The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 279201 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #325 on: 17/07/2011 23:36:42 »
I'll make some presumptions.

Just to get the ball rolling, sort of.
(Kind'a like those, presumptions that is:)

1. Inertia has to work from what 'gravity' that can exist?
Which will mean that a boson has no inertia, ever, and that one makes sense at least.

2. Inertia and gravity are not the same? Which then would mean that they are two things coupled to each other, but not the same? I don't know, that one is weird, and very difficult to define?

3. Inertia and gravity are the same, a symmetry. That one I like, it's simplest, and I guess most of you agree in that they seem to come together.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #326 on: 17/07/2011 23:51:17 »
The Higgs field don't seem to explain Inertia. Did you know that?

"Even if the Higgs field is experimentally discovered, however, that will still not explain the origin of inertial mass of ordinary matter. The Higgs field applies only to the electro-weak sector of the Standard Model. The mass of ordinary matter is overwhelmingly due to the protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms. Protons and neutrons are comprised of the two lightest quarks: the up and down quarks. The rest masses of their constituent quarks (approx. 0.005 and 0.010 GeV/c2 for the up and down quarks respectively) which could be attributed to the Higgs field comprise only about one percent of the masses of the protons and neutrons (0.938 and 0.940 GeV/c2 respectively). The remainder of the proton and neutron masses would have to be attributed to contributions from the gluon field strong interaction energies plus smaller electromagnetic and weak fields contributions which would not be affected by a Higgs field. The origin of inertial mass of ordinary matter is thus a wide open question.

The following description of the Higgs mass-generating process was published by M. J. G. Veldman (Scientific American, Nov. 1986).

"The way particles are thought to acquire mass in their interactions with the Higgs field is somewhat analogous to the way pieces of blotting paper absorb ink. In such an analogy the pieces of paper represent individual particles and the ink represents energy, or mass. Just as pieces of paper of different sizes and thicknesses soak up varying amounts of ink, different particles 'soak up' varying amounts of energy or mass. The observed mass of a particle depends on the particle's 'energy absorbing' ability, and on the strength of the Higgs field in space."

This is basically a transfer of energy from a field to a particle. Note that this does not address a deeper question: why does the energy "soaked up" from the Higgs field resist acceleration? Perhaps that is not a legitimate question. Perhaps mass and energy intrinsically possess the property of inertia and that is the end of the story. On the other hand, we have found a very intriguing interaction with the electromagnetic quantum vacuum that appears to provide just this property of resistance to acceleration that defines inertia."

From  Inertia and the Higg.

But it also has to do with how you define the universe. Those wanting it to be 'electrical' would have it easier as one then could presume 'EM forces' expressing it through the universe, carried by those 'virtual/real' photons that we already have defined as carriers of the electromagnetic force.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #327 on: 18/07/2011 00:06:32 »
Let us assume that they're not the same. Then Inertia could be defined as a property of EM-forces created in your acceleration/deceleration relative your 'energy expended' (involving Space 'virtual photons'). But then you have to answer why it would express itself differently in space as relative a planet.

And gravity will still be there, not answered by such a definition.
==

And it would use the 'time dilation' that rocket express relative the 'space' surrounding it as I see it. Which then open for the question of what times arrow is, again. It's a rather straightforward approach though, if we go from a relational approach in where you 'change' the parameters by accelerating/decelerating. But you can use the same definition not involving EM-forces, as the Higgs seems to do, as that particle has no 'charge'.
« Last Edit: 18/07/2011 00:14:32 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #328 on: 18/07/2011 00:22:21 »
It has to go back to what symmetries, and dimensions, are.

What is 'space'. Where are the symmetry breaks in it. Because that is what space should represent to me. Several symmetry breaks as it seems for now, to explain all those 'properties'. And it also goes back to 'size', as that is what we expect to express those 'properties'. It has to do with very short fluctuations, still expressing themselves constantly.

If they do it uniformly will that give us a average continuous force? And if they do it acceleratingly, what would that give us? I know, just testing the waters :)
==

Can 'energy' be defined as accelerating on its own? How about interference, quenching and reinforcing waves?
« Last Edit: 18/07/2011 00:26:10 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #329 on: 18/07/2011 05:53:52 »
Now, here is what I don't like "why does the energy "soaked up" from the Higgs field resist acceleration? Perhaps that is not a legitimate question. Perhaps mass and energy intrinsically possess the property of inertia and that is the end of the story." Not because it can't be true. Maybe it is a 'property' of something else, but we should still try to define it as narrowly as we can.

You see, assume that we get it all explained. We know it all one day, SpaceTime being our oyster :)Well, what's 'outside' it then? And when we've got that one cleared up, well what's 'outside that' then :)

There will always be the possibility of defining whatever we find 'resting' in something else, even if we define it as without a 'background'. Because it is 'somewhere' even if coming from itself, through symmetries breaking. So the concept of finding out never ends it seems.
==

The mere fact of it existing should do that. Although it may be a philosophical concept more than measuring if so. You could assume that what defines something is relations, where those relations end there will be no more to find out. It's a question of borders of the universe, there can very well be so that the universe is infinite in some aspect, meaning that you never will find a stop sign, walking a geodesic, as is the straightest 'lines' in SpaceTime due to its 'gravity' forming it. But it doesn't state that there isn't a 'border'.

To me the borders seems to be motion and size. Then you have fermions and bosons too but those are both restricted by our arrow. And as motion falls under the arrow too? But size? In a way it too seems a description of the arrow, if 'chopped up' to its smallest bits. So maybe we will be left with 'c'?
« Last Edit: 18/07/2011 06:04:39 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #330 on: 18/07/2011 06:34:12 »
And 'c' is the arrow, well, at least its clock as I think of it. We use it as our final description of a ultimate 'speed', as well as the definition of a 'smallest size' (Planck scales). And it's between those two borders we seem to exist.

'Time' as such flows in one direction, but that may just be a consequence of there being a SpaceTime. So in a way time is as much of a 'dimension' as length, height and width. That's also why I think of it as a fractal, it's not so much a concept of linear distances to me as it is of something 'opening up' or 'closing down' depending on your choice of parameters locally, speeding away for example.

If you stop thinking linearly you will see how I mean.

When it comes to 'time dilations' then that is a concept coming from 'frames of reference', having no real substance for me. As far as I can see we all 'locally' have one measurement, that is our measured timespan. I don't expect 'time travels' as in you going back to see your forefather to be possible. If it was we surely would have noticed it already. Also that concept brings with it all kind of difficulties, looking at time loops and time spiraling into endless bifurcations, although I can't state that it is impossible. But I do not expect it.

And a Lorentz contraction is just a 'fractal way' of expressing a change in parameters relative you/the observer. That makes it rather meaningless defining a certain 'size' to this universe. We might agree on it being 'infinite' but that doesn't define a size. What defines sizes is the way we measure in time, the arrow 'chopped up' defines a smallest size.
« Last Edit: 18/07/2011 07:29:18 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #331 on: 18/07/2011 07:06:35 »
The real mystery when it comes to 'size' are uniform motion versus accelerations. Assume that what defines a ground state of energy and gravity to be a uniform motion. Do that mean that motion relative a origin doesn't matter?

As all uniform motions will be the same, inside that black room? Remember that all other definitions you can use must involve other 'frames of reference'.

If I was correct about inertia, then inertia and a uniform motion seems equivalent to me, in that a inertia will not differ in a course-change, no matter your 'velocity', as defined from some point of origin (Earth). It will only react to the change relative that uniform motion so that we, for this, can define the inertia as being 'equally null' in all geodesics, the same way as your 'uniform motion' always will be 'null' relative gravity's potential, no matter your velocity.

So, is this a way the universe defines 'motion'? And a acceleration becomes a gravity, and a constant inertia acting on you. And as Inertia and accelerations goes together, as it seems to me, then are they the same? If you look at it as a fractal then the acceleration expends energy, exchanging it in gravity, inertia, time dilation and contraction. To the 'inertial observer' left at home, expending no 'energy', it also brings with it a time dilation and contraction, but only defined relative you.

So loosely we can say that he sees you shrinking as well as 'slowing down'. You see the universe 'shrinking' and its time 'speeding up'.
=

Then we have the 'energy'.

The observer do not see the universe change, only you, becoming red shifted as you speed away from him. You, on the other hand ,will find the universal 'frame' to blue shift before you, expending more energy, red shift behind you.

So how many of those effects can we place as 'relations', existing as a description between frames?

Well, to find out you will have to use 'black room scenarios' and in those all uniform motion is the same, all accelerations are gravity/inertia, and your time will never differ.

« Last Edit: 18/07/2011 07:31:28 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #332 on: 18/07/2011 08:54:12 »
But then we come to light. If you define light as 'propagating' which makes perfect sense :) for this, you need to ask yourself two things.

Does light have a mass?

Does light show inertia?

As far as I can see light has no discernible mass. What we have is definitions of how 'big' a possible mass could be still allowing light to do what it does. And that is the same as defining my chances of being the one and only Santa as I see it.

But has it a inertia?
==

To test it you can use 'matter waves'.

Think of everything as representations of waves. All matter can be set equivalent to a 'energy' and also to waves. Doing so we ignore the uniqueness of matter and it might be seen as flawed but we can use it for imagining how inertia/accelerations would express itself.

The question also seems to be what 'comes first', the acceleration, or the inertia?
Can you differ those two?
« Last Edit: 18/07/2011 09:12:43 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #333 on: 19/07/2011 19:07:26 »
Yeah I know, haven't really thought about it in terms of 'inertia'. It's a truly weird subject, where gravity at least have a kind of definition in a geometry, inertia is more of something acting like a 'syrup', but as far as I can see, not 'growing' with uniform motion? Einstein discussed it in form of 'energy' though, and doing so? Then again, he pressed for the definition of mass as 'invariant', not relativistic, meaning that there was no added 'mass' to something being in a motion relative some origin.

If I think of SpaceTime as 'slices', split at Planck size, would I see a 'quantum foam' there? It's irritating in that you can imagine it two ways, either as you 'magnifying' something by radiation (light), or delivering 'energy' to it visualizing it in its interactions.

But assume that there would be a way of showing that 'quantum foam', by 'magnifying it'. Would you still see 'SpaceTime'? Would 'SpaceTime' exist at all at that level. What I'm discussing here is how to see a 'symmetry break' actually.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #334 on: 19/07/2011 19:16:05 »
When you deliver a energy to something through the LHC, doesn't you also introduce the possibility of symmetry breaks? The only way to define something seems to me to be doing it at a 'ground state', if now that one makes sense? But I will presume it does, seems to be when at rest with whatever you're observing. When it comes to motion you do it by having the exact same velocity and so be at rest. How do you do it with 'energies'?

A ground state of motion I would define as 'uniform motion'. Can I use that definition for defining 'energy' too?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #335 on: 19/07/2011 22:58:55 »
So, we define 'states' from their 'energy' as well as temperature. What is a temperature? Something 'jiggling'? Not on its own is it? The temperature of something jiggling on its own can't be measured as I think of it. You need at least two 'thingies', as 'particles', interacting to measure a temperature. Can waves have a temperature, without interaction? How about interference, do 'reinforcing' give them a temperature?
=

Better point out that by 'measuring' you always will introduce that other 'thingie' interacting. What I'm wondering about is if temperature and 'energy' is the same and also, if they can be said to be 'equivalent', where they will differ. Something 'on its own' may have a temperature when measured, but does it exist on its own? Or is that 'energy' only?
« Last Edit: 19/07/2011 23:03:38 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #336 on: 20/07/2011 18:35:20 »
Well, it's interesting. I've been reading a little about his definitions and to me it seems as if he equalized 'gravity' and 'inertia', discussing 'inertial mass' instead of what we name 'invariant mass'. So his definition was simply the equivalence principle, stating that you can't differ an (inertial) acceleration from its equivalent gravity.

I kind'a feel a little stupid here :) But as I said, I haven't really considered inertia on its own, and somehow I missed what it was in his equivalence principle, thinking of both 'types' invariant mass and accelerations as 'gravity'. but it's perfectly correct, you can't differ it.

And it's 'gravity' they discuss, both of them. Forget about 'invariant mass', and forget about 'accelerations'. Define both from a local point of view and they will be inseparable. And then a acceleration always is 'the same' if defined from a uniform motion, no matter its velocity relative some 'third party'. If you're already inside a gravitational field it's different though as that will add to the effect, as on earth.

I really feel stupid about this one. Still, it made me look at something from another point of view.
« Last Edit: 20/07/2011 18:38:09 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #337 on: 20/07/2011 18:45:58 »
The problem is that before the equivalence principle people saw it as 'two definitions' in where one was the inertial reaction to a acceleration, and the other was 'gravity' as defined by 'invariant rest mass'. I think I jump started pass that definition some time long ago :) reading about Einsteins gravity. Ah well, enough excuses.

Inertia is just a symmetry to invariant mass, coupled to gravity, just as matter is. But one interesting thing is still left, can light have a inertia without having a mass? Most people questioning why 'photons' doesn't have 'mass' seems to consider 'gravity' a intrinsic property of mass? I don't, and the equivalence principle doesn't seem to do it either. How else would 'inertia' become gravity?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #338 on: 20/07/2011 19:08:36 »
The question I guess people want defined is just how 'inertia' can be 'gravity' though. First you have to admit that it is inseparable in a black room sceniario. If you do that the right question might be, if they are the same, why do we differ them?

One is about a very specific kind of 'motion', accelerations. There are only two states of motion in Einsteins universe, 'uniform motion' and 'accelerations'.

Then we have 'invariant mass' that, as I understands it, we define from geodesics, the so called 'inertial mass' existing when being 'at rest' in a uniform motion. And a 'uniform motion' is as I see it at rest with 'gravity's potential' leaving only the 'rest mass' to influence that 'flat space' locally.

It's quite beautifully defined, and Einstein did it before me :)
He was a very smart guy.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #339 on: 20/07/2011 19:35:13 »
You might want to see the equivalence principle as a proof of 'energy' becoming gravity though? And that would make all inertial reactions a definition of 'energy'. I don't know? Vacuum fluctuations knocking on that door again :)

Or you could define it as a 'symmetry break'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #340 on: 22/07/2011 06:10:02 »
Things that bother me :)

Imagine yourself in a 'room', like a space.
You can't state if you're still or moving, there are no references.

That's your uniform motion.

Now turn on on the rocket engine. That one needs no other medium to work against except its engines chamber, that it 'pushes' on.

Now you will find 'gravity'.

Uniform motion is 'space', a ground state of it. Accelerations is gravity.
=

Remember that there are no references here. You can not state that either of those two states are moving.
=

So why do we see it differently?

Radiation is what binds invariant mass together in our universe. Radiation defines the 'clock' we Lorentz transform comparing 'frames of reference'. We have two types of 'accelerations', or 'gravity. One is invariant mass, expressed as energy a planet is an awful lot of energy, defined in a symmetry of sorts. The other is 'local accelerations' that won't express as much energy, or gravity. But that doesn't explain how I can reach the same 'velocity' in so many ways, or is the energy expended equivalent? And it fails to explain why I won't 'bend' the space around me as a planet does, neutron star, and finally close to being a Black Hole.

To assume the energy equivalent I will have to count over extended amounts of time, finding it so, and it will still not be equivalent to what a planet is, in form of energy.
« Last Edit: 22/07/2011 06:12:34 by yor_on »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #341 on: 22/07/2011 07:45:04 »
Don't forget that gravity accelerates objects unless something stops them. Gravity inertia and inertia from acceleration are not exactly the same processes, they have different causes, but their relative effects on an elementary particle are the same. They both cause the particles to shrink or expand, relatively speaking. The way i see it is: elastic strings between elementary particles which oppose changes in relative speed between them for acceleration inertia and opposing incrementation in the distance integral over time for gravity inertia. So there is two differential orders between both types of inertia. This is why you feel gravity inertia without moving in a gravitational field and you need to accelerate to feel acceleration inertia. If you take the rocket and its fuel as the entire system, there is no spending of energy, only entropy is growing...

If you are in a free fall, accelerating in a gravity well, you don't feel anything: Both types of inertia seem to be the two opposite sides of the same coin...

It may seems awkward to talk about integral of distance over time for gravity but think about the changes in the rotation period of a particle in those circumstances. Gravity is opposing to differential of timerate between two elementary particles... Acceleration causes differential in timerate. All matter was once entangled in a big particle, THE Black Ring of Origin... :o)

Oh, and something important i have to add: Massive particles are made of charges always rotating at the speed of light in their own frame, so a particle at rest is not really at rest.
« Last Edit: 22/07/2011 10:29:39 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #342 on: 22/07/2011 18:26:44 »
Well, there is different approaches to reality CPT. I don't know which one is 'right', this is more me discussing things I don't understand. And those of you reading don't need to look that smug reading me here:).

I have my own way of thinking of it, doesn't exclude other definitions though, not until I found a way to define something that makes a experimental difference, pointing one way or another. I discuss it from Einsteins definitions, hopefully? Can't be sure there, my ideas are like a mongrel, healthy but not pure :)

His was the importance of 'symmetries' 'equivalences', and possibly 'symmetry breaks' (?) although I think symmetry breaks have become more and more defined since he once started to propose symmetries.

But if we go from a 'space' defined by 'uniform motion', inseparable from being 'at rest' as I see it, then what do we have? Does it have 'dimensions'? I don't think so, I think that what we call 'dimensions' is the way matter gets defined against each other. And that it gets by radiation. You need to see that I'm discussing the 'classical' definition first here, the one where we say that 'space' is empty, free from particles.

How can that be? It falls back on what we call gravity. If gravity really is a metric of space, then gravity defines 'distances', at least macroscopically. And then I will say what I always seems to say :) We're defining it wrong. The 'distances' we measure is naturally true from our perspective, and it isn't just a question of 'macroscopicallity' against 'microscopicallity'. It's a function of a whole 'SpaceTime', in where you have to look at both 'dimensions' and 'times arrow', or time if you like.

And we have to differ between a 'direction' in time, and a 'clock'. We have one 'clock' as I define it. That one is 'c', and it is because of that 'clocks' invariance we have Lorentz transformations and time dilations.

We also need to differ between conceptualizing 'SpaceTime', as a whole, from 'locality'. They are not the same, they are also what Einstein called, well, the way I think of it at least, symmetries. The simplest definitions will always be found 'locally' and in 'black room scenarios'. From there you will need to find the simplest ways of conceptualizing those into a 'whole SpaceTime'. And to me that is radiation, the messengers of 'change'.

By the way, do radiation have a inertia? How about a BEC? Do a 'photon' lose 'energy' by getting 'stayed' inside that BEC? Not as I know? The 'energy' will be unchanged as the 'temperature' raises releasing the 'photon'.

So, I do not think a 'photon/radiation' has a inertia, as for now at least. It also make the idea of a symmetry between what we call 'inertia', and the 'gravity' of invariant mass, one and the same to me.

« Last Edit: 22/07/2011 18:29:41 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #343 on: 22/07/2011 18:40:07 »
In my world, 'uniform motion', whether gravitationally induced or far from 'matter' is the same. Both will be geodesics, and the 'velocity/speed' you measure will be a function of comparisons between 'frames of reference'. You see something 'falling' in a 'free fall', some space debris for example. To you it will be accelerating, to the debris itself there is no 'energy expended', and so it can't be accelerating in my universe.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #344 on: 22/07/2011 18:58:54 »
SpaceTime isn't that complicated really, not if you look at the 'wide picture' :)

It's defined by 'uniform motion' relative 'accelerations'. Seen locally all 'uniform motion' is being at rest, not expending 'energy' locally. All accelerations are 'gravity'.

Radiation is what defines 'SpaceTime' to us. It binds 'frames of reference' aka your 'room time geometry', that to its nature always will be one and the same no matter where you are, to all other 'room time geometries'.

That's where all confusion comes from, our inability to accept that what we see, and what is is, as two different approaches to 'reality'. We want SpaceTime to adapt to what we think is 'true', and so we construct for ever more complicated and tortuous equations and definitions, each one fitting a small niche somewhere in 'reality'. But SpaceTime doesn't do it that way, it's just us.

Start with a empty room, introduce uniform motion. Define it such as everything 'changing' will need to expend energy. Stop thinking of it in form of uniform motion 'moving' objects. They are at rest.

And find a way of making the changes point in one 'direction'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #345 on: 22/07/2011 21:13:02 »
By 'changes' I'm really discussing 'interactions'. And preferably local ones. When you use a conceptual frame of logic, every thing seems to 'move' relative each other, doesn't it?

But as defined locally, only acceleration can introduce a change.

I think this is the right way to define it. SpaceTime either will expend 'energy' or it will not. And the 'things' expending that energy always does it locally. If you accept my definition of locality then there is no such things as a whole SpaceTime acting. Well, there is, conceptually but in reality that 'wholeness' always will be defined 'locally'. And from locality's point of view you either expend energy, or you don't. Any interactions, or transformations, locally must follow that principle.

So when we discuss the 'energy' of a whole SpaceTime? What do we mean? All of those local phenomena put together? Representing our 'reality'? Why not, it's one way of defining it. And if you look at the way we reproduce, and grow, it makes real sense to do so. From strict 'locality' though, you're some sort of nucleus, defining a unchanging frame of reference although highly conceptual if you think of it in form of 'clocks' defining each point of SpaceTime uniquely. You also change dynamically in each of those points with your earth rotating and 'uniformly moving' as defined against all other objects/points existing.

And that is somewhat of a mystery, ain't it? If you accept my definition SpaceTime as such have some pretty simple definitions but then we come to the way we all 'interact' both locally and over 'distances'. And it must have to do with radiation, and our 'time', or arrow.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #346 on: 22/07/2011 21:26:22 »
So a uniformly moving SpaceTime, all 'objects of locality' included, does not expend energy. But all things 'interacting' and 'transforming' should break that principle. If I assume that uniform SpaceTime to represent a measure of 'fresh energy' shouldn't that mean that we are using it up? Transforming it into 'stale energy' of some sort :)or are we actually taking it away from SpaceTime? And that is about 'dimensions' and the question of how we differ them and if there are 'unseen' ones joining us up into some other definition of a 'greater SpaceTime'. It is also the question of 'velocity/speed' and how we by manipulating that can get both 'motion', as well as 'Magnifying/Contracting' effects. It's, to me that is, the question of how we define 'c' and how we by picking a 'size' can chop 'c' into pieces, and what we see happening when we do so.

Macroscopicallity against Quantum mechanics.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #347 on: 22/07/2011 21:41:25 »
And there is where we find some rules.


1. Constants.
2. Symmetries.
3. Symmetry breaks
4. 'Fractal behaviors' as non-linearity, inside linearity, inside non-linearity inside.. Ad infinitum.

What more?

(Add to that the question why we perceive a arrow?)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #348 on: 22/07/2011 21:56:45 »
Let's define the radiation 'duality' (wave/particle) as a 'symmetry'. Is that symmetry a 'global phenomena' spanning a whole SpaceTime, or is it a 'local phenomena' changing in each point?

If it is changing in each point, what makes it do so?

All other 'things' defining it? How can they 'define' it? There is nothing communicating faster than 'c', not making sense at least, ah, in my 'universe' that is :)

Stop thinking of it as 'propagating' and it will make more sense, well, in a way it will :) In others it becomes a headache. If light is your 'clock' then we are 'ticking' constantly. Your whole universe, if thought of as a 'global' frozen 'SpaceTime slice', lifted forward in 'time' by each 'tick', according to us observing.

The 'energy' expended are defined from 'locality', but conceptually radiations 'clock' binds it all together into big SpaceTime slices 'tick by tock', defined by rules that you both can see as 'local' and 'global', depending on preferences. Going out from locality makes them easier to see for me though.

With a clock and no 'propagation' light gets its definition from where it is observed.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #349 on: 22/07/2011 22:18:01 »
What can a entanglement tell you?

That there are 'rules' on the quantum mechanical plane too?
Rules that have little to do with our definitions of 'motion', 'communication', and 'propagation'?

If there is a way of defining a state over far distances from my locality, instantly. Then there is no necessity for light to 'propagate' either. And it has to do with 'size', doesn't it? Size of observation, Planck scales, chopping up light into its smallest constituents.
=

(Fractal) ?
Symmetry breaks ?
« Last Edit: 22/07/2011 22:19:37 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #349 on: 22/07/2011 22:18:01 »

 

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