The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 278735 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 #275 on: 26/06/2011 04:01:50 »
You can consider it this way.

When it comes to a possible 'universal symmetry' then that is not threatened by a 'expansion' as long as the balance between what new space/gravity/energy still keep its 'universal quota'. but from a conservation point of view it seems to me that 'energy from nowhere' as that new space can be described from a QM perspective ('zero energy') should violate it? There has to be a symmetry to a conservation law too, doesn't it? You can't just say that as long as the 'energy' never leaves, only transforms from usable to unusable, it is okay if our universe 'inflates'?

Or maybe you can? Distance becomes weird in Einsteins universe. Expending a lot of energy 'locally' will change it. So, how about it? If I travel infinitely near light, my universe contracted. Will its possible 'energy'  stay the same? But now described as a point? How can all that 'energy', in a whole universe, be compressed into a point, as from the travelers perspective? And shouldn't that energy be forced to react as it 'compress'?

I'm not really sure how to formulate that one. Although I think I have some ideas there. As always.. Maybe we could define motion as we do energy. As potential, I better sleep on it, huh :)
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #276 on: 26/06/2011 04:18:01 »
They are not correct in their view of the energy at the Planck Length:

http://www.douban.com/group/topic/8577816/

First correction, the LHC has a maximum useful energy of about 14 TeV. Secondly, the Planck Mass-energy is about 12.2 x 10^15 TeV... They are far, to say the least, from 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 #277 on: 26/06/2011 04:26:39 »
CPT, that link was to "Scientists studying radiation from a distant gamma-ray burst have found that the speed of light does not vary with wavelength down to distance scales below that of the Planck length. They say that this disfavours certain theories of quantum gravity that postulate the violation of Lorentz invariance." which then include the one I discussed. For a more recent discussion of it, with papers you should try the other link, coming after it.

And as it is a theory still, not anchored in any experimental results I will define 'c' as 'c', and only 'c', so help me Einstein :) For my essay.

Maybe you saw LHC discussed in the comments?
==

Ah, okay, is it "It is not possible to test physics at the Planck length directly because this length corresponds to an energy of around 1019 gigaelectronvolts – way beyond the reach of particle accelerators (the most powerful of which, CERN's Large Hadron Collider, will generate collision energies of around 104 gigaelectronvolts)." ?

As far as I know that is correct, the LHC can not produce the energy needed to prove or disprove the idea. Rechecking I found several definitions of the possible energies of the LHC, ranging from 700 gigaelectronvolts to, possibly a 1,000  gigaelectronvolts in the end of this year with it possibly ? Getting up to a possible 1.2 teraelectronvolts (TeV), or more?
==

But rereading you, I realize that you agree :)
You just pointed out that they gave the wrong numbers. I think they meant 1019 gigaelectronvolts, not 1019, which then corresponds to a Planck length of 10-33 cm.

As you say, they are far from it.
« Last Edit: 26/06/2011 10:48:21 by yor_on »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #278 on: 26/06/2011 04:39:36 »
ok, i understand... But they can't measure gamma rays of 2πLp, they are very far from it...

http://www.atlas-canada.ca/whatislhc.html

In my theory, there is no deformation before the Planck length.

Now, I shut up... :o)
« Last Edit: 26/06/2011 05:33:20 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

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 #279 on: 03/07/2011 17:25:57 »
So what is this space? That's one thing that confuse me seriously. Lorentz contractions, tunneling, entanglements, 'standing waves' (particles possibly:) and spherical waves (photons sort of, or if you like all particles). We really have only two things that 'matter' and that is matter and space. Without a space no matter, so maybe we should define it as 'one thing' 'space?'. What is a 'space'?

It's a distance, it should (in SpaceTime, not theoretically now) be in 3D, and then we have its 'propulsion' which is times arrow pointing in one direction. Can a 'space' exist without a 'time'? Why can 'particles' act as if there was no 'space' between them, and why can they ignore matter?

You have two choices I see it, either you define it as a function of what you believe yourself to observe, or you define it as a function of what we call 'space'. This goes back to why I would like light not to propagate. Even if it doesn't it will still be our 'clock' and a constant. But if it doesn't propagate it has to be in every point creating that cosmic beat. It would be similar to frozen frames that updates at the 'speed of light in a vacuum'. But then we have 'motion', free will, allowing change and ..?

One of the things I like with it, is because, if so, then 'space' is a function of those updates. You don't have a 'space' where it comes from at all.
 

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 #280 on: 03/07/2011 20:07:45 »
So what about a gravitational acceleration? I like to define SpaceTime by if it expends energy or not, and whereas a uniform constant acceleration has a defined local entry of expending 'energy' accelerating, a 'gravitationally accelerating' photon does not expend any energy. So is they the same? They do have a equivalence, and that one is 'gravity', which in the photons case is translated to 'energy'. This 'energy' is a observer dependent relation in the case of our photon though, whereas in the case of something uniformly constantly accelerating we know that the 'gravity' expressed is a solely local phenomena, disappearing as soon as the engines close, and a uniform motion becomes. So a uniform constant acceleration is not observer dependent, but a uniform motion, as well as a 'gravitational acceleration', will be.

And that is weird. But Einstein is right in that gravity is acceleration, so where do we differ it? The constant uniform acceleration is local. The constant uniform gravitational acceleration is observer dependent. And there is one more thing, a constant uniform acceleration expends 'energy', a 'constant uniform gravitational acceleration' does not.
« Last Edit: 03/07/2011 23:57:13 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 #281 on: 04/07/2011 09:36:01 »
Some more about space. Ever heard of the Fractional Quantum Hall (FQH) Effect? It's a really strange effect where if you pass a electric current through a wire, having a magnetic field perpendicular on the wire, the electrons inside that wire suddenly deflects sideways. Now pointing to the surface of the wire, generating a voltage across the wire's width. and that's called the 'Hall effect'. So, how can electrons behave this way?

Well, it seems the answer lies in that they combines into a new kind of 'particle', called anyons. Anyons are somewhere in between fermions (normal matter, like electrons:) and bosons (photons and gluons for example). Fermions prefer to have a reserved seat in space (Pauli exclusion principle & Fermi–Dirac statistics). Bosons, on the other hand, can happily all join into one big superposition, in where they all together take no place at all (Bose–Einstein statistics). But 'anyons' is a third state which are neither bosons, nor fermions, and as the electrons 'clump together' to create this state they also suddenly begets fractional charges, called the FQH effect.

Sure but how do they do it, and why? A very understandable explanation I saw discussed it from the point of 'folds'. There are some definitely weird things about our 'ordinary electrons' too btw. One electron can in certain circumstances be positioned in two places simultaneously, but, there is also the possibility of two electrons only taking one 'place', 'standing on top of each other', and it is this effect we will discuss now. The reason they can do so has to do with that there are two quantum states possible for each 'reserved place' in space. So the 'space' we discuss here becomes a double-folded, three dimensional, space.

Did it hurt your head? I liked it a lot, to me it has to do with how I should see 'dimensions'. Remember those very small 'rolled up' dimensions that string theory speaks about? Add to that the idea of dimensions, as in our SpaceTime where we have eight 'corners', so 1 2 4  8 (ours)  16 32 ~. So is that it? Or is this another description of what a 'dimension' could be seen as? This idea also takes a fair shot at explaining why you have to 'turn' a electron 720 degrees to give it a 'full turn'. Can you see why? It has to do with those two 'folds' it exist in, turn it a full 'circle' (360 degrees) and you will have 'moved' it in its 'interior fold' to a start position of its 'exterior fold', another 360 degrees will give you the original start position back in its 'interior fold', all as I understands it.

I'm fascinated by the idea. It's a simplification naturally, as the mathematics describes it, well, mathematically. But it opens for another way to look at 'dimensions' to me. And it has also to do with how I'm starting to see the 'many world interpretation' of QM. I wrote the following somewhere else, but I will cite myself anyway :)

=Quote

As for what 'patterns' should be :)

Maybe you could call it 'everything'. Think of it (SpaceTime) as a box of jello, containing a infinite amount of possible connections between what makes up that jello. Then pretend that you by casting a light on it could light up certain connections, but not others. Each color you throw into that jello could then represent a 'SpaceTime' made visible. But it's also about the arrow and the way it changes things constantly. We call it interactions when that happens, and the color representing your 'SpaceTime' would then be created in your constant choices, or 'not choices'.

You might assume that in all of those meataverses we meet the (approximately) same guys, more or less, with some differences depending on 'choices', and the same SpaceTime obeying the same laws. If that was true then the bifurcations (splits) become infinite, as we all already would be defined as having each one a unique reality by our relation to the rest of 'SpaceTime'. Which, according to my definition of Einsteins relativity is all about 'locality'.

As I said I found the idea of 'metaverses' quite confusing before as I had problems with accepting the idea of whole new universes created out of your choices, or particles interactions. In mine definition you have one 'box', and what we call 'metaverses' is how different 'colors' moves inside the box of jello, depending on interactions and choices. So I don't have to question where all that new 'energy' should come from etc, as it already is there, just made 'visible' in our interactions. That also means as with a flashlight in a dark room, the only thing that will exist for you is what is 'lighted up' by your choices defining your arrow and relation to all others choices. And what join them into something 'whole' is that radiation. You never touch anything for example, there is always a very small distance between what you 'touch' and your invariant mass. Not that we notice, but it is a fact. And that is mediated by radiation, and 'mediated' could be translated as 'acting as a intermediary between ***'
=EofQ_

And that one makes sense to me, the one, 'metaverses', where 'new energy/universes' just popped up as you (or the particle) made a 'choice' did not though. A metaverse and its bifurcations then becomes something shadowy, where it's the pattern, 'choice' and 'arrow', that defines what is 'real' for you. It may allow for those other meataverses to exist on 'their own', but you can as likely interpret it as they are just 'shadows', patterns that even if existing in that choice, dies out as your arrow takes you forward. A little like Feynman's definition of 'interference' when it came to HUP. And, if doing that, you might even question if there really is needed to be a bigger box of 'jello', to keep those 'colors' in?
« Last Edit: 04/07/2011 10:09:48 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 #282 on: 04/07/2011 17:29:38 »
So how does locality 'work' in this 'space'? Well, you start with yourself. You're the center of the universe, literally the center. That's from where you will make all definitions and observations possible. We have this idea that if something is true then it has to be reproducible for others. That's a very good definition, but seen my way you now will find that this is where the mystery starts. Because we could as easily be described as totally isolated, joined by our 'clock', that also is the radiation we live in and through. A speck of consciousness also defining your meta philosophical 'frame of reference'. The one that we use to define those frames needed to be Lorentz transformed to 'fit' each other. And then what we call 'space' becomes something malleable, not 'there' at all, defined in the way radiation 'creates' it. And that one should hurt your head :)

We have a beat, that beat combined with what we perceive as 'distance' creates 'speeds'. Those speeds does fit, but becomes microscopically and relativistically doubtful. Weird, isn't it? And not very understandable from the reality we know of day to day either. Still, I don't see it as wrong, and it gives us yet another way to define a 'space' from. Because then it becomes a definition of radiation, 'density' and distance, as defined from that beat. But I don't know, it give one an idea, but still doesn't define what makes the difference between a 'space' and a 'particle' possible.
 

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 #283 on: 05/07/2011 05:11:55 »
Why are all geodesics the same?
Why do space 'contract' in a motion?


There is a symmetry in this.
Light is 'c'.

When you measure something at the size of lights 'speed', one 'beat', times arrow disappear. What is a dimension when you have no clock?
 

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 #284 on: 05/07/2011 05:23:57 »
If I assume that I move uniformly, very close to light, I will still find the light inside that ship to come at me at 'c', so will all light outside that ship come at me too. But what you call the universes 'dimensions' will all be contracted relative me. Why can't you get to 'c'? Because that would stop that beat, and accelerations can't stop the arrow.

But a geodesic can. Assuming that we can penetrate/measure that size experimentally in some way, you will do it in a geodesic, not in a acceleration. All accelerations expend energy, a uniform motion does not. If the universe isn't what we think, in three dimensions and a arrow, instead having to do with a symmetry? Then it must be some sort of a fractal.
 

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 #285 on: 05/07/2011 05:32:12 »
A BEC must be the answer to how we reach that state where one beat stops. But we can't stop it our own 'frame of reference', as we would need to do to see for ourselves. 'Frames of reference' must be a dynamic description, changing for you in your accelerations. Uniform motion is the only place where you ever will have a same frame of reference. To see what I mean you need to accept that all mass is a 'gravitational acceleration'.
 

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 #286 on: 05/07/2011 05:36:31 »
There is no such thing as a same 'frame of reference' for mass. Only 'pure' Bosons have access to it, as radiation. And all radiation is uniformly moving. Mass can't move uniformly.
 

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 #287 on: 05/07/2011 05:46:47 »
It has to do with our presumptions. We think that we can measure in a same 'frame of reference', and that we by doing so can verify a truth. But it must be a 'approximate truth', not a absolute truth. It's like my idea of parallel lines. Conceptually I'm very sure that the concept is true. That if you have a pair of parallel ideal lines stretching out, they should not meet in a point. But inside SpaceTime it is different. And if it is a fractal, then I don't know how that would express itself? Would they constantly meet in contractions, or how would it express itself? Ouch :) I don't know what type of fractal that best would describe SpaceTime, if it is one, that is.
 

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 #288 on: 05/07/2011 05:50:18 »
What we can do is to define it, so that when measuring, what we measure have a same 'frame of reference' relative us measuring. And as I think of it, ideally that can only be by experimenting with light, mass must be much trickier to define a absolute same 'frame of reference' too, relative you experimenting. The only thing that to me seems as a 'absolute truth' is the idea of geodesics, for the moment. And that needs to be understood as those parallel lines, as a type of 'ideal state' where everything is the same in a 'black room scenario'. But where my parallel lines only exist conceptually, geodesics exist everywhere and light describes them.

Gravity is not a 'pressure'.
=

But if all mass is a acceleration, then gravity must be a response to this acceleration. And although all geodesics are the same in our black room scenario, they are it out of the definition I gave above. Read the first lines (in this post) and see if you can see what I mean. It's about how we prove a 'state' relative us measuring
==

And that light must be a constant ('c'). You will not define it any other way, ever. Also that radiation must be massless and without a arrow intrinsically.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2011 06:47:43 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 #289 on: 05/07/2011 06:27:50 »
Maybe one could define accelerations/mass as a 'inverted pressure' though? I don't know there. Mass and accelerations are the absolute same, that I'm sure of. And all geodesics must be the same no matter your 'speed' relative something, as long as we define it as a boson that is, and bosons only have one 'speed'. But we can 'somewhat loosely' use the same definition for mass too. That as we all 'work' from a ideal 'frame of reference', so when you imagine yourself moving uniformly you don't define your frame of reference other that conceptually, if you see how I think there. I think this must have been how Einstein thought of it too. As a 'ideal description' when he defined accelerations as mass, or vice versa.
 

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 #290 on: 05/07/2011 06:35:49 »
So an 'absolute rest' is a geodesic. That is a ground-state of the universe in where no energy is expended. As soon as energy is expended it can't be a (loosely defined) 'uniform state'. Can you see how I think of space here? And that is 'dimension' too. A ground-state of 'dimension', even though I still try to see what the he* I mean by that :) But it should be. It has to be coupled to our idea of dimension(s).
« Last Edit: 05/07/2011 06:38:39 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 #291 on: 05/07/2011 17:41:40 »
I'm going to lift in this to my essay so I don't forget it. My mind have this unfortunate habit (ability?) of wandering away, and even question if what I did was 'thoughts' at all, at times :)

But as it has a relevance to 'gravity' I will place it here too as I otherwise will have to search for it at some other time. So..

How does a Higg field (boson) explain that all geodesics are the same? That means that every time you stop accelerating you will find a 'geodesic'. What kind of 'resistance' ignores relative motion, and how? Higgs is a way to define inertia to me, not geodesics?
=

Eh, that mean, although the Higg may define Inertia it does not define 'gravity'. Also it split 'gravity' from Inertia as I see it, and so it becomes a definition where you now have two explanations for 'gravity' and 'inertia'. Don't like that. And that means (dar* I see I have to explain my thoughts again) that gravity is explained by Einsteins GR, and Inertia then would be explained by Higgs? So, do the universe need to split what obviously is a sort of symmetry? Inertia is to gravity as the recoil is to the photons annihilation to me.
==

And defining the recoil is a principle, conservation of momentum. as I understands it, not a boson. 'Principles' and 'constants' (and most importantly, symmetry's) define SpaceTime.
====

JP, I'll take a chance here (opportunism ahoy:), and lend that one from you, it's concise and nice.. "Inertial mass and gravitational mass are different concepts.  The Higgs field only explains inertial mass.  For all objects we've tested, it appears that inertial and gravitational mass are the same.  Indeed, general relativity relies on that as a postulate.  But so far as I know, there's no explanation of why they have to be the same aside from the fact that they seem to be for all cases we've checked."
==

And to that I will add that, as far as I see, a inertial mass is a measurement of the 'unwillingness' of matter to accelerate. That's not exactly right, because a uniform motion contain 'inertia' too, but any deviation of that 'uniform motion', except a head on head collision, can be seen as a acceleration, and I'm not sure how to see that 'head on head collision' as actually? It's a deceleration and ..)? Gravity is a description of accelerations, gravitational like Earths or 'motion wise' as from 'A' to 'B', as measured in some positional system, and time.

If you turn it around you now will find that accelerations is gravity. Uniform motion on the other hand measured by the absence of gravity locally ('black room scenarios' all of it)

So if all uniform motions are equal inside that room, how can you state that you 'move'? There is no way I know of without using a outside frame of reference. And that is what motion is, a comparison between frames. 'A' and 'B' is two different frames of reference here, you 'moving' is the third, using them as a definition of a 'distance'. And the 'distance' you define uses a constant 'c', defining durations, aka a 'clock'.

So, do motion exist? Well, it must, as everything we do (and are) involve 'motion' in some way. But what is it, really?
==

Remember what we call water becoming ice, good, because I don't :)
That's 'inertia' maybe, a transitionally state defining a demarcation between two other states. Uniform motion to -> acceleration -> and back.
==

By Marcus;

=Quote

"When something is moving it has a "longitudinal" inertia and a sideways or "transverse" inertia. But it no longer has a mass, because mass is a directionless quantity. So the custom is to assign to each object the "invariant" mass which is the inertia it WOULD have if it were sitting still. Lorentz discovered this ambiguity of inertia of a moving object back in 1904 even before Einstein.. .

The equations (GR) that model gravity do not have mass in them they have *energy density* and related pressures. Energy is what causes gravity in GR. Energy tells space how to curve and curved space tells energy how to move...

When something is moving it has a different "longitudinal" inertia from its sideways or "transverse" inertia. It takes more force (measured in the lab frame) to produce a given acceleration vector in the direction of motion than the same acceleration sideways. It is harder to speed a moving body up than it is to deflect it---even if the observer at rest can see that the size of the acceleration vectors are the same. People used sometimes to talk about the "transverse mass" (gamma m) as opposed to the "longitudinal mass" (gamma3 m). But nowadays most physicists when they say mass just mean "rest mass"----there is no other kind. But if you google with keywords "longitudinal mass" and "transverse mass" you can still find these gamma formulas and some discussion of these things.

The factor gamma = (1 - beta2 )-1/2 can be quite large for beta near one. So there can be a big difference between gamma and (gamma3 ! The difference between forwards inertia and sideways inertia can be very large. Like, if gamma is 2, then the thing is 4 times more resistant to speeding up than it is to deflection (where the same size acceleration is to be produced) Or if gamma is 10, the thing is 100 times more resistant to speeding up than to deflection. Nowadays the use of the term "relativistic mass" is more of an endearing eccentricity than anything else. Like wearing a sword, or having suits of armor in one's livingroom. For a moving body, the "relativistic mass" is essentially the same as transverse"------inertia measured as resistance to deflection-----and the formula for it is gamma m."

= End of quote

So if we look at Marcus definition we can see what I think differs a 'gravitational mass' from a 'inertial mass'. But it's also a question of if you think that something can be 'at rest' in this universe. It's those 'ideal parallel lines' again I guess :). But as 'inertias' definition of what it measure is the invariant mass of something being 'at rest' we seem to assume that it exist? That one is easy to test. You just need to measure how hard it is to push something, not moving, on a table. Try it from all directions, in the tables 'plane (of course:) and if you find its 'resistance' to motion symmetric we have a definition of being 'at rest' that will differ from the "longitudinal", in the direction of relative motion, and sideways, or "transverse" inertia. Then you give it a motion relative the table and measure the inertia again, and there you will find a difference between being at rest relative the table plane, and 'moving' relative the table plane. Easier to move sideways than in, or against, its 'propagation' as I think of it.


If we find a symmetry on that table, inertia as when defining motion, versus being 'at rest' should differ? But that one becomes somewhat of a headache, doesn't it. A easier way of defining it is using geodesics, all geodesics are the same, but the inertia isn't. And depending on your, so called, invariant mass and relative motion you will find a different inertia. But when it comes to 'gravity' it will be 'gone'. Loosely defined here as there always will be a gravity associated to the matter itself. I'm starting to understand the need for defining it 'ideally' to make it precise.

Phieew :)
==

And that we can find the inertia varying with motion and mass, I use as a definition of a gravity always existing, even when unmeasurable, as in a uniform motion. But you could also use it to define inertia as one thing, and gravity as another, possibly, if defining it such as there can be portions of 'space' without gravity, but with inertia? But then you have taken away the metric of space, which to me is gravity.

In that case Inertia would define all sorts of motion, and mass (invariant) whereas gravity would define a ideal state of invariant mass being at rest, all as it seems to me? But then we have accelerations that according to Einsteins principle of equivalence is 'gravity'. That one is true, you will be unable to differ a acceleration from a gravity inside that black room scenario. So if Inertia would be all kind of 'motions'? How can a acceleration be 'gravity'? As well as a uniform motion is without 'gravity'?
« Last Edit: 06/07/2011 03:48:51 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 #292 on: 05/07/2011 22:35:49 »
So, let's define some things.

Motion is relative.
Accelerations are local definitions, and absolutely equivalent to 'gravity'.
Inertia is the definition the universe use for defining all motion.
Uniform motion is a absence of local gravity (invariant mass being a acceleration)

And then we come to 'energy'.
Accelerations always expend 'energy'.
Uniform motion does not expend 'energy'.

Does 'inertia' expend energy?
It does, doesn't it.

So inertia resembles a acceleration more than a uniform motion. Think of the universe as being a flat plane, that plane is represented of uniform moving. The uniformly moving objects in that plane made of mass are all 'gravitationally accelerating' distorting the ideal plane. Add to that accelerations.
==

Although? Can matter in itself be said to expend 'energy'? Not really, so there our symmetry breaks. Even though matter is a equivalence of 'energy' it's not 'pure energy' itself. What differ 'dead matter' from living? The rate of interactions? And those are a function of our arrow.
=

If you accelerate a rocket at a steady (constant) one gravity, will its impact gravitationally on the surrounding space be the same as Earths? It can't be. So even though the gravity, locally, will be the exact same, the SpaceTime distortion won't. So a constant accelerating invariant mass do not express the same 'gravity' on the surrounding space as Earth, although it will do so 'locally'.
==

How can a constant uniform acceleration define the same gravity locally (inside that rocket) as Earth does without acting on the space surrounding it equivalently? Although I still think mass and accelerations are 'the same' the proportions they express is different, relative the surrounding space. On the other hand, that SpaceTime distortion could also be defined as a conceptual definition between 'frames of reference'. So mass and accelerations can be the same locally, without expressing themselves equivalently relative other frames of reference.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2011 23:01:48 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 #293 on: 06/07/2011 00:02:36 »
So what is mass? Inertia and mass share 'gravity'. If you weight twice the amount of before, your inertia (unwillingness to change of 'motion') will be twice what you had, and the gravity will act upon you with twice the force of before. But that does not hold true in a geodesic, there you will weight nothing, but the inertia will still act upon you as if you did.

So we can forget weight. But not mass, and that was defined as 'the inertia it WOULD have if it were sitting still' right? So where do we sit still in this universe? The only time we sit still is in a comparison to something else, isn't it? Like that box on the table being still relative the table. But then we have uniform motion, does that change something? Well, it do change your 'weight' but what about your 'mass'. I can define you as being still relative your rocket, both moving uniformly in space. Where would that mass be then? And, do you still find a inertia?

(in fact I can now define you as being 'at rest' relative gravity too, as I see it. And if I do that, could I use that as definition of that untouchable invariant part of you, same in all frames possible, we call your 'invariant mass'?)

Sure you do, inertia will be waiting for you. The problem, as I see it, is that all uniform motions, no matter your 'speed' relative something is the exact same. You can't differ it in that black room. But the inertia must differ with your relative speed, don't you agree? The faster you go the more G-forces will you experience, when changing direction. Else we have a definition that state that all uniform 'speeds' will be the same inertia-wise, as you change direction in deep space, maybe only relating to the angular momentum you create in that 'acceleration'' your course-change defines

So where exactly are you 'at rest', defining that 'invariant mass'? It can't be in a geodesic, can it? You are at rest with gravity there, locally having no way to define it. So how about that table then, and the box on it. Will the box inertia differ if we send them away, moving uniformly? Relative what?
==

Do you think gravity is the metric defining a space?

If you do you have a frame that inertia can be measured against. You will also have a frame that although differing in strength, depending on motion, mass and 'energy', still must exist, even when unmeasurable. So, if that metric defines space, is that what inertia would define itself against, with your angular momentum, or do you think it only will be that angular momentum?
==

That is, if gravity isn't there locally as defined from that 'black box' (you 'coasting away'), will inertia still act as if it could 'measure' it?

And there is one thing more, the stress energy tensor that Einstein created. Do you think that 'space' store the 'energy' your relative 'uniform motion' create? How? Your motion, as defined by some origin? Why should that matter if all uniform motions are the same inside that 'black room'? And even if you look out you can arbitrarily define any 'frame of reference' as the one you will measure that motion against. And if/when you do so you're still free to define who is moving relative whom.

What exactly is it that Space store, the 'distortion'? As in that time dilation/Lorentz contraction? Then 'SpaceTime' has a definition of motion, don't you agree? So even though you find it relative, does SpaceTime see it that way? But it has to be a dynamic definition, and it has to be a symmetry globally. And that one really makes my head spin around, as it imply that no matter when, or where, I decide to turn on that speed, expending energy, SpaceTime somehow must know how to compensate and adjust for it, in some for me unknown way, that is, if I'm thinking right here. I'll look at this tomorrow :) Probably change it too.
==

I'm stupid, it's radiation, no it isn't?
The blue shift is taken out by the redshift, or is it? If you have a uniform motion that's really really quick, what will the proportions blue shift, relative red shift be, as observed by you? And it's also a question of 'locality' to me as I define all objects/points as 'unique' I really need to let this go for a while..
« Last Edit: 06/07/2011 04:44:48 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 #294 on: 06/07/2011 04:03:50 »
I've been using mass as equivalent to a acceleration a lot here, you might not agree with that, but when Einstein defined the idea of mass as a 'constant acceleration' he must have realized what he did :) If we follow in his footsteps we now have -Acceleration = 'a Constant Uniform Acceleration/mass' = Gravity- and then we have -Inertia-, that to me is a immediate state between the idea of uniform motion & acceleration. And both types of motion, uniform motion as well as accelerations/mass, do the same for you. They contract 'SpaceTime'. But they do not time dilate you. Instead I define it as what is 'distorted' is the relation between you, and what you observe, in this case SpaceTime in general. You had no problem watching those two atomic clocks on the table getting timedilated relative each other, and yourself too in fact, as one was lifted to the floor. In fact, everything you ever see around you should be ever so slightly 'time dilated' relative everything else, as I think of it. And if that is so, then the Lorentz contractions must be there too.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2011 04:08:39 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 #295 on: 06/07/2011 16:54:51 »
So what is a gravity? It's extremely weak, not that we notice, to us it's a strong force, having all kind of implications if you fall :) The 'force' of gravity (g), in a acceleration, depends on the mass (M) of the body and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance (r)..  g= GM/r2 .. Gravity acts between pairs of bodies and is proportional to their masses, meaning double your mass double the gravity. The constant of proportionality is called the universal constant of gravitation, or 'big (G)', and has a value of 6.67 x 10-11 N.m2.kg-2 .. (Or 3.kg-1.s-2) ... It goes back to Newtons Apple, and builds on him observing that things accelerate in a gravitation, and from there extrapolate the 'force' of gravity at different heights. Then you need to find out the mass of what 'acts' on other masses too of course, to make it into a 'constant'. We don't know if it really is constant as we can't test the universe as such, but we assume that it is, as nothing we've seen contradict it.

So that's the math, not that difficult although the notation can give you a headache, if you're not a mathematician or scientist that is. How about describing it topology wise then? Then we have a plane, the plane we decide to call null gravity. We allow it to stretch out for this, and call it the universe. Then we place objects of mass in it and watch how the plane deforms as those objects act upon each other.

But where did the plane come from? Was it there before the objects, or did the objects 'create' it? Einsteins universe is a whole thing, so in that universe everything follows of each other. It's not really a discussion of what came first in his universe as it all, in some weird way, seems to have been 'lifted in' together, to work the way it does.

But that is me ignoring the arrow of time. We live in a arrow defining us, from the cradle to our death, and so we use the arrow to back-track the universe. Doing so we find a Big Bang, some 'state' of a universe where it 'starts'. But as I said, all of this is assuming a arrow, and a (linear) causality chain. You could also look at it from Chaos theory and fractals, or topology, or any number of possible definitions, and they all give you a slightly different approach. What we noticed recently is that there is a non-linearity inside linearity inside non-linearity a.s.o.

That just mean that it somehow gives us irregularities and unclear definitions from a mathematical sense. We like to be able to get a clear answer from our math. That builds also on our ideal ideas, which are axioms or archetypes. You pick up one stone in each hand, how many have you got? That's a axiom. Parallel lines is a geometric axiom that defines those line as never meeting (intersecting) in a plane, as you drawing them on a (infinite) paper. But the universe is non-linear both macroscopically/relativistically and microscopically. We live somewhere in the middle there, finding it possible to get clear answers to most of the questions we need answered on Earth, also ignoring those that don't give us that answer, instead building on 'experience' (our histories) which is what probability is all about.

But we need a way of finding that causality chain making sense now, incorporating both linearity and non-linearity. Feynman and Einstein both, doubted that nature really was that complicated. Both assumed that there had to be some sort of simple order to what 'particles' did, and to the macroscopic phenomena too.
==

So that's the real challenge, none of the theories and hypothesis's really are that simple. That you always can find someone that spent much of his life learning and defining some idea(s) into a 'universe and then finally finds them 'simple' is not a truth just because he finds it so. Einsteins universe is simple, if you use 'locality' to describe it, very complicated if you conceptually join all 'frames of reference' and keep them together into your mind. So it also has to do with how to look at something, 'turning your head' the right way. And that's a really neat trick when you find a good way to do so, as Feynman did with 'interference' and HUP.
=

« Last Edit: 06/07/2011 20:40:40 by yor_on »
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #296 on: 06/07/2011 18:30:27 »
The speculations do run wild in this subforum. :)

But asides all that, I have a question for Yor On.

You note that g=GM/r2, are you defining g as the general relativistic metric with GM/r = φ where g is being replaced for φ?
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #297 on: 06/07/2011 18:54:38 »
I think what Yoron means is the acceleration due to gravity (I would put a minus sign in there - but what the hell) - it's the universal law of gravitation and f=ma. 

NB the force of gravity (ie rather than the acceleration) as Yoron well knows depends on the product of the masses - a slip of the pen
 

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 #298 on: 06/07/2011 19:22:24 »
Yep, you're right Imatfaal , and I should have reread it. Sometimes I don't see what I write until much later, because you have it thought out, missing that what you write comes out differently than what you mean. Just like you fill in all those missing small words 'gluing together' a sentence, never observing that they're missing. Thanks for pointing it out.
=

As for the formula I was thinking of Newton as I wrote it. Hmm, are you asking me if I think gravity is instantaneous :) He* no, I think it's propagating at 'c', except possibly in one case, and that is the question if it would be the 'metric' of space, as Einstein once described it.

If it is, and I do find it logical to assume so, then I would expect a expansion to come with gravity 'instantaneously', but that is not the same thing to me. And once established that gravity, if so, should have a propagation at 'c' as all other gravitational waves, well, as I think of it now that is :)

And why I think so is the idea of singular dimensions, I'm finding trouble with seeing it in SpaceTime, and assuming that the space indeed are what it seems to be 3D, then you will have a '3D space' in those new patches too, and that might be 'instantaneous' or take some extremely short time, but the gravity will be there instantaneously as we notice it, if that now make sense.
=

The other way to think about it is to assume that you have singular dimensions 'meshing up' that new space into 3D, with 'gravity' coming into them (the new patches) at 'c'. But then I don't now what a distance is any longer as we now assume that 'new patches' neither need a 3D representation inside SpaceTime, nor space's metric 'gravity' to present us with a 'distance'. I prefer the way I look at it, with those new patches being 'ready made' for use. Then they should show the same gravitational 'slope' as what is around them too, possibly? :)
==

Also it opens for the question if dimensions have a 'speed'? The inflation had one, didn't it? Or did it? Not if my definition makes sense. That we see a speed for the expansion doesn't tell us that new patches grows with that speed locally, SpaceTime do it, but as for the patches in themselves?
« Last Edit: 07/07/2011 02:09:21 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 #299 on: 07/07/2011 01:09:11 »
This is my particle free definition of gravity of course :) If we assume that space is a field of 'bosons' of various types fluctuating, we still have a space without granularity. That as a boson have a wave particle duality, and I expect that to be true outside Planck scale too. So introducing such a definition and then expect it to be 'quanta' solely will not be correct as I see it.

And then it seems, to me that is, to be at a straight angle at Einsteins definitions if you define it as 'quanta'. I actually prefer the duality there too. Then everyone can feel free to find their truth :) Well, sort of?
« Last Edit: 07/07/2011 01:10:51 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #299 on: 07/07/2011 01:09:11 »

 

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