The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 279279 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 #350 on: 21/08/2011 18:29:40 »
So, time? And its arrow? What is it.

Well, it's what defines you.
And your thoughts.

And your experiments.
And hypotheses
And Theory's.

Then you can use mathematical definitions too. In those Time 't' is a variable, that you, depending on how you treat your equations now can change place with a lot of other variables. So, which one is the proof of our reality?

The math, or your life? I don't know really? It's a very tough question, but I do think that what I see and experience between my birth and death will be one arrow, pointing only one way.

But maybe the arrow is something that 'grows' into becoming such, a function of 'size' :) as I call it, or 'scale' if you like. That still leaves us to define what we actually see when observing some QM 'time reversible' effect though. How can we define it as 'going the other way time wise' if we observe it taking place under our arrow?

That seems to fall under same category as 'frames of reference'  to me. Where exactly are your 'frame of reference' localized, can you give it a definite position in SpaceTime. I think not, and perhaps that also is the ultimate definition of 'time'?

If so it seems uniquely 'local', and no matter which way it might be defined to 'tick', from somebody else's 'frame of reference', it should still intrinsically always have only one same, pointing one way, direction, at all times.

If 'clocks' exist everywhere in all points, which they should as I see it, they all 'tick' in one direction, no place in SpaceTime 'ticks' backward.

So, if you ever could prove a process going 'backward' in time, experimentally, the explanation for that should be in the comparison between 'frames', as I think of it now.

What it is not, is a illusion. To prove it a illusion you better become 'immortal' first. Simply expressed, don't you go dying on us while proving it please.
« Last Edit: 21/08/2011 19:01:53 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 #351 on: 03/09/2011 09:23:20 »
This is just thoughts. I need to get them sorted out, but they make sense to me.

This 'phasespace' Smolin wonders about, and LightArrow pointed out to me, made me reconsider my understanding of 'SpaceTime'. I realized that we in both would find all points unique. One of the reasons people gets confused seems to be that they see Einsteins SpaceTime as a 'whole', and Lorentz transformations as a 'proof' of it being so. That is only a part of it as I think, I don't see it as a 'whole', although it is a 'whole' to me when measuring it. 

This moldable 'jello' (SpaceTime) you experience is definitely a 'whole', as far as you are concerned seamlessly fitting. But your neighbors SpaceTime won't fit yours. Einsteins universe is defined from one thing, and one thing only, 'constants'. The 'space' we live in is a geometry. The geometry is defined by clocks.

It's not the only definition you can use, but it is the one that makes most sense to me, and the one I will go out from here.

Think of all points in SpaceTime as defined from your 'clock'. That 'clock' is related to the 'gravity' that couples to mass, and 'motion'. It creates your own unique SpaceTime, and becomes the 'frame of reference' defining all other frames. But all those 'points' you observe, defined by your clock, each one of them has its own unique clock, and where you at any of those other 'points' you would now find SpaceTime slightly differently defined. To that you can add the way 'motion' and mass (and 'energy' as an idea) redefines it. The 'point' I want to make here :) is that all points see SpaceTime slightly different.

It opens for a question though. Just as with Smolins momentum space, it seems to create an absurdity? How can any two points ever couple to each other, becoming the 'composites' we call matter if they find distances differ? A orange is consisting of molecules, the molecules consists of atoms, the atoms lies inside the realm of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and the 'force carriers' between those atoms (virtual particles) are definitely not 'here', in the sense of being measurable.

And all of those points the orange makes must then have their own unique definition of a 'distance', and 'clocks', as you observe them, or as they observe all else. So what defines that orange? Where and how can it exist? That question is the strongest argument I can see for a definition of a 'smallest bit' existing.

==
What you must keep in mind reading me here is that although all clocks have a same beat/duration locally, each one will measure all other clocks to a different beat than their neighbor does. And that is because the universe is a geometry defined through radiations unchanging ground beat. That 'clock' always tick the same for you locally, the only thing changing being the relations you measure relative the rest of the universe, relative motion and mass/energy (Gravity).
==


Assume :) that there is a smallest 'bit'. A 'point' if you like. Also assume that all 'clocks' have a same duration. That one is checkable by you, as you nowhere will find a different duration. If the clocks now are the same on a very small plane, just as 'big' as your 'frame of reference' has to be by the way (Do try to define that 'size', if you can:), then they can couple to each other. And with greater 'sizes' or scales we will get 'space'. 'Space' is a definition, coming and following those clocks. And 'space' is defined through 'radiation'. Why it is so has to do with what we call 'constants'. Those are, as far as I can see, borders for our SpaceTime . The problem is to see what the 'constants' really consist of. But one is lights speed in a vacuum, and the fact that this 'speed' do not vary, ever. Not as you will measure it locally.

We live in 'space' defined by 'clocks', those clocks defines your universe. Then we have what I call 'size'. That's also the composites we call 'matter', they are all defined through 'size'. As you look out in the universe you measure a gravitational well from afar, like a neutron star, finding their 'clocks' to go very slow. Then you do the same with a Black Hole, and as you measure closer to its event horizon with your measuring apparatus, you now find that all 'clocks' seems to stop.

So, do they? Not according to my definitions, all points have a same 'ground beat' as we can see by measuring your clock 'locally', it will show the same durations according to you. Also according to all experiments you can make, no matter where you do it, the best being to measure lights speed in a vacuum using that as your 'clock'. But there must be something changing if you now place yourself at the Event horizon, instead of just measuring its 'clocks' from afar. What can change for you? The clock can't, but distance can.

Distance is a definition from 'clocks'. All 'clocks' have a a same 'duration' locally according to my definitions, and what defines a 'space' is 'size/scaling up' and 'constants'.

We live in a very weird universe. There are more to it, it has also to do with QM, but I had to write it down while I still remembered it. But QM is all a matter of 'size' to me.
==

Then we come to the idea of 'space' moving faster than light, as when passed the event horizon. That is incorrect, 'space' doesn't move. It's the way it gets defined by our measurements (clock) that makes us describe it that way. But inside that event horizon, the 'space' you observe will be able to be 'infinite'. And it all has to do with those 'clocks' same 'ground state', and 'symmetry'. SpaceTime is a balance defined by the observer.
=

Space is a construct by clocks. Or if you like, 'coupled' to clocks. And it is very correct to define it as a nothing, it is. What defines a 'space' is nothing, and 'gravity'. Gravity defines its 'shape' becoming its metric. And each point of that 'gravity' is a unique 'clock' redefining the way you observe the rest of the universe. But they all have a same 'ground beat/state/duration' defined by the best 'clock' that exists, radiation.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2011 11:05:18 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 #352 on: 08/09/2011 03:41:15 »
So, I may still become a mystic here :)

I'm starting to look at the universe as a number space.

It's becoming 'static' to me, although the numbers defining each point do change. The change being what we define as our arrow of time. And as SpaceTime to me is defined by gravity, being its metric and 'clock(s), depending on how you look at it, it also must be observer dependent.

Think of it as a collection of symbols, shapes, geometries. Each of them defining a specific state for that point in SpaceTime, relative your 'frame of reference' observing. Then comes a invincible hand :) called time, rewriting them. But that timely hand is observer dependent, although always the same locally.

Does that mean that SpaceTime is a collection of 'frames'? Well, I think so, what joins them in a whole experience is the radiation communicating between them, and 'time'.
 

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 #353 on: 10/09/2011 10:29:38 »
I wrote "And all of those points the orange makes must then have their own unique definition of a 'distance', and 'clock' as you observe them, or they observe everything else. So what defines that orange? Where and how can it exist? That question is the strongest argument I can see for a definition of a 'smallest bit' existing."

You can by using HUP turn that upside down.

Using Hup we can define that 'smallest bit' as being uncertain. That will then allow them to couple even without us being able to prove a 'smallest bit'. But we will still need to see where HUP disappear and our measurable distances comes into play. Maybe it has to do with a Plank length? Maybe we need to scale it up even more, but there should be some 'transition' between all that 'uncertainty' and 'certainty'. you can define it as a matter of 'statistics' but that just imply a lot of what I call 'points'. So from such a definition we are built out of statistics, all of us :)
 

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 #354 on: 11/09/2011 22:36:37 »
Let's look at Hup some more, and inflation, and gravity.

Hup is a statement of uncertainty. This uncertainty has nothing to do with 'time'. When ever you read 'fluctuations' just remember that Hup do not discuss 'time' or an arrow. It is a description of a state from where the only way of defining it is through statistics, showing us the possibilities of how it might present itself to us, after 'falling out'. It's a state where time has no meaning.

Inflation then? And gravity?

As the universe expands gravity must follow. You can either look at it as if 'gravity' is of one predefined value, 'diluting' as the room 'expands' or as something that must come into existence by a 'expansion'. If the first was right then we could expect all gravity to 'weaken' as distances becoming larger. If the second is right it shouldn't.

I reckon the last is right, I also expect gravity to be the thing defining 'durations' as well as the 'room' we exist in. From a QM point of view everything must be a constant possibility of 'becoming', but to define it in a outcome there need to be a arrow. Or maybe 'time' in itself is enough? I don't know there, but for a causality chain you need a arrow, and our macroscopic SpaceTime is defined through a linear causality chain.

To QM there is no need of a 'distance'. Distance is a macroscopic object. There is no need for a time either as all time is a definition following measurable distances, defined by radiation.
 

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 #355 on: 11/09/2011 22:45:18 »
HUP and energy then?

According to HUP any 'microscopic' 'virtual' object, whatever that is, can have any energy. There are no limits, but there are no time for that 'energy' to express iteself in either. If HUP has no distance intrinsically, the discussion of SpaceTime as a series of 'points' have no meaning there. Then HUP describes a place, without measurable distances/durations. There not even one point exist, only 'becoming' and that 'becoming' is as true at all points in this macroscopic SpaceTime.

See, told you I was becoming a mystic :)
 

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 #356 on: 12/09/2011 08:05:40 »
Can there be a state where everything is possible? A 'superposition' as it is called at times, in where everything exist simultaneously? If it is so, can such a state have a arrow of time? Probability may give us the definition of the most probable outcome, but how exactly does it materialize itself inside our arrow? What gives it the 'impetus' to exist?

Is there a way to define that not using a arrow of time?
What exactly is 'scales'?

What was that point we expect the universe to have started in, and why did it describe a causality chain, making it possible to track it from that point to what we have now?

Is HUP and randomness the same, or are they two descriptions?

If the 'very small' doesn't use a arrow, then it has no size either. if it on the other hand contain a arrow then that arrow must become a uncertainty too, as it seems to me. Which in a way leave us a 'magical eh, point', containing all that is and can be.

In it nothing can be defined with absolute certainty, and whatever you do to define it must be observer dependent, that is, defined by you making a observation based on the experimental data, the experiment focusing on discerning one of several probabilities. That we from our arrow afterwards can give that outcome a definition based on its 'interference' in itself, does not state why it came it to be, does it? If you don't assume that when probability reaches a threshold of 'becoming' it must come into existence? Otherwise you still will need that causality chain we find the 'arrow' to be for it. But that can't be right, unless possibly our definition of time is ill defined.

Using statistics we definitely trust in a linear causality chain making repeatable experiments possible. That one is also called the arrow of time. Yep, I'm getting mystical here :) Assume that there is a 'cone of probability', in where we macroscopically exist on its expanded surface, in where those QM effects normally don't express itself. That cones surface becomes our SpaceTime, containing the arrow and distances which, in its turn, gets its definition from gravity's 'clocks', as observed/defined by you.

          o              o


          0              0 


Let us play with this as some border of a universe. When the inflation happened gravity is expected to have acted 'outwards', instead of, as it does now, acting 'inwards'. Does those borders get diffuse under an inflation? Was there a arrow existing for the inflation to expand in, or did the arrow get its present definition after/under the inflation?

Then think of them as four planets, coupled to gravity, becoming a very small universe. Can you imagine where the gravitational borders would be? Now assume that gravity acts 'outwards' instead, how do you expect the 'borders' to be then? The same or different? I think they should peter out the same, and where gravity vanish, the room should vanish. But then we have uniform motion in where gravity also vanish.

=
If we let gravity be repulsive then the room should expand, and with that the borders must expand too, but that would either mean that there should be a threshold for our little universe in where the borders can't expand any more, assuming a finite 'gravity' to begin with, or else finding its 'energy' of expanding somewhere else?

If we let 'gravity' be attractive, would then the room 'draw together' or would gravity's borders be the same, no matter how the matter would act? I'm not sure on that one?
==

What would happen to our little universe if the matter broke down into a Black Hole? Assuming that gravity really is the metric defining a measurable space.
=

It seems to me as if we have several things defining a universe, symmetries, that linear causality chain or arrow in which we define our observations. Energy which is something shapeless but primeval to our universe, wandering from the 'room' created into 'gravity', according to some theories. Then there is more that I seem to have forgotten for the moment :)

I will have to reread this.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2011 08:35:41 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 #357 on: 13/09/2011 10:10:39 »
This is thoughts, all of it is.

One dimensional strings. Make a square, cover the bottom of that square with one dimensional strings. How many do you need for one square cm?

The length is no problem, but their width surely is. They don't have a width at all, do they? So we would need a infinite amount to cover that square centimeter. Yet we expect them to be what build a SpaceTime?

But there is an awful lot of ideas coming just from string theory that makes sense to me. Take gravity for example, I see gravity in a expansion as something 'materializing' as needed. String theory, at least some ideas there sees gravity as one of the few things that can move freely in and out of all branes. and that is what I see too, that we, and SpaceTime is a 'density' inside something else. The idea of SpaceTime as a balloon, or a saddle, or whatever shape you want to make of it is not making much sense to me.

If there was a 'outside' and a 'inside' to SpaceTime there would be no end to it, because that 'outside' should be some others 'spaces' 'inside' ad infinitum.

Dumb idea. If we accept the idea of something(s) able to couple into something, that to us becomes a SpaceTime, then we have something where everything is a 'whole', although not all perceivable to us. What we see makes SpaceTime.

One dimensional strings though, is to me like 'quantum fluctuations', words that doesn't make sense. But that has to do with the descriptions we use, mathematically I'm sure they make sense. One big problem has to lay in our inability of translating the math into something making sense linguistically and logically using words as descriptions.

Plank scales. For me that is a border, as good as 'c', relating to where SpaceTime loses its coherence. That doesn't state that there is nothing else there, just that we won't see it.

Gravitons, string theory uses it to describe 'gravity'. It's like a string complement to the 'Higgs ocean', neither of them contradicting the other. It's just different descriptions.

What do I think then? I don't know, I look at it as geometry's, and wonder about scales. What is a distance? Why can it be two things simultaneously, observer dependent.

To me 'gravity' is like invisible clocks, defining a distance and time differently to every observer. And there I expect it to be true even microscopically, although I also expect HUP to be the one making the 'impossible couplings' between atoms and other particles come true, and there I include the arrow, that I would expect to become 'indeterministic' too.

Distance, time, scales. they all seems to come into play inside SpaceTime. If they are valid for what other possibilities that exist, those we can't perceive, I don't know, but as a fair guess I would expect them to be mere transitions, belonging to us primarily, that is SpaceTime.

I'm not really that mystic, I look at it differently.

 

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 #358 on: 15/09/2011 00:13:52 »
There is one thing I haven't discussed, and more than that I guess. But it is expressed in "What is a distance? Why can it be two things simultaneously, observer dependent."

We all live in our minds. In there we expect things to connect to each other, so when I describe a clock at the event horizon from Earth and then, by 'teleporting', finds it to give me another relation time wise, we almost intuitively assume that there must be some overriding factor connecting those two descriptions, making them into a 'whole thing', giving us a single description.

But the thing connecting those descriptions, as well as presenting it differently is radiation, which is a constant 'c'. In fact, even though I conceptually may assume that both descriptions follow a arrow, they are not the same. They are two frames of reference, or two 'room time geometry's' as I call it. The translation between them are purely conceptual, not existing anywhere except in our mind space.

Gravity defines our observation of all 'other clocks', coming from our own 'frame of reference' that always will be as invariant as radiation is, 'c'. If you let go of the assumption that there is a 'common hidden clock' in relativity you will see that all frames described is a result of your own frame, communicated by radiation.

 

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 #359 on: 15/09/2011 00:40:47 »
Then we come to a entropic vies, represented by 'decay'. You don't represent a million infinitesimally 'times', which, as I see it, is the correct interpretation of those 'points' your body represent physically. As far I know I only have one time/duration and that one is represented by any time device locally. But that physical system that you compose of must be represented by a different 'clock' in each point, relative any single defined duration you may use.

If now entropy, aka 'decay', is the the correct definition of time then how do it consider gravity? Does gravity decay?
 

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 #360 on: 18/09/2011 11:34:40 »
Let's look at 'bosons' a little. We have one boson that we all know and love, the 'photon'. That one has a source, and a sink. If you think of it as in motion it also has a propagation. Then there is the other side of it, waves, and fields. We live inside a electromagnetic field produced by Earth. Our bodies also produce a electro magnetic field.

So what is a 'gluon'? And a W and Z particle? Are they 'bosons' too? And a Higgs particle? Also a boson?

The bosons we can see, don't decay, not according to Einstein at least. But they do annihilate. So that mysterious Higgs boson, does it interact? If it do, does it annihilate in that interaction? The electromagnetic forces are mediated by exchange of photons, whereas the weak force is mediated by exchange of W or Z bosons. Then we have the strong force that is mediated by gluon's inside those 'atoms', and lastly the Higgs bosons that somehow defines all mass of all particles.

One of the most mysterious things we have is what we call 'uniform motion'. It's a state without 'resistance', only 'accelerations' produce that inertial effect inseparable from 'gravity'. So how is the Higgs thought to be coupled to that?

Then there is the definition of it as being 'massive'? If you define something as being massive, then that seems to me to be the same as stating it to contain 'gravity' intrinsically? And if you do that you have already introduced a 'Gravitational state', before what you aim to explain by introducing Higgs Particles.

What makes a Higgs particle 'massive', if now those are are thought to be what creates 'gravity' and 'inertia'? The only definition I know of being 'massive', is the definition coupled to gravity. So we have something 'gravitational' intrinsically that then creates more 'gravity' by interacting with all other particles. But as it is a boson, does it annihilate? And if it does, doesn't it then have to be 'created' too? From 'where' exactly?

What field can interact, without exchanging useful 'energy' for 'non useful'? Assuming that we have a 'closed SpaceTime', in where nothing gets 'lost', just change 'state'. It seems to be needed for the The Standard Model of particle physics to make sense, and is so created. But it is not self consistent to me. And the Higgs field excitations seems to be what is assumed to give 'birth' to those 'Higgs bosons'.

 

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 #361 on: 18/09/2011 12:04:21 »
Okay, one definition that makes sense is to think of 'gravity' as always seeking a balance, a center, a little like a hollow sphere can be thought of as all mass being centered inside the exact middle of that hollow sphere, in some thought up 'point'.

You can see that with two objects rotating around each other in space. The don't 'fall' together, as much as they, from our point of view, rotate around some 'balance point' outside their masses. We can argue about this definition, but let's use it for now.

Using that we can ask ourselves what defines inertia with the Higgs field. If we assume that all particles have a 'balance point' like the ones we see with binary stars, then the idea is that when that balance gets 'displaced' by motion the Higgs field/particles will create a resistance to it, inseparable from inertia and gravity. And as the 'Higgs field' then exists as cumulative process, coming from all directions, acting on that particle we will find 'gravity' acting on us. But a planet moves in a uniform motion. So this mechanism is only good for accelerations.

In Einsteins world you have a 'gravitational motion' too. That 'motion' is defined by gravity and mass, as with Earth. There is a equivalence to a mass, and a acceleration. And it works very well in Einsteins definitions, but, does it work with Higgs field/boson?
 

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 #362 on: 02/10/2011 20:36:15 »
A flickering universe, where every flicker is defined by your observation, all observations of distance and other frames 'time' different, and with all observations being as true. A universe where the macroscopic 'clock' is defined from lights speed in a vacuum.

A universe defined through scales. Where indeterminacy is what defines it Quantum mechanically, and not even the arrow a certainty. If we would 'split c' in its composites we reach that QM scale where 'times arrow' becomes questionable and HUP seem to rule. Can you use HUP for time 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 #363 on: 04/10/2011 00:56:28 »
Another weird thing.

Space can't 'move' as I see it. But it can 'compress' alternatively 'stretch out' always relative the observer. And it does it from a local, static 'background' of sorts, defined by 'c'. Which then becomes our invariant clock, that never varies.
==

And that one is really weird. Because it would mean a 'background' defined by the arrow of time. And as we go down in scale, possibly broken up into indeterminacy? The last one I'm not sure of at all actually. It has to do with assuming that we have a local clock defined by 'c'. But if there is possible to measure 'c' then 'one measurement/chunk/bit' solely, becoming 'static' in our arrow, would mean what?
==

Space is a construct, existing macroscopically, defined (?) by gravity and the invariance of 'c'. And all reality that you can know is defined locally, through 'c'. And, here is the real trick, all of it becoming your reality too, as soon as you join whatever frame of reference you've earlier measured as being different relative yours.

I think HUP has a lot to do with 'time', time isn't a arrow at all. It's more of a cone coming from QM, where we see a arrow in that cones 'plane' as we live on the surface of the cone, if this now makes any sense.
==

So if 'space' isn't there?
What exactly is 'space'?
And 'distance'?

Where is your 'frame of reference' situated here?

What is 'motion' if my description of you moving away is that your 'clock' goes slower?
And how can 'gravity' do the exact same?
=

A higher acceleration contracts distances, and speeds up the universe's time, relative the observer moving.

A higher gravity expands distances and speeds up the universe's time, relative the observer being there.

So they are not the exact same.

A uniform motion will also produce a time dilation and a length contraction, but any uniform motion must contain a acceleration somewhere in its description. So forget uniform motion (for now).
« Last Edit: 04/10/2011 01:40:45 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 #364 on: 04/10/2011 01:56:20 »
It all seems to point to accelerations, doesn't it? And 'c', and 'gravity'.

Uniform motion is what you get when you stop expending energy. And then you are in a equilibrium relative SpaceTime. SpaceTime is graded in scales, the 'equilibriums' you can find are all the same, but SpaceTime will redefine itself relative your equilibrium.

So 'energy expended'. And mass is also energy, 'compressed' into matter.

But then we have that drum turning rotating uniformly in space, with you inside it. Why would you find a gravity there? Because you're at a angle to your 'preferred direction'? Can there be a preferred direction for you if the drum is in a geodesic, rotating uniformly? Why does all directions, at a right angle out from that drum, become 'preferred' by its rotation?

That drum does not expend any energy. So here we have something creating a 'gravity' without energy expenditure.

Or I'm thinking wrong here?
This one is weird too :)
==

You might be able to define it as you breaking the geodesic? You and the drum both I mean. because that drum will always 'accelerate' from a thought up 'point' directed in the overall motion of your drum. And maybe it is possible to define the drums overall 'direction and motion', that you perceive relative distant stars, as no motion at all? Defining you as being 'still', but with the drums rotation breaking the geometry in where you both exist?

Why I discuss it is because all uniform motion, to me, seems to be the exact same. You will not be able to differ them, ignoring tidal forces now. This is a 'black room scenario' naturally.

Maybe we should consider this from geometry solely? But what is mass if we do so? How does it relate to the gravity we perceive?

(And yes, what about the Higgs particle here? No accelerations, only two 'uniform motions' described? you can also consider a plank rotating with you being at one of its ends, in space. Would that create a gravity for you?)

« Last Edit: 04/10/2011 02:54:37 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 #365 on: 04/10/2011 02:42:54 »
So I said that all uniform motions must contain a acceleration. there is a big problem with this idea. The problem is that we don't have any definition of being 'still' relative the universe. That's one big reason why I refer to all uniform motions as being equally 'still'. I don't relate being 'still' relative distant stars. I relate it relative expending energy.

If we had a Big Bang then there would be the first 'acceleration' defining all uniform motions we see. But at that first instant, can we define the 'place' where this happens as being 'still'? Maybe, if we agree on that all uniform motions is equally still, then the BB origin should have been 'still' too.
==

And yes, it's definitely about geometry, gravity.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2011 02:44:25 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 #366 on: 12/10/2011 07:29:05 »
Okay, this one is more assumptions. And I put it together from thoughts I've been writing elsewhere.

In a uniform motion there is no way for you to define if you move or is 'at rest'. and it doesn't matter if you accelerate and then measure in a black box scenario. It is therefore allowed to define any one of two uniformly moving objects as being at rest.

Does that mean that you can't have different energies relative different uniform motions? Nope.. You definitely will have a different energy relative a different relative motion, aka you accelerating to then move uniformly again.

So, how do you define a time dilation?

I use the geometry. Relativistic aberration is about how 'things' move, relative motion. The faster you go, the more acute angle of rain. If you bounce a ball on the floor inside a very fast moving railway car (made of glass) it will to you go straight down and up, but according to your friend on the railway-bank describe a 'V' formed motion as it bounce.

So it is observer dependent, and a function of relative motion, meaning that you can use the same logic for that railway car as we use for a 'light clock', namely that the railway car must present your friend with a 'slower time', relative his clock. According to your friend the ball had 'two directions', not only down but also moving in the direction of the train, and so it also had to take a longer 'time' for it to cover that distance, relative his observation/clock. And you can use a 'light clock' standing vertically to find the same thing happening, the difference being that the light clock uses a 'invariant' bounce, whereas the balls bounce varies with its momentum.

The strongest objection to this way of looking at it comes from the fact that all uniform motion can be defined as being 'at rest', but the geometry I describe must be true for an accelerated motion too, so to refer it solely to acceleration is not correct, as I see it. To me it is a question of 'energy', and if the universe has a way of defining different energies to different relative motions. And as far as I can see the universe have a definition of that, even though it won't be measurable in a 'black box scenario'.

So how do you measure it?

If SpaceTime was a Jello able to compress and stretch. What would the space do in front of the direction of your relative motion, and what would it do aft of your direction? Think of that space as 'marked out' by photons, all keeping a equal distance between them, relative their own frame of reference, 'c'. And assume a even 'gravity' for this. What would happen to the 'markers' behind your relative motion, and what would happen to the markers in front of you.
==

And it is here you need to consider it from two different 'frames of reference'.

One is 'uniform motion', the other is a acceleration. And the real question is one about 'energy' there. In a uniform motion, we have no measurable expression of any new energy inside that black box scenario. If you imagine yourself in a room with a light bulb at its 'front', in the direction of relative motion. Then the light hitting you at aft will be of the same 'energy' in all 'uniform motions', no matter their velocity.

In a acceleration you will find the light 'blue shift', as it will experience a gravitational 'acceleration' (not 'accelerate', but it simplifies it thinking of it this way) And if you change position, light bulb/ detector, the light will be seen to redshift, and so be losing energy. But, it will in both cases be a measurable change, due to your acceleration, as well as the gravity you will experience. Or constant 'inertia' if you like.

But not in a uniform motion. Where and how do the energy your motion represent get 'stored'. In 'space', that same space that compress and stretch, relative the 'photon markers'?




 

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 #367 on: 12/10/2011 17:45:34 »
So, do a accelerated motion 'spend energy'?

Well, you have to, to accelerate, but this phenomena with red and blue shift then? Do that spend extra energy? I don't think so, as a presumption that is. The red shift takes out the blue shift, and the Lorentz contraction and time dilation is no different from a uniform motion. So if we ignore the 'energy spent' locally to accelerate, then they should be the same in form of 'energy spent'.

But then we have the constant inertia, aka gravity? And there you have the same mysterious fact as with 'uniform motion'. Where is the 'potential energy' that is assumed for a 'gravity' stored?
==

The next question seems sort of obvious, if 'gravity' is what defines a acceleration, what differs 'gravity's energy' from a 'uniform motions' energy? We have, I hope (?) agreed on that all 'motion' somehow 'store energy'. And as I think of it neither one should, as another presumption, do it differently, from its own (the universe's) frame of reference (soo loosely speaking here:) Never the less, I don't expect the universe to use two different types of 'storage' for its energy, depending on if it is a 'acceleration' or a 'uniform motion'. But we see a 'gravity' in a acceleration, and 'nothing' in a uniform motion, don't we :)

And yes, it's all about 'black box scenarios'. I assume that to be the best way to differ and define different assumptions. Define light speed as a 'clock beat', and accept the idea of a invariant 'c', although not measurable in a acceleration as you will find different 'clock beats' relative the position inside that accelerating frame.

Those 'clock beats' is not relative a motion in general, well, in a way they are. But you might consider them as expressions from 'displacements', possibly? As if a acceleration breaks down that ship in a myriad of different 'frames of reference' constantly getting 'displaced' relative your own 'invariant clock'. That clock that never will offer you any more heartbeats relative your wristwatch (loosely speaking again) no matter what speed or acceleration/gravity you find. And this is another presumption of mine naturally. But, it follows from us defining a 'constant'.

As long as we define 'c' as a constant you cant expect it to 'break down' due to a acceleration. What we do when we measure a 'speed' is that we use a 'distance' over a 'time' to define it. The problem there is that I can see no way to measure it 'locally' for a acceleration, except in its (the radiations) annihilation on your detector (eye), and from that we can't find that 'speed'. It's a leap, but not that big, to assume that 'c' always must be locally 'c', even though our measurements 'fail' due to the way 'gravity' will interfere with our traditional way of defining a 'speed'.

- Distance, over time /clocks -.

That gravity dilate a clock is already proved on clocks on Earth, (NIST and GRAVITY.) with great success. And if you accept that a acceleration is inseparable from a 'gravity', then you have the explanation why 'c' seems to 'break down' in that acceleration. It's not 'c' that fails there, it's the way we measure.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2011 18:45:42 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 #368 on: 13/10/2011 19:43:14 »
So, with the risk of becoming even more pretentious that I already seem :)

This is where the 'stress energy tensor' must come in. But it's also about 'space' and 'gravity' to me. So let's start with 'space' and 'gravity. I expect 'gravity' to define 'space'. I also expect that if you could remove 'gravity', whatever there is 'left', should become unmeasurable. Now, that may sound quite stupid, but let's turn it around. Assume that we could 'take away gravity', scope it up and hide it from some defined positional system. What would you be left with? A aether? Well, it would be 'something', as you still should be able to assign values to different 'positions' inside that 'gravity less space'. Would those 'values' then change with different motions and mass 'measuring' them? They shouldn't, should they? Which to me seems to implicate that you now also have defined a 'absolute space', the exact same from any point, rotation whatever, viewed.

(That one is more tricky than I first thought though, but to me there should be a difference between a 'positional system' existing without a gravity, and one having it. I will have to think more about that one, but I let it stand for now. Actually the last argument is new to me too, but, I think it is correct:)
 

So, no 'aether', as I see it. Take away gravity, and your positional system should break down. So, can we define 'gravity' as some sort of 'aether' then? Well, maybe? I don't know really. It would be a very strange type of 'aether' if so, observer dependent as I think of it. To see that one think about what a uniform motion does to a 'gravity', as defined by you, relative defined by someone far away. Never mind what we call it, to me 'gravity' is what defines a 'space'.
« Last Edit: 13/10/2011 23:41:54 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 #369 on: 13/10/2011 22:34:30 »
So, is a 'free fall' (gravitational acceleration) and a uniform motion the same?

In a free fall you're weightless, in a uniform motion you're also weightless. Would you be able to make a experiment proving that it was due to gravity, if inside that black box, ignoring tidal forces?

Take a universe with one planet, lets make it two dimensional. A paper with a ring symbolizing that planet. Then start 'falling', which way will you go? How would you prove that you were accelerating? Let us assume that you're very far from that planet, you can't see it, make it a 'Black Hole'.

Where is your 'acceleration'?

So a free fall is not 'gravity', but it is 'gravity' acting on you.

Gravity is coupled to mass, as in invariant mass, and accelerations. And it makes 'holes' in SpaceTime. Here you are 'moving' relative that BH, but without knowing its position you won't be able to differ it from being still.

So why does Einstein say that gravity and accelerations are the same? Well, as I think he does not say that a gravitational acceleration is 'gravity', only 'local' accelerations. By 'local' you need it to satisfy some prerogatives. As I see it, it should either expend a energy locally, or any circular motion will do, accelerating or not. And yes, there need to be a inertia acting on you, aka 'gravity'.

But how about this uniform motion in circle then? That one doesn't expend any energy? Yeah I know, that one introduce a new 'angle' :) Not only does it seem connected to what type of motion you have, but also on what your motions geometry is. You might want to define it as all geodesics (uniform motion/'free falls/gravitational accelerations') are without local 'gravity', and as all geodesics are 'straight lines', any motion not following this must be a 'disturbed motion'. And whenever you 'disturb' a motion you are either accelerating, or decelerating, it. So is decelerating also a gravity? As far as I can see it is.

=
You should really think about this one, neither uniform motion in a geodesic, nor that uniform motion for our rotating drum expend any energy. Yet they will differ, one being 'weightless', the other having a 'gravity', relative you.

Where is the 'energy'?

==

This way of looking at it makes gravity very similar to some 'field' doesn't it? And makes the idea of Higgs particles (bosons)/fields more understandable too. But gravity as a geometry doesn't define it to particles, it's quantum mechanics and the standard model that seems to need that definition. Einstein considered 'gravity' a fictitious force created due to SpaceTimes geometry relative the observer/experiment.

And I think of 'gravity' as being the SpaceTimes 'geometry' too, with the addendum that if it isn't there, then I suspect that SpaceTime disappear too. But I think my view isn't that far from Einsteins, he also regarded gravity as the metric of SpaceTime. And what it all boils down too is how that 'geometry' can exist at all. It would have been simpler if 'space' was something resembling air, having a friction/resistance, but then we also would have had a 'absolute frame of reference', and so also invalidated the theory of relativity. Some like to think of the cosmic background radiation as something close to a 'absolute frame of reference', but it is not. Not in Einsteins universe.

The closest you can come to a 'absolute frame', seems to be this idea of energy, and the way we expect the conservation laws to keep whatever 'energy' there is, only transforming it from 'new energy' to 'used energy', according to 'entropy'.
« Last Edit: 14/10/2011 01:39:22 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 #370 on: 13/10/2011 23:53:26 »
And here is the headache. If a uniformly moving object accelerate to then move uniformly again, would you expect this object to represent a higher kinetic energy in itself? Or only relative whatever it collides with.

The question may be stated as, how relative is relative motion? Does there exist a 'independent' measure of the energy gained or lost in SpaceTime, or not?
==

Turn it around.

When you are in a free fall, a 'gravitational acceleration' on Earth. Where is the 'extra energy' situated? In you falling, or only in the combination of you meeting the ground?

=

When using a window you can decide your 'energy' relative the lights blue shift, but in a 'black box' there are no windows. And there it doesn't matter what uniform motion you have relative some point of reference. All experiments you do will come out the exact same, as if the universe ignored what 'relative speed/velocity' you use.

Think about it.
=


This one is very tricky to me.

One way I might make sense of it would be to assume that it's not 'my energy' that change. It's the the 'frame of reference' SpaceTime is, relative me, that change. That is, if we go out from 'locality' there is only two frames. You, relative what you 'measure', and the later is 'SpaceTime'. Even though you might argue that you only measure one aspect of it, it still hinges on your definitions of time, distance, relative motion etc. So whatever you measure I will be correct here.

So when I fall I redefine SpaceTime, and the spaceships 'motion' displaces/redefines SpaceTimes relation relative me too. And that makes more sense to me, as it makes everything into 'observers', all defined relative their own unique SpaceTime. If you like you can take this idea a step further.

Assume me inside that spaceship, then what I see and measure is my reality, and in a black box the only thing I can measure, and the only 'reality' I find, is relative something being 'at rest' with me. That the spaceship also is 'at rest' relative SpaceTime is of no importance to the 'black box' I can test. And that is one weird thought :)

You could argue that if the ship now constantly accelerated I would find a difference, and that is true, it also depends on how it accelerate, constantly or not. But that one is actually no different from the equivalence to 'gravity'.

Any way, defining it that way will make the 'energy' created a relation, not anything consistent to one object, well, as I see it.
« Last Edit: 14/10/2011 01:33:28 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 #371 on: 14/10/2011 01:00:37 »
That one is easier to see perhaps if you imagine it as some still numberspace. Not numbers per se, think of it as symbols, composites representing some 'state' relative you. You will then be what redefines those symbols, and you have few ways to do that. Uniform motion will not redefine them, accelerations will. Mass is also accelerations, and by placing you near a mass you automatically (soo loosely speaking, again, as every point is unique in SpaceTime) will join its 'frame of reference' displacing the 'frame of reference' all other 'frames of reference' becomes in SpaceTime.

And that takes care of 'energy', because a uniform motion do not 'expend energy', neither does 'invariant mass', although that mass redefine SpaceTime, uniform motion refuse (black box all of it, no windows:)  Can you see how I think there?

What does it make 'energy expended', as in a local acceleration?

I better point out that I'm not discussing 'motion' as in getting from A to B in some positional system above, instead I'm discussing 'energy' relative 'motion'.
==

But I agree, motion (A-B) need to be placed into a perspective too.
« Last Edit: 14/10/2011 01:22:07 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 #372 on: 14/10/2011 01:13:56 »
To discus the normal type of 'motion' we find, using a distance and a clock we need to agree on what 'space' is :) And time, and distance. If I use my definitions of locality for that then my clock is radiation, and that is always 'c'. From that, mass, relative motion, and space I get my definition of a 'distance'. And it is always observer dependent.

So how can it be so? I find it quite easy to accept the idea of 'space' being something plastic, and 'time' too. But a Lorentz contraction of matter?

Tell me how our 'expansion' really works, in every point of 'space' everywhere? With gravity creating some sort of buoys keeping matter at a same 'distance' relative each other? Or?
 

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 #373 on: 14/10/2011 01:51:15 »
I wrote "And that takes care of 'energy', because a uniform motion do not 'expend energy', neither does 'invariant mass', although that mass redefine SpaceTime, uniform motion refuse (black box all of it, no windows:)"

That's not the whole truth. We had that drum rotating 'uniformly' too. And there we found the gravity to be a result of its geometry. but it is still true that a uniform motion doesn't expend energy in 'space'.

So what is 'energy'?
And how can pure geometry create a 'gravity', no 'energy' involved?

We like to assume that all is 'energy', I do it too. But if it is so, and we can create a 'gravity' without expending 'energy'? Now you might point out that there at some stage should have been a 'energy' involved in accelerating to that uniform motion, and that is what I think too, but, I will not swear to it :)
=

That one is very tricky to me. But it should have to do with how to define it. I'm pretty sure Einstein, as well as those others helping, had a pretty good notion of what 'energy' was, so it must have to do with the way I describe it, rather than with the equations. And it should have to do with motion, and the way it is 'confined' here. And that is a geometry. Velocity is a vector with a magnitude. It has a direction and a speed.

And SpaceTime defines that direction as? A geodesic? Nope, a uniform motion is a geodesic, but a acceleration don't need to follow any geodesic. What matters there is energy expended, the direction of it is up to you. So the first question here might be if the drums spin is a velocity or a speed?

A speed, don't you agree?

It doesn't matter in a acceleration, if it is a speed (no direction) or a velocity, but here it matters. So is that drum in a geodesic? Yep, but that spin isn't a geodesic. So, no energy expended, not in a geodesic, and creating a 'gravity'. Is it in a 'equilibrium' spinning then? I think it is. All geodesics are defined by your acceleration, different motions will present you different geodesics, but all will be the same in a black box, so they are all about finding that equilibrium relative SpaceTime.

So, no energy expended, not in a geodesic, in a equilibrium, creating a gravity.
=

Or am I thinking wrong there? Can that spin be in a equilibrium, relative the gravity acting on it? I don't think it can actually, if it isn't a geodesic then it should lose 'energy'. Am I thinking right there? Yep, I'm pretty sure it will be this way, just think of the force you need to apply to get free from Earth. That rotation must lose 'energy' to SpaceTime.

So, not in a equilibrium then.

Maybe that is a better definition?

« Last Edit: 14/10/2011 02:46:21 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 #374 on: 14/10/2011 02:37:32 »
So, although the drums spin in space might not need any energy to produce that gravity, it should lose energy to SpaceTime as it spins. What does that state?

That SpaceTime is a equilibrium, and that you break it accelerating, decelerating.
That makes a lot of sense, to me that is:)
=

But with a twist, because that drum is not really decelerating, is it?
It's only finding a equilibrium for its spin, the geodesic it is in, will continue until it hits something. There is a difference between that, and me putting on the breaks.

So SpaceTime is about a balance, and breaking it will create a gravity?
==

This solves another question I think too. If it is so that it bleeds 'energy', then there had to be a acceleration at some prior point to get that spin. SpaceTime is about a equilibrium. And if you find something not 'balanced' relative SpaceTime, then there should be a 'displacement' relative SpaceTimes frame of reference involved. But it seems also so that this equilibrium is connected to 'uniform motion', not to 'speeds/velocities' in themselves. SpaceTime has its own definitions it seems, and they are different.

But if we assume a equilibrium, don't we also assume that there is more than one direction for it? So, can there be a negative equilibrium, and how would one define that?

« Last Edit: 14/10/2011 03:02:10 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #374 on: 14/10/2011 02:37:32 »

 

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