The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280676 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #375 on: 14/10/2011 03:52:54 »
Maybe one could look at it as if SpaceTime has a 'energy balance'? And the energy balance defines the 'gravity'? and that 'energy' is about densities? with anything of a higher density than 'space' you then could assume the concept of 'usable energy'? So is it then 'energy' that defines a distance, or is it 'gravity', or are they the same? That you can see two ways, either as if gravity is a 'transformation' of energy or as if they indeed are the same. If you choose the later then geometry seems extremely important.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #376 on: 15/10/2011 01:50:17 »
Yeah, this is me arguing with myself :) Some things I think is true, others I just don't know, doesn't stop me from arguing though. Light as a 'beat', keeping 'local time' I think of as true, and that the geometry and 'time' gets 'distorted' is a direct result of lights speed in a vacuum, as I see it.

When it comes to a Lorenz contraction though, it gets more tricky. I believe it to be correct, there is too much indirect evidence for it to ignore, but I still wonder how it works. It seems directly coupled to motion, and mass though.

But if we treat life as you defining your 'universe', meaning your 'frame of reference' defining all other 'frames of reference' then the question might be why it is that way? We have thought of the universe for the longest time as one whole scenery in where we all are together, 'simultaneously'. But the atomic clocks I linked don't seem to agree, do they?
 
And if 'frames of reference' exist on all levels, down to that 'scale' or 'size' where HUP is, which is another of those things I think of as being true. Even though I'm not sure where the arrow become indefinite the Planck scale makes a lot of sense to me, as that is where we can start to describe it as a 'single light beat', all as I see it.

so maybe we should look on what 'join us'?

And that's radiation. Radiation is the information defining our lives, and it has that invariant 'beat', doesn't matter how fast you go or where you are, it only has one 'beat', 'c'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #377 on: 15/10/2011 02:04:13 »
So what about HUP, and 'virtual particles'? They exist in a 'indefinite arrow' where there is no arrow to speak of. You might want to define them inside HUP or outside, but notice one thing there. The 'energy' becomes 'indefinite' too.

Think of that inflation. At the beginning of our macroscopic arrow, a 'infinite', or at least, 'indefinite energy', right? And a 'indefinite scale' too? What does that remind you off?

HUP?

Can you 'chop up' radiation? Yep, that's what we do with 'scales', and as we go down we find Quantum mechanics. And beyond that, theoretically, string theory in all their definitions.

Now, what is it 'putting' each of those bits of light into a coherent picture?

The arrow of time.

That's our macroscopic reality, not Quantum mechanics. Reread what I wrote above this and you will see how I wonder.



 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #378 on: 15/10/2011 03:30:28 »
Now it seems I talk in circles, don't it. I define the arrow from 'c', and then ask what makes the 'light bits' into a arrow, defining the reason of that happening to the 'arrow of time' :)

Yeah. I do, but I also define 'lights speed in a vacuum' as a 'clock'. The device that keeps count on what we are relative everything else. So is it the 'arrow of time' then? To us it is, but the principle for how it comes to be? That has to do with 'scales' as I suspect, and the way the 'room time' can exist and 'expand'.

To me it seems as if this 'arrow' is a direct result of the room we live in. Think of all light 'propagating'. Now see it as a 'curtain of light', then compress it. You can super impose all light there is, but as you do you will also 'scale it down' relative the 'room' we perceive.

So, what happens with it when you reach Planck size?
« Last Edit: 15/10/2011 03:32:16 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #379 on: 15/10/2011 21:02:24 »
Ok, let's discuss the arrow of time.

I will give you two scenarios.

1. There is a 'arrow'. It is what organize all we see into a 'whole universe' to us.

2. There is only individual processes, they together becomes our 'arrow of time'.

1 or 2?

Or both?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #380 on: 15/10/2011 21:07:10 »
Now, let's look at the 'clock'.

Radiation. Having a defined 'speed', lights speed in a vacuum. Existing the same in all frames defined. Except possibly as defined when measuring in a accelerated frame.

That is a flawed proposition to me.

'c' is a constant, that we lose our ability to measure in a accelerated frame doesn't invalidate that one.

Else.

There is no common 'time' anywhere, as proven by our atomic clocks, and all ideas of a 'c' should be a exception.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #381 on: 15/10/2011 21:48:55 »
Ever heard about primes?
And Alain Connes noncommutative geometry, relative atoms?

Did you know that a atom can change its 'energy' (mass) in a apparently 'random' intrinsic fluctuation?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #382 on: 15/10/2011 21:51:38 »
It's relations, and it has to be connected to fractals.
=

And 'scales'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #383 on: 15/10/2011 22:05:22 »
The question of if SpaceTime is a 'flow' or 'discrete bits' is to me a very tricky one. If it is 'discrete bits', what are they built from, or 'come from'? Is there a continuous background from where they break up? Are there 'scales' defining that?

Read this.  NONCOMMUTATIVE GEOMETRY AND THE RIEMANN ZETA FUNCTION. By Alain Connes.
==

The Rieman zeta function is like a ordered 'straight line' in three dimensions, directly related to the way primes exist. Although Prime numbers isn't 'continuous', in any ordered manner found, this zeta function seems to be? And that is a very strange hypothesis.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2011 22:13:49 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #384 on: 15/10/2011 23:46:06 »
That one has a awful lot of difficult mathematics in it, I have another 'Noncommutative Geometry for Pedestrians' that bears more directly on physics. - Here. - Don't know what to make of it yet, but it is interesting reading, and more accessible than the first. Remember that I see it (SpaceTime) as a local process primarily, also arguing that the fact we can find invariant 'space time intervals' doesn't mean that the 'universe' must be one 'wholeness', as I see it.

Well, that is a noncommutative structure, isn't it? Where the structure doesn't define itself as a whole, but to us still becomes a 'whole', in the way radiation binds it together for us. And that makes so much sense to me. Because it do makes 'c' into the constant that I see it as. And makes 'gravity' very special, as well as 'matter'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #385 on: 16/10/2011 05:18:17 »
Whatever gravity is it has a influence on 'time', aka 'clocks' differing relative observers, and 'distance'. It also defines the way 'space' folds/distorts. It is a geometry, but defined by what?

In a relational universe all clocks must have a observer to be differently defined. In a non-relational universe you can assume 'clocks' being differently defined without observers too.

In a relational universe all 'clocks' are the same 'locally'.
In a non-relational universe all 'clocks' must differ with gravity.

In your own 'frame of reference' your heartbeats never will vary relative your time device. And your measured life span won't differ either, no matter from where you measure it locally.

What does that tell you. A relational universe, or a non-relational?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #386 on: 18/10/2011 06:12:13 »
So let's make some assumptions.

Radiation, in all motion has only one speed 'c', as measured from, and in, any local frame of reference possible. Which just means that you comparing 'clocks' inside a accelerating frame of reference are doing something 'not local'.

'c' is not a speed, it is a 'beat'.
(well, it is a 'speed' too, but the important thing is the 'beat' here.)

Discussing/comparing something, relative your local frame of reference, is not your 'reality' although it will be a translation between frames of reference.

Planck size is the border where you can't split 'c' any longer.

Gravity/inertia, and accelerations, are the exact equivalence, not only a uniform, constant acceleration, but all accelerations. So what you define, describing a Neutron star, is the exact same, time dilation/Lorentz contraction, as in a acceleration.

Time is a definition of durations, durations use a 'clock', and that 'clock' is 'c'.

Being 'at rest' is a definition of the universe, belonging solely to uniform motion. Being 'at rest' do not assume that 'distances' will be the same, or that 'clocks' will agree, in different uniform motions. But it is the way the universe finds a 'rest frame'.

'Space' and 'distance' are ill defined, there are no 'same distances', just as there are no same 'clocks', relative any positional system inside SpaceTime.

What differ clocks will be the way you can split 'c' in Planck time/length. The same must be true for relative distances.

Where you see a 'time dilation' there will be a Lorentz contraction, they are a symmetry.

A 'frame of reference' can be defined by the way clocks will differ relative the observer. And that put them at the same border as 'c' will be, if 'split' into Planck scale. To see that one clearly you must understand that 'gravity' dilates a clock relative the observer, and that if a 'Time dilation/Lorentz contraction is a symmetry then this must be true, even if we can't measure it.

Radiation is what binds locality into a SpaceTime.
And 'gravity'.

So that gives us a definition, going down to QM, of how 'clocks' work, also 'c' explains why your own 'frame of reference' never will differ 'time wise'.

Gravity is a definition of 'space', without 'gravity' there will be no measurable 'space'. The 'metric', but take it one step further.
=

(So all 'distances' must be a definition relative Lorentz contractions, just as 'clocks' can be defined as existing one 'Planck length' apart. There must be a symmetry.)

There are more I'm thinking of, I will add to this one.

Indeterminacy is something coming into play, at what scale?
Atoms?
 
Ah yes, one assumption more, and that one will weird you out.
Light doesn't 'propagate'.

(That one is very discussable, but that's no different from what 'motion' in general should be seen as. To me it has to do with what we think we see, and how it can be seen if..)
« Last Edit: 18/10/2011 06:59:57 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #387 on: 19/10/2011 03:03:30 »
Some weird thoughts. Where is the different 'energies' situated in different uniform motion? In the way radiation acts? Assume you move really fast relative earth, uniformly so. To define it as 'space' being the 'sink' of the energy makes little sense to me in that a 'space' classically seen is a 'nothing'. so even if we assumed it to have a 'compressibility' of sorts it would still be nothing there. But the way you detect radiation do change.

How about 'gravity' then? In a uniform motion there will be no detectable 'gravity' except the one your spaceship and you couple too, and a 'different motion', relative Earth won't change that 'local gravity'. But there we meet a problem, defining radiation as 'propagating' it makes a sense, although how to measure that energy will still be a problem, and also will demand a open relation to other frames of reference, meaning that you can't define it in a black box scenario. But I actually avoid defining radiation as a 'propagation' even though I agree that it to us behaves as one in most experiments we do. And it fails my 'black box' definition too?

So, how about defining it to the geometry then? Avoiding any definitions of 'propagation', instead looking at time dilations and Lorentz contractions? Where will we put this energy? not located to your frame of relative motion?

Does it demand a 'relation' to exist, meaning, would it really exist, for a frame/spaceship moving uniformly in a otherwise empty space/universe?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #388 on: 21/10/2011 04:06:42 »
So how would this 'locality idea' I propose stand up to our definitions of Quantum mechanics?

In QM one of the most outweirding definition is the one of probability. You might want to state that a 'electron' exist, but in QM it's not the electron that exist, it is the probability of finding it that exist.

And that probability isn't solely defined to where we expect it to be, as per classical mechanics as I understands it. That electron can be seen as existing 'everywhere', with probability defining its location at any given time. That means that if you repeat 'identical experiments', as identical as we can make them, the chance of finding that electron at the same 'given' place isn't a relation of our predefining the experiment, it's not there at all..

Well, it is, but only as defined by its probability. That means that those experiment that try to confine it to one 'spot', will fail. Mostly we will find it where we expect, but, sometimes it will be somewhere else? Maybe at the second, or the third probable 'spot', for example.

So, if we go out from a macroscopic reality where 'locality' makes you the definer of distances and speed, will that hold for QM too?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #389 on: 21/10/2011 04:11:28 »
And the question is also one about 'propagation' to me. We define light as 'propagating' normally, meaning that we find it to have a 'speed', also we find it to correspond to our expectations of where that light will be, relative to how you hold the flashlight. But in QM you will find experiments questioning this idea, although only a very few ever seem to question what a 'propagation' really is.
==

You can start by refining that speed. Call it a 'invariant beat' instead. You will never find a 'photon', as some bullet 'propagating', it just won't work. Our 'photon' is a definition of probability, but, having a invariant beat. If you want to know how we came to that definition, of it having a invariant 'speed', I believe I have written about that in the beginning of this essay.

So how about a wave then? And how about that duality? If it doesn't 'propagate', then all definitions we use should be a result of the relations. That is at least how I see it.
« Last Edit: 21/10/2011 04:19:37 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #390 on: 21/10/2011 04:25:59 »
With a 'beat' comes other questions too. For example, would that enable a definition of when the universe is 'off/on'? As we only can measure those states that are 'on' if so was the case, that one becomes very hard to answer. And what exactly would 'off' implicate? Is this in some way a 'static definition' of something that change like some movie, with 'still pictures'?

Maybe, I think you might be able to define it that way. I started my thought with pushing the point that this could be considered a 'game'. And in all games it's the predefinitions given that will give you the 'laws' for it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #391 on: 21/10/2011 04:40:37 »
The main point I try to make here is that there are more than one way to define this universe and its laws. It's not as simple as defining that we, and matter, exist, motion exist, space exist, radiation exist etc. It's a puzzle where you can redefine it a lot of ways.

In my definition those things we find more or less improbable actually is. From the theory of relativity to Quantum Mechanics. But they are there, and if they are, they exist. But so do our old 'normal definitions' of motion etc.

And it is from accepting the improbability of our normal definitions I go towards this. You have to accept what the experiments tell you, the thing is to make them fit something that can explain how they can be right, at the same time as our old time honored definitions of 'absolute motion' etc, also seem to work.

Einstein wanted the moon to be there always, not only when he looked at it. And 'probability' seem to agree with his definition, in that it would become so incredibly improbabilistic for the moon to not be there that it has too.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #392 on: 21/10/2011 04:49:44 »
So what is the relations then?

That one is very hard to see. Either way you choose, a 'whole SpaceTime' defined by Lorentz transformations, or a 'Splintered SpaceTime' where you define it, as I do too, from our own 'frame of reference', it still must consist of 'observers'. And then the question will be what those 'observers' are?

We measuring? Or 'everything' existing?

I'll go with 'everything' there. Anything that can create a relation is a 'observer' as I see it.
==

But no matter your definition, there is one thing consistent, or two.
Invariant radiation, and 'gravity'.

The radiation will in the first case, a 'whole SpaceTime', be what defines the transformation it shows you, in relative motion, and mass. And then we have 'gravity too. I'll leave 'energy' out of this, for the moment, even though that comes in here too.

In the second definition, from locality solely, what defines the whole universe you think you see will also be radiation, and gravity.
« Last Edit: 21/10/2011 04:56:50 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #393 on: 21/10/2011 05:02:39 »
What differs them, is the way the last one allow you to think of 'space'.

In the first definition 'space' becomes a immutable thing, where the transformations we define relative motion, mass etc, becomes something coming from the concept of 'simultaneity'.

In the later definition 'space' is a very questionable thing.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #394 on: 21/10/2011 05:15:48 »
Think of it this way. Assume that you are on a spaceship, moving very fast relative the light you measure 'outside', it becoming 'hard radiation' to you. The universe you see in front of you will now be Lorenz contracted.

I can watch you from Earth, well for this thought experiment we assume so at least. And I don't see that contracted universe you see. To me you will have to travel a very long time. To you it will be a matter of months. I won't try to define any segment of your journey relative my observation here. I will only point out one thing.

Your definition, and mine, will both agree in you 'moving' from one location to another, and back. But our description of where we are, and what we see, won't match, until you are back.

It's not that you can 'translate' one into the other that makes it plausible. Even with a translation the fact stands. We didn't see, and measured, the same thing.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #395 on: 21/10/2011 05:20:21 »
So, to me the question also becomes one of what a measurement should be seen as. If we find something to be a certain way, setting up a experiment. And also find that others setting up the experiment agree, is it true or false?

If you say it should be true, if all observers/experimenters agree, then the last definition I gave must be the better one.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #396 on: 21/10/2011 05:45:27 »
Motion and 'space'. You can't have a motion without a 'space'.

In Einsteins world motion is one of two things.

Being 'at rest', following a geodesic.
Experiencing a inertia, aka 'gravity'.

Nothing more.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #397 on: 21/10/2011 05:48:40 »
And then we have time. If defined from 'c' time works very well as 'clocks'. I find it perfectly balanced relative 'relative motion'. You will also find that 'time' and 'c' beats the same for you, no matter how you measure it 'locally'.
=

So what is 'motion'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #398 on: 21/10/2011 19:45:34 »
This is not the answer to the universe and all :) It's just how I see it.

It's about what you are, and where you are. Assume that radiation would be some sort of answer to how the 'energy' gets distributed relative motion. Then you get this 'jello' that compress or 'elongate' relative 'relative motion'. What does it make the 'space' that radiation is expected to 'propagate' in?

It's all too weird. A simpler explanation would be a 'still SpaceTime' in where everything has a relation relative the arrow of time we find. In such a 'space' there is only properties, and those change with the relations.

But we need something to define them, and that I expect to be that arrow we find. Without it you have nothing.
« Last Edit: 21/10/2011 20:08:07 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #399 on: 21/10/2011 20:05:47 »
Radiation is then a property relative scales, describing 'clocks'.

How about gravity then? We use 'locality' for all definitions here, meaning that it will be your definition that will be true for you, mine will be true for me. I'm not interested in defining it from a whole SpaceTime for this.

Yeah, 'gravity' is weird. You could assume that is related to 'motion', but as 'motion' becomes a very strange concept, as well as 'space'? But it is a uniformly accelerated constant 'motion' according To Einsteins definitions.

So, do a planet constantly 'accelerate', in a uniform way?
Well, yes.

To me it does. Forget normal 'motion' as we see it on Earth. There is only two variants of 'motion'. Uniform and accelerating, and neither of them have anything to do with how experience it normally.

But if it 'accelerate' at the same time as we define it to have a 'relative uniform motion'? And there is a added complication, it moves uniformly in a circle, well, a ellipse, but that is just a straight line inside 'SpaceTime', or a geodesic according to our definitions, so we will not be able to define it as a 'acceleration' in the way Newton did, not according to Einstein at least.

So we can ignore that one, but we still have to see where that 'energy' is situated, as that 'matter' represents the exact equivalence of a 'motion' in Einsteins universe. So where is it situated? Inside the 'matter'?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #399 on: 21/10/2011 20:05:47 »

 

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