The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280602 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2300 on: 20/09/2016 14:14:06 »
We presume that a entanglement also is about 'communication', well, most of us do at least :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2301 on: 20/09/2016 14:14:36 »
But 'c' is the limit.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2302 on: 20/09/2016 14:21:06 »
We scale it down and it 'dissolves', possibly into a 'field', scale it up slightly and we find QM, scale it up further, into a global definition, and we meet GR, and SR. All of them describing the same thing? They have to communicate, but my question is, do they describe the same thing?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2303 on: 20/09/2016 14:24:00 »
Seen another way, is there a hypothesis you might make in where you need something 'more', or for that sake 'less', joining them? Entanglements are strange, aren't they?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2304 on: 20/09/2016 14:34:02 »
The real question of a entanglement is how it can 'know' beforehand, for example its respective polarizations. It 'knows' faster than light can carry the information. And the Big Bang is 'local'? heh, I think it is.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2305 on: 20/09/2016 14:36:23 »
It must have to do with the way this universe is, not with what we think us see.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2306 on: 20/09/2016 14:43:34 »
There is something fundamentally wrong with the way we look at it. You have a arrow of time, 'c', you have causality, 'propagation' and 'motion'. mass and gravity. 'energy'. All of it fitting this 'plane', SpaceTime, we exist inside. We can measure it so it exist.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2307 on: 20/09/2016 14:45:16 »
What you can't measure is very hard to prove.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2308 on: 20/09/2016 14:53:02 »
There are some weird questions I have, for example the one about how a Big Bang could be seen as a local phenomena, and what that would mean for our later global description of a 'whole universe'. Then the one in where you need to ask yourself in what way light 'propagates', it follows the first actually if you think about it. Then of course there is 'time', and entanglements.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2309 on: 20/09/2016 15:11:01 »
Dimensions does not make it justice, when presuming that each point in our global description of SpaceTime must be a equivalent 'Big Bang' origin. You're perfectly welcome to disprove that one. To me it's no longer a 'unified expansion' of a vacuum, more like points creating points all around itself, ad infinitum, or points changing scale? Well, depending on how you think about it. We measure the age through the light we find, aka the suns existing in that vacuum. But the Big Bang origins seem to exist still, as we are in a accelerating expansion.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2310 on: 20/09/2016 15:19:54 »
Actually I would prefer a vacuum not to exist, which it actually does too :)
That would simplify it, as it would make any discussion about a vacuum growing ftl meaningless, also it would allow me to call it a scale of nothing.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2311 on: 20/09/2016 15:23:20 »
What are a perfect vacuums interactions?
Put another way, what does it need to interact?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2312 on: 20/09/2016 15:40:28 »
I suppose you could reach a effect of a vacuum 'expanding faster than light' just by imagining it as points. Use suns around you to define some sphere of a volume, then 'insert new points of a vacuum' everywhere in that volume. filling it in at the speed of 'c'. then watch those suns receding from you, faster and faster, as those points continue to be 'filled in'. That doesn't accelerate those suns though, they're still 'buoys' laying still.

but the really strange thing about it is the way those points can come to be.
« Last Edit: 20/09/2016 15:43:49 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2313 on: 20/09/2016 15:50:05 »
If a vacuum is 'energy', what happens as this vacuum expands? That vacuum has to have a equilibrium, doesn't it? If it 'loans' that 'energy' inside a SpaceTime, where would it come from? Also, the equilibrium isn't solely about the vacuum but has to belong to the whole of the continuum, as far as I get it?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2314 on: 20/09/2016 15:56:18 »
You could assume it taking a lot of energy creating particles, creating suns, creating the rest of it/us. If it was so, then why are we inside a accelerating expansion? that turns it upon its head doesn't it? Less energy giving a accelerating expansion.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2315 on: 21/09/2016 09:57:30 »
The way we explain the idea of a 'container of rules' defining a SpaceTime is by assuming that you have different kinds of 'energy', simply expressed useful energy versus non-useful. The non-useful energy then dissipates as heat at the end of its transformations. That means that we should have a defined amount of useful energy relative a volume. If that volume is 'infinite', then the 'energy' also becomes 'infinite', but presuming a equilibrium existing over this volume, as well as presuming that the rules are the same over the whole volume makes it tricky to see where from that 'energy' gets loaned. If you want to see it as a defined dimensionality with 'real borders' the simplest reasoning should point to something (a volume) shrinking, shouldn't it? Also it should dissipate in some way as a added heat, shouldn't it? Or the 'energy' used is of a opposite kind, where less energy creates a expansion, then again, how would that fit a Big Bang?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2316 on: 21/09/2016 18:11:37 »
Don't read me wrong. I'm not disputing a accelerating expansion. I'm just trying to see why it is.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2317 on: 21/09/2016 18:12:21 »
We see this universe, but we don't see it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2318 on: 23/09/2016 23:03:06 »
Einstein and Gödel both thought time to be questionable. Einstein considered it a 'illusion' while Gödel wanted it to be non-existent. That's also from where he created his rotating universe using Einsteins field equations.  His view on his new universe was that it didn't really matter if it was the best/closest description of the universe we lived in, or not. That as it rigidly followed the field equations, while also allowing for "closed time-like curves (abbreviated CTC). And as those in their turn leads to all kinds of paradoxes (shooting your 'grandfather paradox' etc) the simplest solution would be that time doesn't exist. When people try to solve those paradoxes most actually go out from the opposite though :) Treating time as existent they then invent 'bifurcating universes' ad infinitum. I understand why Gödel wanted time to be non existent thinking about that one :) He seemed to have foreseen its implications.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2319 on: 23/09/2016 23:06:04 »
I don't consider it to be a illusion though, neither do I expect clocks to be non existent. Locally defined time exist, equivalent to the way 'c' can be used as a 'perfect clock'. Both are perfectly consistent locally measured.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2320 on: 23/09/2016 23:12:02 »
The real quagmire, philosophically, logically and physically is then to define what one mean by 'local'. And that one is a headache. You look at your clock and see the time, so you 'know it' :) But that time you defined from it is actually a approximation, also something involving what scale one use. that we all agree on it doesn't make it any less of an approximation.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2321 on: 23/09/2016 23:15:47 »
My own view is that to define local 'constants' you will have to go the way QM does. Then there are 'global constants' too, but to my eyes they should be emergences, coming from those local ones, scaling it up.

And this scaling becomes very like different 'dimensions' to me :) Although you might avoid citing me to a mathematician or physicist :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2322 on: 23/09/2016 23:27:57 »
Gödel did another very interesting thing. He gave a proof for that 'any finite system of axioms is not sufficient to prove every result in mathematics'.

". He saw that no version of the formula game could encompass all truths, even about whole numbers. In the published version of his discovery, Gödel introduced a code by which the expressions of the formula game were each represented by a single whole number. Thus, certain statements about numbers could be seen by someone privy to the code as making assertions about the formula game as well. Gödel showed how to construct a statement P that, in this manner, asserted that a certain other statement, Q, could not be proved using the rules. Then he showed how to make Q=P, so that the statement P actually asserted that P itself is unprovable. From this it follows that P must be true and therefore, because of what it asserts, unprovable. This necessary incompleteness of the formula game was the first blow to Hilbert's work. A few weeks later, Gödel delivered the knockout punch by proving that Hilbert's ( cherished goal of proving the consistency of the formula game through restricted methods was doomed to failure."

What he apparently had started with was wanting to support David Hilbert's view that mathematics was the universe, its logic impeccable. "Hilbert's radical remedy was to create an entirely new branch of mathematics, dubbed metamathematics, which would apply mathematical methods to mathematics itself. In order to achieve this, it was first necessary to present mathematics as a 'formula game' in which the propositions of mathematics were represented as mere assemblages of symbols, and the methods of inference that led from axioms to theorems were presented as transparent rules for manipulating symbols." But he (Gödel that is) ended up finding himself doing the opposite.



« Last Edit: 23/09/2016 23:31:11 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2323 on: 23/09/2016 23:38:16 »
Once we lived in a world with clear answers, a 'finite' well ordered universe, having one 'absolute time'. It wasn't true, but it worked. Most of the mathematics used practically mirrored that conviction.

Today we have 'chaos mathematics', open ended systems, and Gödels incompleteness theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2324 on: 23/09/2016 23:43:47 »
Talking about mass, speeds and scales may confuse people. But if you scale down a mass, not shrinking it but scaling away the mass to a smaller 'ball' you also redefine the time. And if you to that add that different particles have different speed relative each other, well, welcome to the quagmire. It's not only accelerations that gives time dilations, uniform motion will do the same.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2324 on: 23/09/2016 23:43:47 »

 

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