The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 281385 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #425 on: 03/11/2011 04:56:09 »
So, I've been looking at Smolins, Laurent Freidels, Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman and Giovanni Amelino-Camelia ideas of a curved phase space. At first it seems very natural, the idea is that we have SpaceTime with its four dimensions 'distances' 3 & 'time' 1. Then you combine that with a four-momentum vector space, and voila, we have us a eight dimensional universe, combining the best from QM (momentum, as in radiation hitting your retina) with Einsteins SpaceTime.

Time for some quotes.

"In special relativity, four-momentum is the generalization of the classical three-dimensional momentum to four-dimensional spacetime. Momentum is a vector in three dimensions; similarly four-momentum is a four-vector in spacetime."

"In the literature of relativity, space-time coordinates and the energy/momentum of a particle are often expressed in four-vector form. They are defined so that the length of a four-vector is invariant under a coordinate transformation. This invariance is associated with physical ideas.

The invariance of the space-time four-vector is associated with the fact that the speed of light is a constant. The invariance of the energy-momentum four-vector is associated with the fact that the rest mass of a particle is invariant under coordinate transformations."

So we have the invariant 'energy' belonging to the momentums 'rest frame', like the bullet resting in the chamber before fired, and then we have the dimensions that bullet exist in. So phase space could be seen as all possible values of its position and momentum variables. And that fits very well with SpaceTime.

Then we come to what is different with this momentum space. Smolin started to wonder what would happen with the Lorentz transformations we expect to steer SpaceTime, allowing us to define the universe conceptually as a 'whole', following the invariance of 'c' in, and from, all frames possible according to GR, if he treated this momentum space as 'curved'. They found it to lose the Lorentz transformations coherence, and so instead become extremely local. But when including all eight 'dimensions' you will still find Lorentz transformations to work, as I understands this, that is.

But then we have 'time', or the arrow. In QM you don't treat the arrow the same way as we do macroscopically, at very small scales it becomes indeterministic (HUP) and 'time reversible', meaning that probability steps in, instead of the timely arrow we see. So to get it to work there will be a need to join a macroscopic arrow to QM as I see it. Doesn't mean I don't like the idea, it's close to how I see SpaceTime and 'c', as a primary local phenomena, radiation and gravity presenting us with the 'unified' SpaceTime we describe macroscopically.

« Last Edit: 03/11/2011 04:59:59 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #426 on: 03/11/2011 05:12:58 »
The question is.

What is 'time' and its 'arrow'. Why do we have it macroscopically, but find it replaced by probability at small scales. And what the he* is HUP? How can it restrict us from knowing all possible outcomes. HUP comes in at a earlier stage than Planck scales, so you can't really define it to 'c' taking one Plank length in one Planck time, that is rather where physics breaks down. But before that stage we find HUP.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #427 on: 03/11/2011 05:23:40 »
The main reason why I won't exclude time and its arrow from QM is because all measurements done is done in 'times arrow'. There is no way around this, everything you do have a time coordinate 'ticking away'. Moving you positionally inside SpaceTime even if you never 'move' at all. That is the way I see SpaceTime. The single definition of 'times arrow' losing its coherence, that I know of, is at Plank scale, 'c' moving one Planck length, in one Plank time.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2011 05:27:13 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #428 on: 03/11/2011 06:46:24 »
So let's use that. How about defining 'time reversibility' to single particles only? That means that the reason we don't see time go backwards macroscopically is that those particles interacts and so disturb the 'time <- -> symmetry'. A particle will then be as a atom, no bigger.

I might have liked it more if I could define it to Plank size solely, but then again, if I use 'c' as my measure of a ideal 'clock' there can be no reversibility as that Plank length can be seen as 'frozen in time' well, as I see it.

But then we meet HUP again, don't we?
=

What I mean here, rereading myself, is that if we set up a 'ideal experiment', with single particles representing all objects, you might find a 'time reversibility', but only there. Still, it doesn't help that much, does it? As everything, at least classically is defined as 'interactions' in a causality chain, involving just those atoms interacting. A very tricky one. But what about superpositions etc? Do they fit a simple causality chain?

« Last Edit: 03/11/2011 07:05:29 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #429 on: 15/11/2011 23:15:50 »
Read this first Interaction Free Measurements.

It sort of hurts my head this one, but it's about the collapse of the wave function, as I think of it, and entanglements, and before all, about 'Photons'.

I like to think that it is what you have around you that define you, sort of :) And so it should be with particles too. They get defined by what is 'around them', but entanglements is weird. Either you belong to the school where you see them as FTL in some weird manner, or to the school where they are 'instantaneous'. and then you have those defining a entanglement as undefined even after measuring 'A', meaning that it is as valid to state that your later measurement on 'B' sets that 'wave function', the idea involving a whole 'system', not only your first measurement. Add to that the question if you can, or can not impart 'information', opening the can of worms of what 'information' should be defined as if you could, for example, impart 'energy' in 'A', to then also be 'found' and lifted out at 'B'

So, where do that wave function collapse? That one is very interesting.

I tried to look at it from a definition where the 'circumstances' defined the outcome. In such a scenario I made some assumptions. That 'times arrow' don't go two ways, it goes one, the one we experience. That should mean that, as we split 'the arrow' into smaller chunks, we come to 'instants' around Planck scale. So maybe one could take any experiment and 'split' it into such chunks?

Or maybe just ignore time? If I think of it as 'instants', and they are defined from Planck size, then what defines a experiment must be what is 'closest' to it, as a vague idea? That we can assume that those too, in their turn, are influenced by what is closest to them can be ignored for this I think. And it must include all 'interactions' making everything that 'interacts' into 'observers', no 'consciousness' needed for that.

I'm not sure about it at all though, it's more of a feeling that anything I can prove.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #430 on: 15/11/2011 23:27:41 »
Also it has to do with how to define a distance. If Lorentz contractions exist and to the local observer is real then 'distance' is a vague description from a 'global perspective/a whole SpaceTime'. In my definition a 'distance' is as real as you measure it to be, although differing between observers. But it still tells us something, that there are no certain 'distances' except from a strictly local perspective.

So where does one frame of reference 'end' and the next one 'start'? Plank size as a idealised definition (in my thoughts)

So, how many Plank sizes is a experiment, and what do they 'see'? What communicates interactions should be 'light', but 'light' will also be the 'local clocks' for, and in, each 'instant'. I don't know how to put this together, but there should be some way.

Hopefully :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #431 on: 16/11/2011 09:57:53 »
So where did that wave function collapse disappear in the 'Interaction Free Measurement'? Can you argue that it exist if you can use statistics to define it? It's another circular argument to me. In this case (if working) you will 'know' the final state, without observing that last annihilation, and even though you can't 'prove it' without your final measurement you can still do a million experiments and run statistics on it. Can I expect those statistics to define it otherwise?

So, what is a wave collapse, a super position, and statistics? If I define it from statistics there can't be any doubt to the outcome in this one, can it?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #432 on: 26/11/2011 04:37:12 »
Just a question. How do QM treat the expansion?

If I assume that everything bogs down to 'energy' and 'quanta', what happens as the 'space' expands. The 'energy' gets redistributed I presume, but if seen as 'quanta' alternatively 'bosons', indeterministic or not. Where do they come from?

Or does QM allow for 'empty space'?

Would indeterminacy be a answer to that one?
Maybe?
===

There is one more thing linked to this one. The idea of a universe in where nothing gets lost, only transformed. If I assume quanta, and then assume a 'size' I will need a explanation to why the universe can expand, and also to how 'it fill up the holes' created by the 'expansion'. If I assume 'fields' I don't need quanta of any size, but I will still need to see how they 'expand', and from where that 'expansion' lends its 'energy'. This is assuming the idea of 'space' as some sort of dormant pool of 'energy' whether being 'non interacting' or at some balance, from where we define levels both over and under it, as I understand the Higgs field to be?

For example, assuming Higgs bosons, do it becomes more of them as the expansion grow?
Where from?

In a closed universe all redistribution of 'energy' should leave a mark somewhere, as it seems to me?
==

That's actually one of the advantages with describing SpaceTime as a geometry, as I see it. I don't have to answer those questions, but if you put your trust in 'discrete bits / events' then it should have a relevance. Also you will need to define it as background independent to get away from the purely geometric definition. If you don't it seems to me as if you just painted quanta on a empty space?
« Last Edit: 26/11/2011 19:59:15 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #433 on: 27/11/2011 22:10:38 »
Here's a recent paper discussing quantum states, 'wave collapses' and its definitions.

Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states. 

To get another view, and perhaps make the paper a little easier to digest you should read Can the quantum state be interpreted statistically? By Matt Leifer first.

I found it when I started to wonder what a 'wave collapse' really mean. It's a first step to see what the he* a entanglement might be, as I see it. To start from entanglements directly may seem faster, but I doubt it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #434 on: 28/11/2011 02:05:41 »
How about this :)

Assume that for any given volume there can be only so many states existing (at any given point/instant and always as defined relative you, and your subsequent measurement.). Assume that there always will be a doubt of knowing all data describing some experiment you do, when being inside this volume. Where is then all data 'known', and from where is it accessible for you?

To me it seems that the volume could be said to 'know', but also that it won't be accessible for you experimenting.

==

Had to add, not that it made it watertight :)
« Last Edit: 28/11/2011 02:21:00 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #435 on: 28/11/2011 03:11:57 »
Also assume that what we see is what exists, meaning that the hands you write with actually is there, and will be there for any observer, even though they might not agree on the time, or place they saw it (now, that came out weird:).

If that is true then a grain of sand always will 'exist' for all observers, no matter who observes it, or how.

That seems plausible, doesn't it?

Then we come to this impossibility of knowing all data. That's also Chaos theory to me, where a small initial input may have great and unforeseen effects. But there is also a periodicity to Chaos, as the Feigenbaum constants shows us. All of this is macroscopically, not QM.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #436 on: 28/11/2011 18:36:19 »
"Assume that for any given volume there can be only so many states existing (at any given point/instant and always as defined relative you, and your subsequent measurement.)"

There's two ways, or three, too look at this.

1. The 'states' exist, just as that grain of sand does.
2. The 'states' are a probabilistic definition of possibilities.
3. The 'states' gets defined by what circumstances it.

2 and 3 seems to me to be possible to join, if one like. And actually you should be able to join 1 and 3 too, if we define it through the outcome?
=

What I was thinking with 1 and 3 is that if we define everything from where and how we find it to be, in a measurement, then 1 is correct, or at least as correct as can be. In that nothing will exist without getting its definitions from what surrounds it. If that was possible then the state you measure will always be there, at your measurement. That you would find another state measuring it at some other point, and way, doesn't negate the fact that it always 'exists', even though not the same. Although it isn't the 'grain of sand' in the same way as it should be macroscopically, so the metaphor isn't that good.

But the point with 1 would be, ignoring the grain, that a 'state' still would be existent, at all times, even though differently expressed. Not probability per se, although that still should be the tool of choice, defining that state without measuring.
« Last Edit: 28/11/2011 21:28:06 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #437 on: 28/11/2011 21:43:05 »
It's also a question of how 'identical' particles and photons are. The simplest way to disprove 3 should be to assume that they are 'indistinguishable' and then measure photons from the exact same source in the exact same circumstances. But that will open other cans of worms, like if I can expect them to have a same spin originally too? If I define them as identical I would expect all properties to be the same. Also HUP will step into it, making all definitions difficult as it there is a measure over how you decide to set up the experiment. And then we have 'time'. How identical can two objects be when differed through time?

There should be some way though.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #438 on: 28/11/2011 21:52:01 »
The thing is, if I follow Einstein's definitions of SpaceTime, then we have a arrow of time. That arrow combined with the other three 'dimensions' defines SpaceTime. So from that perspective nothing can be the exact same, or 'identical', if separated by time. And it doesn't even help if I could assume all photons to have a same 'spin' as defined through the source. They will still not be the exact same, as I understands it.

Because SpaceTime isn't about three dimensions and 'time', it's about all four entwined.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #439 on: 28/11/2011 22:02:49 »
And that takes us to the idea of 'locality'. 'c' always being 'c' when measured locally, in a accelerated frame of reference, or uniformly moving.

If that is correct then any measurement done will be your definition of 'reality'. That I can do the same experiment and get the same outcome will then depend on us sharing a same 'ground state' defined by locality. In that way you might want to call it a 'global  (though always done locally) phenomena'. But we also know that with other observers, observing your experiment from other 'frames of reference', we can get other definitions than your own. It won't stop them from confirming your experiment 'when repeated locally' though. So they are 'repeatable'.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #440 on: 01/12/2011 22:38:09 »
okay, some more truly pure speculations.

Assume that Planck scale is correct for a smallest definition of a frame of reference. Assume that radiation and our 'arrow of time' is a equivalent phenomena, using radiation as a definition of a 'clock rate'. That will mean that everything smallest constituents comes to be at that scale. It will also open for the question of how those 'instants of distance/time' can 'couple' to each other, becoming particles, atoms, etc.

Does indeterminacy as in HUP have anything to do with allowing that coupling? Every Plank size becomes in my ideas a idealised 'frame of reference' relative the observer/measurement, meaning that all 'instants of time/distance' should be ever so slightly time dilated as well as, possibly, contracted? I'm not sure on the contraction in this case, but as it is a time dilations counterpart it seems to have a relevance?

So, how do they 'connect'?
« Last Edit: 01/12/2011 22:41:27 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #441 on: 01/12/2011 22:48:34 »
The question becomes one of 'fuzziness' in my mind. A 'background' of indeterminacy from where we find particles as we go up in scale, all the way to Einstein's relativity.

I like that, because I'm getting real tired of seeing everything explained in form of 'virtual particles'. All such descriptions involve a 'arrow', even if just implicitly. Because using that description I create 'forces' moving in my mind, and to have something 'moving' you will need 'time'.

Indeterminacy isn't anything 'moving', it's a state, defined through your subsequent observation/measurement.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #442 on: 01/12/2011 23:02:09 »
It's like some weird 'universal cloud', having two 'motions'. One is the observers choice of scale, defining the impression of 'densities' you get, relative what you observe, the other is our 'arrow of time' defining outcomes.

And then there is entanglements :) Something able to 'know' instantaneously, no matter the 'distance' defined. But 'distance' is a local definition in Relativity, not a 'global'. So, does 'distances' exist? Or is that 'radiation', defining our local room, with 'gravity' coming in as another property anchoring that impression?

If I ignore 'distance' entanglements becomes definitions of a special state, unique to the scale we see it take place in, QM. That doesn't mean it is impossible to have something similar macroscopically, but as far as I've read, there is no evidence so far for it taking place?

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #443 on: 01/12/2011 23:25:50 »
And then the arrow is radiation, which fits very well from a local perspective. That same radiation becomes your local description of distance and 'gravity'. As they only are descriptions, not really existing, 'motion' as a definition would need to be re-evaluated. It makes for a 'still' universe, compatible with my idea of a number space in where no 'motion' exist, only a clock, always locally defined, changing the numbers. That clock defines all 'forces' you know, and also interprets them differently through scales.

And it becomes simple, although rather weird.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #444 on: 01/12/2011 23:41:22 »
In such a universe consciousness might be as a focus gathered by all local interactions, defined through a arrow :) We need a outcome to have an idea defined, we need a arrow. Even Quantum computing needs the arrow to get a 'result'. And this is a eh, rather 'far flung idea' I willingly admit.

But consciousness is very alike a 'frame of reference', in that even if we all have a local 'frame of reference' defining the universe for us, I dare you to show me where you have yours.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #445 on: 02/12/2011 20:01:34 »
What more?

Well assume that you have a grain of sand and then tunnel into it, magnifying. Suddenly that grain is defined by your measurements according to QM. and depending on how and what you measure you will find the picture of what makes up that grain 'fuzzy' as you can't define all properties simultaneously. But the friend at your side can see the grain, and it will be the exact same, according to his observation.

So somewhere between QM and the macroscopic world there is something defining it as a unchanging 'grain of sand', or why not use a 'grain of diamond' instead just to get a larger time measure for its unchanging properties macroscopically.

That's scales.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #446 on: 02/12/2011 20:11:15 »
Can one Planck length in one Plank time make a moving picture? Not as I can see. We need more 'discrete events' at those Planck scales to get a movie. So, can times arrow exist at one Planck time/length? When you measure something you always take the arrow for granted, you use it and then maybe even 'discard it', depending on your definitions. But it was there in your measurement.

Without that arrow, what is there to see? Indeterminacy or something not moving? Indeterminacy is to me a 'fuzzy picture' depending on HUP. Something not moving on the other hand, is something I should be able to get into focus.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #447 on: 08/12/2011 19:03:38 »
Ok, crazy as it seems I have this view that 'distances' doesn't exist. I've had it a long time, although it's hard to define what I mean there. Then on the other hand, what should exist making us think it does?

If light and all radiation is bosons, and we define that as waves, does darkness, exist? Think about it, what you can see it just a small window, and some of those 'bosons' we speculate about we'll never see. But they should then all be 'waves', meaning that darkness is your lack of 'vision'.
=
Alternatively you can define it from lights smallest propagation.

"The Planck length is related to Planck energy by the uncertainty principle. At this scale, the concepts of size and distance break down, as quantum indeterminacy becomes virtually absolute. Because the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole is roughly equal to the Compton wavelength at the Planck scale, a photon with sufficient energy to probe this realm would yield no information whatsoever.

Any photon energetic enough to precisely measure a Planck-sized object could actually create a particle of that dimension, but it would be massive enough to immediately become a black hole (a.k.a Planck particle), thus completely distorting that region of space, and swallowing the photon."

Those are all theoretical assumptions naturally, until experimentally proven. And where one should place a quanta of light/energy, as a 'photon'? Indeterminacy is directly coupled to your choice of measuring as I see it, your choice defining what then will become impossible to 'pin point'. Conceptually I can then see the possibility of either assuming that all parameters could be said to be 'unmeasurable' as in 'indeterministic/undefined', as they all will depend on what choice of measurement you make. Or that all can be 'known', as they all will be there, although not simultaneously in your measurement. What 'weak measurements' builds on is just that idea, as I see it, that they are supposed to be there. But if 'photons' exist at Plank length, then a good question might be if they exist under it? They are called 'point particles' meaning that we don't assume a 'size' for them at all. So, as far as I can see, no 'distance' can exist where they 'are'.
==

If radiation would behave 'classically' I would have no problems accepting 'distances', but it doesn't. It will define itself locally, and it will create time dilations and Lorentz contractions. How light, to me, must be a 'clock' I've already defined. And with that you can forget 'speeds' and 'distances', although it is from those concepts we get the definition of a 'constant'.

'c' is to me a definition of how SpaceTime works, with Planck scales limiting the other 'end' of it. We're right in the middle of it sort of, not relativistically moving, not ever being able to define what is 'still'. But we still have a definition. One Planck length in one Plank time, as the smallest definition we expect to make sense for lights 'propagation', or 'clock beat'.

That 'clock beat' is always locally invariant. You can use those distances and space the 'clocks' out, to then measure 'variations'. But this is the wrong assumption, the better one is to define it from locality. Then there is only one arrow of time, measured in lights smallest propagation, which also will be the definition of 'frames of reference' relative a clock.

And all other radiation, not belonging to that 'local frame of reference' will then become the description from where we find 'distances' and 'motion'. And it will always locally be the same, no matter from where you measure it.

So, does this mean that 'distances' doesn't exist? I don't know, to me it's about conceptuality, and what we see as our 'reality'. It's a matter of 'scales' to me, some look at it from QM, others from Relativity. We are defined through the way we observe, and as we widen our conceptual definitions of things we can't observe directly, our conceptual 'reality' change. But our macroscopic observations stays the same, the impressions and senses each one of us live from, and in, stays the same for us. It won't matter if gravitons exist or not to the way you observe your 'reality' around you. And my ideas won't matter either, we all will find those 'distances' when we 'move'.

But, myself, I don't think they exist :) But that's on a purely conceptual plane, not related to the way my eyes, senses, measurements work, etc. What I do think exist is 'constants'. And when we find more of those we will get a better conceptual 'reality'.

Radiation is to me the 'rules' of the game, defining your immediate 'reality' from locality, relative all other 'frames of reference'. And the 'space' we exist in is from that point of view, not even there, except as defined locally. You can take it a step further, and define all 'space' as a construction from radiation presenting you with its local beat. We see it as one thing, including motion and distance in our descriptions, but it might be another.

We still have the fact that we are 'many' existing, not 'one' though :)
And, being philosophical here, consciousness is a really strange idea.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2011 21:09:45 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #448 on: 08/12/2011 19:13:31 »
Simply expressed, can you prove a 'globally same' distance for all observers? Not conceptually through a Lorentz transformation, but by letting them measure?

And exactly how do you get your definition of a distance? From what and where?

Radiation.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #449 on: 08/12/2011 20:04:20 »
And using my definition, gravity can easily become a pure 'geometry', as it will be defined through the way you read that radiation, and define it through your measurements/observations.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #449 on: 08/12/2011 20:04:20 »

 

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