The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 279458 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2325 on: 23/09/2016 23:49:27 »
And what was now the definition of something 'orbiting' something else? A acceleration, isn't it :) Doesn't really mater if the 'particle' in itself can be seen as a wave equation, or a 'standing wave', it still has a mass supposedly, and as long as it is in a orbit around another 'particle' it should be accelerating.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2326 on: 23/09/2016 23:52:49 »
So what do you consist of? Cells? Molecules? Particles? Standing waves? Strings and loops? Depends on your scale, doesn't it?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2327 on: 24/09/2016 00:07:09 »
So, 'locally' defined :)

How far can you break down a beam of light? 'Photons'?
Take that beam, count the 'photons', and you get a clock, measuring time. We don't consider any macroscopic observer for this, just a pure 'idea experiment'. And yes, the idea of using 'photons' may be questionable but, hey, use a saw then :) to split this beam into even chunks, as far down in scale as you can come before it all breaks up.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2328 on: 24/09/2016 00:10:01 »
That's one way to define something as 'local', trying to ring it in physically. Then there are other definitions of what is 'local', microscopic as well as macroscopic, but most are 'ideal definitions' as far as I get it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2329 on: 24/09/2016 00:12:23 »
Defining it this way each 'photon' becomes your grain of time. What it really leans on though is the idea of 'c', being locally the same for you, no matter mass :) nor (relative) speed/accelerations.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2330 on: 24/09/2016 00:18:23 »
Time definitely exist, but it may still be a artifact, on the other tentacle, it might be what allows this universe to come to be. If the universe was a infinite order of static planes laid upon each other then 'time' would be what rushes us through it. Although that seems much as a predestined universe, and even mathematically we can see that the universe is open ended. Just look at Gödel.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2331 on: 24/09/2016 00:24:56 »
We see four dimensions entwined. Length, width, height, and 'time'. They all go into each other, and 'c' is what communicates it to us.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2332 on: 24/09/2016 00:42:09 »
Heh :)

Now consider a non propagating 'c'`
Dearly suspect Gödel and Einstein to be turning in their *** by now, muttering about ***
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2333 on: 24/09/2016 00:43:45 »
'c' will still be 'c', time will still be time, and clocks will be clocks.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2334 on: 24/09/2016 00:45:42 »
To get to a non propagating 'c' you need some thing 'new', like a 'field' maybe?
Then you need something introducing change.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2335 on: 24/09/2016 00:47:05 »
This is a alternative to the 'predestined' example I gave before. You still need 'change' though.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2336 on: 24/09/2016 00:50:09 »
And you need 'probabilities', a equivalence to free will.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2337 on: 24/09/2016 00:53:51 »
And your universe will never be the same :)
Although the ingredients are the same.

'time' 'probabilities' 'dimensions' 'scales and emergences', and 'c'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2338 on: 24/09/2016 00:59:19 »
What such a universe do very well, is telling us that there is more than one way to see it. The way we see it works for us, but there could be other ways that fit just as well, and possibly better in some ways.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2339 on: 24/09/2016 01:03:33 »
Think about it, what would you need to get a string to vibrate?
Does it matter if I call it 'change', or 'time'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2340 on: 24/09/2016 10:56:28 »
Now, what this bring us to is the question of Machs universe. The court still doesn't have a final verdict on that one, it's pretty tricky, and in some ways terribly theoretic. His idea was that you being on a spinning carousel just as easily could exchange it for the world spinning, and you being still.

There was no such things as absolute frames, everything instead being relative something else. And that makes sense to me :). In its simplest form such a statement says that there can't be a 'rotating universe' ala Gödel, because what would you rotate it relative? There is a clear difference to me assuming that measurable things can be proven to 'rotate' relative each other, relative assuming that the same can be proven for a whole universe.

And the whole idea of a 'rotating universe' will bring us back to the old notion of a universe having dimensional borders, which I consider rather shot to pieces myself. Exchange that one for a infinite universe, let things 'rotate' relative each other inside it, and stop imagining the universe as some balloon 'rotating'.

then again, it depends on how you read it. The main idea is that 'everything is influenced by everything', but if we take gravity the ¨'force' of that falls very quickly with distance. http://www.universeadventure.org/fundamentals/gravit-equation.htm

and it also question locality.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2341 on: 24/09/2016 11:18:00 »
Gravity is weird, isn't it?
A 'uniform constant acceleration' is a exact equivalence to gravity in GR. In Mach universe then the question must become, 'relative what'?

A accelerations definition is very local, it acts solely upon you accelerating, so the frame it acts relative should be the whole of the universe, shouldn't it? In 'Machian terms' you could be considered to remodel, at least, your perception of the universe, introducing a 'gravity' through your acceleration. But does that make sense? Can a acceleration, or a uniform motion, change a whole universe? And will the same also be equivalently true for those outside that acceleration?

If we talk about it in form of the 'energy expended' locally by you accelerating, then the difference between what you see the universe do, namely 'contract', relative what energy you've spent to make it do so becomes a nobrainer. There is no balance to it. And for a 'far away' observer your acceleration won't change a thing.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2342 on: 24/09/2016 11:22:54 »
Another reason for questioning a vacuum, isn't it. Because locally defined it 'contracts' relative you accelerating. If it now contracts, shouldn't that mean that the 'energy', aka 'virtual particles', also becomes 'denser' relative a locally perceived volume?

Ah, you see where I'm drifting, don't you :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2343 on: 24/09/2016 11:30:02 »
What we're missing here is the question about uniform motions, and if they too 'contracts' ones universe. I say they do, some want to blame it on all other things, 'turnarounds' etc etc, but the simplest explanation will be that they do. And a uniform motion is locally equivalent to being at rest, no matter what speed you define yourself to have, relative some stars blue shifts etc.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2344 on: 24/09/2016 11:35:48 »
It all falls back on the fact that there is no 'absolute frame' for a speed. You driving define it relative the road for example. Without a pivot of 'universal zero speed' everything becomes a question of what you will define it against. But, 'speeds' exist, even if we only can define them relatively. Otherwise accelerations (and decelerations which are the same phenomena) doesn't exist either, I mean, what purpose would they have?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2345 on: 24/09/2016 11:40:26 »
A pretty good question methinks, and one you should take seriously. What are motions, what are propagations?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2346 on: 24/09/2016 11:46:15 »
A uniform motion then contracts your universe, as well as it 'speeds it up' temporally. Or from the far away observer it will be you 'slowing down' temporally, but there will be no such thing as the universe 'expanding' around you from his perspective.

And yes, a vacuum becoming perturbated, locally defined, as your speed increase, it's volume 'shrinking'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2347 on: 24/09/2016 11:52:26 »
But then again, why won't it (the 'disturbance' aka virtual particles becoming locally 'real') hold for a subsequent uniform motion, this shrinking of a vacuum? Or will it?

If it does, what does it state? Remember that we don't know any 'absolute frame' to define a speed relative. Still? Wouldn't that point to 'absolute frames' existing. How else can the universe 'know' your speed, and offer you the appropriate response?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #2349 on: 24/09/2016 12:00:06 »
Or maybe it can't? It 'knows' accelerations though, with your uniform motion still being equivalent to being at rest. But if you consider a blue shift due to a higher ('faster') uniform motion this becomes questionable.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2349 on: 24/09/2016 12:00:06 »

 

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