The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280528 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 #2425 on: 13/10/2016 15:15:52 »
It also connects to the question of what you think a 'field' should be. A 'whole'? or 'parts', where is your cutoff, your borders of measurement? Further more it connects to Mach and the question of what interacts with what.
 

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 #2426 on: 13/10/2016 15:21:49 »
Let's discuss mathematics, just for a short while. There are some ideas of what mathematics 'is'. One is that it is the world, the universe, and all. In that vision mathematics become the universe, it's the tool set that 'creates' it. Another vision is that Nature don't use mathematics, we do. A third, which I lean to, is that mathematics even then still will be the tool set that can 'explain' it, as a logic :)

What it hinges on is not mathematics per se, it's about us being able to find a logic.
 

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 #2427 on: 13/10/2016 15:23:29 »
The logic is not our macroscopic definition, or it is :) But it is also any other definition you can come up with fitting the experiments.
 

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 #2428 on: 13/10/2016 15:37:03 »
So, accepting 'superpositions', which I do, and 'probabilities' which I do, and HUP, which I do, doesn't logically lead me the same way as 'many worlds', or 'weak measurements'. When I look at those I get the feeling of us still wanting to set ourselves as the focus of the universe, keeping the Newtonian view of the universe. The one in where we can leave tings to be 'touchable' even when they refuse.
 

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 #2429 on: 13/10/2016 15:40:53 »
Tell me, is a 'field' observer dependent?
 

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 #2430 on: 13/10/2016 15:42:16 »
And the observer dependency, is that the same thing as "collapsing a wave function".
Two different things actually.
 

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 #2431 on: 13/10/2016 15:43:36 »
Or?

Maybe not :)

=
spelling

« Last Edit: 13/10/2016 19:00:54 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 #2432 on: 13/10/2016 19:03:57 »
If the macroscopic 'reality' you measure is observer dependent, as you then scale it down. Can you let go of the observer dependency?

Why?

You measuring something, no matter its scale, isn't that the definition of 'collapsing a wave function'?
 

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 #2433 on: 14/10/2016 19:36:23 »
Let's take a raincheck here and look over what a 'observer dependency' means, for me then :)
The best description is the one using 'c' as a measuring rod. 'c' is strictly local meaning that everyone measuring it will say that it never change, relative ones local clock as well as other measurements you may think up. 'c' is also a perfect clock, according to my gospel :) one that measures your local 'time', your life span as it is, and tells you that no matter where you are (mass), or how fast you define yourself moving (speed), that life span is in local terms set.

'c' is also what guarantee your ruler, and as we measure using clocks and rulers, 'c' is what guarantee your constants.

=
words
« Last Edit: 14/10/2016 19:52:14 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 #2434 on: 14/10/2016 19:37:53 »
That's a 'observer dependency'
 

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 #2435 on: 14/10/2016 19:46:43 »
Introducing accelerations/decelerations we get some other effects, locally measured, as 'gravity' and 'inertia'. Inertia is here the ' body's ' tendency to keep a 'uniform motion' going unless acted on by a 'force'. 'Gravity' is the equivalence to a constant uniformly accelerating force at, for example, one constant 'gravity'.

And that is also a local description.
 

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 #2436 on: 15/10/2016 08:34:29 »
Now, how can you avoid the observer dependency going down in scale? One way reminds me very much of so called 'weak measurements', presuming as that you scale it down those effects more or less disappear, possibly a (opposite) mirror to decoherence too. another more interesting question is the one if you think there is some discrete limit to what can exist? Everything 'dissolves' into a 'field' at some scale, but thus this 'field' still contain discrete, for lack of words, 'quanta'? And those quanta, are they then uniquely 'global' entities, as contrasted to all other measurements we do?
 

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 #2437 on: 15/10/2016 08:38:35 »
I don't think so myself, what defines a measurement is 'observer dependencies', and I don't expect those to disappear. the 'globalization' of constants and rules we observe are all a result of local measurements, 'collapsing wave functions' and done under 'observer dependencies'. The 'globalization' is just a result of those local descriptions fitting each other.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2438 on: 15/10/2016 08:41:41 »
So if you look for a 'objective global' definition you won't find it. If you instead look for local descriptions, equivalent to each other, you will. Seems that everything that construct this global description of a universe comes to be locally, even gravity.
 

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 #2439 on: 15/10/2016 08:51:59 »
Assuming it to be so collapsing a wave function should become a observer dependency. It's subtle, one need to consider what a local measurement is, in terms of both relativity and QM. It's easy to stop at a surface level thinking 'what's new with that'? We all measure locally, and when we all agree on what we observe we call it a global rule. That would all be correct if there wasn't observer dependencies, but there is. Different mass and different speeds.
 

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 #2440 on: 15/10/2016 08:53:18 »
What's called 'local' after relativity is not what we thought it to be before 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 #2441 on: 15/10/2016 09:01:57 »
How does the universe beget those dimensions we exist in? Length, width, height and 'time', or your local arrow. It's not even correct to describe that local arrow as 'time'. Time is a relic from an earlier age, the one where Newton and absolute time ruled.
 

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 #2442 on: 15/10/2016 09:04:59 »
If we now assume that everything locally can be 'shrunk' into 'quanta', of some discreet limit. Then 'time' also should be so. I mean, it's a measurement, isn't it? just as defining some smallest 'length'. One of four 'dimensions' as we call them.
 

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 #2443 on: 15/10/2016 09:08:10 »
Accepting 'locality' time is translated. It's still the same for us all, as locally measured relative our wristwatches, but the 'global representation' we used to expect, this 'absolute time' of the 'universe' we see, no longer exist. Relativity changed all that.
 

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 #2444 on: 15/10/2016 09:11:23 »
But it's equivalent :) As long as we are at rest with each other, approximately, as here on Earth. Mass speed accelerations (including decelerations) and the elusive 'energy'.
 

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 #2445 on: 15/10/2016 09:14:40 »
The equivalence we find gives a new definition to reality. A local 'sameness' making 'quanta' equivalently the same, locally measured. With the global representation we think us see becoming a illusion of sorts.
 

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 #2446 on: 15/10/2016 09:17:34 »
It's 'c' that communicates with you, then again, macroscopically we have other effects communicating too, chemical, electrical etc. But over a 'whole universe' 'c' or 'light' is what tells you what exists.
 

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 #2447 on: 15/10/2016 09:26:26 »
You see, there isn't that big a difference between 'collapsing the wave function' and relativity's 'observer dependencies'. Both of them are strictly local definitions and when you set them together the question becomes, what 'universe' got 'collapsed' here? Because your view of the universe is unique for you, relatively speaking :), and so must then the representation of that 'wave function' that you collapsed, by observing, be.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2448 on: 15/10/2016 09:27:58 »
So why involve 'many worlds' in it? It's complicated enough already.
 

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 #2449 on: 15/10/2016 09:29:31 »
I prefer to simplify it myself, as far as possible.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2449 on: 15/10/2016 09:29:31 »

 

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