The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 281377 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #300 on: 07/07/2011 16:07:10 »
SpaceTime -> Closed?
Gravity -> Space?

'Energy' -> 'Gravity'?

Can you use gravity to gain energy? Sure you can, you just need to place yourself at a slope. But getting there will cost you some energy, which is why you can't make perpetuum mobile. You will have to get back up to gain more of that 'slope energy'. And that's what potential energy is, a way to define how you by placing yourself in some motion, or relative some 'potential' can use it, for gaining 'energy', or not.

SpaceTime as a system of points can be described as 'potentials'. But as gravity is coupled to energy, mass and motion it's a dynamic representation, ever changing. It's also observer dependent in that your 'motion' position etc defines what 'energy' and 'gravity' you see. Think of a uniform motion (geodesic) to see what I mean there.

So where do 'gravity' come from? Is it a state defining our room? If it is, is it 'energy'? Well, nobody has a definition for 'pure energy' that I know, except possibly in 'photons', and nobody have lifted up a ounce of 'gravity' to show me either.

Either 'gravity' is a function of a closed 'system/SpaceTime' or it is a representation that 'exist' in and out of that 'closed system'. To see that you will need to think about patterns and then if it is possible for something to be defined as 'closed', at the same time as it is 'open' from another description.

If that is possible, what do you think would limit our perception of this 'open system' in which we might be a part?

Times arrow?
=

And yes, it's about 'dimensions'.

« Last Edit: 07/07/2011 16:12:01 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #301 on: 09/07/2011 05:16:05 »
Okay, Mach principle and SpaceTime.

There exist solutions to Einsteins theory of relativity in where you can have a SpaceTime without matter. That confuses me :) Not too difficult to do, but still. What exactly would this SpaceTime without matter be? 'energy'? vacuum fluctuations? Exactly what is it?

And yes, it's me trying to pinpoint the idea of a dimension. You see, to me a SpaceTime without matter would be like a 'point', there might be 'energy', or not be 'energy', something should be there, but it would still be a point, or a flat 'surface'. And when I say flat I mean really, really, flat. So flat as if you leaned over its edge it wouldn't be there at all. Maybe more like our idea of a one dimensional string than anything else? And why I think so is because of 'gravity'.

Now, that may actually be the definition of a 'matter less' universe, I haven't checked it up yet but, if so, its meaningless. For us it is. Why should I care about ideas that have no meaning? Well, it's about what a dimension is, isn't it? Let us just for fun define 3D as 'gravity'. What happens to all those other 'dimensions' if that is true? Can they exist? Depends on how you define that 'gravity'. Do you think it radiates from 'energy' 'mass' and 'motion'? Or do you think it 'exist' as a field of some kind? Where does it come from? A property of SpaceTime? Oh yes, it has to be a property, but as a lot of other things, is 'gravity' a transformation of something else? 'Energy' perhaps? And 'energy' is that scarlet pimpernel expressing itself in 'work' isn't it? Showing up in transformations.

Gravity is what defines this universe, it gives it 'dimensions' and it obeys our arrow. All other thing you see obeys 'gravity' but without the arrow nothing would be there. Without 'gravity' there would be no 'dimensions' to discuss. So how can 'gravity' fold into itself? Or become 'one dimensional'. Without matter it may be able too.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #302 on: 09/07/2011 05:23:22 »
All of this has a relation to what we call 'size'. There is something very strange in how things gets defined by their size, size of time, size of, well, size. There is a relation between what we see as macroscopically true, and probability and it comes down to 'size'. So why do the fuzziness disappear as things get bigger? Is 'size' a absolute thing or a relative? It should be the same as a 'distance', shouldn't it? Are distances absolute, or observer dependent?
==

Another connection is 'time'. Time is always the same for you, and so are the distances inside your own 'frame of reference'. But others time, as well as distances, are mutable according to you. And the same will your friend find as he watches you 'speed away'. Is that a geometric trick or is it reality? If you think it is reality, where is the 'gold standard'. It's like a fractal to me, defined by locality. Your locality, mine locality, they are all the same. If we were bosons we could share the same 'frame of reference', but we're not bosons, we're fermions, separated by the Pauli exclusion principle. That means that there is no way we ever will be in a exact same frame of reference, ever. That's also one of the things allowing us a 'space' to exist in as I see it. It gives us the dichotomy between space and matter.

We have already seen that a 'time dilation' is a definition between 'frames of reference'. So how about 'distance'?
===

One more thing. Do gravity 'obey' the arrow, or does it just adapt?
« Last Edit: 09/07/2011 05:42:08 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #303 on: 09/07/2011 05:58:22 »
What differ a vacuum from bosons?

Bosons are sizeless.
Vacuum has distance (gravity).

Bosons has 'energy'.
Vacuum is classically empty.

Bosons are intrinsically timeless.
Vacuum?

Both Vacuum and Bosons 'transform' under the arrow of time, vacuum gravitationally /observer dependent, and Bosons recoil/annihilation red/blueshift /observer dependent.

What happens when you compress a vacuum?
you can't.

What happens if you compress light :)
You can't.

But if you go down in 'size' then?
Where does a vacuum becomes 'quanta'?

As a function of 'time size'?
Or just 'size'?

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #304 on: 09/07/2011 15:48:06 »
So, is 'size' the same as 'distance'?

SpaceTime is 3D (4D)
Distance is observer dependent.
Vacuum may have a 'distance' but it do not have particles.
Do particles has a 'distance' (size)?

Where does they get it from?
The arrow?

Vacuum fluctuations. As if it wasn't enough with 'dimensions' :) We also have the idea of how 'sizes' will open for another 'reality'. Those two stand side by side but as far as I can see we treat them differently. To that we can add the idea of particles 'folding'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #305 on: 09/07/2011 16:02:25 »
Mathematically SpaceTime is defined by how many 'positions' you need to define it. So SpaceTime needs four. Length, width, height and time. Is that several 'dimensions', or is it just 'one'? Einstein treated SpaceTime as 'one', not four. Think about it, if they were separated why do we expect them to slide into each other when 'pushed'. Then you can look at the arrow. Is that something coming with the other three, or do you think it is something existing on its own?

How about 'two'? A jello in time, ahem?

First of all, let's define times arrow. To me it is transformations, it's also more or less 'linear', meaning that we can see a logic to those transformations. They happened before I was born, they will continue to happen when I'm dead. We don't discuss 'energy' for this. Times arrow will exist without me. Assuming that 'locality' is all, that fact is telling me something. I'm making the presumption that I'm not talking to myself here :) We all 'exist' and we all define that 'existence' from 'locality'. Turn it around and you will see that SpaceTime adapts to you. But the arrow doesn't. You're not immortal, no motion will grant you immortality, no mass.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #306 on: 09/07/2011 16:24:52 »
Is it the Jello that defines a arrow? We have 'gravity', 'energy' and the 'arrow'. None of them existing on their own inside SpaceTime. All of them adapting if you look at it conceptually, comparing frames of reference. If you look at from locality, the arrow never change though, the 'gravity'? Well, it's not the same, it change with position. 'Energy'? If we define it as transformations then it always are changing.

Those are the big three unknown. The arrow, 'energy' and 'gravity', they all 'move'. Then we have where they 'move', we call that 'dimensions'. The place where they 'move' do not stay the same with those parameters changing. It adapts, and depending on how you define it, from locality, or from comparing frames of reference, you get different answers. From locality you have one constant 'c'. From frames of reference? Tell me, do you think you live at all places simultaneously? As you live in a 'mind space' where you define reality from 'frames of reference'? The razor tells me that I'm here, not spread out in SpaceTime, but here. So locality must be the best definition.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #307 on: 09/07/2011 16:41:11 »
And it is, that's from where all experiments done get interpreted. That's the place from where the 'frames of reference' first was observed. And that's where you can define QM. From 'locality' QM is not indeterministic. As long as we agree on that it is your observations that defines reality. The problem with QM is no different from what we meet when comparing 'frames of reference'. Both becomes fluid and uncertain if you stay in the 'mind space' but as long as you go out from locality, and your observations, QM is no more 'uncertain' than relativity is.

A simple approach is to define reality as what you can see happen (locally). That's also where 'weak measurements' come from. It's a definition using histories to define a 'future'.

But it doesn't answer what happens when we do not look.
==

What allows histories to exist?
« Last Edit: 09/07/2011 16:47:53 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #308 on: 09/07/2011 16:55:28 »
This is all guesswork of course, me trying to find something that fit.

Histories is what we've always used to define reality. Modern man at least, animals do not seem to use that way of conceptualizing. They live in the 'now' mostly, even thought they too can remember, they do not arrange it in a conceptual causality the same way we do.

There are two ways to look at reality. One is from a 'mind space', the other is from 'locality'. Both can be used to arrange histories into a pattern, but where 'locality' give you a strict definition of your reality, doing it from the 'mind space' becomes fluid and dependent on the 'observer'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #309 on: 10/07/2011 23:35:26 »
Can you connect 'gravity' to energy? Depends on how you look at it, energy is transformations. But what is it that 'transforms'? Gravity? Not as I know, 'gravity's slope' stays the same, no matter how many photons, or mass, that 'travels' it, loosely speaking here. The transformations we see either involves particles of mass, or massless. 'Gravity' is more of a roadsign for those, directing them.

But there is no denying that gravity's potential have a effect on what 'energy' something will express. But that is also a expression between 'frames of reference'. So, can you define 'gravity' as a frame of reference? I'm not sure, once again we find it has to do with definitions. If gravity either radiates or, at least, have a origin in mass and motion, then I would say no as we might have to define it from a source. But it's tricky and I'm not sure if I agree with myself here :)

The reason why I don't mention 'energy' is just that, for what we can observe today, only are defined from transformations, as far as I know. Seen another way you very well can define gravity as 'frames of reference'. That as gravity exist in all 'points' of this universe (as I presume), and that you nowhere will find points near to each other of the same 'gravitational potential'. Add to that, that we live in a universe defined by 'relative motion', meaning that there is a constant dynamic change of each points 'gravitational potential' inside times arrow.

I don't know really, the idea of some 'walls of the universe' seems pretty meaningless to me, to define it as such we first would have to agree on a 'distance' and even though you can Lorentz transform distances, and clocks, that doesn't give you a 'absolute frame', just a way of comparing them. And a universe without walls becomes a universe where you no longer can define 'energy' jumping from them to 'space', as the inflation seems to do, for the moment.

I like 'magnifying and contracting' better. It, to me, seems to be a better general description of change in SpaceTime, and it also seem to be observer dependent.
=

Can we define 'energy' as being on one invariable kind in a 'inertial frame'? Nope, we can't, that photon may give you one relation on Earth, but another on Jupiter. The 'energy' it express in your measurement/its annihilation will differ. But we still can define mass that way, can't we? Invariant (rest) mass is defined as being of the 'exact same' in all inertial, as well as accelerated, frames. There is one crucial difference between mass and radiation though. Radiation has no rest frame, it's always of one invariant 'speed' in all frames, and from all frames as measured locally. 'c'.

Rest/invariant mass can be 'at rest', if we by that define it such as in a uniform motion (geodesic) on its own, or relative something else. But different uniform motions, relative some agreed on origin, will give you a different outcome, in a impact. So how can we expect a 'invariant mass' to be the same? And actually, we do the same with 'quanta' of radiation, as a photon. We expect it too to be of one invariant 'energy'.

What is invariant mass and how do we define it?

"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 the custom is to assign to each object the "invariant" mass which is the inertia it WOULD have if it were sitting still." And 'sitting still' I here define as being in a uniform motion, then being, as I understands it, impossible to differ from being 'still', inside a 'black room scenario', as in your rocket. And then you have planets, etc, too, where your 'invariant mass' also can be said to be 'at rest' relative  the planet. Which in its turn are uniformly traveling a geodesic, as I see it being at rest with 'gravity', excepting its own gravitational potential.

So, ignoring the 'warping' a invariant mass 'influences' on the space around it, we may define a invariant mass 'rest frame' as being a uniform motion in where it will be at rest with 'gravity', 'weightless' if you like, following a geodesic. And the mass itself is measured from the 'inertia' created at a course change (acceleration). So, if this is right it then automatically assume all uniform motions (geodesics) to be the same, no matter what speed you have relative a origin. At least it assumes that the inertia created must be the same at a course change (acceleration). Is that correct? That no matter my 'speed' the inertia will be constant in a uniform motion?

What exactly is 'invariant' in a uniform motion. As I see it the only invariance you will find is relative the gravitational potential of the space surrounding you, allowing you a geodesic at any 'speed' relative some origin. I most definitely expect your inertia to change with your uniform 'relative motion'. So is 'inertia' a well chosen standard for this? (Also it seems to me that the 'inertia' will differ depending on how you choose to deflect that uniformly moving object. You will get one energy colliding head on, another if hitting it at a right angle to its motion.)

"Longitudinal" inertia, versus a sideways, or "transverse" inertia as Marcus expressed it. But there are no frames of reference in this universe that are 'still', except as defined as I did, against '(Space) gravity's potential' uniformly moving, and/or as defined against another object in your geodesic. Then again, mass should be of one invariant type, ideally. That as we relate it to a invariant 'energy'.

So, a question of locality maybe?


« Last Edit: 11/07/2011 00:50:26 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #310 on: 13/07/2011 09:41:31 »
Time?

If you look at it from Einsteins perspective the arrow we have is a result of the room time geometry. Then you have a ground state, that also is our clock. It's defined from 'c'. Look at it that way and you will see why relativity works. The room you live in adapt all other frames you can see to yours. And a time dilation then becomes a result of you changing the parameters defining your relation to all other frames. Well, it's also the other way around, of course. And it's not really 'relative', in that you always will need a acceleration to change your motion, or better expressed, 'someone' have to expend 'energy' to change a relation (room time geometry).

It's really simple if you accept that a 'time dilation' is a description of a changed relation. The ground state I talk about is radiation giving us both ultimate (smallest sized) durations of SpaceTime, as well as the invariant definition 'c' from where both time dilations and Lorentz contractions come.

It doesn't answer the full mystery of times arrow though. But it give you a simple definition of how it express itself inside SpaceTime. It uses a constant and the room to redefine relations depending on mass,  acceleration (gravity), uniform motion and that scarlet pimpernel 'energy'. Then you have matter aging differently, but that has to do with the chemistry and biology.

So the arrows durations I define as 'c'. And that one I'm as sure of as I can be :)

The arrow itself though? The mere idea of one 'direction' in time? Well, we wouldn't be able to do this without a direction. I don't see 'times arrow' as the origin of 'time' though. Time and possibly gravity (as well as 'energy') are all human constructs describing something we can't 'touch', although they define SpaceTime. To me they all seem to rest on one principle and that is 'locality'. From there the arrow never change, neither do 'c', except gravity possibly, that somehow becomes the 'borders', or spaces 'metric' as I see it. But when it comes to locality (your own frame of reference) all your measurements will be the same, as well as time and distances. And we implicitly assume this to be a axiom, as we define reality as when you find repeatable experiments to state the same at different locality's. That is a very simple proof for what I say and it is true in that we perceive it so, although there can't be any point in SpaceTime that is the exact same, gravitationally/energy/'motion' and 'time'.

But the difference is not measurable for us normally, and our perception of time are defined by other things than 'c'. We down, or if you like, up-grade 'c' to what we can perceive with our senses, and from there we construct human 'clocks' and human 'time'. If the arrow was something you could 'see and touch' then we wouldn't have to agree on how to define it.

But the direction? Why is it there? Is it a effect of SpaceTime itself? I think so but I can't prove it, other than point out that you may assume all types of SpaceTimes, of all kinds of 'arrows', or without. But we wouldn't exist in them, so from that definition you have all kinds of 'meta SpaceTimes' or possibly only 'meta spaces' but we don't live there.

We can't.
==

So how does the 'room geometry' do it? We've assumed 'distances' to be invariant for the longest time. Even though the Chinese had 'Li' describing 'distance' in form of the energy, or time, it took you to travel uphill, relative downhill, they too probably thought of it as a same 'distance'. But that's no longer true, not in Einsteins definitions. There SpaceTime is one whole thing, where you, by changing your parameters in it locally, find it to express both 'time dilations' and 'Lorentz contractions'. So to me they are the two sides of a coin. And then you have Magnifying/Contracting as a better description, although not good. I suspect we will have to invent new words for describing how SpaceTime really treat itself, and I'm sure they are on their way :)

What you need to see here is that if 'distance' no longer is a gold standard, instead being a relation, then your universe is wrongly described. We use the wrong definitions, although they have worked very well at the 'human scale'.
==

And there is one thing more. In my universe light doesn't 'propagate' :)
« Last Edit: 13/07/2011 10:24:19 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #311 on: 13/07/2011 14:38:23 »
So what about the difference between a 'uniform motion' and a acceleration then? Why do all uniform motions give you the same answer in that black room scenario?

If we look at a acceleration we have Einsteins definition of it as a 'gravity'. And that is correct as I see it. If you can't differ it from a planetary gravity inside that black room then it most probably is so. To see what really 'exist' for you it will always be the black room scenarios that tell you your truth. Using frames of reference will give the conceptual truth, but for you, a black room experiment will tell you what exist locally.

So a acceleration is a gravity.

Uniform motion? I like to define it as being at rest with 'gravity' placing you in a geodesic. And here we come to the metric of space. It's the ocean your spaceship travels, or maybe submarine in is a better expression. That is a presumption of mine, that without a gravity 'globally' there will be no 'space' to define. I have some reasons for it, amongst them the idea of 3D gravity space will paint for you. Also there is the dichotomy between space and matter. I don't need to look at radiation, as I define it as a 'clock' for this, not 'propagating'. And SpaceTime as a 'game', with rules. We want very much to understand SpaceTime, but if you look at as a game inside your computer you will find that although your game make a logic sense and have rules it doesn't necessary have to describe what you see outside your screen. And that is the way I look at it, I'm not suggesting that we are some 'data space' in some 'cosmic computer', it's just that looking at it this way make it possible to accept what I normally would find making a joke of all I think 'exist' around me. Einstein made his theory the most philosophical theory I know, with the best descriptions, also experimentally most verified of all theories, and that it still hold a hundred years later should tell you something about its validity.

So a uniform motion is where 'gravity disappear', But is it gone? Nope, not as I see it for now. On the other hand, maybe it really is? But that one hurts my head :) This is all about redefining what we call motion though. Defining 'gravity' this first way makes it a 'global phenomena' though as I see it, meaning that if it can exist 'unmeasurable' in a geodesic, it may well be so that whatever space you find, even if without a 'measurable gravity', still contain it. That we define motion as going from 'A' to 'B' in some positional space is the part we're used too. But there seems to be a lot more to 'motion' than just that.

You might want to define a uniform motion as a 'flat space', and I think it is, the flattest space that can exist (to us that means, not mathematically), but the 'gravity' still defines it globally, even if gone locally. Which then make it 'borders of SpaceTime'. So, in this definition of 'space' it's gravity that both define its measurable distances and its '3D'.


« Last Edit: 14/07/2011 19:13:58 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #312 on: 13/07/2011 15:10:46 »
So now we can look at inflation again. I won't discuss the 'energy' for this, only gravity. Without 'gravity' I don't expect you to be able to measure a 'space'. I don't mean it will be a point either, it won't be there at all as I see it. I've used 'points' to define it but that is me adapting to our preconceptions of how things 'start'. In reality you can look at all 'points' of space, and in between, as possible 'carriers' and 'starting points' for any universe.

But as  soon as 'gravity' is established you will find 'distances' and so magnifying it into something 'measurable' for us. So that is my idea of a 'inflation', and a 'expansion' too. To me they have to be the same, although it seems that rules change when you have a 'gravity' established. You might assume that what we call the expansion either has to do with 'gravity' finding very little to couple too between galaxies and so allow 'small inflations' that we see as a 'expansion'. I don't know there, this is a rather new idea for me, although it seems as a logical continuance from defining 'gravity' as 'the metric' of space. To me gravity and energy seems very similar in the way we define it, as something 'untouchable', but needed for any SpaceTime.

And if you think of it, from my definition of 'gravity'  a 'expansion' has to be 'instant' to exist. And if it is so the best definition is that it 'breaks in' into SpaceTime, defining itself relative what 'space' already is there. But that is the 'inflation/expansion' specifically. Not the idea of gravitational distortions propagating at 'c'. Once established 'gravity' will have to obey the 'game rules' and those define 'c' as a border for all 'motion', excepting entanglements and tunnelings here. Although, those are phenomena existing at the level where radiations 'clock' breaks down, as I see it.
« Last Edit: 13/07/2011 15:12:25 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #313 on: 13/07/2011 19:41:05 »
A magnetic field can exist in a vacuum. So what is a magnetic field?
Photons?

They are the carriers of the electromagnetic force.

And if a magnetic field can exist, so must a charge interact with it. Can you have a magnetic field without electricity interacting? If you find a monopole, which we haven't. So if this is correct all magnetic fields must have a correspondent electrical field or charge.

So, why can't we see them? And, why doesn't a photon have a charge?
And .. and :)

So maybe I'm wrong, we have symmetries and the 'vacuums symmetry breaking' as the idea behind electroweak force/theory, and the Higgs particle. And it's the vacuum that are expected to bring forth EM in a vacuum too. Or ..

I'll come back to this.

 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #314 on: 14/07/2011 18:44:29 »
So we are stepping into the domains of QM now. And I'm not really that good at it, so what I'm going to do is too look at it from what I think I got some weak notion of, at least, and that is the theory of relativity.

The main reason for me questioning if radiation 'propagates' is all those experiments we have done, in where we can find countless definitions, ideas and explanations. All made by reputable folks, all wanting it to be true. I have some things I think is true, symmetries is. I'm sure of that one, what I'm not sure of if our ideas of what a symmetry is will be our universe's ideas. That also hangs together with the question of how much of our universe we actually can observe. I heard someone say that about four percent of the universe is observable to us, and I don't mean stars.

Before we start, and because people often slips over the most important things, assuming that they don't 'need to know' to make their assumptions.

What is a symmetry?

Well, water -> ice -> steam. Where is the symmetry most visible in those three states?

Snowflakes.

"Both the hydrogen and oxygen molecules are quite symmetric when they are isolated. The electric force which governs their actions as atoms is also a symmetrically acting force. But when their temperature is lowered and they form a water molecule, the symmetry of the individual atoms is broken as they form a molecule with 105 degrees between the hydrogen-oxygen bonds. When they freeze to form a snowflake, they form another type of symmetry, but the symmetry of the original atoms has been lost. Since this loss of symmetry occurs without any external intervention, we say that it has undergone spontaneous symmetry breaking."

Symmetry can be expressed by you rotating a object, in a mathematical way, or as with the  snowflake, in real time. As long as the rotations show you a unbroken symmetric pattern you have a symmetry as I understands it.

"Summing up 50 years of progress in fundamental physics, David Gross recently concluded: “The secret of nature is symmetry.” Everyone gets seduced by symmetry in one form or another, whether it’s the symmetry inherent in snowflakes or snail shells, kaleidoscopes or decorative tiles. But in physics, symmetry is more than just a pretty face. As Emmy Noether showed, there are symmetries behind every fundamental law.

This makes sense, because a symmetry describes what doesn’t vary even as things change—the solid truth beneath the superficial difference. Einstein, who first made symmetry central to physics, exposed a wealth of these pseudo-differences—including those between energy and matter, space and time. (As Einstein so often pointed out, his theories aren’t so much about things that are relative as things which are invariant.)

The late Frank Oppenheimer even cited the Golden Rule as an example of symmetry: If you do unto others as you’d like others to do unto you, and the doer and doee change places, it shouldn’t make a difference. Of course, a snowflake is symmetrical in that you can rotate it 60 degrees without making a discernible difference. But if you rotate it 5 degrees, the symmetry is shattered. To a physicist, the puddle the snowflake melts into is much more symmetrical: snowflakes can be individuals, but drops of water all look alike. Turning snowflakes into drops of water is essentially what the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Geneva will be trying to do—melting matter to reveal underlying symmetries.

If supersymmetric particles turn up at high energies, for example, it will mean that bosons and fermions—which seem like apples and oranges—have fallen off the same family tree. Each quark will have its squark; each photon its photino—a perfectly symmetrical team. The symmetry lost when the universe cooled will be, for the moment, restored. Even more beautiful symmetries appear at even higher energies. Heat up the universe to big bang temperatures, and the wildly diverse family of forces turns into one. String theory, with its tangled 10-dimensional topologies, is more symmetrical still; with so much room to move about, there are ample ways for the same thing (the string) to appear in radically different forms (quarks, gravity).

Alas, the universe we know isn’t very symmetrical. Somewhere along the line, it lost its symmetries—if not its innocence—like water freezing into ice. Today, the whole thing is embarrassingly unbalanced: Time goes only one way; gravity isn’t a bit like the weak force; there’s matter, matter everywhere, but not a drop of antimatter in sight. “Beauty in; garbage out,” Gross puts it. (Though we shouldn’t complain, since the garbage is us.) What happened to all that lovely symmetry? Part of the blame almost certainly goes to the Higgs field—that unseen influence that makes even our vacuum unsymmetrical, giving particles different masses. With luck, the LHC will knock a piece of it into a detector. On a different front, those busy B physicists are searching for hints of the mechanisms that make matter different from antimatter.

Of course, having a mechanism only explains how—not why. Why does water freeze into crystals? Since ice is the lower energy state, it’s as natural as flowing downhill. Perhaps the universe is the same—a cosmic drop of water that froze into an asymmetrical but still rather appealing snowflake. In fact, our universe could once have been so symmetrical that it amounted to nothing at all. “Nothing” is as perfect a symmetry as you can imagine, since there’s nothing you can do to it that makes a difference. This nothing would have been unstable, however—like a pencil balanced perfectly (which is to say, symmetrically) on its tip. And that means—as Frank Wilczek has put it—the answer to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” would simply be that “nothing” is unstable. "  by K.C. Cole.

And for those of you both mathematically and historically inclined Symmetries in Physics. Even if you're not that mathematically inclined you should read it.
« Last Edit: 14/07/2011 18:51:51 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #315 on: 14/07/2011 20:19:26 »
So, what is 'phase transitions' and a 'false vacuum'. And why do I go from symmetries to that? I asked you what was most 'symmetric' in the post above, didn't I? Water, ice, or steam. When ice turn to water then that's a phase transition and as it then turn to steam that will be another phase transition. Water is quite symmetric under rotational transformations, but ice is not. "The liquid phase of water is rotationally symmetric, that is, it looks the same around each point regardless of the direction in which we look. We could represent this large three-dimensional symmetry by the group G (actually SO(3)).

The solid form of frozen water, however, is not uniform in all directions; the ice crystal has preferential lattice directions along which the water molecules align. The group describing these different discrete directions H, say, will be smaller than G. Through the process of freezing, therefore, the original symmetry G is broken down to H."

Then we have steam left, so, is steam more or less symmetric? Well, "The cosmological significance of symmetry breaking is due to the fact that symmetries are restored at high temperature (just as it is for liquid water when ice melts). For extremely high temperatures in the early universe, we will even achieve a grand unified state G. Viewed from the moment of creation forward, the universe will pass through a sucession of phase transitions at which the strong nuclear force will become differentiated and then the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism."

Is steam of a higher temperature (heat), containing more 'energy' than the water? What does that tell you? But how does it express itself then, this higher symmetry? It should be a higher symmetry under rotations. And a gas is quite homogeneous, isn't it?

But it also has to do with 'energy', in this case heat.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #316 on: 14/07/2011 20:47:08 »
There is one more thing. There is a name for when something stands at the point of not being what is was, yet not being what it will become, well, chaos theory have some names too, but we'll leave that out for the moment.

It's called the 'critical point' in physics. It's a state that, maybe(?) all systems share.

"Most people are quite familiar with the standard types of phase transition. Water freezes to ice, boils to water vapour and so on. Taking the liquid to gas transition, if you switch on your kettle at atmospheric pressure then when the temperature passes 100 degrees centigrade all the liquid boils. If you did this again at a higher pressure then the boiling point would be at a higher temperature - and the gas produced at a higher density. If you keep pushing up the pressure the boiling point goes higher and higher and the difference in density between the gas and the liquid becomes smaller and smaller. At a certain point, the critical point, that difference goes to zero and for any higher pressure/temperature the distinction between the liquid and gas becomes meaningless, you can only call it a fluid."

Read it again. Did you get it?

One of the consequences of 'criticality' is a loss of scale. Scale invariance in the critical Ising model. " This is why, for instance, a critical fluid looks cloudy. Light is being scattered by structure at every scale. This insight is embodied in the theory of the renormalisation group, and it got lots of people prizes. A second feature of critical phenomena is universality. Close to the critical point it turns out that the physics of a system doesn't depend on the exact details of what the little pieces are doing, --- but only on broad characteristics such as dimension, symmetry or whether the interaction is long or short ranged. --- Two systems that share these properties are in the same universality class and will behave identically around the critical point.... ...This kind of scale invariance is a bit like the fractals you get in mathematics (Mandelbrot set etc) except that this is not deterministic, it is a statistical distribution.

How does it demonstrate that the details of our system (particles, magnetic spins, voting intentions - whatever) are not important? In all these cases the interactions are short ranged and the symmetry and dimension are the same. Now imagine that you have a picture of your system (like above) at the critical point and you just keep zooming out. After a while you'll be so far away that you can't tell if it's particles or zebras interacting at the bottom as that level of detail has been coarse grained out and all the pictures look the same."

Magnetic spin? Well water and magnets seems the same at 'criticality', they behave the same at that point. "Magnets also have a critical point. Above the critical temperature all the little magnetic dipoles inside the material are pointing in different directions and the net magnetisation is zero. Below the critical temperature they can line up all the in the same direction and create a powerful magnet. While the details of this transition are different from the liquid-gas case, it turns out that close to the critical point the details do not matter. The physics of the magnet and the liquid (and many other systems I won't mention) are identical."

Universality at the critical point.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #317 on: 17/07/2011 03:13:09 »
So what is a magnetic field? A sea of 'virtual photons' creating the static field? So it's a function of time if so, wouldn't you agree? We live inside a 'clock' ticking in one direction but 'virtual thingies' are freed from that concept. But they still seem to have to express themselves inside that clock if this is correct. The same goes for all 'zero point energy'. So, in just what way does the 'energy' stays the same, if we constantly are tapping some from 'virtuality' to 'reality'?

It has to do with 'dimensions' doesn't it? The idea of 'folds', and of 'SpaceTime corners', as well as strings and loops and 'size'. They all describes something we can't see, or measure, but we still expect to exist in some strange way.

Can you relate those to 'sizes'? Like Planck defines one limit, 'c' an opposite. And the thing(s) in between being both a clock, and also potential 'symmetry breaks'? What does a symmetry need for 'breaking'?

A 'arrow'?
A 'Energy'?

What more?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #318 on: 17/07/2011 03:31:00 »
You can't really use heat, can you. Heat is a function of times arrow and real particles getting their average 'energy' changed by 'colliding' with photons,virtual or not, and each other (still photons though). But 'virtual photons' do not give of any heat, if they did the vacuum should 'boil'. But they still can exceed any 'heat' a ordinary photon can deliver, just by being outside of our 'reality' according to HUP. So 'times arrow' is definitely a divider of 'reality', which makes Planck scales very interesting to me as that is where 'c' treated as 'photons' becomes 'still'. Imagine yourself at that scale looking at 'reality'. There would be no 'arrow' any longer, and without a arrow, how would there be a change? What I expect should be something totally symmetric, looking the same from any and all 'directions'.
==

Can you see how I think of it? When you consider 'traveling' alongside a photon, you're actually doing the exact same as I describe above, and you will see the exact same.

=

What does that make times arrow? If you can find the same outcome two ways. You can't 'travel' beside a photon in 'reality' though. So, can we traverse Planck scale? I don't expect that to be possible myself. We're 'stuck' in between Planck and 'c'. There still is one major difference between those two, at least if we think along our normal pathways. To get to 'c' invariant mass need to expend a 'infinite energy', but to magnify? Seen another way, to get to 'c' you need to find a way to do it without 'expending energy', and that one is only 'bosons'.

And what is it you use magnifying, and where is its 'limits'.
« Last Edit: 17/07/2011 04:09:24 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #319 on: 17/07/2011 10:30:40 »
I think I'm wrong in defining inertia as growing with your uniform motion. Think of it this way. If you draw a wide circle around a object on frictionless table on earth, and then give it a 'speed'. Will the direction it travel in towards that line (velocity relative the table) make a difference for its inertia? It won't, will it? But if we define a direction to Earths uniform motion it should. It also would mean that you could define a 'unmoving frame' as you then could expect that inertia would 'diminish' if we just chose the right direction, in where it would lose that 'energy' built up by its speed.

So the definition of any uniform motion as being a same 'rest frame' for invariant mass is perfectly correct. I should have seen that before, but I haven't thought that much about it in terms of inertia, although I have wondered a lot about 'gravity' :)

That means that the 'energy' we define to a uniformly moving object, relative some origin, can't be defined as the same as its inertia. But it means that all uniform motions must be at rest with both gravity and inertia, if I'm thinking right here? And I think I am actually.

Embarrassing this one :)
But better late than never huh.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #320 on: 17/07/2011 10:41:55 »
So there is no such thing a 'potential inertia', but there is 'potential energy'. That is, instead of a circle let there be a wall. With different velocities there must be different impacts, and so energies expended too. But, the deceleration then? Isn't that also a form of inertia?

Weird stuff, I will need to think more about this one. Is inertia expressed differently in a deceleration? How about a acceleration? Is inertia only changing in decelerations and accelerations then?

I better get some sleep here.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #321 on: 17/07/2011 10:46:23 »
It actually comes down to the same problem I've been wrestling with for a long time. I would love to define a time dilation & Lorentz contraction to only the acceleration/deceleration, but I can't see how that is possible. And now we see a similar possibility with inertia, the difference being that there it seems that you can?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #322 on: 17/07/2011 11:17:05 »
It would solve a lot of strangeness for me if there was a way to define it so, but consider the traveler. If he was near light speed then the Lorentz contraction only should be apparent in his acceleration (and even weirder, deceleration:), and that would destroy the symmetry we assume between the travelers Lorentz contraction, relative the earths observers definition of his time dilation. Also it would make the muon definition invalid.

And when it comes to the 'energy stored', a uniform motion will do as well as a deceleration/acceleration. In fact I might prefer to define both expressions to 'energy stored'. That is a simpler definition, but then we will find that gravity and inertia does not fit this expression at all, as 'energy stored' have nothing to do with inertia/gravity in a uniform motion.

If I'm thinking right, and now I will go to sleep, if I can :)
Da*n
==

Also it makes me wonder about how decelerations/accelerations. Both will express a 'gravity/inertia' locally, and so easy to define to a 'time dilation'. But a uniform motion seems like a different expression when thinking of it in form of mass? But, it's still a relation where, if 'stored' in space, must express itself as a Lorentz contraction.

Which leaves us 'energy', as the best definition for it locally.
« Last Edit: 17/07/2011 11:40:58 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #323 on: 17/07/2011 11:59:30 »
So, if we look at a time dilation as following mass, then a uniform motion can't be right, according to this definition, as there is no mass involved, neither any inertia. Which leaves us the relative motion versus the universe expressing itself in storing its 'energy' in 'space'. That as there will be no more 'jiggling of atoms' in that spacecrafts hull, and you, due to its 'relative velocity'.

All of this from one simple fact, that even relative motion kills :) Meaning that it does matter what uniform velocity you have, relative your origin. And that is your 'potential energy'. But that is also a definition between frames of reference, but for 'space' to be able to store it and translate it into a time dilation?

He* it doesn't matter if you define yourself as unmoving or not, the 'speed' you will measure relative some other object should be a 'time dilation' anyway, but who will be the younger one then you ask :) Well, that's a definition that only comes into play as defined by a same origin. As soon as you can't backtrack 'yourselves' to that 'exact same frame of reference originally', that question loses its validity. And the 'time dilation' you expect to measure will then be unmeasurable. The only way you ever can measure it will be relative the blue shift, and 'energy' your acceleration will create relative the outside (universe). And there you will have use a average measured from all stars, or the CBR to make a educated guess.

If I'm thinking right that is.
I probably will have to look at this later, to see if it makes any sense :)
« Last Edit: 17/07/2011 12:16:31 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #324 on: 17/07/2011 23:27:36 »
Why doesn't inertia change with your relative motion? The (potential) energy does?

This one is a headache, on Earth we definitely expect the inertia to change with motion. What fools us is the fact that it only express itself in accelerations and decelerations. Which makes it all to easy to assume that it has to be 'stored' somewhere in the motion too. And that was what I did too, but thinking of that table and earths motion I don't think I'm right?

So which is it? Will inertia keep track of relative motion or won't it? Will it 'know' my 'speed' relative a origin (like Earth) or won't it in space. That it does it ('knows') on Earth has to do with the gravitational field. But that's not a geodesic in space, is it? The only thing you will have there will be the invariant mass your spacecraft creates, you included. And in a uniform motion I can define you as being at rest with gravity's potential (surrounding you in space).
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #324 on: 17/07/2011 23:27:36 »

 

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