed in the 'system' they become as they accelerate? How about the space that light-corn have to pass? Does it have to traverse more space as the mirrors now are accelerating? If you think of it, it has to traverse a further way, doesn't it. As seen from you standing back there, watching the mirror pair move, that light-corn won't go a straight path between the mirrors any longer. Instead it will have to go in diagonal path to catch up with those mirrors. If it kept its 'straight path' as you define it standing still, it would definitely miss the other mirror as that one is accelerating away.

And a diagonal path must be longer than the straight path we had, and so take a longer time to traverse.

But if you was with the mirrors then? Watching them as you too accelerated with them? Would the path be diagonal then too? It can't be, can it? Think about it, you might argue that as long as we're accelerating they will be slightly 'skewed' or bent, and yes, I think you would be right in that case, that's also a equivalence to 'gravity'. But stop the engines and see what happens. You won't be able to define any motion inside a 'black room' on that ship. And you won't be able to differ between speeds either, and that 'light-corn' will, as far as you can measure draw an absolute 'straight line' between those mirrors, bouncing away.

==
It's no use arguing with that one. After all, this is what we see on Earth. And Earth is moving, in several ways depending on your choice of frame of reference.
=


But how the he* does that explain how the traveler will be younger than his 'twin' when coming back? To search for that we first need to make a new assumption. That this light-clocks path, diagonal as it was as seen from Earth, includes all paths taken by any photons on that ship. Those photons are the 'force carriers' between you body's atoms, shuffling around 'energy'. Assuming that they too would be influenced by this motion, we get a picture of how the whole 'geometry' or 'room time' was distorted in that acceleration. Not only the ship, but everything being 'at rest' relative it, including your atoms.

So does that mean that we had 'two' times? One for Earth and one for the ship?

No, it has to mean that motion change the room, introducing a distortion that, as a time dilation, only will be noticeable from the observer 'at rest' versus the ships 'origin' (Earth). Then assuming that speed of light in a vacuum is a constant but that all distances change for those photons we get our 'time dilation'.

But, you, as the traveler, won't notice it. The room you're in won't be distorted as everything still will 'fit' as usual from your point of view inside that 'room time'. Measuring the angles of a triangle should deliver the same sums as normally for you, as everything will be distorted the same way. But the earth observer, if he could see you draw it, wouldn't find that triangle to be the same as you, it would be distorted/skewed.

So how far does this 'skewness' stretch? Is it only the ship? Yep, space is 'gravity', is 'distance', but it's the motion creating the distortion. But the Lorentz contraction then? Well, I expect that to be real too, but from the travelers point of view. In his 'room time' the distances change, not because of him going faster, but because the motion the ship induce on the 'room time' somehow change the relation he has too the rest of the universe, actually contracting it. And that's a really crazy thought, ain't it :)

But it has to be true. So what does it tell us about 'time'? To my eyes it state that 'time' and the 'room' hangs together, they're one thing coupled together by a constant that, to me, should be radiation. Radiation because that's the finest gradation of how we measure our arrow of time, and also because radiation always will present you with the same 'speed'. Time as such never change for any of those two, the earthbound or the traveler. What do change is the 'room time' they observe the opposite part to have. And as we can isolate the acceleration to one object, the ship, then the time will change for that as well as its geometry should become skewed as observed from Earth. But when we go to how the shipmates see it, then they will have all those objects (stars & stuff) around them not expending any 'energy', just following the same geodesics (paths) as always. So there is no way those objects 'room time' can be distorted, but space can. And there I think it has to do with the symmetry.

Time is a constant, just like light. you can't 'distort' a constant, if you can it won't be one. Distance on the other hand can't be a constant, because if it was the whole scenario I described would just be a illusion and in 'reality' there would be no way for motion to introduce two geometries (including time in this), both valid simultaneously (at a conceptual frame this is). In reality you can't have simultaneous happenings if all frames of reference are slightly 'skewed' against each other. And as seen from the example with atomic clocks moving one to the floor, watching the 'time dilation' introduced relative the clock left on the table. Time dilations are everywhere. But they are so incredibly small that we can't notice it normally.

It leaves us in a universe where we all are defined as a island, connected by radiation that also becomes our 'clocks'.
==

I better point out that when I write 'geometry' nowadays I usually include 'time' in it. So when you see me write geometry I most probably mean 'room time geometry'. And also, there are several more conclusions you can draw from the reasoning if it would be correct. And I plan to draw them :) Not guaranteeing that they will make sense to you though :)
==

An addendum; I used the description 'force carriers' for 'ordinary' photons. To me all photons are force carriers, not only 'virtual photons', but all. Still, we don't really need this definition, we just need to agree on that the longer the path, the more 'clock ticks' will there be. So everything will, according to our earthbound observer, take more 'time' on that ship, including all chemical/biological processes. That is, everything on that ship will be in 'slow motion', as observed from Earth
« Last Edit: 10/06/2011 01:59:33 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 #226 on: 01/06/2011 09:00:07 »
Next step is to decide how you think 'SpaceTime' came to be. I don't mean when, and I'm not particularly interested in if it expands or not. I'm interested in why it exist at all.

As I see it you have two ways to look at this creation. Either from the idea of something created, or as from the viewpoint of something limiting.

Creation: An explosion inflating FTL creating invisible borders, or no borders at all.

Limited: a rip inflating, like a wound ripped open.

Creation: An arrow of time macroscopically, Quantum mechanically diffuse.

Limited: linearity inside non-linearity inside linearity inside non-linearity inside ...

Creation: A defined 'SpaceTime', even though we do not know its 'real borders' its homogeneous and isotropic.

Limited: Something in a equilibrium, in no way excluded from what we can't measure, but the constants limiting it.
==

So what are the 'constants'?
 

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 #227 on: 01/06/2011 09:18:56 »
The arrow of time I believe to be one. But I differ between time as such and its arrow. Probably the real constant is this idea of 'time' itself, as some property just like 'energy'. But we don't live there, if we did we would all know it all I think. We live in a linear reality, that is what gives us our purpose and ability to reason 'logically'.

Compare our 'logical reasoning' to what is expected from a quantum computer. The quantum computer will be immersed in what I think of as 'time', whereas we live in a limited version called the arrow.

The arrow has a clock.

Any clock will be defined by durations. Without durations linearly defined there can be no causality as we see it. Nothing would 'work' in a world where the cup could be broken, unbroken, and all states in between, simultaneously.

So what defines 'Times Arrow'?

Radiation.
 

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 #228 on: 01/06/2011 09:40:57 »
Why do I choose radiation?

Because it has to be. Radiation gives us the exact same experience as time, it will present you with a 'same flow', no matter what you do, travel, or just live. Radiation is our invisible curtain separating, and joining, us together.

So does radiation 'propagate'?

No. At least not as I think of it. If SpaceTime is a rift then there need to be something separating that rift from what exist 'elsewhere'. That's where our 'arrow' comes in, it takes its 'count' from radiation and organize the universe and life in a fractal manner. The 'arrow' creates both what we call 'motion' as well as 'propagation'. In a way it becomes a question of semantics here, as it is perfectly correct to see light as 'propagating'. But from a whole perspective I do not expect it to do so. Not that we ever will live in that perspective.
 

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 #229 on: 01/06/2011 10:03:06 »
So, if SpaceTime would be a 'rift' of some kind, or just a limitation, do it need to expend energy?

Nope.

If we assume it to 'rip open' we would need to define where the 'stress faults' came to be, and so also the 'energy' needed. But you could easily assume that any 'energy' needed for this would lay outside the 'rip', not inside. Not the wound pushing itself open but instead an imbalance with the possible energy expenditure laying 'outside'.

The other way is too look at it as if there was 'something' missing. In that case SpaceTime is where some things, that define whatever 'reality' there might be as a whole, are gone 'missing'. They are excluded, chased away sort of :) by times arrow/radiation. That is at least what I suspect. The whole question of symmetry is to me a local one, it is what defines our SpaceTimes equilibrium. Any symmetry seen will need an enclosure. Without a enclosure there is no way to find a symmetry, you need to see what a symmetry rest upon. A infinitely open solution can't have a symmetry or equilibrium as I see it. There is needed to be 'constraints' set upon your solution for it to become that geometric bubble.

Topology offers us some solutions, like the sphere and the doughnut for describing 'infinity'.
 

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 #230 on: 01/06/2011 10:32:50 »
Looking at it this way the 'energy' created locally in a Big Bang would be, what?

What is a black hole?
==

Created may be a bad choice of words here, maybe 'found' is a better one? If we accept a contracting/magnifying universe then there is a symmetry to size/mass/energy. A Black hole is in some ways the equivalence to a time reversed Big Bang where you find the 'energy' to become indefinably large as its size 'contracts'.

And the Big Bang then?
What mass would it need to be to become 'infinitely energetic'?

Well, any Black Hole is by definition 'infinite'. It doesn't matter what the 'real mass' was as it starts to contract, as long as it stays inside Plank scale at least, do you agree?

So the 'energy' needed is a direct result of its 'magnifying'. Just time reverse what a Black hole is.
==

There are some questionable aspects to this assumption, amongst them the idea that we could get a whole universe from one finite sized 'stress fault' aka 'explosion'. But for this we also are assuming a ocean of gravity/energy 'elsewhere'. With the Big Bang the foundations for SpaceTime was created, from there the rest is a question of how 'space' expands, and what 'energy' it will gain from that. The amount created in that first 'instant' is what made our matter.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2011 10:50:34 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 #231 on: 01/06/2011 12:10:50 »
Now I'm going to take you on a trip :) in a hypothetical universe.

It's going to be very empty, actually there is nothing there. But that 'nothing' is also a infinite 'gravity' acting on you, equally 'spaced out'. As the gravity is perfectly homogeneous and isotropic in there you will find it unmeasurable, and as there can be no 'tidal forces' introduced, it could just as easily be defined as not existing at all.

But it does. As we use 'energy' as an apt description of the outcomes of interactions you might want to define it as a 'ground state' of 'energy' too. But as there is no dichotomy, or 'local imbalances' introduced, there can be no interactions.

So where do 'inertia' come in? In that universe there can be no 'inertia', can it? Inertia is defined by motion, or rather in the unwillingness of 'further' motion. If we define all 'uniform motion' as being at rest with 'gravity', and so equivalent, then inertia exist only in 'interactions', energy expended as in 'accelerations'. So in my universe the equilibrium is seen everywhere you find a geodesic.

Any acceleration will be 'energy expended'. Does that mean that this universe of 'gravity' doesn't 'move'. That depends on if you find a uniform motion to be 'moving'? In our universe uniform motion most assuredly is moving. It will take you from 'A' to 'B' as good as any acceleration. But any 'uniform motion' changing your positional system must have been prefaced by that acceleration. So, if the definition I made is correct, can you have a 'infinite gravity universe' moving too? It depends on what you define uniform motion as. Doing it my way assuming that all 'uniform motion' first must have expended some energy to be defined as 'moving' make it questionable. Looking at it from the point of view that all 'uniform motions' will be inseparable from being 'at rest' makes it possible. Can you join those two statements?

Yep.

I will leave that one to you for the moment.

The important point here is that I think we have another of those weird 'constants' here, as an first assumption that is. Any uniform motion, aka a geodesic, will be equivalent, and at rest with 'gravity'. But then we also have the 'gravity' expressing itself differently inside SpaceTime, don't we? So, if it would be a constant, then there should be something wrong with the way we look on?

Motion?
« Last Edit: 01/06/2011 12:14:26 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 #232 on: 01/06/2011 15:51:01 »
So what would a arrow be from a QM perspective?

Feynman's many paths? Where the probability density and final interference, quenching all paths except one? Or the Copenhagen definition, in where we have 'superpositions' balancing and where your measurement forces a outcome. Both use 'probability' as their starting point though. But Probability doesn't define times arrow, does it?

Time doesn't seem to care about 'probability' at all, it just keeps 'ticking' at the same pace for you, nothing hesitating and all interactions pleasantly laid out as your string of histories, defining your 'now'.

Both definitions seems to question the 'arrow', but the weird thing is that all conclusions drawn from QM is made in that same arrow it questions? To be true to QM the first thing to be questioned should be the linearity in which you made your conclusions, shouldn't it?

But if you did so, nothing could be proved, could it :). So we use the linearity, and when finding that it can produce ambivalent/contradictory results we don't question the assumptions (that it is okay to 'work/define' inside times arrow) from where we got those results, but instead refer to some conceptual idea of 'time' in where the 'arrow' disappear. That is not correct, either we don't have a arrow, or we have one. If we don't have one we will need to find why the illusion of it is so persistent, and then we will need to redefine the way we assume that we can prove it, using that same linearity. Myself I think that this is what entropy tries to do.

I need to rethink that one later, but it is a philosophical quagmire to me. Can you really define walking as 'laying', just by finding that the respiration reminds you of it, as a (very bad) loose example.

Anyway, what we all agree on is that we have interactions, don't we? Real interactions, no matter if you think they are made from EM, gravity, or 'particles' of invariant mass. And we also agree on that those interactions macroscopically following a causality that we experience as the 'arrow of time'. And that all of those 'interactions' are interpreted in/by radiation. Which as it happens, only have one constant 'speed' as measured in 'durations'.

For this I'm constantly defining it 'locally', which means that the 'speed of light in a vacuum' will be found to be 'c' in any frame thought up. Accelerating or not.

I'll come back to that.
==

 
 

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 #233 on: 02/06/2011 12:55:17 »
Okay, another look at time. Define 'times arrow' as a macroscopic property. Define 'time' as a dimension. While we still will have four dimensions at a QM perspective, the properties will express themselves differently. Assume that everything related to 'sizes' is organized in a fractal manner. Assume that SpaceTime is defined by one whole experience, not 'singular dimensions' interwoven in some mystical sense. Let's rest a little trying to define minuscule dimensions, that we never will probe in our macroscopic reality. Define it instead as when 'size' changes the 'properties' change.

Ask yourself how they change, and where the constants might be.
=

And yes, stop worrying about propagation, it's not really relevant from Einsteins Perspective. What he did was to define a 'constant' lights speed in a vacuum, that's the important thing. Whether we call it propagating or not won't matter. It will still be a constant. The only reason I look at it as not propagating is from the viewpoint of simplicity. Everything makes a better sense if I define 'SpaceTime' from interactions, for this ignoring how we interpret the 'relations'. We already made a lot of misses due to the way we took our interpretations as 'the real thing'. Better to treat it as a game with rules, 'constants'.
==

An alternative is to look at 'dimensions' as a cone widening into our macroscopic reality. The cone should be defined by constants, but at no 'size' becoming anything constructed as from 'singular dimensions' interweaving. The cone as such may go 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 or any other definition you might find, with us being safely placed inside 4 dimensions (8+time, or if you like, its arrow.). And yes, what I call 'size' is a direct reflection of that point of view.

« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 01:06:56 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 #234 on: 02/06/2011 16:36:14 »
So, I suggest that there is a 'ground state' of time right? And then I say we all share that 'state' as it should be a 'constant'.

But if it was so why can't any two 'frames of reference' ever be the same? As those atomic clocks showed us? I have two reasons for now, one is that gravity is everywhere where you will find 'Space'. Both me and Einstein seems to think the same there, although he was slightly before me :) and I think he would agree with that there can be no 'space' without a 'gravity' involved. So with gravity being different in every point there can be no two same frames, even though we might find the difference immeasurable small as on the same table I'm sure I'm right there.

The other is the Lorentz contraction. If you as me define that as being 'real' then that will mean that the observer can, and will, change a whole universe from his 'room time geometry' as witnessed as he looks out on a contracted SpaceTime. Remember that diagonal path the photon seemed to take from Earth? Maybe it might be better to describe that as 'invisible boxes' of 'room time', with the diagonal path taken, being the photons diagonal line drawn from the downward corner to uppermost opposite corner? I haven't done any math on that one but it might work? At least it does so intuitively, making our skewed geometry into something that straightens out as you combine the room and time :)

Anyway, if motion really can change a universe, contracting it, then every observer should be alone in his 'room time'? Although, I will admit that there is a small possibility of it being possible to share the absolute same 'frame of reference'. But, to me? It should mean superimposing something actually, and that seems a purely 'bosonic' property.
 

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 #235 on: 04/06/2011 01:17:23 »
I know I wrote this elsewhere, answering a guy wondering about why light always is a constant 'c', no matter your speed, as you receive alternatively send it out. But as it's valid here too? And clarify my post above slightly?

So, why is light always 'c'?

I'm wondering about that one too. You could assume that it a direct result of SpaceTime existing, maybe? That anything 'existing' needs a metronome, and the best metronome we have is light. The arrow of time we refer to macroscopically 'ticks', to me that is, with the speed of light :) Plank time is often said to be the limit for any observations that makes physically sense to us, and the way we defined it, or Plank defined it, is that one Plank time is the time it takes for light to travel in a vacuum, one distance of Planck length.

It seems as a natural choice for the arrow to me. If it is so then it follows that for this to work over a whole SpaceTime you will need light to behave exactly as it does. Giving you the same 'speed' locally in all 'frames' possible. That means that although you will find other frames of reference change relative you (mass, energy, gravity), the 'frame' you define by existing, never change intrinsically. Meaning that if you had a life defined in yards, and we agreed on it being ten yards, you would nowhere find those yards to 'change', measuring it by your own yardstick.

Often the idea of 'clocks' is used to describe different 'frames of reference'. Those 'clocks' will vary with the gravitational potential ('static' as on a planet) and with motion and invariant mass. Then you have the idea of 'energy' as a process too, but that one is defined by 'interactions', so I will just mention it as a possible interference. There has been simple experiments done with extremely sensitive 'atomic clocks' where you have two synchronized on a table and then by moving one to the floor desynchronizing them, elegantly showing that there are no 'frames of reference' that can be said to be the exact same. This is more of a assumption from my side as they were synchronized on the table, but I would expect all positional points inside SpaceTime to differ slightly, which in a way makes it rather hard to define where that own 'frame of reference' should be situated. But we all have one as I think of it, even if it's only conceptual.

And as far as I know this is correct. The time 'measured out' for you, in your own 'frame of reference', where and whatever that may be, does not change. What changes is the relations you have, relative all other 'frames of reference', and that it do with gravity, invariant mass and motion (and 'energy' as an idea). And acceleration is a 'must' for any motion to exist, as far as I know, so that assumption is sort of 'baked in' into any motion defined, relative something else.

But there is also the fact that all uniform motions in a sense (black room scenario) is equivalent, meaning that there is no experiments you can do in there defining that 'motion', no matter what 'speed' you believe yourself to have relative some origin. All uniform motions can be seen as being 'at rest' relative 'gravity' giving you a geodesic. If we would find a possible definition of being 'still' relative SpaceTime, all of this would be wrong though but as it is any uniform motion, including a uniform constant acceleration becomes ambivalent phenomena, and only a non-constant acceleration will prove to you that it is you 'moving' without doubt in Einsteins universe.

If you use the definitions full out then all invariant masses, as planets and suns, are, as far as I can see, gravitationally 'accelerating phenomena, giving 'motion' a whole new meaning to me :)

Although, this is how I see it. And even though I believe it to 'fit' with the theory of relativity there might be others that see those clocks in another way. In a accelerating frame you can use those 'clocks' to define light as having different speeds by setting them up inside that spacecraft accelerating and then measure the 'time' the light takes from A to B and then from B to A. But that is all about the equivalence of acceleration with 'gravity' to me, and as we all know that light always take the path of least (no) energy expenditure that is no proof to me of different 'speeds'.

There is one definition of being 'still' that one could consider though. The one in where you find no 'gravity', being 'at rest' with it as you are in a geodesic. Einstein defined 'gravity' as the metric of SpaceTime as I understand it. And then, if we define uniform motion as being of 'no gravity', the metric could be seen as 'gone'. But as uniform motion will take you from A to B that can't be correct.

Which leads me to my other notion. that this in fact, is a somewhat roundabout proof for his idea of space needing gravity to 'exist'. Because we know that, even though falling of a ladder on earth becomes a momentarily geodesic, that doesn't mean that 'gravity' as such stopped to exist. It just mean that you're 'at rest' relative it, for that short moment.

So Space is defined by 'gravity' to me. That doesn't state that 'invariant mass' and uniform constant accelerations is what 'gravity' must be. It is two properties we know of that according to Einstein can be seen as equivalent with a 'gravity', including the concept of 'energy' too as a guess :)

There might also be a possibility of the coupling to be more of SpaceTimes restricting than 'creating' gravity, as another wild guess :)
==

But, in a very weird way, I can't help but wonder about if you could use this being 'at rest' versus 'gravity' as a definition of a 'null speed'? I'm actually considering it, which proves me to be slightly wacky I'm afraid. Then again, if Einstein was right? 'Motion' becomes a very wacky phenomena too :)

 

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 #236 on: 04/06/2011 14:37:25 »
So can we apply this idea on entropy? One of the most puzzling thoughts about entropy is the idea that it should go from ordered to unordered in both directions temporally. That means that as defined from times reversibility in Quantum physics this law of entropy should find no bias in what direction you look, the future or the past.

But it does. We come from a place with few states and are moving toward a place that we expect to end in a uniform 'heat bath' possibly. Entropy is in a way all about socks, you go and buy them in your store, neatly packaged. Then you start to use them, soon they will be gone, only one to be found when you need them. That can be seen as your rooms entropy has increased and that your other sock now 'joined' that uniform blandness of your room.

Actually it makes my head ache :) You can also wonder if it is correct. As our SpaceTime must have had a lower degree of 'bland uniformity' then the 'micro laws' expected to rule in QM (times reversibility) either should be wrong or we are discussing two different things.

So I think they are right, and that we are discussing two different things. One is the linearity we observe in our arrow of time. The other organizational principle here we call entropy. They are not the same in a QM perspective, there they split but at some stage they seem to join again. Where that stage is? I'm not sure. Consider the definition of lights distance in Planck time. If that was what defined it then I wonder if there could be any reversibility possible? I'm unsure there, it also depends on what you expect particles to be. If you expect them to be 'objects' in their own right and my definition of plank light would be correct 'times reversibility' can't be right. If you instead define it as some sort of fields then you have created a definition in where 'distance' and 'size' becomes uncertain, allowing all kinds of strange combinations. This one is very strange.
==

There is also Chaos theory to consider, and that seems to be more about recognizable patterns coming back at certain interval's. The 'stuff' connecting those patterns, the 'bifurcations' do not allow any temporal reversibility at all. There is no way to backtrack them to what they once was. Considering this I think that entropy is one description, chaos theory is another, and what join them macroscopically is our 'arrow of time'.

You have non-linearity everywhere, in all open systems if 'growing' there must become a non-linearity, meaning that you can't 'backtrack' it if you don't get all the facts, and to get those you would need to be of a divine lineage. And neither will you be able to extrapolate what you know 'now' into a foreseeable future, other than statistically. As a particle suffers from Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle you can see it as in several simultaneous states, superimposed, which also gives you a possibility it seems (?) to count on its entropy, and that is a weird idea indeed. Maybe more of a mathematical trick than anything existing? But then again, if it works? And give us a useful solution?

As I said, entropy phreaks me out in so many ways. But this is a rather good introduction, if you're curious to what I understand it to be. Entropy Is Simple…   If We Avoid the Briar Patches!

I'm not sure time reversibility and entropy are 'compatible'.
Ah well, another one I don't get :)
« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 21:40:40 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 #237 on: 06/06/2011 14:08:43 »
Perhaps it's all about 'frames of reference'.

I can't say why we have constants, but you can do like I do and define them as the 'rules of the game'. Then you will find that lights speed in a vacuum is your arrow of time. The reasons are several, one is that your own 'frame of reference' always will be the same. Another is that all 'clocks' need a metronome.

If your 'out measured' time always is of the same 'amount', not caring for your 'relative motion' or what invariant mass that bends SpaceTime (room time geometry, getting 'distorted' as defined against any other frame of reference) then that 'time' and 'the arrow' should be equivalent. That means that the arrow of time using light as its definition always will give you the exact same 'clock ticks' relative the light you measure locally. And it does.

Why people do not like/use this simple definition? I don't know, you have also 'entropy' and 'chaos theory' as well as 'times reversibility' as defined from a quantum perspective. They all see the 'arrow' differently. But a good thumb rule is to use what you can see macroscopically to be true and then you should see that this definition is quite simple, and also equivalent. when it comes to QM observations they all are made and defined through our 'macroscopic arrow'. So the question there becomes, if it is true that times arrow isn't there, how can you use what's 'not there' macroscopically (if so), to define what's 'not there'?

That doesn't mean that I doubt it, you need to see that the question will be there any which way, and need to be defined/ addressed. Times arrow as seen locally will always 'tick' for you as long as 'lights constant' works. Where that constant becomes indefinable, your arrow becomes indefinable too. Then we have Chaos theory which treats reality as 'patterns' connected through 'bifurcations' (splits) that to their nature can't be 'back tracked', meaning that reality in a way becomes islands of linearity inside non-linearity, inside linearity, etc etc. It's 'time' too on a conceptual plane, but it's not the 'arrow'.

So, to define the arrow I suggest that it's a macroscopic phenomena directly defined to lights speed in a vacuum. To get a definition of why its forward 'propagation disappears' in a Quantum disposition and why it doesn't seem to be seen from a Chaos perspective I suggest that light is a constant, not a 'propagation'. Remember that all of this is from the same perspective that all 'games' are defined. They use 'rules' that we set, or for that sake 'nature' set, those rules define 'interactions' and becomes the limits of our observations.

You will never see light as not 'propagating', the same as you never will see 'the arrow' as not 'ticking', but for the purpose of explaining it you need to lift yourself from that proposition. If light doesn't 'propagate' and we instead define it as a 'metronome' you will have a universal constant defining all 'interactions' from your perspective.

And from that 'perspective' you will in your turn define all other 'phenomena' you see. Depending on where you stand, and what you think is a greater truth you will then find times reversibility, patterns, and entropy.
 

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 #238 on: 06/06/2011 18:28:25 »
Some extremely diffuse Questions.

Can you relate lights 'gravity/mass' to the Higgs field? (or Higg boson?)
As when assuming a 'system' in where you have light traveling against (opposite) each other.

Can you apply lights 'mass' to a BEC too?

If we use the definition of 'energy' being 'mass' then a BEC should reduce the 'mass'. And as it does so with helium4/3 we get all those weird 'bosonic' properties, which make a certain sense to me.

Assuming that this is true, what is a 'mass'? In the definition of light I understands its mass to be its 'energy', aka 'momentum'. The 'momentum' is defined from its relative energy. I write 'relative as you can't define a photon to ever be 'at rest'. And so any 'energy' it express should become a arbitrary expression relative a detector. On the other tentacle, any 'energy' expressed will be the result of a 'interaction' as I see it.

So how does 'motion' create mass?
And why does it have to be certain geometries for it to be true (thinking of light).

There is another irritating thing about it too. How can you assign a 'mass' to a 'system' that only can be 'closed' as a conceptual definition? The only way I can see light becoming 'mass' is for it to severely 'bent', as in curved into a ring from you observing it. And if we introduce times arrow there can be no closed rings, can there? It should become a 'spiral' as observed in a 3-D description.

Now, you can use 2-D to define it as a ring, but, there are no proofs I know of any 2-D 'systems' existing inside SpaceTime? Then again, If space really was in 2-D and what we observes as 3-D would be 'gravity' for example? Then it would be very hard to show any 2-D phenomena as they all would become 3-D to us?

Alternatively you can use the four dimensions that we see. Then you can have your ring, but how would that express itself 'down shifted' to three dimensions?
==

One more thing, we say that a photon never is 'at rest'. But what about 'gravity'?
Isn't it always following a geodesic. If it is then it has to be 'at rest' with  gravity, as it seems to me.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2011 03:36:44 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 #239 on: 07/06/2011 00:54:42 »
It becomes kind of weird to think about. In SpaceTime you may have a ring defined, but if you connect it to times arrow it will move 'forward' and so become a spiral, if you get my drift. So if that was true what would it take to be defined as a 'ring' inside our four dimensions?

Then again, you can have a defined ring in SpaceTime as proven by any ring formed. And it will be consistently inside our arrow. So we already have them you might say. But is that as we never see the 'whole picture'? another tricky one. Is it only 'time' as a property that is a dimension? With the arrow being a 'direction'? Or do I see it as they are the same, meaning that the arrow becomes time, becomes a 'dimension' too?

And gravity bends light.

What about it, assuming that the first definition make sense (spiral) what would it take to define it as a ring instead, a 'dimension' more. Or should that be a dimension less perhaps :) Or could I get to it from both 'directions'?

From topology's point of view, what becomes of a 2-D ring in 3-D space, a tube? The idea with those transformations done on shapes is that they must keep a certain consistency right. You may make a coffeecup of a ring, but you can't make a sphere.

I really need to read up on topology  :)

Assume that space is gravity, then gravity is the whole definition of what we call 3-D. If it was so it should be meaningless to try to split 'gravity' into three 'dimensions'.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2011 00:59:56 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 #240 on: 07/06/2011 01:39:33 »
What would happen to a 'space' without gravity? would it still have three 'directions', not including the arrow of time here. If I assumed that my idea of 'time' covered the past, present, and future, then, what would that be.

Maybe it's better to define it as without a arrow there can be no linearity, so the question of past, present and future loses its meaning. For 'time' to mean something to me you need a causality chain. So any idea of discussing a 'free will' from the perspective of 'pure time' is meaningless. It only gets its meaning from the arrow inside SpaceTime, and it's only there the dichotomy exist.

But you can still question if 'space' would exist? Define no gravity as a geodesic, what would that mean? That this 'space' then would be one big geodesic? but it would have no direction, right? So, without a direction, where is the 'metric'? Or maybe that is wrong? Maybe a 'space' without gravity is a point?
=

The way to get into a geodesic is to stop accelerating. And what happens at 'c' is that you are at rest with light and gravity. What does that make a black hole? Is a Black Hole a geodesic? All 'gravitational accelerations' are geodesics so it should be one. Does it have a metric at its center? can any 'metric' exist at 'c'? I don't think so. Our Jello is of a very weird consistence, push it too hard and it disappear.
==

One thing more, if you define 'no gravity' as geodesics, then any gravity can be one. You only need to stop expending energy to find it. And that should mean that my hypothetical 'no gravity universe' above would be equivalent to a Black Hole. And if it is so, I would go for that it becomes a point. But it will also mean that all uniform motion then becomes, not points as long as they are under 'c', but striving for it.

I think I need to sleep on this one, to make any sense from it :)
A year?
==

Another question, what if that 'empty space' would be 'c'?
As a 'empty space' from my definition becomes inseparable from any degree of 'gravity' and if I assume that the coupling we have to 'gravity' is more of a restriction than mass, ('energy' in a way) and accelerations?

Then it should be at 'c', whatever that is? And if it is? It has to be 'dimension less' sort of? But then we have light, defined as being at 'c', why is it allowed inside SpaceTime? But if I assume that this particular case is the 'metronome' instead of 'propagating' we can ignore that one (maybe, for this at least:)and look at how all other stuff behave closing on to 'c' (ignoring radiation). Then they all 'contract' don't they? And if you assume that as they become infinitesimally close to 'c' also becomes so contracted that they not even become a line? As observed by the universe at large? I don't know here, it seems to me that the energy need to be infinite and that they also, if interacting, would release that 'energy'. Furthermore, they can't really 'disappear', they are locked inside SpaceTime.

But on the third tentacle, we're not discussing matter, if the definition would be correct we would discuss something a lot like 'bosons' or possibly 'energy'. Even though 'energy' only can be defined through interactions it's still a measure of something. At least that's the definition I understand the stress energy tensor use when it defines it as 'stored' in 'space'. So if 'space' is the metric of 'gravity'? Why can it 'store energy'? 

How?

(Yeah i know. Gravity is the metric of space huh:) But you can turn it around too, I did :)
« Last Edit: 08/06/2011 00:22:06 by yor_on »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 587
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #241 on: 07/06/2011 03:49:44 »
In my opinion, we are in an Euclidean space but as we are made of light (all matter and energy), we cannot perceive a speed higher than the speed of light. So the Newtonian Doppler shift of the frequency becomes relativistic... Timerate really slow down with acceleration and increase of gravity. The length perception contracts because of the variation of timerate and frequency. There is no black holes but there is black rings. I would bet anything on it... Mass, gravity and time are strongly related.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2011 03:55:48 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

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 #242 on: 07/06/2011 13:55:45 »
That's the opposite of my definitions CPT.
'Timerate' does not slow down in mine.


That's why you can use it as 'c'. Because in my definition they are the same, equivalent. It simplifies the universe for me. Then you have the idea of 'gravity' propagating at 'c' which also will fit the picture. The only thing needed for it is to exchange the idea of a propagation to one of a constant and it all will make sense. So gravity, light and the arrow of time is 'equivalent' to some degree. To make it work I'm also adding the idea of gravity's coupling being 'infinite' and the idea of splitting 'time' from its arrow. The first things I'm satisfied with, those definitions will work. The second is like a intuition so far, a feeling I had for a long time that we can make further sense from this universe, if we just stop trying to fit it to our preconceptions.

But I agree, we can't perceive anything 'faster' than 'c'. It's the metronome defining a arrow. To pass it would make it into 'chunks' to us, possibly? Because without a rhythm (linearity/causality chain) all 'things' you see at that conceptual plane should become 'still'. Maybe that's what QM meet as it probe those small places, or must meet?

Assume that it could be so, would that mean that we do have a 'granularity'? Or would it be a description of where our observations fail? To me you can see it both ways, the granularity may well be the last stage we can observe, but beyond that there, to me that is, should be a 'smoothness'. We do all things, and observations, inside our arrow of time. Then we lay them out for observation and define them.
==

You could see it this way, to see why I speak of QM as a place where 'c' loses its coherence. All 'speeds' are defined from 'distances' in times arrow. The smaller the distance the less arrow. At some plane the arrow and 'distance' will be equal, and that's Planck's intuition, and constant. Pass that and you're at the place where 'chunks' should be seen, being still resting in what I call 'time' instead of a arrow. And yes, I have no proofs I can come up with, indications I have but no real proofs. And that's also why I keep discussing 'sizes' as they become the definition we use with the arrow to describe all kinds of things, from 'dimensions' to 'speeds' to 'distance'. From Einsteins view the universe really can be magnified and contracted with motion, gravity/mass, and 'energy' (as a description of something I'm not sure what it should be:)
« Last Edit: 07/06/2011 15:09:47 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 #243 on: 10/06/2011 01:25:19 »
Time? And HUP. How does it it work? Do we get a measure of how element combines through their 'average value' of arrow? I'm not even sure if I'm formulating my thoughts right here. My own definition of HUP makes sense to me, needing a 'simultaneous measurement' in time of a particle?

But let us, just for fun, assume that we have some hypothetical universe where everything gets defined through 'chunks of time'. In such a universe we can attribute every element, and combination of elements, different 'chunks'. From such a universe the approach of 'weak measurements' seem to make perfect sense to me as it will catch just the property a such universe should have. And so also 'eliminate' HUP.

I definitely need to understand this one, and as I said, it's weird.
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 587
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #244 on: 10/06/2011 01:34:51 »
Relative timerate is directly related to the rotation period of the charge around an elementary particle. This period is relative to each particle. The apparent timerate is real and it is probably regulated by entanglement between all photons of the universe... This may seems farfetched but it is not...
 

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 #245 on: 10/06/2011 01:45:28 »
Well :) You need to define your hypothesis CPT. Myself I'm wondering what 'times arrow' is here. You could assume that we have only one, as that is the way it seems, and that its property is of one 'temporal direction', at least macroscopically. But thinking of weak measurements I'm wondering. Although I'm unsure of how it should 'work' with how I define the arrow as radiations 'metronome' I just think it might?

A universe made out of 'averages'.
==

To make it work one would have to consider how photons communicate, over particles as well as with the idea of 'virtual particles'. One would need to twist the universe into a new way of looking at it. If it now is possible?
==

If you assume that the arrow is 'c', then it follows that for something to stop 'ticking' as we see it there has to be something changing with the 'c' we are used too. Does that make sense?
« Last Edit: 10/06/2011 02:22:01 by yor_on »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 587
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #246 on: 10/06/2011 01:56:10 »
In their own frame of reference, each type of elementary particles has the same timerate, i should specify... interesting hey?... :o)
 

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 #247 on: 10/06/2011 02:02:36 »
Well, write it up in a thread CPT. I'll visit it, but make it as clear and simple as you can, charge for example is a difficult thing to define. But do it and we'll see.
 

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 #248 on: 10/06/2011 03:35:37 »
Hm, let's define a photon as I understands it. No mass, no intrinsic time, no charge, always at 'c'. It may be the 'force carrier' for EM but it does not bend to a electrical field. I called its energy 'kinetic' somewhere, and that is not right, sloppy writing that. It has a energy, a light quanta, and that is partially a intrinsic property, partially a property that will vary with the 'photon' measurement aka 'observer/detector'. It has no inertial frame of reference of its own, meaning that we have no place where we can define it as not 'moving' at 'c'.

What more?
==

We can define a 'recoil' to it, when leaving a source, but only from the principle of symmetry. We can also define a sink, as when interacting with your eye or matter/particles. It does not interact with itself, as far as I know. The idea of it interacting with other photons, creating a gravitational effect through its energy under certain geometries, are plausible but as far as I know still only a hypothesis. That is, I do not know any experiments proving it.

You might assume that a sun would be a sort of proof, but that's particles of 'rest mass' interacting releasing 'energy' aka photons/waves.

Ah yes, light also can act as a particle, as well as wave. But not simultaneously, called its 'duality'.
==

If I bend light gravitationally in a circle, will it blue shift?
It should, shouldn't it.

Can there exist any frame where it wouldn't?
==

It will always follow a geodesic, meaning that it actually can be seen as being 'at rest' with gravity. Well, as I define it :)

I've seen it defined as photons acquire a mass through the Meissner effect. "It has been shown that the exclusion of magnetic flux (Meissner effect) corresponds to a finite range for the electromagnetic field and hence to a `massive photon'. In the context of quantum field theory, the meissner effect in a superconductor occurs because the U(1) gauge symmetry is broken in a superconductor. The photon acquires a mass through the Higgs mechanism and the Higgs bosons are the Cooper pairs."

But the Higgs are still a hypothesis, not a experimental fact? It should be possible to define if photons get a mass by studying the sun, possibly? Waves/photons passing should then 'bend' more the closer in you measure them, as it seems to me? Maybe too difficult/small to measure though.

But any Neutron star or Black Hole should do. And the LHC should be able to test it I think.
(Ah, this is from the assumption that a photon would have a invariant mass, however small.)
« Last Edit: 10/06/2011 07:54:39 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 #249 on: 10/06/2011 08:21:21 »
So do I think photons has a mass?
Not yet :)

Does space has a mass?
Gravity?
Energy?

Energy only exist in interactions where it become our measure of the effect (useful work) we find, loosely speaking. So even if we expect us to be able to relate energy to invariant mass, and vice versa, energy still seems more of conceptual description than of anything you ever will 'touch'.

So I think I'll stay with the definition where it does not have a mass.
Intrinsically timeless then, well yes, everything points to it.

So now I treated it from the definitions I can remember, for now. I'm sure there are more things to be said but..
==

So let's look at my definition of it then, as 'not propagating'.
It takes care of its duality. It takes care of any discussion of why you can't 'see/define it propagating without a measurement'. Indeed, it takes care of all unexplained facts I know. I don't have to wonder about the duality, I just have to find how it express itself.

It becomes a question of interactions, and what 'the arrow of time' is.
A cheap trick you say? Not as I see it, a better and simpler explanation.

But if it doesn't propagate, how can it keep presenting itself as such?
Who says it does?

How can space always seem the same, but still contract/magnify?
Why does light always keep to 'c' as observed 'locally'?
Why does your personal frame of reference always 'tick' the same?

If I tell you that all our clocks 'tick' the same, never changing durations when we measure them, where can a 'time dilation' come in? There is no measurements you can do that will tell you otherwise and all other measurements you do relative other 'frames of reference' will build on your own 'frame of reference' clock. To measure 'times arrow' as 'uncertain', becomes a joke as you measure it from that same clock you find suspect.

I don't find the arrow uncertain, I find it a constant, inside your own frame. The idea of conceptually defining time when comparing frames is, conceptual. The real truth is that your arrow of time never change.

And furthermore, we're all carrying our personal SpaceTime with us. Which makes it incredibly difficult to define where a 'frame of reference' starts and ends. If I expect every 'point' to be slightly different gravitationally, and then include relative motion/acceleration I now have two good reasons for that definition. So where do you think your 'frame of reference' is situated? The one I, and you too actually, expect you to have? and how do we join them?

I don't need to define a 'time dilation' to any specific 'locality', can you see what I mean? It's a relation, nothing more.
==

How about accelerations? They are all defined by one thing as I see it, or two actually.
They all have 'gravity', and they all expend 'energy'.



« Last Edit: 10/06/2011 08:47:42 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #249 on: 10/06/2011 08:21:21 »

 

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