The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 278519 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #250 on: 10/06/2011 14:48:51 »
In fact, my own definition of what we call a 'time dilation' makes a he* of a lot more sense than the one I gave at first. Although it is not wrong it assumes one whole common 'SpaceTime', in where we all play our part. In my universe I'm alone, as you're in yours. What connects yours and mine is the arrow. That one lends its definition, as I see it, from radiation ('c' as defined by lights speed in a vacuum.), which makes us into a 'universe of light' :) As those new age poets like to describe it. Your 'multiverses' are already here, sort of.
==

Maybe I should stop calling it radiation and just refer to 'c'?
Any which way you like it, it's what I think defines 'durations' here.
==

You need to see that with my definition I don't really need to twist any geometry, in the travelers 'frame', as observed by him, to define a 'time dilation'. Although Earth will observe a distortion of 'room time', and the traveler observe a changed 'SpaceTime', I can allow both to keep their own geometries, instead define it as a result of slightly changed (distorted) relations between 'frames of reference' under the time traveled. It taste so much better to me, as well as becoming simpler.

But I agree, it's a hard one to melt.
Still, I like it :)
==
« Last Edit: 11/06/2011 12:21:09 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #251 on: 10/06/2011 23:45:33 »
So, in my hypothetical universe gravity should be 'space'. What Einstein called 'the metric' of space. So we have this bubble with all those gravitational potentials/gradients smoothly disappearing/joining into each other.

They all form 'geodesics' which matter, as well as light, seems to follow. They seem to be defined from the matter we see, and possibly also from energy. Then there is accelerations too, of course. Why I find the definition of light being able to describe an added restmass is primary through the idea of how our universe came to be. Because that first Big Bang should have been energy, and the purest carrier of 'energy' we know are photons/radiation.

But if that is true, how can the geometry matter for it having or not having a mass? That one is quite confusing, it's easier to imagine it being of the same principle as a compression (Black Hole).

Assume that you have a time reversed Black Hole. Also called White Hole, expanding in a burst. Would it need some sort of 'light geometry' to create a gravity, and so a 'space' to burst into?

And how could it create that geometry without a 'gravity' (space) to start in?

ah well, it's kind'a weird, isn't it? :)
« Last Edit: 10/06/2011 23:48:12 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #252 on: 11/06/2011 12:16:28 »
To make it work we first better assume that to 'become' a universe there must be some 'point'. That point must be coupled to gravity, if I would assume that the 'real thingie' doesn't have any restrictions then the point would be some sort of breach in that equilibrium. I'm just guessing here :)

So we have a breach in the equilibrium that 'is' whatever that 'is', some sort of focus. Why that focus can come to be? Don't know, but if we draw it down to its simplest definition is will be some sort of causality, as a assumption. Or it could be no causality at all but some other principle we never see inside here. Still, shouldn't it have a equivalence to causality?

The real assumption I make is that just as we are a breach in something, a Black hole is the way back to whatever it is 'holding us'. But it's not a direction in the usual manner, not as I think of it. To me it should have to do with 'sizes', and with the arrow of time breaking down in its center.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #253 on: 11/06/2011 12:26:46 »
Thinking of it, everything we see seem to fall back to symmetries. Think about earths view of that light clock on the travelers ship. As he sees the 'light-corn' take a steeper and longer path as the ships acceleration increase, defining the arrow as 'slower' taking more 'place' in SpaceTime, the simultaneous 'contraction' will decrease the ships size. Another weird result of relativity.

So as something contract, does the 'frames of reference' for it equalize?
And is the contraction valid from both point of views?
==

According to the definition I have? I'm not sure, that the arrow stays the same I'm sure of, but the 'contraction' is a very weird result. From Earth the contraction will involve the ship, not the SpaceTime. From the Spaceship the contraction will involve the SpaceTime, not itself.

But both will see 'distance' shrink.
==

So where is the symmetry? If I define the symmetry as a balance, between times arrow and the room, then there isn't one, not from the travelers point of view. Because my definition state that 'times arrow' stays the same, doesn't it? So why would he see the universe 'contract'?

Now, you can see this as a proof of my view of your personal 'frame of reference' never changing its arrow of time being wrong, or you can see it as a proof of a equilibrium getting disturbed. I suspect it to be a equilibrium upset.
==

Maybe that one should be reformulated. A geodesic doesn't upset SpaceTime, does it? And all geodesics are equivalent in a 'black room scenario', as we all know. so what 'upsets' if I now should use that word(?) should be the acceleration. That is also expending 'energy', all following 'uniform motion' from that state will not upset any 'equilibrium'. But the Lorentz contraction and time dilation will still be there, as far as I can see. So? I don't know, we can at least define it as a change, and possibly as something altering your former equilibrium to a new one. Then again, we have the equivalence to consider, and as that one is a 'absolute' to me? Maybe I better avoid this definition for now instead moving to the next description hereunder.

But 'energy expended' is a very weird state.
==

There is naturally another point of view possible in where we get another definition. It will be in that the traveler sees the universe 'speed up' relative the formerly known rate of change relative his timepiece. So there is a symmetry to the universe as observed from the traveler, balanced against the representation he presents to the earth bound observer. A symmetry as I think of it. But it doesn't answer the question why the travelers time never lose its durations.

But you could use it as a proof for my assumption of every 'observer' being unique, having a 'same temporal duration', no matter from where, or how, he measures it, inside his own frame of reference. But as we know from the atomic clocks, this definition is somewhat 'fuzzy', and related to the way we perceive the arrow of time as coherent over a generalized common area.

It depends on how we see it, as compared to what those clocks show us.
==

First of all, looking out at a whole universe, how do you define it? As one single 'frame of reference' communicating with the observer, or as a infinite amount of 'frames', all communicating through its radiation?

It must be one 'frame' to me, a curtain of radiation informing you at all 'instants' or 'nows'. And in it we have a simple definition of equilibrium. it's no energy expended, aka 'geodesics'.

Why?

Well, it's about my definition of us all being 'unique'. If that is a 'truth' then all other frames must present a coherence relative your own unique 'frame of reference'. If it wasn't that way we should all perceive sharing a 'same frame' (Earth) as inconsistent, and split up. But we don't, we all find us being in the same 'frame of reference' no matter that those frames, from my point of view, change in every point of 'SpaceTime'.
==

If 'c' is the clock ticking for you, then all information you receive is 'now', having the same duration from the perspective of your own 'frame of reference'. For that assumption it has no importance of what its source can be seen as. The light from the end of our visible universe is still 'now', as it present itself for your observation.

And the information you receive is in one form. Radiation, of whatever kind. Then we have invariant mass, but for this we will assume that, just as that football coming at you is defined from radiation, so any interaction between 'rest mass' will be defined by its 'force carriers', which I then define as 'photons'.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 00:41:21 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #254 on: 11/06/2011 18:04:18 »
This is a headache formulating consistently, and at times I reread it and find a better way of expressing it. So whatever you read here, it's only temporally speaking. It can, and will, change as I find a simpler definition that makes sense (to me that is:). So maybe you should wait a little with reading it, as I'm one of the uncrowned masters of rewriting :)
« Last Edit: 11/06/2011 18:06:44 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #255 on: 11/06/2011 18:27:37 »
So what is this universe? I say it's something defined in 'interactions'. The interactions are defined by the observer. The observer defines it as a causality chain. The causality chain is 'timed' by 'c'. All observables we have find their limit at 'c'. Radiation, gravity, matter. Space is defined from gravity, even when that gravity is immeasurable.

So what is a observer in this universe?

I don't know, once more it depends on your definitions. Can there be a SpaceTime without consciousness? Is it the act of 'measuring/observing' that creates the causality? Or is it so that even without anyone 'conscious' observing, the universe will exist?

I tentatively will define anything made of matter as a 'observer', but I'm not sure.
=

Light then?

Well, as I see it that's our clock, becoming the 'descriptions' of anything we observe. What would happen with the 'clock' if it could exist without invariant mass? Can it exist without becoming 'mass' or 'gravity'?
==

And then we have 'motion'. Let's define its prerequisites.

It needs a 'space'.
(That means that, to me, it needs 'gravity')

It needs a 'clock'
(And the clock should then, to me, be 'c' aka radiation)

It needs 'something' we can define as moving.
(and for me that is invariant mass aka matter.)

Possibly it also need a 'observer' to exist?
( That's a really, really, weird one :)
« Last Edit: 11/06/2011 18:45:19 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #256 on: 12/06/2011 00:51:44 »
Then we have accelerations. They are the trickiest part to define for me. They distort SpaceTime, giving it a new representation relative the traveler. They create 'gravity' without invariant mass, but nota bene, they need a invariant mass to express it. If it wasn't so any photon traveling at 'c' should be represented by a 'Black Hole', assuming a propagation for that. You could use the same logic with invariant mass too, but only at 'c'. Anything under 'c' can't produce it, and as invariant mass can't reach that 'speed' as far as I can see? And as my definition of light 'not propagating' must present you the same exact effects as if it was, I will use it for mine definition too.

Because the game is 'logical', it incorporate causality and motion even though the effects become really strange at relativistic speeds or near 'infinite mass'.
==

So now we have a new good question. How much 'invariant mass' do you need for getting one earth-gravity accelerating?

Doesn't matter what invariant mass you start with as I understands it. One gram or a thousand tonnes, to 'gravity' they are equivalent (in a sense).

(Ah, it will matter, no pun, but so little that I think I will ignore it for now)

=

You better reread the whole page if you came back now to see what new things sprouting.
I'm fickle ::)) And yes, I will probably rewrite this one later as it is fuzzy/incorrect. But there is a point to it.
=

You need a invariant mass to create gravity, and it doesn't matter what I start with, I can get one gravity with a space ship massing one gram, or a thousand tonnes.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 01:15:42 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #257 on: 12/06/2011 01:35:04 »
So we have proved that invariant mass must be coupled to gravity. But is a invariant mass gravity then?

Not as I see it. If it was then that gram, now giving you one earth gravity in its constant acceleration, should have its atoms, molecules etc, vibrating at near relativistic speeds at some time, vaporising as pure energy at some stage if it could hold together that long. But it doesn't. So the idea of potential energy is one that disturbs me, not in that it is 'potential' as in not there, but in the way people assume it to 'exist' without an interaction.

The cosmos must have a way to keep count, otherwise we wouldn't be able to grade collisions at all, but that potential energy you expect to build from a gravity/acceleration. Where does it go as you turn of your engines? Can you measure it in the hull? Will the spacecrafts light bulbs blueshift?

So gravity is coupled to accelerations and invariant mass, but they are not 'gravity'.
==

And no, I don't think Einstein would be that upset with me, after all, he introduced the 'stress energy tensor' :)
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 01:54:30 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #258 on: 12/06/2011 13:40:32 »
The point there is that I see the potential energy and gravity, and accelerations as three expressions of the same thing here, expending energy. (Although 'potential energy' can be used for defining invariant mass too, we can define that mass as 'gravitationally accelerating' for this.) And then we have earth of course, always gravitationally accelerating at one gravity? So is that one gravity acceleration we do on that one gram equivalent to Earths?

If we define it as Einstein did, it is. He used a thought up 'Earth lab' and 'space lab' and stipulated that there was no experiments you could do in those labs that would tell you if you were on our one gram spaceship or on Earth.

But there is one difference, to get one type of acceleration you expend energy, to get the other you only need a lot of invariant mass. So? What is that about?

Motion, isn't it? So does that one gravity created locally have the same SpaceTime geometry as earth, that is, does SpaceTime 'bend' to a equivalent degree? No, and as I see it, it shouldn't. One is a lot of invariant mass, the other is one gram, but locally they both influence our experiments the same. If gravity is 'space', meaning that you won't have one without it. Why can you then find that same gravity from two different SpaceTime geometries?

That one I think I formulated right though :)
==

Although this is a assumption I make, I'm not entirely sure of this one?

There is the possibility that the 'one gram' do distort SpaceTime to a equivalent degree, although I have trouble seeing how, you might assume that it has to do with 'energy stored', in the relation it has relative all other frames, or one frame called SpaceTime.
==

Einstein did not define gravity as a intrinsic part of anything, he defined it as coupled which is another thing to me. And motion, as seen from his perspective, becomes three things, or more.

1. all motion will in SpaceTime (3D & time) take you from A to B.
2. All uniform motion is equivalent, unable to define it from being 'at rest'.
3. all constant uniform accelerations are 'gravity', unable to define as 'motion'.
4. The only acceleration able to define as not being a 'planetary gravity' is a non constant acceleration. and that only as we know in our bones that there exist no planets that change their gravitational potential as fast over 'time'.

So why not accept it?
Then you have only one definition of motion, a non constant acceleration.
But we still get from A to B, using any of them.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 15:40:50 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #259 on: 12/06/2011 13:58:44 »
It seems as everything we do and measure comes back to 'locally', have you noticed that? I think that is how Einstein saw it too, as a thought. And I think it is the only thing that will be true, 'locality'. It has to do with all our measurements, the conclusions we draw from finding SpaceTime to differ between 'frames of reference' is nothing more than our insight that if we want SpaceTime to be the exact same in all directions, giving us the same outcomes, then we will need to define why that unchanging 'locality' can be perceived as differing, when conceptually comparing 'frames'.

So we put it down to the relations between 'frames of reference'. If we do so we will need the 'stress energy tensor' as the room and time becomes inexhaustibly connected to whatever 'frame of references' you look at. But we have a 'gold standard' as I see it. Our own.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 14:11:05 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #260 on: 12/06/2011 14:47:04 »
So what do you think gravitation should be? Particles as in the Higgs boson, or a 'field' (Higg field)? Most seem to expect it to be a field I think, although QM want it to be particles, quanta of some kind.

We know one thing though. Whatever it is, its 'dynamic'. It change to motion and mass. If you imagine it as 'dips and heights' they move, they are not 'constant' in a positional system either, they all go into each other and change the gravitational potential there. So motion and mass. There is also 'energy', defined as able to introduce/influence 'gravity' at some positional space. You can either see it as a property of SpaceTime, meaning that it need all those things to exist, and that without it it has no own 'existence'? Or you can see it as only coupled to them, able to 'exist' very well on its own, thank you :)

In one definition, 'gravity' becomes something that is a property solely. In the other 'gravity' becomes something, that even though it defines our 'space', isn't locked to SpaceTime. And if you think that way, what would 'energy' become? It has the same mystical property of existing 'everywhere' without being able to measure, except in its interactions.

If radiation is 'not propagating', what does that state about energy?
And, if the geometry of a 'system' containing radiation can introduce a 'gravity'?
Why, and how?

Is it all geometry?
But then it has to be a very weird one, doesn't it.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 14:57:54 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #261 on: 12/06/2011 15:16:32 »
Motion can negate 'gravity'. Any geodesic does it.
Accelerations on the other hand will introduce it.

Motion will also change the SpaceTime you observe, but not your own frame.

If your own frame, where ever that might be, always is 'unchanging', what does that make the SpaceTime you observe? A 'curtain of light'? Everything becoming 'plastic', or do you expect those planets to stay as they was before your acceleration, unaltered by your motion? There is only one way to make sense of that one. Well, if you believe in that a Lorentz contraction and 'Time dilation' is a real effect, as I do.

SpaceTime is the frame you mirror yourself against, it do not change, but the relations you find to it do, with your motion, mass and 'energy'. So you are unique, unchanging, and the universe 'rotate' relative you. And any 'distance' measured will only exist relative your mass and motion (& 'energy').

Instead of Earth being the center of the universe, you will be it.
As me.
==

the other possibility is to include a whole SpaceTime per 'observer'. But as I define radiation as the communication between 'observers', and 'observers' as invariant mass (tentatively, for now, this is) then I prefer the first one. The other one leads to inconsistencies, as it will be the same for all 'observers', assuming that we all exist on 'our own' if you see what I mean.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 15:22:12 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #262 on: 12/06/2011 15:30:24 »
So now I will define a geodesic as a 'null motion'. Because that is what I think it is :) And if that didn't make your headache worse? How about defining all gravity as 'accelerations'?

That should do it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #263 on: 12/06/2011 16:17:22 »
Everything is a communication. The grandfather paradox as defined from my perspective is also a communication. You 'go back in time' and shoot your grandfather, as a thought experiment. Does it differ with my definition? Not as I can see, SpaceTime is here, it exist. But, it's a 'relational SpaceTime' to me. But how do 'time' express it. Can I 'go back' in time with my definition?

If the 'clock' we have is coupled to 'c', will that allow a time reversibility?
No, I don't think so myself, but it is also a question of size. When you go 'down in size' you will meet a point where 'c' breaks down, becoming 'undefinable', and that I think of as where Planck size comes in. It's not that nothing can 'exist' beyond those parameters, it's just that we can no longer measure it or if you like, make sense of what it should be.

The 'time reversibility' we define at QM might be explainable from radiation not 'propagating'. If radiation is the 'clock ticks' then nothing 'moves', not from our usual definition of motion at least. On the other hand every 'tick' present us with a new changed 'frame of existence' to compare ourselves too.

And radiation, if so, should then be the whole smooth presentation of reality, meaning that even though we define a 'speed' to it, assuming 'distances' between photons, they from that perspective will be a phenomena without 'distance'. Because if that would be right? Then 'times arrow' should only exist with light signals existing. That is, the dichotomy we see between light and darkness disappear, leaving us with only light signals as the arrow.

And that one really make my head ache. It becomes increasingly weird to think about this one, doesn't it :) I'm not sure of it of course, but it seems logical to assume that if light are the 'ticks' they from our perspective has a 'distance' between them, but from the perspective of light itself there can be no 'distance' between it.
==

So now you might want to say. "Hah, what about entanglements and tunnelings then? Do they communicate too?" Well no, I don't think so, they are just signs telling us that 'distance' on the whole is a rather 'blown up/over valued' proof of 'reality'. It breaks down from both directions, relativistic speeds as well as Quantum mechanically.
==

There is of course the possibility of defining it as if the 'clock' is light signals, and if they are 'non propagating', it all becomes a question of changing 'SpaceTime geometries'? And so the 'arrow' becomes fuzzy for me, like a stack of 'frames'. But I don't know how to express that one, maybe there is some way?
==

This is not me defining any reality btw.
I'm just speculating, and when you do, you will get on thin ice, sooner or later.
And I'm constantly wobbling there :)

But I may find something useful from it, later.

One can always hope.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 18:10:44 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #264 on: 14/06/2011 13:07:10 »
So can we build a picture for the idea of locality? I don't know but to me it makes the most sense. Using locality you can explain the concept of a time dilation. Using locality you can find how 'c' and the arrow of time is equivalent. I'm using the word locality, but it's also the observer. And that makes a certain 'sense' doesn't it. What I'm doing more, defining us all as 'alone', is just that I take it to its logical conclusion.

Because if 'reality' is observer dependent, and if all of the measurements you do only can rest upon your own values in SpaceTime, as the arrow of time, or 'c' (locally), as well as all measurements of 'distance', then this must be true.  I read such a lovely description of it recently. I'll share it with you.

" Magnetic Fields.

Students of physics receive a shock when they realize that magnetic fields do not have the same observer independent basis in reality that other objects in physics do. Usually the demonstration is by means of a thought experiment. If one imagines a stream of electrons flowing near a point, then this will constitute a current that will generate a magnetic field at that point. However, what would an observer traveling along side the stream of electrons and at the same velocity as the electrons see at that same point? No moving charges, hence no magnetic field.

The lesson is that even a physical quantity like magnetic field strength is observer dependent. The same is also true for the length of an object or the length of a time interval. For two space-time points that are not causally connected even the time ordering of the points depends on the observer."

So how can we ever find ourselves in a same 'frame of reference'? Because that is a definition we use, isn't it? All of us on Earth being in 'the same frame of reference'. We have this curtain of light joining us, together in all kind of ways. In a way you could see it as if photons/waves have an existence of its own. Whereas we are defined by a position in time and space, radiation have no such limits. In one kind or another it's expected to be 'everywhere'. and if you use my definition of its 'not propagating' then the difference between 'virtual particles/photons' and 'real particles/photons' only becomes one of the arrow, and you of course.


 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #265 on: 14/06/2011 14:35:31 »
There are some things that I have trouble understanding, amongst them our ability to make sense of a universe where nothing is as it seems. Even if assuming that light 'c' is a 'clock' where do we get our own macroscopic sense of 'time' from. That every new 'interaction', as light-signals annihilating, in a way will bring you a new 'frame of reference' is possible to understand, but the way we bind it into a arrow isn't.

There was something else too I was thinking of, and as usual it seems that I've forgotten it. Most of my most interesting ideas (to me that is:) just seems to pop up and the leave? I hate that, leaving me with this vague feeling that this idea was really cool, if I just could remember it :)

Actually I forgot it as soon as I started to write " I would like to take you on another journey ", and when finishing the line realizing that I didn't know squat where that journey was meant to go any longer ::)) Typical, you can blame it on a, all too early senility, if you like. If I stop thinking of it maybe?

But the clock we have is weird on many planes, myself I think it should be biological even though taking its clue from 'c', and so be 'entropic', as defined by 'systems'. The problem with that is that 'entropy' has no clear limitations of a open system, as I understands it? And we are all 'open ended systems' to me. To get all of those different definitions into one logical conclusion is he* on wheels :) and I don't think I understand it good enough to even dare.

Chaos theory is something that I think tells us a lot about 'time'. To me the arrow is one thing, giving us the direction, and 'time'? Chaos theory, and what I call its repeating patterns, is maybe another principle? Think of time as the box you're in, with the floor constantly moving upwards with you. You don't see that floor, you see a line defined by your position in space, and times arrow.

The 'floor' doesn't move, although I define it as such from our point of view, it's the same at all times (yeah, slightly wacky, isn't it:) but as we have this illusion of the arrow (well, in a way it is, as I see it, in another it's our reality.) we only notice it as a causality chain. But then 'Chaos theory' knocks on the door, saying that there are phenomena that even though included in that causality chain, still comes without explanation, unable to predefine from interactions, and unable to backtrack to a original 'start'? And that might be a result of that floor 'co moving' with you, but unable for us to perceive other than 'statistically' (sort of).

=
That's a really bad description.

Maybe it is more about 'dimensions'? Like a 'static universe' in where the arrow gives us an illusion of moving? Or as you being the definition of the 'universe' by your observations, with light being both the arrow and the joiner of our 'metaverses'? But I'm vary when it comes to 'dimensions', as you might have noticed before. In my universe it seems as if we all are isolated, and all containing a 'reality' defined by our observations inside our 'arrow' (3-D + times arrow), but simultaneously by another 'reality', described by a greater 'static' dimensionality. Our 'dimensions' combined with the arrow give us a positional system that we use to make sense of it, defining distance, clocks, and 'speeds/motion' but that is our 'jello' inside that greater 'reality/dimension(s)'

If that now makes more sense?

That reminds me of the 'grandfather paradox';

If you by shooting your grandfather breaks a continuum, forcing it to bifurcate (split) then you now have two 'realities' conceptually. In my version it becomes fuzzy as I define you as a singular definition of 'reality', do you see it? You exist on your own and breaking that line should then break it for you only. Then the question becomes how you then can 'lift in' a whole new 'metaverse' in one of those lines, assuming a 'original time line'?  If you can it makes you a 'God', doesn't it? You create a universe from 'nothing' actually. But there is other possibilities, amongst them that in my universe you would instead annihilate yourself, and your 'time-line' without including ours, as we now define all observers as 'isolated', joined by radiation. And there is one other definition I think, but that one I have to wait on.

Well, it builds on a 'static universe'. If it would be so that 'everything' is here simultaneously, where our 'free choices' being what creates a 'causality direction' in it (using our arrow) then we have the 'box' again. In it you might shoot a 'grandfather' but you don't 'create' anything. The amount of 'whatever there is' outside our Jello will then be a constant, so what you do is to break a causality chain, introducing either one 'new reality' without you, or two 'realties', bifurcating by your interaction. But you will no longer create anything out of 'nothing', you will just split one 'stream' into two.

And that makes 'metaverses' possible as coexisting in every interaction. The 'splits' made will then just be necessary 'patterns' each one believing itself to be unique. They are not created, they are all there in this version, statically coexisting, but from the point of being inside each 'jello' having their own 'existence'. And that one you really need to understand. In this description the 'box' will be all about 'patterns' where the arrow becomes the 'stream' defining one or another into its own unique jello, but all coexisting in that 'static box'. In it there can be no past, now or future. They are only meaningful inside a jello, losing all definition outside it. And the thing creating a jello will then be light, at least it will define a 'clock' and a temporal direction with your observations, and choices, defining it for you.

And that one I actually like, if it now makes sense :)

Thinking some more, I'm not really happy with the version where 'realities split' on the atomic plane, as that to me goes to 'infinity' almost immediately, spawning new 'metaverse' at every interaction, into oblivion. And so I will prefer the version where you erase yourself in going back to shoot your grandfather, it leaves us with fewer patterns to keep count of, or maybe not :) but it at least keeps it a little tidier. That won't stop you from creating a new pattern by shooting, but it will be one without you, so to speak. But if so, what happened to the pattern that was there? Think of it as the streams mirroring themselves in the water, they go into each other and they change, they're not static although the bottom never change from your point of view at the bank looking down at it. The whole question of a arrow, and linearity, can only exist where there is clocks. We could see ourselves as 'mystical attractors' maybe, each one of us creating a slightly different stream in our interactions/observations.

As I think of it now at least :)
==
 
When I think of HUP it becomes something both defining a limitation of observation, as well as something that you actually can make 'sense' of, statistically. And there you better ask yourself why? How can it be both? Well, maybe it rests on that 'floor' I was talking about, and there we find no 'arrow', but we will find connections, patterns and symmetries as I believe.

Don't take this as more than thoughts though.
« Last Edit: 15/06/2011 00:56:22 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #266 on: 18/06/2011 08:59:40 »
So I got stuck on 'Inertia', again :)

If inertia is a property only expected of mass, then gravity should be mass too, as they both go together. If inertia isn't a property of mass, then it is a property of gravity, and then gravity is not mass. If inertia is expected to exist 'everywhere', and not being mass, then space is gravity.

But then we expect 'energy' to create a mass, and gravity too? So 'energy', would that be what creates 'space' too? There is of course a possibility of inertia to exist on its own? Or maybe be a negation of our idea of 'potential energy', its symmetry so to speak?

It's a 'resistance' to change, isn't it? We might assume, at least I will assume, that it exist everywhere. If it does, then can it exist without 'gravity'. Think of the expansion and the way it fills in 'space points', is there a 'instant gravity' there or does it propagate to those points at light speed? We would assume that there should be a 'instant inertia' at least, wouldn't we? As seen from that point of view the Higg field makes a lot of sense in defining 'something' that exist everywhere and sort of clings to mass, but not bosons.

But then we have chilled BECs (Bose Einstein condensates). What happens to a particle chilled? It stops 'jiggling', doesn't it? And it is the spin that defines if you can use it as 'pretend boson' isn't it? if it stops 'jiggling', does it lose its mass? Isn't this the same as changing it into a Boson? Only depending on temperature, and that we can't seem to reach that state of utter 'rest' for it? What does that state about the difference between 'rest mass' and bosons? And is there a equivalence somewhere there to high energies where we get our pair production, a symmetry? I don't see that, do you?

Why I put it that way is just a question of the energy needed for creating those phenomena. Pair production takes a he* of a lot more energy than Bec's, as it seems to me, but I can be wrong there.

And is there a importance to it being Helium? One of the first elements created as we think? There must be a importance to that fact.
==

I'll need to see what I can find on Inertia, it's such a weird phenomena, and as I see it the primary pointer to a Higgs field. Ah well. Strange, seems as the Higg field may need an additional mechanism to explain Inertia? Let's see how I would define what makes a inertia.

Whatever it is I will assume it 'everywhere'. I will also assume it coupled to gravity, as I have severe troubles imagining gravity without inertia, so not mass but 'gravity'. If we take a new look at the 'expansion' we now have to decide which possibility you think rule. Either 'gravity' propagates to those new points at 'c' in which case we now have defined the possibility of a 'space' existing without gravity. Or we define it as Einstein, 'gravity' is that 'new space', or maybe that is me :) Einstein defined it as the 'metric' of space which may be a subtle difference. But I'll go with 'instant' as that is the best explanation. To introduce 'Lego' into how 'space' becomes makes no sense to me, SpaceTime is a whole process, there are no singular 'knittings' to be seen as I know of?
==

'Instant' just mean that 'gravity & inertia' is 'space'. The propagation of gravitational 'signals' should still propagate at 'c' as that seems to be the constant around all 'motion' circumnavigates, well, sort of.

« Last Edit: 18/06/2011 10:27:35 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #267 on: 18/06/2011 10:18:20 »
Anyone heard of Bosenova implosions/explosions? It's a state of a Bec where "the BEC discovery team at JILA produced a new rubidium-85 BEC. While an electromagnetic field was applied to cause a stronger attraction among the BEC atoms, the BEC started to shrink and then exploded like a supernova. The result was a release of particles in various streams, leaving behind a much smaller BEC remnant. The thermal energy released was greater than the energy in the BEC and about half of all the thousands of atoms of the rubidium-85 disappeared. The effect was at first nicknamed the bosenova, and still a total puzzle to this day."

Some see this as a actual 'micro black hole' gets created, explaining where the missing atoms went. Although Dr. Eric A. Cornell and Dr. Carl E. Wieman explicitly state that micro black holes can't be created from gravitational forces that exist with laboratory created Bose-Einstein Condensates.

But if we assume 'gravity' to be a state of its own? What will a Black Hole be then? I suggest a discontinuity of SpaceTime, locally defined to us by its Event Horizon. From that point of view, what do you need for a micro black hole? Is those Bec 'bosons/fermions' balancing on a delimitation of SpaceTime? We have near 'c', and we have Bec's.
==

Gravity is just as 'magnetism' observer dependent, have you thought of that? A geodesic has no gravity. But Inertia isn't. Inertia will always be there.
« Last Edit: 18/06/2011 10:35:55 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #268 on: 19/06/2011 19:27:50 »
You know, assuming that light doesn't 'propagate' it all becomes a function of the arrow of time. Then that arrow is what organize it into 'functions' we define as motion and Lorentz contractions, etc. A preposterous thought isn't it :)

But then again, so is lights duality, and the Copenhagen interpretation of it. Or Wheeler, or Feynman, or Bekenstein, Einstein, a.s.o ..

And then what we see all is connected, the causality of it becoming our observations inside a arrow. This one might be interesting considering such a notion. quantum mechanical tunneling and chemistry.
==

What I mean by 'connected' could be considered from two views, the 'observers' and 'what possibly is conceptually'. The observer could then, as a first suggestion, then always be defined by 'locality', meaning that it is the observers 'unending locality' that gives 'him' his notion of those unchanging macroscopic causality chains making sense.

Considered conceptually we find another 'reality' that has little to do with our definitions. In that one there is no 'motion' but an arrow. And that one combined with consciousness construct our SpaceTime, maybe? It is preposterous, isn't it :)
==

Okay, another idea I'm willing to explore. The observer dependence of magnetism and gravity.
Assume that they both define 'something' similar.

Inertia?
« Last Edit: 19/06/2011 19:54:00 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #269 on: 20/06/2011 04:14:53 »
So let's make some wild conjecture :)

Gravity and Magnetism is equivalences.

Inertia exist everywhere in SpaceTime.
Inertia is a property coupled to gravity.
In fact they are a symmetry. Different sides of a coin so to speak.

Then we are looking for something that exist on 'its own'. Exist everywhere we can find a 'space', explaining how this phenomena allow an 'expansion' instantly, as it then must be what defines a space. Space's 'metric' as Einstein once called it.

So where does it come from? The expansion, and 'gravity/inertia'.
And why can it act on us?

The Higg field, which is a hypothesis that I kind of think is correct, even if it may need to be 'tweaked' to work talks about 'particles/bosons' that just 'is' everywhere and then 'compacts' in the presence of 'motion'. But motion is a very weird idea nowadays, isn't it :) So to get it to 'work', don't we have to fit it to the way a Lorentz contraction express itself, for example?

If you assume that a Lorentz contraction is as real as any other measurement you can do, that means that the distance you measure is the 'real distance' for you, doesn't it?

How can we set a standard for 'motion'? Depending on your motion relative lights 'blue shift' (as a thought up objective definition of 'absolute motion'?  Can we use that for defining a motion? All motion is a relative definition, although an non uniform acceleration will be definable. So, can the blue shift (hard radiation) tell you if your universe in general is going through a 'time dilation' relative you? That a blue shift disappear inside the ship when you you close your engines (black box scenario) to 'drift' (uniform motion) doesn't define that the universe's blue shift relative your motion has to do the same, does it?

Think of Earth, I read somewhere that it moves (approximately) at a million mph relative the CMB (Cosmic background radiation). And it's in a uniform motion. Do we observe a blueshift relative the stars due to that fact? So in a uniform motion there can be no 'blue shift', relative anything in fact?

Which then only would leave us accelerations to define a motion from. And there we have the fact that according to Einsteins definition of a uniform constant acceleration, it becomes inseparable from a 'gravity', just as all uniform motions becomes inseparable form any other 'uniform motion' no matter how you define it as a 'speed' comparing it to some origin..

I need to think about that one, we can see a blueshift relative the CMB, and if we can see that we can see a blueshift relative the stars too, depending on where they are moving relative us. We are free to define ourselves as 'standing still', and so we can use the CMB as a definition of a 'original state' possibly?

But it's not correct, there are no frame of reference we can prove to stand still. But we have proved that there must be a 'blue shift' relative the universe even in a 'uniform motion'. So we can use it.
==

Took me some time to reason that one out, didn't it :) But I think it's correct, we will have a blue shift relative the universe in a uniform motion, even if it disappears inside our ship, measuring that light bulb inside a 'black room scenario'.

So the universe has a way to define motion from, and that is what I've expected it to have before too. there must be 'null state' relative the universe, and light defines it. But, inside your own 'frame of reference' (locally) all uniform motions are the exact same, inseparable from each other, and inseparable from being 'at rest' with gravity.
==

There is one snag to it though.

The expansion, that one will redshift a object, no matter if it is coming towards you or from you. So to use red and blue shift as a 'universal speed holder' we need to find out how the universe treat a expansion. But then again, that's not about 'relative motion' is it? It's more of a universal 'fact' acting on 'space' between galaxies. I really need to get my head around that one, but as it also has to do with the whole concept of 'distance', that we already know to change with relative motion? It's a quagmire.

Can you see what I'm trying to point out?
Motion becomes a very weird phenomena in my world.
And locality defines your 'time' ('c')
« Last Edit: 26/06/2011 04:16:52 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #270 on: 20/06/2011 04:50:01 »
If 'locality' defines your 'time' what parts of the universe does it 'cover'?

All parts, isn't it :) There are no light coming at you, measured locally, that ever have another 'speed'. But 'distance'  change with motion. and 'motion' has one gold standard to compare itself to. The blueshift you measure locally versus the CMB will tell you if you are moving as it is isotropic and approximately homogeneous, even though it has slight variations.

But you can't use a star, as the blueshift always will be a relation, and even the CMB can be questioned, as we can't state if it and us are moving together in some preferred direction, although with variations that we then experience as our 'motion' relative it. But assuming that the CMB is the remains of a origin, and assuming that the CMB then is another definition or delimitation, with gravity/inertia, of our SpaceTime, we should be able to use it, I think? :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #271 on: 20/06/2011 05:09:13 »
Even though I suggest the CMB as our 'gold standard', the real 'gold standard' must be all stars etc, meaning all light, acting against each other. And that one no computer can count on i think, but apparently the universe can. You see what I mean? The 'null state' is that all light together, I'm sure that if we could find a way to measure it we would find it to take itself out. It's another thing that must be 'symmetric', the apparent motion we measure becoming 'null' from the universe. And now I'm taking you on a real journey, ain't I :)

I really like that one.
Can't really prove it, but it has to do with symmetries and the universe are big on those. Motion versus 'null motion', as defined locally, relative 'conceptually' (universally)
==

You can see that one several ways. Either as vectors taking each other out 'universally' assuming light propagating (or not, as I do:), which sound rather wrong at a first glance, but which I suspect to be true anyway. Or you can look at 'motion' locally and see where the symmetry should be if so. That as I prefer that way for simplicity, and the symmetry should be there from that perspective too. But then I can't use the 'conceptual' way of defining it anymore, instead having to treat it another way. Because 'locally' light becomes a 'clock' defining interactions. And as all interactions in my universe are defined by something 'not propagating' they instead of having 'distance and motion' becomes patterns. And the 'patterns' are timed by the 'clock'. Yeah, I know, that one is a hard nut to crack. And I'm testing it as a proposition. At the same time as it solves some problems, it introduces new ones :)
=

But it's all about 'turning ones head', to see if there are other ways to look at it.
« Last Edit: 20/06/2011 06:38:46 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #272 on: 20/06/2011 07:10:04 »
Thinking of it, I may be wrong about the speed we are moving, it was just something I had a vague memory of. But the definition we have of a 'speed' comes from measurements made from a U2 actually :). George Smoot was looking for small variations in the CMB, as it was one of the prerequisites expected for the Big bang, but without finding it. Before this they mostly used high altitude balloons, same as we have for measuring weather/climate today. But searching for those small variations in the CMB he instead found a slight blue and red shift, balancing itself out, proofing that we had a motion relative the CMB. The exact number seems to be 370 km/sec (827 666 mph) relative our Universe and the correct term describing it is dipole anisotropy. There were some guys before him that also defined a dipole using balloons, but somehow he got the whole glory from it? Probably because his was the most exact?

But he wasn't the first to discover it. And it's kind of weird that the CMB has a direction as one might assume that it should be without a preferred vector, a little like the isotropy we see with the galaxies around us. I'm not sure of that one in fact, it's somewhat confusing.

Here you have a history and description of the CMB Dipole: The Most Recent Measurement And Some History (4 Sep 1996) by Charles H. Lineweaver. 
« Last Edit: 20/06/2011 07:36:41 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #273 on: 25/06/2011 17:29:51 »
I've always had a lot of trouble with 'metaverses'. They seem questionable from so many angles. You need to decide where to start with them (origin) you need to define where and how they should be assumed to bifurcate, and depending of what level, and assuming that all bifurcations will act the same as the origin you will end up with something to go to 'infinity' in a whiff. because every bifurcation opens for new ones, for example, you have 1 2 4 8, but also for each of them, causing infinity to seem rather small suddenly :)

But that also has to do with how you will define 'time' and its arrow. Assuming, for example, that the arrow is nothing more than a static pattern, with our choices being the definitions of 'bifurcations' in it, you can get a easier acceptance of it. And to be correct you also need to see that Einsteins definition of 'frames of reference', combined with how each observer will have a different description of 'time' and 'distance', unique from all perspectives, then there can be no agreement around a 'universal time'. Although we can find a agreement about 'durations' assuming that they all are the same on some 'ground level'. And that one is defined as being in the same 'frame of reference' so I will presume that one to exist, even though being a same 'frame' only can be conceptual from fermionic definitions (matter). Only bosons can be super imposed on each other after all. So your 'metaverses' are already around you, well, as I see it

So recently I've started to reevaluate the concept of 'metaverses' from my new understanding of what I call patterns. And a 'pattern' is from this perspective highly speculative and conceptual. You might see it as a imprint consciousness leave on a static reality, leaving us jellos of 'SpaceTime' in where we 'exist'. A crazy thought, huh :) but it would allow me to melt the idea of constant and 'infinite' 'bifurcations' in a better way, for me that is.

'Reality' is weird.

From that (local) perspective you're already inside a 'pattern'. The SpaceTime you observe is that pattern. What connect you to it, and make you certain of its reality is radiation. That radiation is from your local definition of reality always of one 'duration' or 'speed' if you like. The same goes for your arrow, it never changes for you. If you assume that your life is one span full, then that span will be emptied as fast on the Event horizon of a Black Hole, as it will be on Earth.

And that is the real truth of it. When people think of time dilations they seem to assume that it somehow 'stretch out' their life. That is not true, it's just changing your relation to the universal 'frame of reference' we all meet. That frame is consistent of all 'objects' existing, mediated by light. The ball you catch, and whose path you have been following as it traveled in the air, is also mediated by light. This description is not so much a new 'reality', but Einsteins old one, as interpreted if you go out from 'locality'.

And to be realistic, how can you do it any other way? All measurements you make goes out from it too. All conclusions we have build on our interpretations from those local observations too. People have an unfortunate ability to mix their 'conceptual truths' with those that actually 'exist' locally. Einstein did not do that, that's what 'frames of reference' is all about as I see it. He treated reality 'locally'.
==

But then we have the question of how I can catch that ball? And keep it in my room, waking up to find it being in the same place I left it, etc. And that one goes back to how we define choices and probabilities. In a 'SpaceTime' that is a 'whole thing, you included' it becomes weird. But consider the same if we define 'SpaceTime' as a place, where although being 'a whole', also is a description, only definable relative (your) 'locality'?

Think about it, I know that I will :)
==

Take the definition of 'locality' versus 'non locality' for example. In a old description that one presumes that we all share some same positional description & time. If you use my definition that can't be true. Although we all can define each other relative our own 'locality' we do not 'share' it. The definition I will have of you is my own unique one, just as your definition of me will be yours unique, as defined from your intrinsic locality.

There is only locality in my definition, you can't define it otherwise and be true to reality. And what I'm wondering about here is how to describe all 'non local' effects, as 'local'? Because that will explain a lot. There must be a way to describe a entanglement that makes sense from my definition of a 'local' approach. And that one will discuss our concept of 'distance'.
« Last Edit: 25/06/2011 17:53:32 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #274 on: 26/06/2011 02:53:07 »
I made a slight detour today checking up on Smolins Loop Quantum gravity. The reason was that in some forms of this theory a small difference of speed is expected to be possible coupled to the energy of the photon. The idea was first presented somewhere around around 2005-6 and have since that been debated.

As I like to think of light/radiation as a 'clock' and as a constant, it would have made it a little problematic to find that it have different 'beats', even if only over incredibly small 'distances' and even if it kept to the macroscopic observer dependent effects of the theory of relativity. As far as I could see, all evidence found so far, studying possible differences between observed photons/energy and 'speeds' points to that there is no difference measurable. Which sort of fits my idea, at least keeps it simpler. Gamma ray test shows that GR is still right.. And for those of you seriously interested in how they thought, start here.

Don't get me wrong, I like Smolin a lot, even though I don't like the idea of a grainy origin (quanta). but then, on the other hand, I have serious problems imagine a 'one dimensional graininess' consisting of 'loops and strings' too. Don't take this that I don't think it possible, everything is possible as far as I'm concerned, if it keeps the theory of relativity intact and stop trying to nag bits of it. It's the best theory I've seen so far, and tested experimentally countless times. Not to forget that it's the one describing gravity best too. If there ever will be a a quantum theory that fit, it will be the one I will look at seriously. And Smolin tries to define it so that relativity will fit, which makes him very interesting to me.
==

And as I'm already making detours, let's discuss 'energy'. the universe is expected to be/have a 'symmetry'. Remember that I commented on 'matter waves' somewhere? And asked if you could consider matter to be red and blue shifted too? well, cosmology seems to do just that. and it is quite cool, until we consider a possible expansion. What that does is to 'stretch' a wave. Now this is a seriously weird effect as it will be the one independent of the observer. Normally you can describe all red and blue shifts as a result of the relation between you, and what you observes. It goes away from you (or you from it:) There's your 'red shift' It comes towards you (or you to it) There's your 'blue shift'.

But what about matter? And how about particles drifting far away from the galaxies, do they too change? If you want to define their 'speed' relative some receding galaxy its 'momentum' must change with the increased velocities measured against those particles, but that one is still a relation and so not disturbing to me. but the idea of a particle being 'matter waves' also describes something possible, at least theoretically, to change its wavelength?

Then we have the question of 'conservation of energy'. If the expansion 'steals' energy/momentum from a particle, where is it conserved? There are some possible ways around this. One is to define motion as something being a relation, that meaning that it in my universe :) it is a 'illusion' created by radiation. Well, in my universe only 'locality' counts, remember? And if so, everything you take for given will be a result of radiation communicating with you. Another might be to assume that the universe have a way to define a 'speed' exempting red and blue shifts. But that one will lead to that the universe has a universal 'rest frame' hidden, and even if possible, then also question the theory of relativity. Then we have a possibility of energy not being conserved too. This last one one is possible, from several points of view. One is that if we accept a 'inflation' and 'expansion' with 'instant space/gravity', then that already is a violation of the concept of 'conservation of energy', to me at least. And then we have the whole shebang with defining what 'energy' really, and I mean really, is?

We only see it in interactions, don't we?
« Last Edit: 26/06/2011 03:47:02 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #274 on: 26/06/2011 02:53:07 »

 

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