The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280431 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 #2550 on: 24/10/2016 14:26:21 »
It will be a test, of our stupidity.
And you're involved, whether you want or not.
 

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 #2551 on: 24/10/2016 15:17:39 »
I wrote "And it's a beautiful explanation for 'inertia' existing even when no 'gravitational potential' is measurable, acting on you, except that course change."

And also that it invites to a different approach of what 'dimensions' might be. Never liked the idea of gravity being some sort of 'particle molasses' acting inside 'dimensions'. This one seems a whole lot more interesting to me.
 

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 #2552 on: 24/10/2016 15:19:23 »
seems we can't help being stuck in Newtonian terms, even when we try to free ourselves from 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 #2553 on: 24/10/2016 17:43:25 »
It all depends on how you read it. You can call it a geometry if you like, it is. But it is also an idea of how entangled quarks 'connect' through wormholes. The 'geometry' we see macroscopically being a result of it. And when it comes to entanglements?  Everything is Entangled


and "In 1983 theorists Don Page and William Wootters suggested that quantum entanglement might provide a solution to the Wheeler-DeWitt “problem of time”. When quantum objects are entangled, measuring the properties of one changes those of the other. Mathematically, they showed that a clock entangled with the rest of the universe would appear to tick when viewed by an observer within that universe. But if a hypothetical observer existed outside the universe, when they looked in, everything would appear stationary...

For the first time, Genovese and colleagues have demonstrated this effect in a physical system, albeit in a “universe” that contains only two photons. The team started by sending a pair of entangled photons along two separate paths. The photons start out polarised, or orientated, either horizontally or vertically, and the polarisation rotates as both photons pass though a quartz plate and on to a series of detectors. The entangled photons exist in a superposition of both horizontal and vertical states simultaneously until they are observed. But the thicker the plate, the longer it takes the photons to pass through and the more their polarisation evolves, affecting the probability that either one will take a particular value.

In one mode of the experiment, one of the photons is treated like a clock with a tick that can alternate between horizontal and vertical polarisation. Because of entanglement, reading this clock will affect the polarisation value of the second photon. That means an observer that reads the clock influences the photons’ universe and becomes part of it. The observer is then able to gauge the polarisation value of the other photon based on quantum probabilities. Since photons passing through a thicker quartz plate experience a different degree of change, repeating the experiment with plates of different thicknesses confirms that the second photon’s polarisation varies with time.

In another mode, the experimenter is a “super-observer” that exists outside of the universe, and so measures the quantum state of the system as a whole. From that vantage point, the state of both photons taken together is always the same, giving the appearance of a static universe."

Now, take this last with a sufficient pinch of salt, I do. A 'measurement' is not 'time' by itself, not from where I look at it at least. From the state of deciding a measurement to the measurement itself lies a huge gap. And the gap is 'ticking'.


« Last Edit: 27/10/2016 13:19:50 by yor_on »
 

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 #2554 on: 24/10/2016 17:46:47 »
You could also call it (this gap) a result of 'free will'. Without that everything we do, or think us do, becomes a joke.
 

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 #2555 on: 24/10/2016 17:53:06 »
Hmm :)

"But not everyone thinks the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is the correct route to unification of the quantum and classical worlds, says Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. “They have verified in the context of a laboratory system that quantum mechanics is working correctly,” he says. But Smolin argues that any correct description of the universe must include time."

I'll go with Smolin. Entangled toy universe shows time may be an illusion. 
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2556 on: 24/10/2016 19:21:40 »
Personally I would forget the Wheeler-deWitt equation.
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2557 on: 24/10/2016 22:48:03 »
What I think is that every elementary pieces of matter have always a motion relative to every other pieces. This would show the essence of time and the lack of perfect symmetries between them. A non rotating frame is a boundary that could be real only at the scale of the entire universe. In principle, you could say that we could stop the earth rotation. But I think in reality, we just can't... Why you would ask?

Because of quantized time. If you try to stop its rotation, it would approach 0 and would jump from a positive rotation to a negative rotation without having ever pass through zero... :o)

But in the end, for the entire universe, if there is a symmetry, this boundary is real. Does it make time an illusion? I don't think it is an absolute necessity but I understand why some people think that way. Maybe we will live this life time an again... indefinitely... It is a possibility that we have to live with! :o)
 

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 #2558 on: 25/10/2016 00:21:10 »
Well, kind of nice CPT, almost poetic. And good to know jeffrey. When I think of 'time' the question becomes one of whether one should consider it  a 'background' or not. Do the universe need a background called 'time'? Or is the universe 'creating it' by its existence? The last one seems slightly dubious though, although I can't be sure it reminds me of that famous dog, chasing its tail, or was that a snake? Anyway, if I assume it to be a background, then that background is local, even if 'equivalent' for us all, the way I look at it that is :)
 

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 #2559 on: 25/10/2016 00:26:43 »
Maybe one could put it as in the first case the universe is 'background dependent' at least locally defined. In the other the universe cope without it.

=

What I mean by dubious is the question of causation. the last one becomes a circular proof, and that bugs me. Then again, if there is a background, a local 'beat', What makes it? Yeah, any way I turn :) What I don't doubt is the definition of 'local clocks' used in relativity, and that they need to be equivalent, locally measured, for us to have physics existing. We need a base from where we can do those experiments, and agree on them.

« Last Edit: 25/10/2016 00:41:17 by yor_on »
 

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 #2560 on: 25/10/2016 00:52:13 »
Here's a better description  Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement
=

And no :)
Don't see this as a a proof.

« Last Edit: 25/10/2016 00:54:45 by yor_on »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2561 on: 25/10/2016 01:33:00 »
Here's a better description  Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement
=

And no :)
Don't see this as a a proof.

Entanglement related to action may be interesting. Where time and energy change proportionally.
 

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 #2562 on: 25/10/2016 16:58:44 »
You have an idea jeffrey,  how to see it?

For myself then, reading the link, I find several problems with it. As Pete once pointed out, we're 'inside' and there is no way we can be placed 'outside'. I don't expect a 'outside' to exist myself, which is one of the reasons why the snake biting its tail becomes my bet. A 'background' dependency for this universe demands me not only to be able to explain this universe, but also crave me to explain where this 'background' comes from. Which seems to lead me into a never ending dance. As someone wrote 'turtles, all the way down' :)

A great part of the problem is to decide where to end.
 

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 #2563 on: 26/10/2016 10:54:15 »
I don't like dimensions :)
They're not simple

So how do you get it simple? Well, throw as many as you can away.
 

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 #2564 on: 26/10/2016 11:08:55 »
As someone once said. "Maybe 'simple' is wrong"
I hope not. If it is we're f**ed, well, more or less.

And from that to 'black holes' :)

A interesting thing with a black hole is that recent research (theoretical naturally) don't seem to have the 'dimensions' we would expect from the way we measure macroscopically. And it is interesting. Beckenstein and Hawking both got to a same formula, but from slightly different perspectives. It's about how many 'bits' of 'information' you can throw into it. There are two interesting things about it, probably more but for this then, theoretically it tells you a 'amount', the other is that it (the equation) finds itself treating the 'Black Hole' as a 'surface'.

www.youtube.com/embed/tEtt4A7WsDg   By Joe Polchinski
 

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 #2565 on: 26/10/2016 12:07:32 »
Ok, one more then, that I pointed out somewhere else. "No, it doesn't break any laws by becoming a singularity. To break it, it needs to tell us what it does. And it refuses, Even Hawking radiation becomes 'useless' for knowing what that elusive pimpernel does. It's a shady character."

It is, Hawking radiation 'destroys information' A very simple way to think about Hawking radiation is to presume it takes place at the 'border', where light wobbles between getting stuck, or 'leave'. That's where the 'energy density' should be at its greatest anyway still allowing for a 'release'. Then comes the spontaneous 'pair production' of particles, one disappearing inside the event horizon, the other able to get away. Why that takes 'energy' away from a black hole could then be seen as the 'energy' producing the 'pair production' actually is a result of the 'black holes' existence. Due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, as well as Planks ideas, about what allows those particles to 'spontaneously appear'  we know that it only have a extremely short appearance normally, the particle and 'anti particle' dissolving, leaving no leftovers inside our four dimensional reality. But here only half of it 'dissolves' into that event horizon. The rest becomes Hawking radiation, being 'stolen' more or less, from the black holes existence. Without it this , even if it might happen, wouldn't be noticeable.

And yeah, I like Planck, and HUP too :)

===

Better correct, at least discuss, myself here, my understanding of a spontaneous pairproduction in a vacuum was, and still is actually, that it has a probability of happening (HUP), aka 'virtual particles' becoming 'real particles'. As it consist of an elementary particle and its antiparticle they normally destroy each other, but I'm wrong in saying that there are no 'leftovers' from it, it releases photon radiation in its annihilation. If I look at Hawking radiation then the idea is that this phenomena increase due to '"gravitational 'forces'" at and just above the event horizon.

Now, the process I presents above has a weakness, as I remember, we've had a discussion about this at TNS some years ago, where someone working with it gave me the view that a Black Hole not only lost 'energy' from the particle leaving, but also lost energy from the 'in-falling' one? That is (still) somewhat of a headache to me as a 'anti particle' is a particle too, having a same mass as the other particle, although with a opposite charge.

Then there is this photon radiation released in a annihilation. It's one thing to presume it happening slightly above the event horizon, due to gravity. Thinking this way 'gravity' becomes a 'force', but when thinking of it as a result from a 'normal' vacuum it seems to say that the vacuum constantly is, either losing 'energy, or, at least presenting the universe some 'free energy'? Which makes me slightly confused. You might be able to make a argument where gravity is 'denser' at a event horizon, giving a increased probability of 'virtual particles', but that seems to me as to state that you can 'compress' a vacuum?

Maybe the argument makes more sense if we assume it to be Higgs bosons :) Anyway, I still think the analogy make a reasonable explanation. What is left to explain would then be how the other  (infalling) particle somehow also 'steals energy', which doesn't make sense to me. That would be a very new type of 'anti particle'.
===

Actually it makes sense to think of gravity as a 'force'. It is what blue shift a photon, 'working/following' it's 'gradient downhill', or 'redshifts' when working against gravity. And as 'gravity' is part of a vacuum? Then again, Higgs bosons? Now we're talking 'particles' and my argument of gravity existing 'everywhere', even if not measurable, becomes trickier to me.

« Last Edit: 27/10/2016 13:20:42 by yor_on »
 

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 #2566 on: 26/10/2016 12:09:11 »
And it all knits to those 'wormholes' existing. Because, what we are discussing here isn't 'particles', it's the information they contain. And we assume information to exist, even when transformed into a 'singularity'. The other way is to assume information as being able to get lost. And then my favorite :)

It all depends on definitions.
There are more ways than one to skin a cat.


« Last Edit: 26/10/2016 12:15:55 by yor_on »
 

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 #2567 on: 26/10/2016 12:21:30 »
It's the same principle as that when assuming everything to be entangled, also finding oneself realizing that those entanglements becomes impossible to prove at a 'universal scope'. We can't follow them, isolate them, except at a very small scale. actually close to the ideas of 'coherence'.
 

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 #2568 on: 26/10/2016 12:26:12 »
Also, when thinking of wormholes 'existing' in a 'fifth dimension', as it was described. One might find it valuable to turn that around, and ask oneself how the other 'four', or maybe 'three' ignoring time now, appear from that sole perspective.
 

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 #2569 on: 26/10/2016 13:01:42 »
Another way. Look at it as a 'information density'. You need a arrow but, where would the density be? Think about that 'black hole'. Is the universe represented in those 'worm holes' or not? Take away that information 'seeping out' through a wormhole. Where was it now again?
 

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 #2570 on: 26/10/2016 13:11:29 »
I have a theory, it consist of life :)

You get kicked up to your level of incompetence, but only if you're hungry for power, greed as it might be.
So, how many of you see yourself?
 

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 #2571 on: 26/10/2016 13:40:47 »
Then again, another, following it. Those of you needing it most, for your own good.
You won't even read me :)

Why? For your own good :)
Isn't that right?
 

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 #2572 on: 26/10/2016 13:47:24 »
So, maybe I'm preaching for the 'select few'?
I don't care. I live, and then I die.
Just as 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 #2573 on: 26/10/2016 13:49:56 »
I don't think anyone can 'save us'.
I do think some people are good, others bad.

Education might diminish the amount of 'bad' though
Get yourself a education
 

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 #2574 on: 26/10/2016 13:54:38 »
The question might be
Where is that snake?

Where are you?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2574 on: 26/10/2016 13:54:38 »

 

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