The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280752 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
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #475 on: 11/01/2012 14:40:57 »
Just some slightly confused thoughts.

First of all. As I see it we have only certain energy levels reachable for us. Cern is the big definer of what we can do for now as they search for the Higgs boson.

"Theorists say the Higgs or something like it has to show up simply because the Standard Model breaks down and calculations using it go kerflooey at energies exceeding one trillion electron volts. If you try to predict what happens when two particles collide, it gives nonsense, explained Dr. Ellis . .

When they try to calculate the mass of the Higgs particle using the Standard Model and quantum mechanics, they get what Dr. Ellis called “a very infinite answer.”

Rather than a trillion electron volts or so, quantum effects push the mass all the way up to 10 quadrillion trillion electron volts, known as the Planck energy, where gravity and the other particle forces are equal.

The culprit is quantum weirdness, one principle of which is that anything that is not forbidden will happen. That means the Higgs calculation must include the effects of its interactions with all other known particles, including so-called virtual particles that can wink in and out of existence, which shift its mass off the scale.

As a result, if the Standard Model is valid for all energies, physicists say, they are at a loss to explain why the Higgs mass isn’t a quadrillion times bigger than it is. Another way to put it is to ask why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces — the theory wants them all to be equal.

Theorists can rig their calculations to have the numbers come out right, but it feels like cheating, and they would like to have a theory in which the numbers emerge naturally."


So, just how close to a Big Bang can we get?

" So far, CERN has cranked the cathedral-sized machine up to energy levels of 7.0 trillion electronvolts (TeV), or 3.5 TeV per beam, more than three times the level attained by any other accelerator.

It is aiming to trigger collisions at 14 TeV - equivalent to 99.99% of the speed of light - in the cryogenically-cooled machine after 2011."

So 14 TeV right? And when was the universe that 'hot'?

Well, first of all, we won't really get that energy as I understands it, except in rare conditions.

" Note that the energy is per degree of freedom, so you don't use all the 14 TeV (nor are they actually running at that energy yet).

So, how many degrees of freedom? Good question.

Each proton has three valence quarks, but these are generally agreed to make up a small portion of the mas (and to carry a small portion of the momentum) of the proton. The rest of the mass (or momentum) is carried by particles (qaurks and gluons mostly) from the so-called "sea"; these pop into and out-of existence owing to the uncertainty principle.

Worse, when the collision happens there is a great deal of energy available to put the virtual particles of the sea on to (or nearly on to) the mass shell, converting them into real particles, each equipped with their own swarm of ghostly hangers on. Then many of these decay in a very short time.

It is the average energy of this multitude of degrees of freedom which you are trying to measure/calculate, and it is non-trivial."

And then we have this concept of virtual particles giving me a constant headache.  I don't know what to think there.. Anyway, this gives a recent update on Higgs.

An update on Higgs.

What about it? Well, we are inferring a lot of stuff from the experiments we do, but do it fit? I'm not saying that it won't, or can't, but it becomes a very theoretical experience. And we won't get closer than those 14 TeV, possibly?

It's also a question of Space, as that is where all those bosons are expected to 'exist'. Do they exist still, created from those original energies at the BB? They should, shouldn't they? So the really high energies left us this 'sea' of new 'bosons', restricted inside a SpaceTime, just how?

They are imprints of a much higher energy level if so, than anything we'll ever reach.

==

As always, some spelling corrected.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2012 16:12:28 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
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #476 on: 16/01/2012 14:00:45 »
Another thing, I'm trying to see how a Higgs is thought to interact?

If we talk of bosons, do we have any bosons that will interact without annihilating?
Do the Higgs bosson annihilate as it 'interact' with 'matter'?

If it does, how do it (Higgs bosons/field) replenish itself?
And what exactly would a 'field' be in this motto?

And yeah, that makes me wonder about magnetic fields, again :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #477 on: 17/01/2012 13:04:59 »
Some more weird thoughts. I find 'scales' to be very interesting, that and 'patterns'. Sometime I wrote that I think that the reason 'intelligence' exist, as us observing, might be the universe wanting to 'see itself'. I really think so :)

If one looks at the newest research about our brains one will find that they put a lot of importance to the way the brains neurons are wired, and how some places becomes 'hubs' of a sort, having a lot of connections, others not so intensively coupled. It seems as the way we are 'connected' and the layout of those 'hubs', and their complexity, has a lot to do with the ability of thought.

That will in its turn open for a question of what 'intelligence', as in a conscious observer, is. If it is 'complexity' that creates thought, what about the universe?

And what about 'time'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #478 on: 18/01/2012 11:19:01 »
Okay, I know I sound weird, then again, I most probably am :)
Patterns, chaos theory, scales and 'time'.

And entanglements.

Imagine that first moment of a Big Bang. Do you expect everything coming from it to be more or less entangled? If you do you're not alone. Whatever comes to be should share some original property from that first moment.

1. Can you assume that entanglements can be overlaid on each other?
2. Do a entanglement collapse as we measure? Or is it still there in the final expression?

It has to do with interactions, don't you agree? Whatever a wave collapse should be seen as it should be finalized in the measurement. But, can we 'superimpose' entanglements?


 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #479 on: 18/01/2012 11:31:59 »
We have bosons all around us if you accept the ideas we have today. Bosons have this ability we call superimposing, you can in theory put all radiation there is in one 'location'. That location doesn't take any 'place' inside SpaceTime. It has to do with how I see light.

It doesn't propagate at all.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #480 on: 18/01/2012 11:44:50 »
Think of it in form of 'fields'. Then think of the probability of an interaction. All interactions are expressions in time. Then ask yourself what we mean by a 'constant'. Some 'constants' are explicitly easy to spot inside SpaceTime, 'c' is one, maybe 'one and one is two' can be seen as a SpaceTime constant 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
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #481 on: 19/01/2012 14:23:44 »
If you look at it from relativity 'motion' is defined from your clock and ruler relative some other object. So, as long as you find something to 'move' relative your own position, which here becomes a arbitrarily made choice except in accelerations, will you then also find a electromagnetic force?

What I'm wondering about is magnetic fields, and if they can exist without a electrical component? A charge can be defined to propagate at light speed, but, assuming that a magnetic field could exist from a frame of reference, not accompanied by a electrical field?

It also goes back to how you see SpaceTime. If you think of it (SpaceTime) as something inside a 'box', of whatever dimensions, then it seems to me that? I'm not sure here at all? Let's turn it around, if you find a magnetic field to exist without a electrical, then that will be true from your frame of reference. Accepting that you now need to question the frames in where you find that electrical component. Does a purely magnetic 'field' have a propagating speed?

There seems to be a universal, although very weak, magnetic field existing in our universe, much in the same manner as the CBR.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/primordial-magnetic-field-may-pe.html

I will need to correct my spelling etc later. (Public computer)
« Last Edit: 20/01/2012 12:04:30 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
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #482 on: 23/01/2012 15:53:04 »
To me it is about time, and its arrow.

If 'time' can be described as a direction of sorts, paced out in even chunks, aka, by 'clocks'. And if those 'clocks' can be locally described from 'c', which I believe to be the right assumption. Then we all are geometrically 'displaced' relative each other. In fact I could go as far as to assume that you, as a person, also must be geometrically displaced (time dilated primary, possibly also Lorentz contracted). Your body cover quite some 'distance' in QM terms, and depending on your constituents (particles) relative motion and mass, also including gravity's variations acting on them, we must have time dilations. So, how do the particles creating your body 'compensate' for it?

But, there we have HUP too?

Am I weird enough :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #483 on: 04/02/2012 15:09:03 »
Just a short notice. I've seen some sources, amongst them a article in nature, expecting that GR can define 'universal positions' relative for example 'gravity'. That's not correct as I see it, GR defines all position relative your local ruler and local clock. That you can transform other frames of reference to 'making sense' relative your own is not the same as you can use their clock and ruler to describe your own position as defined by your ruler and clock.

And that's pretty important to define correctly. If you go out from an assumption that SpaceTime can be described as one thingie, using Lorentz transformations. Then you also, to me that is, invalidate Lorentz contractions and time dilations, more or less making into some sort of illusion. To do so you will need to find a way to redefine 'time' and more importantly its arrow. Also you must redefine what the muon sees as it moves towards Earths surface, finding a Lorentz contraction. I don't expect that to be possible, but I do think that you can use 'c', being a constant, and from there find a alternative description of what a SpaceTime might be. That is if you accept that your ruler and your clock defines what you see, and also that what you see is as 'real' as it can be, from your local viewpoint.

You have to differ between 'conceptual definitions' as a Lorentz transformation is, and your 'reality', as defined by your ruler and your clock.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2012 15:11:15 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
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #484 on: 07/02/2012 10:28:21 »
Inflation?
And that subsequent expansion we find, how does it fit?

One strong idea is the one about 'potential energy' and how it transforms in a inflation/expansion into, for example, dark energy/matter. Also the energy in such a scenario might be presumed to ‘move’ between the expansion and all other things we find, as particles. It builds on the concept of a ‘closed box’ naturally in where no ‘energy’ gets lost. Inflation and the later expansion make a lot of sense to me though. It explains and defines the CBR, as well as the main distribution of galaxies, also it explains the 'uniformity' we see in the universe. Against it you have the ideas of 'bad inflation' and what that might do for a universe. It would give us more galaxies, and inhabitable ones too. So, why didn't that happen? Roger Penrose made a study (1980) from thermo dynamics counting starting configurations of the universe in where he found no inflation to be the most probable outcome. George W Gibbons made a similar study 2008, reaching similar conclusions.

According to interpretations made from quantum mechanics (Andrei Linde) the inflation/expansion doesn't end at all, the expansion just keeps on accelerating, creating 'bubble universes', not necessary sharing the same 'constants'. Think of an unlimited sack in where you have two values existing. Depending on the count you make, and where you start and stop, you will get different results according to this. You might find a lot of 'A':s but few 'B':s making you believe that the ratio is 'skewed'. How will you know where to start and where to stop your count?

And from my view of locality? What would a 'inflation/expansion' become? That's a pretty convoluted question to answer. And defining light as non-propagating, although still presenting us macroscopically with its particle/wave duality (propagation)?

That's a really good question, as it seems to me? If both the ’arrow of time’ and the constant ’c’ is local expressions, and time as well as ’distance’ only can be directly defined from your local clock/ruler?

Then, what is a ’space/vacuum’?

(hope my spelling is correct here, public computer..)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #485 on: 12/02/2012 21:36:30 »
Weird, weirder and weirdest?
This is just thoughts.

Assume that we live on/in a two-dimensional reality. Or maybe a ‘brane’? Anyway, let’s call it a ‘sheet of information’. Everything that we are exist in this sheet. And everything that happens to us, all interactions we observe, are projected locally. Why it has to be locally is because the clock one use always will be a local definition, as well as ones ruler. We would all be local definitions, joined by radiation that locally always will be a constant ‘c’, no matter from where one measure it, or ones ‘speed’.. But as distances always must be locally defined the idea of it existing should be questioned. That means ‘length’ ‘width’ and ‘height’ is emergent qualities, although always the same locally, as defined by your clock and ruler. What I’m saying here is that your ruler according to you, as well as your ‘clock’, doesn’t lie. Whatever you do, wherever you go, it will to you have a same length, and duration.

Radiation is what joins us, and it being a constant tells us something.  To me it says that there is an emergence from locality into ‘universality’, creating both the distances, as well the ‘four dimensionality’ Einstein speaks of. In his view you can’t split those dimensions into singular ones, and accepting them as ‘emergences’ coming from locality he seems perfectly correct to me. Think of each of us as ‘focuses’, but forget the ‘sheet’ for this, as that implies those same ‘distances’ I don’t believe in anymore. Crazy, ain’t it? :)

We need a new definition for ‘dimensionless’, at the same time as we macroscopically find all those ‘laws’ and ‘rules’ defining distance, bosons, matter, propagation and ‘gravity’. Maybe our problem is that we automatically assume one 'joined SpaceTime’, defined locally per Einstein’s relativity. We already use dimension less particles as a mathematical standard, both bosons and fermions, we just need to take it a step further.

So, if everything is defined locally? Then that’s a beginning, then there is the radiation ‘c’ we use to define our ‘SpaceTime’, relative all other ‘frames of reference’. Lights speed in a vacuum that also is a (locally defined) constant. Then we have ‘distance’ ‘length width and height’ that somehow seems like a ‘byproduct’ of that same radiation to me, combined with the arrow of time. And if the arrow is ‘c’ (as I think about it) then it fits somehow. But, I don’t really believe in ‘world sheets’.

That as, to me, every definition we use seems to be created from what we see, but for something as basic as an ‘origin’ of it all? Maybe we all exist in one dimensionless ‘spot’, the rest becoming 'emergences', from added complexity as the arrow emerges locally and ‘split’ whatever that origin is into both QM and Relativity. And what would that make gravity?  An illusionary ‘force’? It all depends on how you look at it, doesn't it :) If you fall from a cliff it won’t be ‘illusionary’ at all, although, assuredly hurtful. What I name ‘emergences’ is then what we live under, and are steered by. So in that motto there’s nothing ‘illusionary’ about them. We also have the way a Lorentz  contraction is expected to work, only in direction of your relative motion, to consider for this. But what happens to that sideway placed rod as it reach infinitly close to ‘c’? Will it ‘disappear’, as it must contract over its width, even though not contracting over its length?

Yeah, thoughts, nothing more. I find Verlinde really interesting. He has written a paper I’m planning to read, (just downloaded from http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785) “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton” in where he seems to suggest some really interesting ideas. You should also read up on Jacob Bekenstein’s ideas, as well as Stephen Hawking. Then you have Gerardus 't Hooft and Leonard Susskind too, they shaped the first descriptions of a ‘holographic reality’, as well as another favorite of mine, Smolin. They seem all read able :)



 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #486 on: 13/02/2012 15:00:02 »
Well, I don't know if one can assume a two dimensionality, although it do make some sense. One of my eh, tenets perhaps, is that the three dimensionality we see inside our arrow is there from the beginning. Meaning that as, or perhaps, if, space do expand, which it to the best of my knowledge does, then the new 'space' that comes to be should be in three dimensions (or four, including 'time') from its very 'origin'. And I don't think you can split them, making all discussions about two-dimensional 'systems/thingies' inside SpaceTime slightly absurd to me.

But that doesn't rule out the possibility of it (SpaceTime) being a two-dimensional beast, using some holographic property to create the three(four) dimensional 'reality' we observe. It's as possible as the four dimensionality as long as the same rules adhere to it. That it emerges as a 'whole thing', not as singular dimensions 'glued' together.

Then we have black holes, entropy and gravity. Verlinde is very interesting but I still have some difficulties understanding how we can exchange what we see as 'the arrow' for entropy. To me entropy might be a direct result of us having a arrow, but does that makes it the absolute same? Maybe it does, but I'm not sure?

I do expect a arrow to exist, as well as something from where that arrow emerges. I call it 'Time' and 'the arrow of time', But what about entropy? Is that idea sufficient in itself? We don't need no 'origin'  for it? Only 'entropy'?

Read this and ponder.   

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #487 on: 19/02/2012 00:11:52 »
Let's look at QM from 'SpaceTime'.

SpaceTime is defined as a four dimensional continuum. So what happens when you 'scale' it down? Is there a scale where 'SpaceTime' disappear? Or is it so that 'SpaceTime' will follow us down to the scale (Planck) from where we can't measure anymore?

I think SpaceTime must exist to that point where we can't make sense of it anymore, aka, where physics 'breaks down'. That's also why I put importance to time dilations and Lorentz FitzGerald contractions, and so asks how 'particles' interact, becoming macroscopic phenomena, if they have those to consider? Which they have as I think of it, right down to Planck scale per my definitions.

SpaceTime is 'one thing' not really 'four'.



 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #488 on: 19/02/2012 19:44:08 »
And that takes us to HUP (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)

What is HUP?

Is it a statement about the impossibility to measure both momentum and position simultaneously? Or is it a statistical statement "about the standard deviations of momentum and position, not about individual measurements. Standard deviations are calculated from calculating the root mean square of many individual measurements. It says nothing about an individual measurement, indeed Jauch (1993) performs such a measurement that is much more precise than that would otherwise be indicated by HUP. Indeed, the rigorous HUP is not even a statement about simultaneous measurements."

There are also advocates for the interpretation that it is your measurement that derange the outcome. By measuring you always introduce something new into the system you want to observe (momentum). Interpreted that way all singular 'particles'  should have a exact momentum and position even when unknown, although destroyed in your measurement.

My own take is that HUP isn't about measurements disturbing a system, it's a basic assertion about that 'you can't know it all', to me saying that a particles momentum and simultaneous position indeed is a uncertainty, until measured.
=

What I mean there is that without a measurement both must be uncertain. Your choice of measurement will define one but not both, when done directly. All other definitions will use definitions assembled from the past, to me also called weak measurements.

And to take it a step further, if it's probability that defines what you expect to measure, then that too is built on past outcomes as I see it. That becomes a very strong argument for us having a 'now' and a 'past' where the probability of a 'future' then becomes a definition of past outcomes.

There is a difference there, you can't guarantee a outcome, other that statistically by probability. Which means that the 'future' indeed is uncertain. But you can use the 'past' to find its probability. And that is 'scales', meaning that the larger your 'system', the more certain the probability of what the 'past' tells you.

So, on a singular plane all may be uncertain, but read over a large assemble it?
==

Heisenberg formulated it (Chicago lectures 1930)

" "If the velocity of the electron is at first known, and the position then exactly measured, the position of the electron for times previous to the position measurement may be calculated. For these past times, δpδq is smaller than the usual bound. (Heisenberg 1930, p. 15)

Heisenberg continues : "the uncertainty relation does not hold for the past"."
« Last Edit: 19/02/2012 23:07:40 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
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #489 on: 19/02/2012 20:08:09 »
And that is 'time', and its arrow.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #490 on: 19/02/2012 22:57:22 »
Why does scaling up a 'system' make it more 'certain'? Is there border(s) from where quantum mechanical properties, probabilities and effects becomes what we observe as macroscopic reality? There should be as I think of it, although they might not express themselves so that we can see them. And, if we can't see them, does that mean that we are looking at it wrong?

What are 'emergences'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #491 on: 22/02/2012 18:29:18 »
So I'm wondering about 'fields' again, especially magnetic fields. That is, if you can find a magnetic field alone, without its electrical 'component' inside Einsteins SpaceTime? Also I'm wondering over 'probability' and indeterminism, as I want to explore my notion of light not propagating as far as I can. That idea isn't really new, but it's simple and I like simple. If you're interested in that, and 'emergences' maybe this is a good start? It's about Dirac and his 'Three Polarizers Experiment'.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #492 on: 26/02/2012 23:10:38 »
As a mind game :)

In a uniform (relative) motion 'Space Times gravitational field' disappear locally. Although invariant mass still will 'bend SpaceTime' and give us 'gravity'. We use a description we call 'energy' that I primary see as descriptions of  'transformations'.  But also reminds of a description of the thought  'ground state' of any system, or universe for that sake. Let it then all transform into this 'ground state of energy', no invariant rest mass, aka matter, left in the universe..

Will there be gravity?
If not, is that (no gravity) then a equivalence to 'relative motion'?

It also has to do with the question of it being possible to define something as being 'at rest' relative something else. You can't assume that all is 'relative motion' as I see it. Because to assume any type of 'relative motion' you need a frame from where it 'materialize'. To state that all is 'relative motion' becomes a logical nightmare as you now define 'motion' without a beginning or reference frame.

What is needed for a universe to exist?
accelerations?

The arrow of time?

Alternatively, if 'relative (uniform) motion' always must be a local definition, do we really define it correctly?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #493 on: 26/02/2012 23:25:08 »
To see 'energy' one might consider 'bosons'. Some we can measure, others we can't (other than indirectly). We can induce that there should be something from experiments but there is no direct evidence other than the theoretical logical implications from what we see  happen in high energy collisions at, for example, CERN.

So there is a lot of 'unmeasurable bosons' around. Are they then 'pure energy'? like 'Photons' too maybe? Not as I think of it anyway. As they take on individual expressions none of them can be called 'energy', although they all may origin from the concept of 'energy'. And what about matter, isn't that too 'energy'?

So, 'energy'?

A 'ground state'? Or a description of transformations? 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
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #494 on: 27/02/2012 00:38:20 »
It all goes back to one question.

What is 'reality'?

A locally defined phenomena, or something in where we all are 'seamlessly together'.

We think we are seamlessly together in 'one universe', but as I see it relativity questions it. Einstein used the fact that we could translate between different 'frames of reference' as a proof for a 'seamlessness' on a conceptual plane. I don't, I only use radiation, and I don't mean its speed. I use it purely as a constant, defining both a border as well as a 'reference frame' from where we get the idea of us being 'seamlessly together' in 'one universe'. And I lean to the idea of a static field, with the arrow of time becoming the illusion creating it. So 'constants', those are our borders. Of whatever shape you find them, as Feigenbaums constants for example. and using our idea of 'clocks' you can relate the constant 'c' to the most exact clock there is, always locally the same for you.

But then you have interactions, we all interact in so many ways. How can we do 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
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #495 on: 27/02/2012 00:55:05 »
Your clock, your ruler, your 'relative motion'.

Mine will differ from yours.

But if we meet, we will find ourselves to have the 'exact same time (clock) and ruler', at least if we're superimposed bosons :) So, distance is defined locally. But we can meet, which tell us that there must be 'distance' existing between us, but doesn't tell us if 'distance' is correctly defined. We grew up on a planet, we relate 'distance and clocks' relative that planet, and find it crudely to be the 'same' for us all. But if you use relativity, and locality, as your measure it's a conceptually 'plastic' definition. And then we have 'relative motion', which according to relativity will 'shrink' a distance with your 'speed/velocity'. So 'relative motion' as a locally phenomena defining a 'distance' too, but also as a true definition somehow existing between those locally defined 'frames of reference'. Then we have 'time dilations' that I expect to be consistent down to 'Plank scale', and if they are then we must have Lorentz FitzGerald contractions  too, as they seem a symmetry to me.

And that is confusing. If we are a 'static field' in where 'the arrow of time' creates the linearity we see in interactions, how do those allow for it?
« Last Edit: 27/02/2012 01:05:05 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
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #496 on: 29/02/2012 00:38:00 »
Bear with me here :)

A fractal. you can create a equation with an 'unknown', aka 'x'. Then you let it run with a first predefined number for 'x'. Then you lift in the outcome as the next 'x' , then let that reiterate, and lift in the product as the next 'x', ad infinitum. Voila, you got yourself a simple fractal. So each iteration creates the next, well, sort of. Could I call each product an 'emergence'?

What do we mean by an 'emergence'? Water becoming ice is a often used example of an 'emergence' due to the way its properties change as water freeze, or ice get heated. But imagine a 'field', that 'field' isn't doing anything by itself, 'motion' etc bears no meaning for it. Then use an 'arrow of time' to 'unfreeze' it.

That arrow is always a local phenomena although you, 'relatively moving', will find it to be the same wherever you go. So even though 'time dilations and Lorentz FitzGerald contractions' exist, they always must be a locally defined counterpart to your own, locally defined 'frame of reference' that in fact never change, no matter where you are or how fast (relatively speaking) you go.

That arrow gets its definition in 'locality', not in 'SpaceTime' as a unified 'universe'. So from a QM point of view you might say that the 'arrow' springs from each point, each particle, and express itself in 'change'. You might want to argue that the arrow must exist even where no discernible 'change' is found, but that could also be a question about what geometry you trust.

It's easier to define the arrow to 'changes', than to something not changing at all.

Free will contra predetermination.

In physics you meet this question, if one might assume that everything is preordained. But follow it to its end and see what you think. In its simplest clearest form such a notion mean that nothing you do is controlled by you. So, you 'change your mind'. No, you didn't, it's already preordained. So, science advance? No it doesn't, it's already preordained. So, there are things that are good, and there are things that are evil, some things are better than others. No there isn't. Evil and good then becomes equally meaningless descriptions, as there was no free choice in any situation.

Do you believe that.
« Last Edit: 29/02/2012 00:42:55 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
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #497 on: 29/02/2012 00:53:58 »
But then we have scales. Take thoughts for example.

How 'big' is a thought? Where do I place it, QM? Or is it a macroscopic phenomena?
With 'scales' things change. Indeterminism is something we define from QM, although variants of it exist macroscopically too. With a large assemble of data, I can find statistical correlations and trends, the larger the assemble, the easier to see.

But on that very small plane, indeterminacy is a very real phenomena. Probability use statistics to define outcomes. Those outcomes are very real, but on that 'individual' very small plane, indeterminacy is what rules.

So, what is 'free will', and, can we have both?
A predefined universe, and, 'free will'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #498 on: 04/03/2012 03:48:18 »
Okay, another weirdie I started to wonder about. Statistics..

somewhere I stated that both QM and relativity assumes an 'arrow of time', that as I expect it to be needed an order (causality chain) making it possible to define those statistic assumptions involving probabilities.

But then I started to wonder, what makes me so sure? Statistics is an assemble of data, you don't need it ordered in a past. present and future to see implications. Although statistics would fill no classical sense of 'logic' if so, in that if the arrow wasn't there then statistics wouldn't be able to make any 'predictions', as all ideas of a 'future' in where those predictions could be proven true wouldn't be definable.

So yes, on second thought. I think I could assume something without an arrow, containing a lot of data. But anyone 'reading' that data would automatically need an 'arrow of time' to do it in. Somehow this question also seems to connect to what indeterminacy and superpositions should be seen as?

A quantum computer needs to be read, without the 'observer' there can be no 'answers'.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #499 on: 04/03/2012 04:12:17 »
Assume a SpaceTime of statistics, no arrow of time.

How would it look to you? Without the arrow it would all be there, some 'areas' should stand out as very certain, others would be more diffuse. As some still picture of a mountain chain with the tops representing the probability of outcomes, as seen classically. What would be needed for it to create the causality chains we observe? An arrow is one answer, but then you have the way nature order different systems, as particles becoming molecules, molecules becoming macroscopic dead and living matter.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #499 on: 04/03/2012 04:12:17 »

 

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