The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 278629 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #50 on: 28/09/2009 18:58:09 »
So let’s go back to what I see as the differences between ‘distances’ and ‘dimensions’. We live in three ‘dimensions’. When we pick up a object (book) we can directly confirm that it has a length, a width and a height, right? Well I presume that this is how we decided on what a ‘dimension’ was. But is that the same as my assuming those ‘space balls’ :) And possibly ‘time balls’? It seems to me that working from ‘dimensions’ you always will be able to add/create new ones, and each one will take ‘SpaceTime’ through a ‘geometric twist’ creating an invisible ‘distance’ of its own that we then will have to add to those we see as our ‘reality’. My idea of it doesn’t concern itself with ‘unseen dimensions’ at all, well, at least I think so :). Even though we have a dimension/distance less ‘mirror’ to us, what we have inside SpaceTime will be the only ‘distances’ possible. If you have a ‘point pushing against a point ad infinitum’ creating us, all of them acting as if they had a ‘sphere-like’ force with its axis’s directed everywhere as observed by us, how would you add a ‘dimension’ to that? And why would you need too? And that idea of ‘time’ as originally being the same as ‘distances’? ( I kind’a like it :) It has a symmetry to me. Those time-axis’s all exist at that ‘empty plane’ as a ‘possibility’ but when emerging in SpaceTime they ‘combine/fall out to’/emerge(?) into finally one ‘arrow of time’ for us.  And take notice that ‘things’ seem to ‘simplify/focus’ themselves for us as they ‘grow’, isn’t that strange? As the effects ‘add up’ macroscopically they somehow becomes ‘less’. That I use the word ‘dimension’  to describe what’s without it? Well, I don’t have a better word. ‘Distance-less’? So what we would be then is a ‘closed bubble’ directed and constructed through ‘emergence’ with what we call motion and acceleration, as well as our ‘forces’, as something specific to SpaceTime.

And the ‘red thread’ running through it all? Something opening into a interactive two-way communication, ever growing into ‘complexity’ and self-awareness. We won’t get away from ‘Singularities’ in my universe, they are part of it, the ultimate one-way ‘strains’ on SpaceTime, and neither will we get away from those ‘infinities’, they too are a part of what SpaceTime is. Strange, when I started writing I didn’t know it would end like this? I thought I had my own view of it, and as I wrote in the beginning I primarily started to write it for me, not you. Sometimes it truly feel like I’m two persons :) One ‘normal’. Here as always slightly bored, not caring overmuch about what we do to ourselves, the other one only showing its face as I write?  And that one do seem to care? So, maybe I created this universe just to ‘rant’ about ‘Global Warming’ then?  (never mind no matter, take it as you please :) No, not really, but I’m pleased it ‘fit in’ so nicely. And I hope you found it possible to make some sense of it. As for if dimensions exist? Probably, according to the mathematics we use they do, right? And that book you read do have a width, length and height, so maybe I’m bicycling in the blue younder here? But maybe we see them slightly ‘wrong’? Due to the way we once thought to define them from SpaceTime? I don’t really know. Your choice. But if I was right (goofy space balls:) then the question might be, what is it that limit those ‘distances’ to three (and times arrow) for us macroscopically? My guess would be that this is the ideal solution to ‘life’, biological life needs a one way arrow to live in, as well as all other logical processes we constructed. Consider living in a universe like the one we see at a QM level seen through that Feynman diagram. I can’t see how one would make sense of it biologically? Where you might wander through your birth as you grow old, probably loosing yourself in the process as that seems to be best analogue to what we see happening in one of those diagrams (Further, an electron moving backward in time would from one perspective be equivalent to a positron moving forward.) I just can’t see anything biological or electrical prosper in such a universe. And if time do have two ‘arrows’ at a QM level, would you then say that this ‘time’ now contains ‘another dimension’? You would have to, wouldn’t you? (The other choice seems to be immersed in my ‘monolith’). So then ‘time’ to you would need to have a ‘height’? As well as a ‘width’? And you think I’m…?

If you on the other tentacle consider my description, then time to its nature have no arrow at all, or if you like, have all possible arrows there is, but in a equilibrium as they take each other out at that ‘lowest state’ of existence. Then it has to be something similar to a symmetry breaking creating ‘two way’ and ‘one way arrows’, and that seems to fit in with those CP-violations too. So what can create that asymmetry? If I consider that explosion taking place in the engine, then what created the ‘force’ as well as the asymmetry was ‘density’, the engines wall. If we assume that this ‘first state of no-time’ if isolated would consist of all ‘energy there is’, then, could that ‘energy’ be seen as ’pushing’?. Not if I defined it as a size-less point of origin, then it would not have anything to ‘push’ against, right? So what other ways can something without size express itself through? I don’t know, if I could understand how that photon (and virtual particles) can exist and deliver its energy inside SpaceTime, while still being size-less, time-less and mass-less intrinsically perhaps I would get an inkling as how that works. But I think it to be so anyway, and either we have some sort of ‘symbiotic’ system where both states is needed to exist, which then would make it a symmetric solution as we look at it as a ‘whole’ system, even if possibly to us ‘asymmetric’ as we only observe one side of it. Or we have a asymmetric system for real, which then craves a symmetry break, which then seems to crave a ‘times arrow’ preexisting for it to have happened? I mean, how can you say that something have ‘happened’ without allowing that ‘one way arrow’ to play a role? We could also have a ‘breathing system’ cycling through both sides of course, but I don’t think so. What we se as cycling is from our side of the mirror and that follow an ‘arrow of time’. So, it may be so that what I call ‘no way’, ‘two way’ and ‘one way arrows’ is ‘emergent’ properties defining a symmetry, uneven as seen from our side, but symmetric when studied as a whole. That’s what I think for now, at least. But if so, how is it balanced on that other side? Then there should be some opposite ‘principle’ creating a asymmetry if observed on that side too I presume? And there’s another question involved here, can you have a asymmetric balance that falls out to a symmetry when involving a larger ‘system’? Look at Earth climate system and then on the weather at different geographical locations, I think it’s perfectly possible myself, especially when not being able to ‘see’ the whole symmetry.

So I believe ‘time’ to be a emergent property. I believe that we have a ‘symmetry’ of sorts as a ‘whole’ in SpaceTime even though when observed from our arrow expressing itself as a asymmetry. I think I can understand my idea of ‘distances (arrows)’ and ‘times arrows’ and how that might relate to SpaceTime. I’m not sure how it fits in with ‘dimensions’, though it to me seems to crave three ‘dimensions and a ‘one way arrow’ to create SpaceTime, then again, two ‘dimensions’ with a ‘one way arrow’ might work too? What we see at a QM level seems to be the opposite though? A two way arrow of ‘time’ but still ‘three dimensions’. If you like you might consider both examples as a ‘emergence’ to our three dimensional reality. But I still think that for any electrochemical biological systems to emerge we will need what we find here, 3D ‘space-balls’ creating distances inside a ‘one-way arrow’. And if that is correct your ‘two-dimensionality’ won’t exist inside SpaceTime as I expect those ‘goofy 3D space-balls’ to originate from ‘size-less points’ (a.k.a. Plank-size probably?).  Also you have to remember that if you really consider some QM phenomena as ‘two-dimensional system’, then what you observe should also be able to ‘disappear’ from certain angles of observation. And if you don’t get what I mean by that you need to reread this essay, however confused it may be. And as long as that ‘2D system won’t disappear’ I will have great problems to accept that definition as valid. And if it did? Well, then you would have a true experimental proof defining dimensionality, wouldn’t you, making my ‘proposal’ highly dubious.

But as long as it doesn’t your proposed ‘two-dimensionality’ seems to me just another ‘limiting case’  made up for the needs of a experiment. Equilibrium seems also to be something describing SpaceTime with what we call ‘forces’ being the disturbance/straining of the same. Now you might want to point to electrons and particles and say ‘but they ‘disappear’, don’t they?’ I don’t think so, to me they’re not ‘there’ at all. What we observe is the ‘disturbances’ creating matter, and they will be ‘flickering’ even if homogeneous when observed to take up a certain spatial place coherently in time. And that’s a real mystery to me, how they do it, and what allows us ‘biological systems’ to constantly break the laws governing motion inside SpaceTime by our locomotion and use of ‘free will’. To allow for that I use the idea of ‘information / fractal behavior’ and the idea that all goes to a ‘higher information density’ (from simple to complex). And that you will find a ‘asymmetric freedom’ to SpaceTime allowed by its ‘emerging’ from that ‘distance-less’ definition. And if you look at ‘information density’ too as a sort of ‘emergence’ then they will create new ‘immaterial properties’ in SpaceTime as they emerge. It may be that this kind of ‘immaterial emergence’ have effects we can not evaluate directly in time, but we all know the ‘force/impact’ of immaterial ideas, don’t we? As for what consists of ‘simple’ or ‘complex’? I’m not sure on that one, what we see defines our views, right? So we have a definition and expectation of what we call ‘simple’ as compared to ‘complex’ but when you look at it as ‘emergence’ then there might not be any such thing. There might just be ‘whole processes’ that will be lifted forward for us to know/observe when we are ‘ready for it’, like us being those ‘fire-flies’ lightening up inside that monolith of ‘time’. As seen from inside our ‘SpaceTime’ though, our definitions have a validity and we will find processes to walk from the ‘simple to the complex’ as judged by us inside our arrow of time, at least that’s my expectation. Even though you might find QM to behave differently ‘momentarily’ it will still obey our arrow of time, and if it stops doing so? Well :) Ops, we’re gone..

( There is one thing more, highly hypothetical that I would like to add. I like to think of ‘photons’ as ‘holes’ in SpaceTime, have you noticed that? If you do that and then consider my proposition of ‘emergence’ as ‘whole processes’ when considered outside our ‘arrow of time’ combined with my view that ‘distances/time/mass/momentum/forces etc’ all is properties only valid inside that arrow/SpaceTime. Then maybe photons really are ‘holes’ inside SpaceTime. Fluctuations of ‘energy’ created as needed by those ‘laws’ we see govern inside SpaceTime but not ‘there’ at all. Like if we all was a homogeneous emerging ‘information field’ where each photons ‘emergence’ inside it would be some sort of rift in that field created by SpaceTime’s needs/laws expressed through its arrow. And then the ‘forces’ we use would be SpaceTime’s need to close those ‘rifts’. Crazy, ain’t it :)

--------------

And now for some environment again :)

Now, when it comes to the ‘economy’ of it. What we need to do is to change our priorities when it comes to infrastructure, we need to dismantle our coal driven power-plants. To keep them and try to ‘clean up’ the smoke will leave us with the option of ‘CO2 pipes everywhere’ which to me is no option? And if you let your common sense lead you it’s no option to you either, that can only be a extremely short-time solution. As for using batteries to our cars? Seems that we are building up to new problems there with the residuals that will be left to dispose of when those batteries are ‘dead’. Don’t fool yourself, it’s not a easy problem and it will ‘cost’ you personally, as well as the industry to solve. I prefer if we could make water our fuel, that would be the best solution from a longtime perspective. What would happen to our ‘economy’ and hierarchy’s of power if we could? Ever wondered about that? You should, as it is now people tend to think that ‘economy’ is like some wild beast, best left to those few that ‘lead us’. But the truth is that it is us all that is the economy, and without us neither ‘money’ nor ‘economy’ exists. You have two choices here. Keep on to the beaten path, nuclear power, batteries, centralizing power of all kinds, all those things that will create future waste problems for your kids, but, will keep your centralized economy intact, clearly defined and hierarchical, or you could start build for something that to me is a better long time solution. Nope, not ‘communism’. I’ve never felt comfortable with the ideals there, we need some ‘living space’, all of us do, we’re no ants. But neither am I pleased with the notion of unequal living standards, war, starvation and ignorance, and that is what our ‘free markets’ seems to offer instead. What they like to call a ‘fierce competition’, but what we all know to be secret ‘power deals’ and money greasing the ‘representative politics and dictatorships’. So I’m not impressed with that either. The real question may be if you’re ready to take responsibility for your own actions? If you are then there might be a hope for us. And if you are, you will realize that we need to share our resources trying to make the best we can of this situation. But it will get better, that sharing will grow as Earth’s resources ‘recharge’ themselves and in a hundred years we will be on a better path.

Ask yourself, why would we ever need a Concorde to fly in? We could use modern equivalents to a Zeppelin instead to make that same journey, so much cheaper and environmental for us and the ‘economy’. I mean it, do ask yourself why? Time pressures? Come on, you have the internet, set up a video conference instead. That’s comparatively ‘instantaneous’ looking at the hassle with flying and arriving and setting it all up. Where’s the need for it? ‘Personal contacts’, ‘power-deals’, your ‘importance’ as a small predator rubbing hide against your ‘peers’? Is that it? Give that up and become a human being instead, try to look past that short nose of yours to what might come. We need an end to ignorance and greed, we need live-able solutions, clean water and air. And that won’t come through any ‘revolution’ I’ve heard of, it can only come through education and self-questioning. Why not try to wake up? ‘Honor and prosperity’ is not birth-marked for only a few, it’s meant for all, and we have it in reach using Earth’s resources wisely. There’s new research showing that domestic violence lowers your kids ‘intelligence’, strange isn’t it? Why should it? A good whack now and then to teach him or her the ‘reality’s’ of life, that’s only ‘educational’ isn’t it? Builds character, doesn’t it? One reason for it could be that this kid will be so occupied with ‘surviving’ that (s)he won’t have the time, or dare, to build an interest for other things, also it creates a vicious circle in that they too might find ‘brute force’ a quicker solution to the ‘problem’ than using their mind, as that’s what we taught them, not forgetting those other kids that will ‘hide’ forever more, believing their slightest mistakes punishable. It seems a terrible waste of minds and honor to me, wasting their minds, and your honor. So, is that what we are like? Kids, too occupied with ‘survival’ to see what we do to ourselves? Or too occupied with what our ‘economy’ will bring perhaps :)

And if you feel that the Earth nowadays is to small? Simple, one kid a family for the next ten generations, if you count on twenty years between every ‘generation’ then that will give Earth a breathing space of two hundred years, and our ‘over-population’ will shrink dramatically, without any war or genocide’s involved, just use those ‘preventives’. And it will make that kid coming loved as (s)he might be the only one you will have. We can solve all problems just using common sense, if we want to. But it depends on you reading me, and your ‘maturity’ as a human being. I won’t solve it for you, you will, if so. But to make it possible we need ‘education’, all of us do, and that’s where we have the internet. After the wheel I believe the internet to be the most important ‘technology’ available today :) if we allow it to breath freely. Flood it with education, make sure that it is there with footnotes and sources available. Stop locking it in, there might be someone in Liberia that could be our next Einstein reading you on it. So, we have those ‘sick people’ using it too, I know we do, but that’s the price we pay for ‘unlocking information’. Someone will always use it shortsightedly or/and wrong. But they are ‘track able’ if we pool our information, furthermore, my view is that we need a ‘crime’ before we can talk about ‘justice’. I’m expecting you reading me to consist of enough ‘real human beings’ for it all to fall out to good solution, but then again? Maybe you don’t agree? Only you then? And your ‘peers’ perhaps? Harder measures you say, trust no one, and, ah I see, you’re no ‘personal Jesus’? Well, then I presume we others will have to ‘make do’ without you for the time being. The rest of you reading I do hope to see my point.
« Last Edit: 28/09/2009 20:03:08 by yor_on »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #51 on: 30/09/2009 19:55:17 »
Only a reserved universe would not permit the singular regions of spacetime predicted by general relativity. :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #52 on: 03/10/2009 17:29:52 »
Sorry, that one you will have expand on?
What is your definition of a 'reserved universe'?
If we are we talking about a 'closed' SpaceTime?
If so I agree, but I can't see how it invalidates my thoughts?
If you see it as a 'emergence' then they will all create new 'properties'.

Or do you mean that SpaceTime is open?
If so that won't invalidate it either.
To see my idea you still have to look at SpaceTime as something 'emerging' with its own rules. Those rules will be 'real' for us, and clearly defined (ah, macroscopically that is :). As for if SpaceTime is 'open or closed' that is still (to my eyes) a limited case. If there would be a 'original region' without 'distances' creating what we deem as such, then the question if SpaceTime is open or closed loses its context as your only definition will be according to a 'limited set' of rules inside SpaceTime. As Distances don't really exist If my idea would be correct. But I would still look at distances as something finite, at least from that other 'outside' view, but as for how it will express itself inside?


That is if it was that you meant?
There may be something I missed here?

(Singularities is a direct result of Einsteins theory's and do seem to exist.
Although a lot of people didn't expect it to be so.
And they are as far as I know no 'mirages'.)
« Last Edit: 03/10/2009 18:17:31 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #53 on: 03/10/2009 22:42:02 »
Can't hold this from you.

feature=player_embedded
And this.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2009-02-25-warming_N.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/21/eco.warmingantarctic/index.html


State of the Climate Global Analysis August 2009
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=8&submitted=Get+Report

And if you did read those.

Then check out this guy.
NR=1

( I would call him optimistic :)
But then again, that's me not you.
And he's right in his conclusion.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2009 00:03:47 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #54 on: 08/10/2009 23:12:58 »
And here is the 'Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States' by the USGCRP Scientific Assessments 2009 . It's optimistic and I like it, even though I expect it to be a closer shave than what we expect now.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/download-the-report

"In the United States, the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990 mandates that every four years an assessment of the impacts of global change in the U.S. be conducted by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Responding to this mandate, the USGCRP carried out during the late 1990s the first National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change in the United States. Between 2004 and 2009, the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which incorporated the USGCRP, produced a series of 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products(SAPs)."
« Last Edit: 16/10/2009 15:56:51 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #55 on: 16/10/2009 15:58:18 »
When a heavenly object or a rocket moves in a uniform motion does it have a different 'energy level' depending on its ‘speed’?
If you see it as such, why won’t we notice it as radiation from those 'excited atoms’ creating its invariant mass?

And how does ‘Momentum’ relate to 'Energy'?
As energy is nowhere to be found here.
But then again, so is our momentum?
As well as ‘Inertia’.

They will only become ‘present’ when manipulating the objects equilibrium. That in the case of our object meaning impact or observation/comparison against another frame of reference. So are any of them definable without that ‘Impact/frame of reference’? (Inertia craves a change of velocity which also is a manipulation relative another ‘frame of reference’, namely SpaceTime itself, even though we don’t need to observe that ‘frame’ to observe the consequences) The other two though seems to crave more direct comparisons with other ‘frames’?

How do we define the ‘energy’ of a particle? By impacting it first perhaps, measuring and then counting on various particles speed, velocity and mass? And then generalize it. Do you see that as the same as proving what ‘energy’ is, or do you see it as a ‘tool’ for describing and defining a idealized concept?

And do Plank-time ‘flickers’?

Think of three Plank lengths as a ‘distance’, then take a plank of two Planck lengths and push it over those three. At some time this plank will be ‘displaced’ between those three Planck lengths not covering it in even ‘spaces’ (as I tend to see it).  Looking at this, even if Planck sizes is a truly ‘objective measurement’ inside ‘SpaceTime there, according to my thinking, there still must be a ‘flow’ when considering our plank traveling ‘past them’. But then again, you could argue that this example only will be true as long 'time' is a ’flow’.

If you somehow succeeded in proving that 'time' is created out of ’events’ (f ex. ’Planck time sized’) then this plank should be forced to  ‘flicker’ between those frames, won’t you agree? Never to exist in it’s movements/jumps between those ‘Planck sized’ frames making up SpaceTime. But, if that was the case, where would ‘reality’ be. Only inside those ‘still pictures’ of ‘Planck time sized size’? Wouldn’t you too constantly ‘flicker’ then? As well as your thoughts, movements etc, ad infinitum.

And what would then bind those ‘still frames’ together?
Time perhaps?

Again, you mean?
Then it can’t be the same type of ‘time’ we are defining inside those slices as outside can it?
I will argue that you are comparing oranges and apples.

If we define time as something belonging to Plank size (Planck time), those also defining all other Plank measurements (as they all hinge together). Then what we deem ‘time’ will always be situated inside those still frames and never be found ‘outside’ those ‘frames’. Think about it and you will see my point. And I believe it will fall out the same way no matter your definition of ‘times size.’

So what do you then expect binding them?
A ‘force’ or ‘field’ of some kind perhaps?
But?

My definition says that all ‘forces’ are created from measurements made in ‘time’, using its ‘arrow’.
And as I just argued that ‘time’ won’t be outside those still frames?
Can you prove it otherwise?

Then that 'field' becomes more and more inviting, right :)
But won't you need an arrow of time present for a field.
And what would it consist of?

Can one see SpaceTime as somehow ‘floating' in a sea of bigger, ah,  ‘glue'  that then produces some undefiably quality of ‘lesser times’ useable for getting situated inside those Planck sized SpaceTime frames only? And creating what we call SpaceTime? Now, that  'field of glue' is your new obstacle as that too will need to be explained as containing some kind of direction or casuality chain to create and order the 'framework' for SpaceTime. And that field holding SpaceTime together will then either consist of my 'flow', or if you think 'events', will need to be 'glued' together in its turn. Ad infinitum.

That is, if you think 'events/frames'.
Don’t make sense to me.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #56 on: 16/10/2009 16:00:14 »
For me it seems easier to see the ‘background’ as a ‘emergent quality’ creating our arrow of time. And 'time' as something being a flow not divided in 'frames' or 'events'.Then our arrow could be seen as something emerging, created out of SpaceTimes macroscpic demands. There is still that question of ‘energy’ though, and ‘momentum’, and if they are the same? It all comes down to what you define a ‘force’ to be. Also if you think it can be one thing inside SpaceTime and another ‘outside’ that ‘arrow’. Force to me seems a ‘strain’ placed on a equilibriment creating momentary changes. By us defined as ‘energy’ resuting in 'work done' manifesting as we manipulate SpaceTime, or its 'equilibrium' otherwise gets disturbed.

So, you tell me?

Another thing :)

Do you remember me asking about the definition of a circle?
Like consisting of an innumerable  amount of straight lines subtly angled against each other or as something ‘truly bent’. And said that SpaceTime will differ depending on your view?

I se the ‘straightest line’ as the one following ‘SpaceTimes geodesics.
Consider the ‘path’ of any ‘particle’ or ‘photon’.

I see that path as the straightest possible, energy as well as distance wise. That as ‘energy’ is ‘distance’ to me. You will always need ‘energy’ to get your ‘distance’, no matter how your definition of its ‘length’ might differ by applying 'force'. And if you accept this, what will it make of those ‘straight lines’ we trust to construct f ex. a room with? Are they ‘straight’ or ‘crooked’ when defined as I do? And as earth comes closer to the sun? Will they then ‘deform’ even more?

I mean, if you try to imagine SpaceTime that way what would you expect to see? You could make a simulation where you create a ‘particle path’ as we normally see it. Bending to ‘masses’ like our sun.

Then color the space around that path an even grey.
Why? Well it's my thought up ‘tension measurement’ :)

 And as I say that the shortest path is the one without ‘forces’ acting on Space as seen from that ‘particle’ (think uniformly coasting rocket instead if you like) then the ‘tension’ surrounding its ‘path’ will be the lowest. So an even grey color please.

Have you done it?
Good.

Now ‘stretch/deform’ that line so that it from our ‘point of view’ becomes what we would deem a ‘straight line’. What do you think would happen to that ‘even grey color space’ surrounding it? I say that to make that path fit what we call a ‘straight line’ we would apply a tension on space itself deforming it changing that color. Why, well to get that 'straight line' in reality would either need us to apply an force (acceleration) or 'twist' space to force that line. Acceleration seems the easier path here btw :) And that is what we do when applying ‘force’ by f ex our acceleration. I think it is possible to see that as a 'twisting' of space, highly localized from our point of view inside SpaceTime. And I also think that if there was some way to catch/define that phenomena in a simulation it would present us with a truer image of SpaceTime than what we observe with our eyes as that is what space really looks like ‘energy’ wise.

And if you 'quirk' to that :)

I see that simulation, as when your path-line got ‘stretched straight’ and if rightly done, as showing you different ‘gradient pressures/shades of grey’, in fact questioning the idea of space as something intrinsically ‘empty’. Like if what we call 'empty space' in reality could be a kind of equilibrium, With space always using the least common denominator energy-wise. As those 'natural' paths are the ‘energy thriftiest’ they also becomes the ‘time and distance thriftiest’. ‘Distance’ can be exchanged for mass, time, energy, velocity, speed and acceleration, but it will always cost you some manipulation and ’energy’ to ‘decrease distances’. And that’s why space to me will be a ‘equilibrium’ no matter where you look, near a black hole or in ‘outer deep space’, can you see my point here?

And it makes another thing 'stick out' if you look at it this way. As you can’t say that space is ‘empty’ when looking at it my way. If it was we shouldn't have those geodesics. So to prove it empty you will have to fall back on ‘gravitons’ to ‘prop’ SpaceTime up. With ‘gravitons’ you can keep a ‘empty space’ but then also, as I see it, question Einstein’s idea of ‘geodesics’ as well as maybe even questioning the idea of relativity. As you then might want to propose that there now can be a ‘objective’ ‘eigen’-(intrinsically true)-distance existing, as gravitons now is the 'ping pong balls of force' bouncing around, expressing itself as ‘gravitation’ inside a ‘empty space’. Then you will find two concepts instead of one, gravitons and space, and I don't hold to that idea. I believe the idea of space 'wrapping itself around mass' to be the correct one and that gravity and space are the same undividable property expressing itself differently through different 'densities'. SpaceTimes natural ‘shape’ defined by what I see as its ‘’least action’ relative its ‘energy levels’ and not 'dividable' as a singular force. Why?

1. It fits the observations.
2. And it seems a 'simplest explanation'.

(well, for me, for now:)

I like those two criteria and think they provide a 'best answer' inside SpaceTime, at least as related to my current level of knowledge. That there always is more to know? Lovely, ain't it. That our definitions might be wrong if we could observe what's outside too? Well, it won't invalidate it's 'truth' inside SpaceTime. Can you see what I mean here? That what is important for us from a 'practical point of view' is what happens inside where we exists. So the use and definitions we have 'inside' will work there, even if 'flawed' as a whole.  And when I extrapolate what I understand into my weird view then that is a result of me wanting to keep those two concepts as good as I can. And accepting the conclusions doesn't make me 'understand' the concepts created any better than you :) But we are already accepting a lot of strange behaviors without needing my views to be counted in. In fact most of you doing physics build your work on them. Black holes, entanglements, discrete black body radiation, photons and waves, momentum, matter and 'mass', tunneling etc. Zebras and horses, they are all black in the night :)

When it comes to mathematics the 'truth' is slightly different I think. Mathematics as we use it seems to build on a idea that math can be intrinsically true. 1+1+=2, and damn you if you say anything else, well, at least without any valid axiomatic proof (archetype). With one you might get away with it though, and better still if it becomes a theorem :)  So math is a glorious science in that it seems able to describe/adapt to all 'realities', ours as well as those we haven't even observed existing. String theory seems to me a try to make that 'jump' from only 'validating' what we already observe to actually create something totally new that might create test and provable postulates, by new observations engineered from those postulates. And so it rests on that first assumption that math have a 'universal truth' too it. I'm still not sure what string-theory is, some say it craves gravitons? But I'm guessing that a gifted mathematician could do without those and still keep the concept valid mathematically? But the real question to our mathematics, at least to me, is whether it is able to describe by causality, as that is what all logic seems to come down to, something that has no 'causality chains' at all?

We do our thinking from our arrow of time, and it is what builds all logic we use, so how do we 'break out' from that. Now you might want to tell me that it won't be necessary as there must be a 'causality' even with ideas like mine. Maybe you are right, but, you could be wrong too. If you're right its no big deal for science (Well, relatively seen:), but if you're wrong you will spend an eternity proving a false concept. So it is a little like considering Global Warming. Assume that I'm wrong but that we still do the 'right thing' as I see it, stopping CO2:s manmade sources? Now, where is the harm done I ask? Okay, a worldwide recession as we change course, but the result will be worth it to me, as we will use what's called 'environmental and renewable forces' (discounting nuclear energy for now, as we still haven't found a solution for the waste disposal) Then consider if I'm right? Well, then we might save a species, namely ours, as well as a whole planets ecology,  fauna and flora. But if turned around, with us doing nothing? Well. if I'm wrong we will still have to change our power-sources sooner or later to 'renewable' ones, and if I'm right we will all be dead soon enough. So for me, using simple logic, the problem seems solvable no matter if you're a 'denier'  'doubter' or 'believer' and no matter any 'absolute truth' about Global Warming.

So to me gravitation is no ‘force’. Neither am I expecting ‘photons’ to be a ‘force’
They are ‘emergence’s’ following SpaceTimes geodesics according to a principle that I, for want of names, like to see as  ‘least action’ for now, at least as observed from our inside. To me it seems as we have a equilibrium with my ‘distance less points’ expressing itself as a ‘asymmetry’ inside SpaceTime, but, if judging by what I think here most probably a equalized ‘symmetry’ if we could observe both sides simultaneously.

And photons would probably be a phenomena binding our ‘reality’ together, with ‘virtual photons’ being the exact same but closer to, or in, that ‘distance less’ reality that is our ‘mirror image’ (As in 'Alice’s mirror’ that is, not your toilet mirror:). And with all ‘forces’ we manipulate/apply inside SpaceTimes arrow becoming ‘causality chains’ creating ‘emergent reactions’, or if you like, creating a ‘disturbance of equilibrium’ inside SpaceTime.

So what would ‘forces’ in themselves be defined as, if so?
Well, they seems all ‘equilibrium’s’ to me when untouched, it’s when we break their ‘symmetry’ we apply/create what we call ‘force’ and get what we define as our humanly created ‘work done’. And as a ‘objective distance’ existing in itself must be an illusion as I see it, even though existing inside SpaceTime, then neither can any ‘objective time’ be true. 

But there is one 'time' that always will seem the same to you, no matter what kind of frame you are in, your own time experience. And that is a universal 'truth', and to me, explains why those muon's will support both ideas. Inside the muon its ‘time’ will be the 'same as always', therefore supporting the ‘length contraction’ but outside it we can observe its ‘time contraction’. Also this seems like another indirect similarity with both 'momentum' and 'energy' as we look to the 'energy levels' in our accelerating, or coasting, rockets atoms. They do not jiggle more, although we know that there must be a higher 'energy level' and 'momentum' to it as I understands it. The only thing making those atoms want to 'jiggle', as far as I know, will be resistance/density and deep space is comparatively 'empty', right:)

And what you see as ‘motion’, for example when radioactive material ‘frees energy’ in form of radiation, will then be a 'equilibrium' to me and the only ‘forces’ existing will be those ‘short timed’ manipulations we do, and even them in a greater perspective only SpaceTimes search for restoring its equilibrium. SpaceTime can also produce those ‘manipulations’ spontaneously (stars colliding f ex or exploding) so perhaps there is no real ‘forces’ at all, but they will all ‘strain’ SpaceTime when happening and so create what we see as ‘forces/events’.

That principle of ‘least action’ combined with ‘energy levels’ a.k.a. what I suspect to be ‘time’ seems to me to be what creates us. And the way it does it is through ‘emergence/fractal behavior’. And it’s possible to consider it a ‘information density’ too,. Possibly defined as something optimal at our macroscopic size as a black hole seems to take itself out of that ‘information interaction-flow.’

Although ‘emergence’ is not ‘work done’ but maybe ‘fractal behavior’ can be seen like it?
After all, it may be what creates our ‘arrow of time’? Nah, both definitions (emergence/fractal behavior’) should be seen as the same I think. As all ‘work done’ only is a definition by us, as observed inside SpaceTime. But ‘fractal behavior’ seems to me as a better description of it as soon as we passes that ‘dimension less point’. And ‘Emergence’ then being the way it just seems to ‘pop up’ begetting new ‘properties’

To see how I think about it you need to consider that.

Density is an ‘emergence’ of ‘condensed/coagulated’ energy as I see it.
And ‘energy’ is the thing we manipulate by what we deem as ‘forces’.
And the results of those manipulations we deem ‘work done’.

Furthermore. ‘Time’ and ‘Times arrow (s)’ is to me two different things.
Time is the ‘holy grail’, and the ‘arrow (s)’ its ‘emergence’s’
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #57 on: 16/10/2009 16:00:31 »

And ‘dimensions’ may be a stranger concept than what I thought.
Or simpler, as I define them as size less slightly goofy 3D-space balls emerging ‘as is’.
Not as one or two dimensional objects somehow ‘joining forces’ with other ‘dimensions’ .

And why I think so?

Remember how I discussed how to name something 2D you should also, if incorporating such an object in SpaceTime, be able to see it ‘disappear’ from certain angels of observation. That is a true statement and easy to understand. And a one-dimensional object existing inside SpaceTime won’t exist at all as far as we 3D ‘objects’ are concerned. That as it can only have what we deem as one property. F ex length (but no width, and no height to it.)

So whenever someone claims something to be a ‘2D system’ of invariant mass (restmass/proper mass) you might ask if they have observed those ‘disappearing qualities' to that experiment. If they haven’t they’re wrong. Nope, I don't see that as negotiable, it's just plain wrong. And what they have will still be a 3D object (system) that they, by some quirk of experimental need or want, define as a 2D system to explain its properties.

It is somewhat irritating to me to see a whole formalism built on what I presume to be a archetype. In this case that the fact that we observe three properties (and time) to SpaceTime somehow is seen as guaranteeing that you can pick them apart. I don't see SpaceTime pointing in that direction and I have yet to see the experiment proving that it is possible to have a one and two-dimensional system inside SpaceTime. Shouldn't we have something more than just archetypes by now? There should be some possible experiment to do with invariant mass/restmass proving the concept. I don't see my thoughts invalidate Einstein's SpaceTime though? It seems as acceptable when having 3D 'emerging' from Planck-size as when using the idea of picking them apart. I'm guessing that the thing making us think that this was the way dimensions 'worked' was that you could observe as you thinned out a material it becoming thinner and thinner, in the end being very hard to observe any thickness to it. But that is not the way I see Quantum mechanical processes. To me all invariant mass will be 3D as soon as it 'emerged' as such. But if you have a experiment proving that other concept I would be very interested.

Would that mean that those ‘dimensions’ then is ‘inseparable’? Don’t know, but possibly so inside SpaceTime, I would guess it to be so. Does it mean that we won't, ever, create a ‘true’ 2D object. I think so, as if you really succeeded in doing it you would then be able to argue the idea of ‘dimensions’ as something we can use as some sort of ‘Lego slices’ building it into different models. 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, 10009918D, ad infinitum ~

Although understand that my idea doesn’t disavow the ‘concept’ of dimensions, It just gives us a way to understand why we won’t see them inside SpaceTime. They are not ‘hidden’ inside SpaceTime as I see it. They can’t be here at all. Which won’t inviolate a 2D, or if you like, 1D ‘SpaceTime’ ‘emerging' but won’t, as I see it, ever allow us to observe them as they will be their own ‘bubbles’ if so, having unique ‘emergent properties’ of their own. I would love for someone to prove that they can have a 2D object of invariant mass inside SpaceTime. If someone did so it would be a proof that my idea of what ‘dimensions’ might be is totally, utterly, wrong. But as long as I haven’t seen this concept proved experimentally I will go on believing that what we call ‘2D’ systems is ‘generalizations’ .

When it comes to holographic reproductions we are not discussing 'invariant mass' any more. And as some do, to draw the conclusion that light and mass is the exact same I doubt. They are not, light in itself may seem to have 'boundaries' when observed as 'photons' but it will still be light, not matter. Matter have a higher complexity it seems to me. And my concept of ‘time’ then? Well, if ‘time’ can be my ‘monolith’, (Yes proprietor, a ‘slab’ of time please:) then I do expect it to have an unevenness to it, if looking solely on my known ‘half’ of ‘reality’ (SpaceTime). And that 'unbalance' then creating us through  ‘emergence' with our 3D and ‘arrow of time’. And as I said before, it seems to suit those CP-violations. But seen together (3D and my '0D') I still expect it to be a symmetry defining it. As for how many ‘possibilities’ of different 'SpaceTime'-dimensions it may be able to 'emerge' I won’t even dare to guess.

So in my world you still have 'dimensions' but not like 'building-blocks' that 'glues' together. The only thing I’m reasonably sure of here is that you won’t ever, never, prove my suggested experiment of how to define your concept of ‘dimensions’ curled up inside ‘dimensions’, inside SpaceTime. That is, by using what you deem a ‘2D system’ of 'restmass' and then observe it from different angles, watching it disappear from some. And that experimental proof should be fairly simple to devise if you really had a ‘true’ 2D system within your reach. (So I expect my goofy space and time-balls to survive for some ‘time’ yet:)

Another proof for it comes from our insight that according to the theory of relativity there can be no ‘true distances’. Not objectively seen, not as any 'gold-standard'. And without any objective ‘distance’ possible where will  ‘width, length and height’ be? And how will one further divide them into ‘three’ singular properties, and then use those as a proof for further ‘pieces of dimensions’? (Well sort of, Lego-wise)?

But space itself then, does that have a dimension? Well, inside our 'closed bubble', space is just like 3D to me, meaning that it has a depth, width and length as all other things inside SpaceTime. In itself we 'create' space by reducing the 'mass/particles' from any closed system and the 'amount of space' is then defined by the systems size as observed from the outside and its 'emptiness'. So is there a 'perfect vacuum'? Probably, but as such not involved in any dimensionality at all. That we observe the 'emptiness' and also 'creates' it doesn't tell us a thing about what it is. Sometimes I think of SpaceTime like a field, it's such a nice concept. And just like any field it gets its 'distances' by its, ah, 'intercourse' :) with our times arrow. Those 'distances' are not absolute concepts but a interaction with mass, velocity, speed, and time (and energy itself as expressed through those concepts naturally). And it all comes from 'nowhere' according to me. So what we have is just different densities, vacuum seeming the 'thinnest' most immaterial one, well that and 'photons' then. But all created from the same concept with invariant mass and black holes at the other side. And if mass creates space then there should be some rule for how much space it creates as we otherwise would have a cosmos consisting of one big clump of mass (Black hole?) with space around it. As I said it's no holy grail :)

Another thing I'm wondering over is the conservation laws and invariant mass. If I have a gas that's excited (heated) we will still know its invariant mass if I'm getting it right (in a closed system). Just how do we know that? Considering that my impression is that uniform motion of any given system can't be isolated and defined? Even though we may have a number for that mass as weighting it inside our frame in a non-excited condition how do we guarantee that our frames motion won't play a role in our measurements. I suppose you could say that our frame and the gas is in a equilibrium and therefore will have a general non-changing relation that still would be the same if we moved our frame from earth to the moon, but if we moved to our closest neutron star then having another uniform motion? We could know it relative our original system but we can't say at what uniform velocity our 'original' really are at. Am I right here? Consider having a planet system moving very fast, half the speed of light as observed from our original 'inertial frame'. Assume it's like our solar-system. What would the sunlight be like as it 'hit' its own earth, would it change in any way. As the whole 'solar-system' is having the same uniform speed here? Would there for example be a length and time contraction in the direction of its motion noticeable from inside that frame (solar-system)? It would wouldn't it? Not only for observers outside the system but also for those inside. Am I right there? I think I am, and therefore. Could one use that as a measure of uniform motion? And therefore guarantee a invariant mass unchanging properties no matter what frame you measure from? So would light without contraction in any direction guarantee a 'absolute rest'?


Yep, as I see it, that is, for now.
And now they're coming to get me again.
Sorry, gotta hide under that table. Hey, come join me :)

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #58 on: 22/10/2009 20:52:32 »
So I've gotten myself involved in magnetism.

The mainstream explanation seems to be 'magnetic domains' where the 'spin' of electrons are what creates a magnets magnetic orientation and force. And I expect you to get as big a headache from this as from all the rest together :)

1. Now what the heck is a magnetic domain?
2. And what was that electrons spin?
3. And do electrons really, really orbit?

4. And this 'force' they are acting with is mediated by?
A . Photons? - - B. Glue? - - C. Your mama? - - D. Not your mama at all?

Let's start with Spin. (2) and (3) the orbital of a electron

So what is this property. I'm guessing most of you love that word as it sounds as it mean something 'real'. Even those of you knowing better treat it so. In reality it is a mathematical definition describing a property first seen in the emission spectrum of alkali metals. Now, there is a word called 'angular momentum'  that we already mentioned here, alike the force of a carrousel in motion 'forcing' you out from its center.

Let us start with assuming that electrons do orbit the atoms :)
Then they will be 'objects' even though we can't pinpoint them (HUP)
Why not then assume that those electrons also 'spin' as they orbit?

Well.

---Quote--

" Ralph Kronig, one of Landé's assistants, suggested in early 1925 that it was produced by the self-rotation of the electron. When Pauli heard about the idea, he criticized it severely, noting that the electron's hypothetical surface would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order for it to rotate quickly enough to produce the necessary angular momentum. This would violate the theory of relativity."

--End of quote--

Didn't work out that one, so?

Well. Ok so they can't be what we deem 'physical', like really turning that 'electron ball' around and around, right. But how about defining it as something 'intrinsical' to that 'electron', you know like those photons being 'intrinsically' massless, sizeless and yet filled with 'energy'.

Why not?
(exchange 'intrinsical' for 'magical' if you like, in those definitions intrinsical really is magical:)

---Quote------

Elementary particles, such as the photon, the electron, and the various quarks are particles that cannot be divided into smaller units. Theoretical and experimental studies have shown that the spin possessed by these particles cannot be explained by postulating that they are made up of even smaller particles rotating about a common center of mass (see classical electron radius); as far as can be determined, these elementary particles are true point particles. The spin that they carry is a truly intrinsic physical property, akin to a particle's electric charge and mass.

---End of quote-------

This is a true problem with all use of mathematics :)

You can define a problem, narrow the solutions and in the end find something that makes 'sense' mathematically without really making it explainable at all. A little like you needing to know a puzzles picture but only can lay it out in a dark room. You may succeed in putting the puzzle together, but as you try to get a feel for the 'whole' image there is still something missing isn't there? Light.

Our definition of spin as such is then mathematical, not relating to anything alike a real 'angular momentum'. Can you follow how I see it? I mean, you can't both expect it to 'spin' FTL (faster than light) and be 'real' can you?

As for how it is explained mathematically I still have to find out?
It should be explainable as a property not violating lights speed in a vacuum though.
Perhaps hinging on HUP?

But The Real Problem Is That It Works :)

Yep, it does. So now you have to choose. Either electrons are real 'orbiting' particles spinning FTL to create that spin. OR. They still 'orbit' but instead of 'spinning' they now have some Gods send secret intrinsic property not needed to be defined but able to produce a 'angular momentum' faster than light.

Or as I see it, they neither 'orbit' or 'spin'.
How about the electrons  'orbitals' then?

Well.

This definition I found elegant.

---Quote----

A true electron orbit is not nearly so simple as a circle or ellipse.
According to quantum physics, there is no set motion.  We can talk about an
average radius of an orbit.  We can talk about the angular momentum and
energy of an orbit.  We can talk about how much of the orbit is in the
horizontal plane.  In reality, the electron's orbit is not any specific
motion.  It bounces all over the place.  Higher energy electrons have a
greater average radius.  Different electrons have different angular
momentums.  Exact path cannot be determined.

Dr. Ken Mellendorf
Physics Instructor
Illinois Central College

---End of quote---

 OR if you prefer this.

---Quote---

"An atomic orbital is a mathematical function that describes the wave-like behavior of either one electron or a pair of electrons, in an atom. This function can be used to calculate the probability of finding any electron of an atom in any specific region around the atom's nucleus."

And..

"Because of the difference from classical mechanical orbits, the term "orbit" for electrons in atoms, has been replaced with the term orbital—a term first coined by chemist Robert Mulliken in 1932.  Atomic orbitals are typically described as “hydrogen-like” (meaning one-electron) wave functions over space, categorized by n, l, and m quantum numbers, which correspond with the pair of electrons' energy, angular momentum, and an angular momentum direction, respectively"

--End of quote---

And this.

----Quote---

The atomic orbital concept is therefore a key concept for visualizing the excitation process associated to a given transition. For example, one can say for a given transition that it corresponds to the excitation of an electron from an occupied orbital to a given unoccupied orbital.

Nevertheless one has to keep in mind that electrons are fermions ruled by Pauli exclusion principle and cannot be distinguished from the other electrons in the atom. Moreover, it sometimes happens that the configuration interaction expansion converges very slowly and that one cannot speak about simple one-determinantal wave function at all. This is the case when electron correlation is large.

Fundamentally, an atomic orbital is a one-electron wavefunction, even though most electrons do not exist in one-electron atoms, and so the one-electron view is an approximation. When thinking about orbitals, we are often given an orbital vision which (even if it is not spelled out) is heavily influenced by this Hartree–Fock approximation, which is one way to reduce the complexities of molecular orbital theory.

--End of Quote--


I see a lot of people telling me that Electrons orbit….
They Do Not.

Just as 'spin' is not our macroscopic 'angular momentum'

So what the heck has this to do with magnetism?
Well, let us first conclude two things, as I see it.

We do not know how 'spin' come to be other than mathematically.
Electrons does not 'orbit' no matter what 'photographs' you've been looking on.

If a magnet works with a 'force' that can attract or 'repulse'. And if the mainstream explanation is that there is 'magnetic domains' where the spin of the electrons are what creates a magnets magnetic orientation and 'force'. Then, have they really explained anything at all?

Well, particles also have what's called a "magnetic dipole moment, just like a rotating electrically charged body in classical electrodynamics.  But as I said, those comparisons only 'works' at a 'surface-level'. (do you still hinge my reasoning?:)

But this 'magnetic dipole movement' is also experimentally proofed by f ex. "by the deflection of particles by inhomogeneous magnetic fields in a Stern-Gerlach experiment, or by measuring the magnetic fields generated by the particles themselves." And "The electron, being a charged elementary particle, possesses a nonzero magnetic moment." Meaning that it is 'magnetic'.

---Quote--

In ordinary materials, the magnetic dipole moments of individual atoms produce magnetic fields that cancel one another, because each dipole points in a random direction. Ferromagnetic materials below their Curie temperature, however, exhibit magnetic domains in which the atomic dipole moments are locally aligned, producing a macroscopic, non-zero magnetic field from the domain. These are the ordinary "magnets" with which we are all familiar.

---End of quote---

So now you know the answer to my nmbr (1. Now what the heck is a magnetic domain?)
A magnetic domain is an arbitrarily defined area in which you expect to find 'atomic dipole moments' that concur (points) to the same direction..

But they have to be creating a 'force field', don't they?
And that 'magnetic force field' in a permanent magnet is then consisting of?
Photons perhaps?

So at last we land at nmbr 4. The 'force' (field)
Yes, Yoda is here..

---Quote--

"Question -   Do permanent magnets "exchange" photons? What would the
wavelength of such a continuous wave photon be?"

And…

"What happens between two continuous permanent magnets, essentially a DC
(direct current). The force between two permanent magnets is caused by the
electronic properties of the material, so photons must be involved with
the magnetic attraction between the two masses?"

--End of quote---

If we assume that they are waves what are the wavelength?
As for if they have a 'force' or a 'magnetic field' :)

As long as they don't attract or repulse I would see it as a ''magnetic field'
But as soon they 'touch/influence' they do create a 'force' to me.
And get 'work done'.

It's one of the more , ah, 'strange' arguments I've seen. To only define magnetism as a 'force' when 'outside influences' (like me moving them together) is seen. That makes it sound as magnetism never is a 'force' which to my eye's seem incorrect.

Defined as that what will ever be a 'force'?
So if I move something, say an arm, I would need something moving me first then, to say that I used 'force'? Or should I 'split' myself up in my 'muscles' first and then say. A moves B moves C moves D. moves my arm. ..Yayy, it worked.

Reminds me of 'events' and that 'glue' needed to glue the events together.. Ad infinitum.  As all forces then will crave something preexisting which then makes them a 'perpetual mobile' without beginning.  And furthermore it seems to wreak havoc to the idea of ever defining a 'system', as if I'm not definable as a 'system', what is?

So?

As I see them 'forces', the question of how they come to be is secondary for defining them, the primary one is that they get 'work done' as observed by the 'observer'.

But then again, my idea is that there is no 'forces' at all, but as I view it rather different than most, I here try to see it from the mainstream idea of 'forces'. But doing so, it then seems that it should be 'work done' that defines them? And not if A needs to be seen, before B can create its 'work done'.. Or do you disagree? On what grounds?

And to answer this Question you seem to need quantum electrodynamics and relativistic quantum
Mechanics :)

--------

Which takes me back to those 'permanent horse shoes' mentioned earlier in the essay.
There is a lot of BS when it comes to magnetism, but I would really like to see someone explain them.

And I mean that seriously. I've showed that example at least at four sites treating physics, as they themselves see it, 'seriously' but none of them have done anything more than tell me that it is explainable but, alas, somehow forgetting to show me how?

That's one of the sorriest thing I know off, especially if you believe yourself to 'know'.
If you say something is explainable you should be able to explain it, wouldn't you agree?
Otherwise I will only conclude that you didn't understood what you were talking about.

(And that's why I really, really like this site. It's one of the most open non-doctrinaire sites I know off.
People take care of each other instead of shooting each other down, and the mild irony some ideas meets with is refreshing to me. It's a thin line to balance of course, without letting it fall into some truly weird ideas (like mine?:) But it have worked this far, without making people ashamed of the fact that they like to think. So Big Kudos to the Guys and Gals driving it, and us using it:)


---------


And I would prefer people to stop promising me that electrons do 'orbit'. 
(as it gives me a headache:)  Then again, if you can prove it?

And for spin to be our macroscopic  'angular momentum' you need to make those 'electron balls' rotate faster than light.

As for photons being that 'force', maybe, should be, shouldn't it?
'Virtual photons' ? then, right?

---Quote--

"permanent" magnets are made of materials such as iron or cobalt or nickel which have several electrons (in the outer shells) which are un-paired with other electrons.  Electrons are particles which must carry some "spin", either "up" or "down".  This is just a convenient way to refer to how they behave, it is not as if they are "really" spinning charges, at some level its just a convenience.

These unpaired spins exhibit a magnetic moment, its like a small current loop inside the material. 
They must attract others in similar materials, I would think via photons. This is all under quantum
mechanics, and magnetic materials.  To fully understand "spin", you need relativistic quantum
mechanics, which can be either a complex subject, or at least a mention in more simple books.

-----End of quote---


So what is the wavelength of a photon then?
And, can there be one?

----Quote--

A photons wavelength is measured as a distance along a line through the center of the helix in one revolution around the helical trajectory. A flat projection side view of a helix looks like a sine wave.

Low frequency photons (such as radio waves) are often described in terms of wavelength (units in meters), while high frequency photons (such as gamma particles) are often described in terms of particle mass energy (units in electron volts). As you increase the energy by increasing the frequency, you wind up with photons of more measurable mass. At the high frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum are high energy photons known as gamma rays, which are streams of gamma particles. Beta particles are free electrons or positrons. Alpha particles are the nucleus of helium atoms.

---End of quote---

Now one might expect that as all photons should have the same speed shouldn't they also have the same momentum? But then we come to their intrinsic (gotta love that word:) energy content. They may 'no-mass' the same but if they are of different energy shouldn't that influence their momentum?

So what I will argue is that what we see as the 'energy' of that light quanta (photon) should have a relation to its momentum.  And a higher energy should normally mean a shorter wavelength, right? But as our 'photons' have no size they are extremely hard to localize, and as waves they are unable to be defined as 'spatially localized objects', which suddenly seems to say the opposite?

And another thing. What makes, in this case, those 'virtual photons' follow (exist) only at the flux lines of our permanent magnet? If there is no 'force' to them? (flux lines is what you see when you put 'iron grinds' on a surface and then puts a magnet under that surface creating those visible magnetic 'tracks' on its upper side.)

That's it folks.

(I'm usually expecting to see things clearer as I write about them, but when it comes to permanent magnetism I(t) just plain freaks out:)
« Last Edit: 22/10/2009 21:10:57 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #59 on: 22/10/2009 23:54:56 »

---And-Environmental ah, chitchat-?-

Want another crazy idea. How about stopping all those Patents, just give a five years worldwide 'advance' for the one/those coming up with it.

Wondering what would happen? Well, if everyone could use a good idea, say in five years, then I would expect the 'market economy' to soon become a 'true free market economy' where goods would have to fight so much harder to be sold. And the money created from such sudden openings for all other company's could be in a form that you could tax. That tax you could use to make sure that all industries would follow the best guidelines for producing and creating environmental products. But you're right, it would wreak havoc with the power structures and force countries to cooperate, as the cheapest producers fast would become advanced.

A little like we've seen a lot of south Asian countries walk from third world to modern. In a way one of the smartest ways there is to lift a country from poverty, better than what UN have succeeded with. Look at China f ex. and the way they forced foreign industries to educate their labor, as they made demands that a percentage of the workers in all levels of those companies should be Chinese. As well as getting those companies cheaply, or even for free, when the foreign industries went to the next cheap third world country. But that hinges on that undeveloped country 'making its own plans' first.

You see, if those countries all got the chance to compete on a more even basis, then the 'rich world' would become more equalized with the other countries. But, as it is, we also know that if there is no true laws and honest bureaucracy's regulating the 'free market', our 'predatory instincts' and greed sometimes create catastrophes in coming for those countries, as they themselves often are without any bureaucratic structure, or, if they have one, all to often corrupted without having any long time planning.

That is a big problem with this idea. If we could use that 'entrepreneurship' that profits creates, with good laws and bureaucracy's regulating them and at the same time making sure that the environment gets seen too first then we might all lift ourselves.

Corruption. or as some see it . 'baksheesh' have a long tradition in a lot of countries, not only Asian, Indian, Russian, etc. There they are a part of the normal way of making deals. And, by the way, how about Italy where some Italian professor said that a third(?) of the country's income came from deals never seen or taxed by its government. Or the old ways of leaving 'tributes'.

We all have a problem with those 'old ways'. And no matter which country you live in you will see its ugly head rear up now and then. The simple name for it is greed and power, and as those two properties cooperate they create shortcuts for the unscrupulous and ever more greedy, also creating environmental and financial catastrophes for those countries allowing it. Like a country all geared up to produce, bananas? Talk about idiocy, but guess what. It was 'our' demand, or if you like 'suggestion', made from people living in the industrialized west, greedy for that profit.

So, country's can work splendidly with 'baksheesh' involved. Humans have a long history of that, and you might even consider it an expression of that American 'free enterprise' giving locals that possibility to influence their destiny. Also it is a old and structured way where those receiving later have to pay off what 'help' they got getting to their 'influencing positions'. So as a system it brings with its own inbuilt logic and hierarchy, not unlike a political party and the way some gets picked for 'stardom' and then are expected to 'pay back'. India is a stable, as I see it, example of democracy, even if having all the vices of any democratic state. And I've found people there extremely likeable and friendly, but, it is also a living example of the idea of 'baksheesh' working. Still, somehow all seems to consider it a way of life.

So either we work with it, or we work without it. The problem being that nothing can be done from the 'outside' without an incredible amount of 'baksheesh' involved. The realization of what needs to be done to stop global warming needs to come from 'inside' all countries involved, to work. Not being pushed on them as a fact and then offering 'baksheesh' to butter the wheels. That will only send the wrong signal.

So do I have any hopes for sanity here? Not really.
People still see it in terms of power structures and negotiable.
But it's not negotiable. If I'm correct I'm afraid you will find it unavoidable.

I will probably soon stop to write about the environment, just to lay back and watch that tragicomedy play itself out. So I have kids too, don't I want to take responsibility? For what?  People denying reality? I would prefer this whole situation not to exist. But it does and, as far as I can see, those saying they do take responsibility and 'acts', just creates new jokes like new 'Kyoto treaties'. I'm much to perceptive to swallow those as a solution, and so I guess the majority of you living are too. And if that is what is seen as 'responsible acting'? Well, I'll just take my seat and watch the show. My expectation is that we may at most may have fifty to a hundred years to react, maybe? But the longer we wait the more 'ill' I expect our Earth to become, and the longer it will take to 'restore' it.

Playing with concepts you could think of each of those years we have as logarithmically expanding. A little like 'costing our Earth for each year..' - - Year one=1 .Year two=2 .year three=4 .Year four=8 Year five=16 .Year six=32 Year seven=64 Year eight=128 .Year nine=256 .Year ten=512. And then 1024. 2048. 4096. 8192. 16384. 32738 ~ raising for each year to come. And somewhere on that road we will pass a 'invisible line' tipping our world into a new 'stabile phase' and then we won't be able to change it..

That's no scientific evaluation, just my way to 'push through' what each year of inactivity might cost us, in terms of our environments time scale of restoring itself to our 'standard', if we ever take action that is. And we are going to be forced to do it at some time. And yeah, I may very well be exaggerating terribly here, but we are somewhat like the owners of a once fine house that we refuse to 'renovate', as we can't agree on whom that should do what. While also well knowing that none of our free market 'theories' can hold in a 'closed system' where our 'growth potential' will have a finite end waiting. And, in case you missed it, the world is becoming truly 'small' today.

One of the Countries I'm becoming disappointed in is Australia. I've always liked you Aussies views on life, and found you very personally likeable. But seeing how you allow foreign companies to create a environmental catastrophe near you (Methane) makes me wonder. You do have a working bureaucracy and I would expect you to have made a risk-analysis, so I can only presume that you don't care? After all, you can't blame your choices on being a poor third world country, or totally corrupted like Russia, can you?

As for your mining industries? And the way they support's Chinas pollution? Well, that's more or less a deal where all countries want to get in on it, as short time planning and greed always seems to win over sanity. But due to the way both Russia and now you Aussies, with the help of diverse oil companies, are planning on wrecking those frozen layers of Methane, our clock to disaster have started to tick a lot faster than before. And if you don't get what I mean you should read up on what I wrote earlier in this essay about, specifically, Methane.

Then again, we Swedes seems no smarter. Especially if we allow that Russian gas (Methane) pipe to be drawn under out territorial waters. We already have some of the most oxygen poor waters there is and the marine life is quickly dying out. But, as our government now is one promising 'Prosperity for all, and Me first' and also that 'free, free market' I have no great hopes . So I won't expect any sanity there soon. And as I think the Russians, most of eastern Europe in fact, today is unable to understand the concept of 'sanity' as long as it collides with greed and 'realpolitik', then? Well, it's just that I had hopes of a little more sanity from you Aussies. Ah well, never mind no matter, right :)

So is our oceans warming up?
Yes.

But as water contain layers upon layers of sweet and salt water not mixed, as every submariner worth his salt know, as well as 'streams' working under the surface in different directions, at different depths and of different temperature, and salinity, it is very hard to create that 'simple overview'. But we know that waves moves faster today and that can only have to do with that they have accumulated more heat. We have also seen frozen methane 'creep forever deeper' to be found, that last means that methane over the depth it now resides on have 'disappeared', guess where :)

So you get a lot of conflicting data as you probe our oceans
For example…

---Quote----

Most scientific opinion agrees that between 1961 and 2003 ocean temperature has increased by 0.1 degree Celsius from the surface to a depth of 700 metres. This temperature increase is based upon many millions of historical measurements. It seems therefore that the oceans are gradually warming but that it's not conclusive, it is persuasive.

---And then.

In June 2008 a team of US and Australian researchers published their ocean observation is Nature. Their observations were such that they concluded that the IPCC work on ocean heat was wrong – the IPCC had, in the views of the researchers based on their data underestimated the rate of ocean warming by 50% for the last forty years of the 20th Century.

It is also important to understand that the oceans act as a heat buffer. They store 90% of the heat in the earth’s climate system and release some of it and suck other heat in.

The US and Australian researchers used expendable probes which measured the upper 700 metres of some of the ocean; they then related these measurements with the known effect of the thermal expansion of water. You may remember that water has its maximum density at 3.98 degrees Celsius; below this temperature it expands as it forms into ice and above this temperature it expands as it warms.

-----End of quote--

(So you can take only those probe results you like, if you like :)

But it won't do you any good. Your bath water is heating up.
And your fishes are migrating, or dying.
So is the reefs.

And acidity will kill.

---Quote---

On Earth, we have an important geophysical modulator of CO2 concentrations. Too much carbon dioxide causes acid rain that dissolves calcium through the weathering of igneous bedrock. Calcium-rich water can flow into the oceans where it is used by organisms to build calcium carbonate skeletons. When they die, skeletal material settles and accumulates on the ocean floor. Because of plate tectonics, the ocean floor moves outwards from ocean ridges to be consumed by the Earth’s mantle at subduction zones. Calcium Carbonate also moves along, is subducted into the mantle, releases carbon dioxide in magma, and may be released through volcanoes.

----End of quote---

But, as the CO2 gets absorbed by our oceans they too becomes acidic dissolving those 'calcium carbonate skeletons' like reefs. That will kill your reefs and your fish very effectively. So what we failed to do with our over-exploitation of the seas we will conclude with our global warming. And for you Japanese over-exploiting your, as well as our, seas this will mean a true disaster. A cultural disaster and an end to a lifestyle. You are after all an Island, and a heavily populated one too.

There are two , or three, big problems.
Heat, Acidity, and Less Salinity as more sweet water (Ice) gets blended in the oceans.
All of them creating environments the fish can't survive.

And, of course, us creating new underwater landslides from that frozen methane as we try to get it up to use as fuel. Then again, nobody will write about that. There may be only some local workers noticing it as it bubbles up on the surface. But those bubbles contains Methane that are at least sixty times more heat-conserving per molecule than our CO2.

And some concluding facts taken from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(National Climatic Data Center.) NOOA.

"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature during June-August 2009 was the third warmest on record, behind 1998 and 2005. During the season, warmer-than-average temperatures engulfed much of the planet's surface, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across most of the northern contiguous U.S., the southern oceans, northern Atlantic Ocean, and parts of Canada, southeastern South America, and central and eastern Asia. The seasonal temperature for the worldwide ocean surface ranked as the warmest on record—0.58°C (1.04°F) above the 20th century average.

The combined global land and ocean surface temperatures for August 2009 ranked as the second warmest August on record since records began in 1880. The combined global land and ocean temperature anomaly was 0.62°C (1.12°F), falling only 0.05°C (0.09°F) short of tying the record set in 1998.

Sea surface temperatures (SST) during August 2009 were warmer than average across much of the world's oceans, with cooler-than-average conditions across the higher-latitude southern oceans and the northern parts of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

The August 2009 worldwide ocean SST ranked as the warmest on record for a third consecutive month—0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F). This broke the previous August record set in 1998, 2003, and 2005.

Australia as a whole experienced 44 percent below-average (12th lowest based on 110 years of record keeping) rainfall during August 2009.

New Zealand experienced anomalously warm conditions during August 2009, resulting in the warmest August since national records began 155 years ago. "

And in Britain and Sweden it rained and the cloudcover was there, a lot.

"The areas with the wettest anomalies during boreal summer (June-August) included the British Isles, northeastern contiguous U.S., southern Brazil, and parts of eastern Asia and Europe."

And India?
Drought.

----End-


 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #60 on: 04/11/2009 18:03:34 »

First of all, I'm posting very infrequently. It all depends on my access.
So everything from a week between, to a month ~  :)

Yeah, it P* es me off too. It's difficult to argue when my answers against the arguments against mine etc can get from a week to a month,old before I can respond. That's why most of my ideas or arguments nowadays seems to land here :) instead of where one might think they should be.

So if we argues and you don't get any counter argument, I probably put it here as I saw it all to late. The posts (arguing) flows like a stream, not caring for whether I have access or not.


Ah…and Dimensions?

Sorry, been thinking about what we call dimensions again. Now, what the heck is that for kind of hobby for a grown man? Don't know? Can any of you answer me why you are so fascinated with physics? Does it solve your debt problem, help the starving?

Never mind no matter :)

I suddenly saw a glaring flaw in my thoughts about those dimensionless points, or maybe not? It's all about definitions. I've used them as something created everywhere right? Thinking them to come from Planck scale. But now I would like to see them as being just , ah, one.

Why, well I was considering the idea of '3D + time' and wondered what kind of problematic's that concept would create if we considered a 'static' universe with only one 'moving point of invariant mass' in it. As I did it I suddenly saw a glaring fault with mine idea too. That is if I would assume 'space' to 'become' out of a lot of 'geometric locations' created simultaneously from that 'dimensionless point'

But I also stated that if we have a 'dimensionless point' creating what I call 'many points' in SpaceTime then those points is an illusion from that dimensionless point of view. So how the heck do I get it both ways?

Well? Simply by assuming that we might look at it as a light cone. Where our 'dimension less point then would be the 'source' and our macroscopic reality the 'focus' of it. And 'singularities would then be the 'holes' in our reality's (light cones) tapestry.

Anyway, to keep the concept as clean as possible one dimensionless point is all that is needed. As that 'unfolds' you have your '3D+time'. It makes 'one room', not many and it is self-containable in that motto that what happens in its 'emergence' is inside some kind of border but still connected to that origin. As for if SpaceTime is open or closed I don't think it matter if we consider the way 'space' seems to be 'grown' from matter'. If it does then there will always be 'room' for more 'space', right. 

If I look at our 'ordinary' idea of dimensions. There you will find from 'zero' too ' ~ ' dimensions. If you now only consider one '3D matter point' moving in such a SpaceTime, and you let all other matter be static, unmoving for this question. How do you explain those three properties (width, length and height) to be able to crisscross themselves at all points there is inside SpaceTime and simultaneously allow for what we see as that 3D objects motion? As it is created by those same properties?

To me that seems as extremely complicated happenings, at all times needing to be able to define that moving point in our three singular 'properties' (width, length and height) meeting creating the focus that defines that moving 3D object in space.

And we can easily up that complexity by allowing for thinking self propelling objects (like us humans) moving independently to  'celestial mechanisms and laws'.

Think about it and tell me how it is done?

In my SpaceTime :) we should have one dimension-less point that grows, how? I can't say but I know that there seems to be a 'focus' of emergence creating a very clear and easily defined SpaceTime macroscopically with the more 'unfocused'' endpoints laying on both sides of the scale, in QM and in what we deem as 'Singularities'.

I'm not sure if our definitions for growth is correct either. If my suggestion would make sense and we have two poles of 'fuzzy size', one that is with us everywhere (QM) and the other situated at specific points inside SpaceTime (Black holes) and then with us being somewhere in between those poles.

And what we have inside 'my SpaceTime' will then be densities, instead of needed to be formulated as uncountable '3D-points of focus' by those singular properties of width, length and height. And always needed to be redefined as they 'move'. As my idea of SpaceTime then already will be a whole "3D- experience'. Strange huh?

And so string theory's search for one dimensional strings will be a definition from inside SpaceTime, with my dimension less point being a definition of an 'out side' or, perhaps, more like an opposite principle that needs to exist to balance up what we see inside here. As if we find asymmetries to SpaceTime we will need something else. If SpaceTime is a symmetry in itself? Then I don't know. It seems to me that we still will need to search for an 'origin'.

Also? Even if you assume a cyclic SpaceTime 'breathing in and out,' won't you still need to consider where and how it came to be? And? Who created the creator of the creator of the creator of the . .

To break free from such questions you will need to question 'time'.
I think I've done that in those 'time less/full dimension less points'

There time is an unbroken whole and what we see as 'time's arrow' is an illusion. It's the emergence of that arrow that makes us. And yes, in my universe time will be a flow, not 'events'. We live in the illusion created by our 'arrow', but we are 'real', as matter, as everything macroscopical. but there is still that last mystery. Consciousness.  Why is that, and to what purpose.

The purpose might be for the universe to see itself possibly, weird ain't I :)
Or it could be some 'law' of 'complexity' going from 'fuzzy ness' to 'clearness' with us as its 'macroscopic focus' and from where we create our 'imaginary concepts' like 'ethics' and 'right and wrong', Suitable for us.

Which would make us possible endpoints of complexity inside SpaceTime. But instead of singularities one way arrow, we will open into a 'information space' of never ending complexity, well, if we survive ourselves that is?

Nice huh :)

Now I just need to pick my tombstone and take a nap.
Wake me when it's finished.

--------- ------

Another thought about 'forces' .

We know that by using a beamsplitter (or some analogue of it) we can create particles of connected but opposite spins.
Let us assume that we do so creating two 'connected' particles. We then dip 'one of them' in a electromagnetic field.

And here's a question: If that influences the spin of that particle, will the other particle also change its spin?

The first answer is naturally that we won't ever know, as any observation (we make) will force the correlation to fall out into one defined state (spin). That is, we cant do the observation two times, one to determine the spin before entering the EM and then one after to see if it has changed again.

And the 'opposite' answer might then be that due to its intrinsic properties (magic:) this spin will only fall out when observed by consciousness, yep that's us 'living' entities. Which then will make it impossible to disturb by any 'interaction' except ours.

Or a second answer could be to question what constitute an 'observer'.

---Argument one--

I'm arguing that everything that have an two-way interaction constitutes an 'observer'. 
So in my view that should mean either that if the spin is changed for one particle (Due to that EM-field) then the spin is already 'known' even though still indeterminate for us, and therefore 'locked' into its final state before our observation ever come to be.

Or that this entanglement does not constitute a true two-way communication (any 2-way interaction that makes what I deem as 'observers')

The last argument could be reasonable if we look on it from my ideas of 'distances'. If they don' 'exist' it won't exist any cause and effect relating to what we assume to be two particles inside SpaceTime, as they will be one single relation with what I might define as a 'no way' communication between them as they are already one, information wise.

And in that case the spin will be changed and its opposite particle will be changed too, but as there is only one 'interaction' possible here, the one between the electromagnetic field and that particle,  and due to that relation only will consist of a 'one-way interaction' (as I argue for the moment. Meaning the field influencing the particles spin). Then there have been no 'observing' taking place until we do it.
So does that make sense? Nah. Don't think so.

---Argument two--

One conclusion one might draw from this thought above is that what I see as interactions is more than just manipulations? Which is weird if we assume that this first particle due to its immersion in that magnetic field also will influence the field back. Which it should, right? You know, 'action and reaction'.

So this should then be a true 'two-way' interaction ,which then should constitute my prerequisites for an 'observer', which then would make the entanglement fall out in its 'final state' before us observing.

So there. But how to test it?

To be able to see the final outcome of an entanglement you will need absolute control over both particles paths right. You will also need to know exactly what interference's there is on their respective paths. But if entanglements falls out by a magnetic field how will you know, even with those prerequisites fulfilled, that it haven't fallen out before us observing?

The only way to know that is to have an absolute control over your experiment and also use two fields. The first on Particle -A- creating that first entangled spin change, and then one more EM-field  on -A- (the same particle) to see if your final observations now will give you two particles with the same spin, or two with the opposite spins. But you will need to be able to know both particles to see this.

If they still are opposite you can conclude that either does not EM fields influence the spins or that they do, but without this 'interaction' constituting what I call 'observers' and therefore keeping their observational 'virginity' relative true 'observations'.

But if the spins observed by you now are the same then the EM field will constitute what I call  a 'observer' and so define (fall out) the final state of that entanglement before any observation by us.

Another point, if the last definition would be true, is that 'forces' becomes questionable.
Why else would that other particle be able to change its spin, just because its twin meet a field?


-----Relative mass- Momentum---Energy-- and how I see it.

First a quick look at definitions.

Intrinsic (Belonging to a thing by its very nature)
Inherent (Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic)

They may seem much the same but f ex. The 'mass-less-ness' of a photon is a 'intrinsic property', not a inherent. As 'spin' is too.

To me, as to you possibly, that definition may seem slightly 'overkill', but in physics it states a essential difference. So if you want to be taken seriously when discussing physics: Hinge to that.
(and yes, to me 'intrinsic' have one 'property' more, at times. Namely.. Magic :)

-- And now for that other look at 'energy' through the eyes of momentum --


Momentum is frame specific, that means that it will express itself differently depending on from where you measure. A lovely expression of that is "Newton's apple in Einstein's elevator, a frame of reference. In it the apple has no velocity or momentum; outside, it does."

Ya'dig?

It's simple, 'momentum' is not there, neither is any new 'energy' if you measure it inside your frame. The so called 'rest energy' which is a result of a mathematical definition of invariant mass as expressed as energy do exist though. And as 'invariant' clearly state, will stay the same, no matter from were you measure it, a neutron star or the moon.

But neither any new extra 'energy', nor any extra  new 'momentum' exists inside your frame, no matter your relative 'speed', other than as a relation with another frame of measurement.

And that new 'energy' or 'momentum will differ depending from where you view it from (frame of reference, like the moon or mars, or your 'runaway rocket')

And so the only 'true' intrinsic (yep, it's a kind of magic:) energy will be our 'invariant/proper/rest' energy. And momentum then? Is there anything 'intrinsic' about that? Not that I can see.

And 'relativistic mass' then? That I prefer to call momentum. Why do people want it to be the same as 'invariant mass'. I think it goes back to how we used to see the 'forces'. It's very simple to see that 'speed kills' for example. And we learn very quickly that it hurts more, the faster we move.

Therefore it might seem, intuitively, more correct to look at 'relative mass/ momentum' as something belonging to the object that moves than to a relation between 'frames of reference' expressing itself at the moment of 'impact' for example. But it's not.

In 'my universe' I'm not sure there exist any 'forces' at all :)
Even though we all know that a speeding car have a 'greater force'.

So what is then 'momentum' and 'relative mass'. Well, to my eyes it is a relation between frames, and only expressed when measured against one, just as that 'new' energy created. If relative mass and momentum is defined against motion and I state that we can't set a 'exact speed' in our universe other than arbitrarily defining it relative another frame.

They won't exist in internal measurements, we will only notice them as we compare relative 'frames'  outside our own. Then how do they express themselves and 'keep count' of my frame relative all other? ( And don't laugh at that question. It's a pretty goddamned good one I think :)

If I have a object -A- that I put in motion relative me and then ask the Very Small  Person (VSP) traveling on it if there seems to be any 'extra energy' or 'relative mass', as measured from inside his frame, to the things existing on that object -A- he will say no.. Oh yes, he will..

When measured inside his own frame there will be no extra energy or relative mass measured, in any object of invariant mass inside that own frame as I understands it.

But then we have that experiment where they finally measured the speed of light, remember that one (Ether). Where one of the 'legs of travel' (paths) was 'shorter'? Well, that's an invalid comparison I think.

It's light we're speaking about here. That strange ethereal 'substance' we still don't understand. And light is always limited to 'c', remember? So as light find itself emanating from a 'moving object'  it will adapt, through length contraction and time dilation as that is the only expression allowed by SpaceTime.

But a shorter path? Doesn't that mean more energy to that light then? And that 'energy'? Isn't that a result of our object -A- motions relative mass / momentum?  In a way it is, isn't it? As it has a direct relation to our motion, but it is still not 'bound' to any specific place.

It's an expression relative our frame of reference you see, and when light does so it already have placed (defined) itself as another 'frame' relative ours. Can you see how I think here?

If that relative mass/energy/momentum really belonged to invariant mass on -A- then all 'vibrating properties' inside the atoms of -A- would 'accelerate'.

I think that light might be seen as a delimiter/definer of motion, but also that neither momentum nor relative mass exist as belonging to any object.

And that they to me seem more like 'stress tensions' in SpaceTime created by motion.

If you didn't get it read it again please. It is simple. 'Invariant mass' relative its energy is a known invariant intrinsic constant that belongs to matter even when all other influences like speed or gravity is subtracted. All other types of new energy, momentum, relative mass, is what I call 'relations' between frames of references and so not 'belonging' to invariant mass.


--That's it
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #61 on: 12/11/2009 17:41:44 »
-------Environment--------

I'm going to look in the Water again:)

--Quote---

The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by .10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m.

Consistent with the Third Assessment Report (TAR), global ocean heat content (0– 3,000 m) has increased during the same period, equivalent to absorbing energy at a rate of 0.21 ± 0.04 W m–2 globally averaged over the Earth’s surface.

Two-thirds of this energy is absorbed between the surface and a depth of 700 m.

-----------------End of Quote----IPPC----Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level--


---Quote--

It is very likely that the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379 ppm) and CH4 (1,774 ppb) exceed by far the natural range of the last 650 kyr (650 000 years).

Ice core data indicate that CO2 varied within a range of 180 to 300 ppm and CH4 within 320 to 790 ppb over this period.

Over the same period, Antarctic temperature and CO2 concentrations covary (varies in a corresponding way),  indicating a close relationship between climate and the carbon cycle.

-----------------End of Quote----IPPC----Palaeoclimate


The oceans is an important regulator of CO2 and heat. It can contain a thousand times more heat in it than the atmosphere. For us that means that the oceans already have a heat warming effect and as it gets warmed up, just as a radiator, will give up more heat. So have we exhausted its heat containing effects yet. No, it can take more, but there is problems with this description. One is that the water layers nearest the surface will be the water to first maximize its heat effects, and also, as I see it, the water to first give up its excess of CO2 . The deeper waters will also get filled with CO2 up to their maximum, but on a slower rate than the surface layers as I see it.

The only thing hastening this will be storms mixing the layers, and deep circulation's, but those last are driven by cold. What this seems to mean to me, is that we will see surface water start getting off their overabundance of CO2 quicker than the ocean on its 'whole' will do. That is, some of the saturated (CO2 filled) water will move down, slowly saturating the lover levels, due to streams convection's storms etc. But, at the same time as it also will also release excess CO2 in the air, creating an worse atmospheric situation, accelerating the process.

In our oceans we have a blend of salt and sweet water.  As I stated earlier they exist in different strata on different depths in different concentrations. For fish and marine life in general to survive there are some things they need. The correct salinity, oxygen and acidity. (Yeah, some nutrients works too:)

If we look at oxygen then that is 'blended down' in the waters in different ways. Normally through convection streams and the ocean breathing up in the atmosphere and getting back rain. That oxygen doesn't account for oxygenating the deeper layers of the oceans though. There we have hurricanes that will wisp up the water from the deep to the shallow mixing them and "the polar regions are where deep water formation (sinking of cold, salty water) occurs; this drives the Deep Circulation and also oxygenates the deep ocean. Warmer water hold less dissolved gases (the classic example is to shake up a can of warm cola and a can of cold cola, and open both at the same time – try it!); that includes both O2 and CO2. If a warming deep ocean starts releasing CO2…"

But the polar regions is shrinking. When they do so the colder denser sweet water (ice) from them will sink to the bottom blending out the saltwater and 'short time' build up the oxygenation of the oceans, what that will have for effect on the oceans acidity? Well, I guess it will slow it down momentarily, making it look as if this Global Warming ain't that bad.

But as more and more ice disappears, the warmer Arctic (and Antarctica) will become. And as less and less sunlight is reflected by the ice and snow our 'heat accumulating chain' gets worse. It creates an forever accelerating chain of ice loss and will also break up the ice-layers in west Antarctica. And as the ice disappears this 'Deep Circulation stream' will die too, and with it the oxygenation of deep waters. Other streams may change too, but they will still exist. But the deep circulation streams builds on there being a frozen north and south pole and without the cold it will disappear. And the seas will change salinity.

(On the other hand, I guess us to be pretty much extinct before that happens, if that's any comfort:) 

Different fishes keeps to different depths, most of them live quite near the surface where the sun creates the best 'living conditions' for them. When the ocean gets warmed up it expands getting 'bigger' overall, as well as it's loses its ability to contain and 'retain' green house gases like CO2 as shown by the coca cola example. So the warmer it gets the less amount of CO2 will be bound to it, and the more CO2 you will find in the air you breath. That CO2 will also add to the sum of molecules in the atmosphere and its total warmth, making our air dirtier, as well as pushing (expanding) the utmost layer of air even further out creating a larger 'ball' of air able to now retain even more heat, driving this to some level were it will accelerate into something else, or stabilize, but on a unlivable level for us.

So what about this acidity problem.
Well, do you remember that description of how Calcium walked down the oceans?

---Quote---

On Earth, we have an important geophysical modulator of CO2 concentrations. Too much carbon dioxide causes acid rain that dissolves calcium through the weathering of igneous bedrock. Calcium-rich water can flow into the oceans where it is used by organisms to build calcium carbonate skeletons. When they die, skeletal material settles and accumulates on the ocean floor. Because of plate tectonics, the ocean floor moves outwards from ocean ridges to be consumed by the Earth’s mantle at subduction zones. Calcium Carbonate also moves along, is subducted into the mantle, releases carbon dioxide in magma, and may be released through volcanoes.

----End of quote--

Take that and combine it with this.

------

The observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2; see Chapter 2) and the observed changes in the physical properties of the ocean reported in this chapter can affect marine biogeochemical cycles (here mainly carbon, oxygen, and nutrients). The increase in atmospheric CO2 causes additional CO2 to dissolve in the ocean.

Changes in temperature and salinity affect the solubility and chemical equilibration of gases.
Changes in circulation affect the supply of carbon and nutrients from below, the ventilation of oxygen-depleted waters and the downward penetration of anthropogenic carbon.

The combined physical and biogeochemical changes also affect biological activity, with further  consequences for the biogeochemical cycles. The increase in surface ocean CO2 has consequences for the chemical equilibrium of the ocean.

As CO2 increases, surface waters become more acidic and the concentration of carbonate ions decreases. This change in chemical equilibrium causes a reduction of the capacity of the ocean to take up additional CO2.

However, the response of marine organisms to ocean acidification is poorly known and could cause further changes in the marine carbon cycle with consequences that are difficult to estimate

----IPPC----------Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level----

And here we once again see the unwillingness to draw any conclusions by IPPC. The 'deniers' love to see IPPC as the advocates of a 'doomsday scenario' but as you can see by my example they are quite conservative and refuses to draw any conclusions here.

So let me guess. The oceans are dying, the acidity is hitting just those layers with the most CO2. That's the layers with the most of the fish we eat, from Zero to Seven hundred meters (0-700 m or around 0 / 23 000 feet) That's also our first food chain dying. Add to that cold waters disappearance, as the West Antarctica surface layers start gliding breaking up into free floating ice bergs, with the Arctic and Greenland already melting. That means that the primary food for fish, namely krill and plankton disappears too. And it's not happening tomorrow, as far as I know it's starting to happen just now, outside your window :)

So?

But the worst problem I believe us to have is the fact that Earth isn't a linear system. Most of our math, construction's etc, have until recently built on the idea of linearity. A linear system is one where cause and effect is clearly distinguishable, without doubts. When the concept of nonlinearly gets discussed its mostly in the form of finding 'cut outs' and useful 'tricks' for minimizing their uncertainties. Nonlinear, well known, systems is weather and climate, we are still defining 'cutoffs' for the climate models we use today, and they are becoming more and more complex as we try to define those 'cutoffs'. 

As for 'climate' which is a much wider perspective than your local 'weather', looking over a greater amount of years and areas, we all would have liked to see it as a linear system, but it's not. It's a nonlinear system with certain 'stabilized eras and areas' where it seems to behave much the same, but even in them (depending on your perspective in years) showing strange and very quick 'flips' in temperature not attributable to any simple linear mechanism.

Most of the 'GW-deniers' still seem to live in the pre-Einsteinian era where everything seemed to be 'linear'. You know, where Jules Verne and others gave us unlimited definitions for how we by gigantic projects could do pretty much anything. That's what we today like to refer to as 'Geoengineering' it seems.

Stupendous ideas by the same type of inflatable 'innovators' that believe in the forever existing free market and unlimited 'growth'. Most of us, I hope, realize that those later ideas only is possible if we somehow can find that other Earth, like we Europeans once found America, to further exploit when our old Earth becomes uninhabitable, ad infinitum.

A nonlinear system is also defined by 'tipping's'. Those come to exist when a system stops changing and stabilizes into a new configuration. That's what our Earth had until recently, a 'stable phase' with a slight cooling. We are forcing a new tipping now. And when that 'tipping' happens you can forget us being able to change it. For us to create it took us most of two hundred and sixty, to finally? Three hundred and fifty (possibly) years, with all of us producing as much CO2 as we could, and happily can, economically.

And to clean that concentration out of our air and seas?  I'm not even sure we could 'force' it back. It may well be that we will need to surpass what we had before in CO2 reductions,  into an 'ice-age' if that now is possible, before we will get that next 'tipping'? Not that I expect us able to do it. And the problem is that we have a lot of effects everywhere due to the warming, and we can't really say in which way they might accelerate each other.

To make it clearer, IPPC  have constantly been too optimistic in their predictions of 'global mean temperature' etc. That means, they have constantly been forced to revise them upward, never downward. So instead of playing Jules Verne I think we should concentrate on our CO2-sources.
And stop them.

The way the industrialized world are looking on the 'undeveloped' world and the way both waits for the other to start is just plain stupid. But you have to admit to it making a good excuse for not doing anything. Still, all countries needs to start, right now. That means that India and China won't get their planned raise of living standards. But it also means that, if they do it right, their ice and glaciers and major streams still might exist in fifty years. From a short time scenario they could have their higher living standard if they just don't care, but the longtime results of such a decision will be creating deserts in their own (and others) countries.

So, what can us westerners do? We can do what we should do anyway, stop our own emissions. That will give the signal that we are serious, not only bullshitting. If they still think that kind of 'living-standards' we used to have is the answer to God, the Universe and Everything? I don't think they do. Both China and India have a long and very advanced cultural tradition and both have other definitions for happiness, if they are allowed.

The problem is that we have 'force-feed' most of the world through books, papers, radio, television and Hollywood that this should be our new brave world. And if we just hadn't created that Global warming and if our Earth just had those unlimited resources to feed our economic growth with? Why, then it would work too, right :)

To me the most worthwhile tool that we have today is the Internet.
And that's our newest treasure worldwide.
Not oil, not nuclear power. Methane etc.

Internet.

Information, knowledge.
Communicating.

So there's a huge amount of unknown environmental effects accumulating, possibly combining into 'forcing's' we can't predict yet, creating an accelerating chain of events that will leave us more and more behind the environmental changes we meet.

Long before the whole ocean is warmed up (saturated) we will be fighting for our breaths, and those that still live in the - Older Newtonian Linear World - will then be seen to spend - Enormous Amount Of Money - and - Man-Hour's- in - Complex Gargantuan Projects - with - Cool Acronym's - and even - Cooler World Saviors - and all of it in your own telly. (Die Hard - The final cut),  not solving a sh* (But making both you and me impressed by their single-mindedness:)

'Money' expect things to be linear :)
'Powers that is' wants it to be linear too:)
Even people doing physics like thing's to be linear :)

Cause and effect in a clear chain without any doubts, right.
It ain't. Never was, never will be.

Linearity is a definition made in time. As a limited case you can always find linearity, as you look over smaller or bigger 'trends', but the truth is that SpaceTime is a nonlinear system.

That's also the way we try to define our TOE:s, from our perspective of linearity.
I expect that perspective to fail.

-------Environmental Stop--Ah, End I mean--
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #62 on: 12/11/2009 17:42:30 »

And Dimensions again.

Thinking of my 'non-dimensional points' and if there should be one or more defining SpaceTime?
There should be one '3d-effect' inside SpaceTime it seems to me. Otherwise it becomes horribly complex to define any '3D-object' moving, colliding, melting, joining etc.

We have a '3D' Space consisting of 'nothing', and that we can't deny, right. But then it seems as this 'first 3D effect' creating a whole SpaceTime still needs to explain what 'matter' is? As 'densities' may describe it but in reality tells us nothing. Nor explains the movements we observe. But if distances is an illusion, should not movement be one too?

And if neither movement nor distance exist in 'reality'? How do we get to what we perceive?
How about our 'arrow of time'? As that is the thing needed for it all.

So what the heck is this 'arrow of time' and what creates it? Matter? Does matter create an arrow? Well, yeah I think so, or possibly that they create each other, undividable so to speak. It seems as if our arrow and SpaceTimes matter is intimately connected. And 'times arrow' and 'matter' creates 'space'. But matter is a '3D' object? So how can it come to be, doesn't we need the arrow before the object?

Don't know? What we do seem to need for this to be correct is an 'emergence' creating it. Especially if it is as I suspect, that times arrow and mass is a symbiosis. And that brings us back to 'time' itself and what that might be. Remember that I differ between 'time' and 'the arrow(s) of time' here.

We can say one thing about 'time' if so. It does not involve clocks. When we describe it as such, we do it inside SpaceTime where the concept is perfectly valid. But when searching for 'origins' we shouldn't involve clocks. Why?

It has a very simple reason to me, namely, the question of what came first, 'the egg or the hen'. If your linear thinking creates a linear solution you still won't pass that one. Thinking time to contain 'time traveling' won't solve a origin either. And why it doesn't I'll leave to you to reason out. Yes, I'm perfectly certain you can :)

So?

Time cant be the 'arrow' we see. And if it isn't, then time is something more, or less if you like :)
But when you stop defining it as 'time' and instead search for something else defining 'one ''original '' ''force''''' .

Well then, to me, it seems that you are adding to the complexity, as what you're searching for then have no anchor in what we see. Time is what creates all linearity we have, and it does it through its arrow. Without that arrow no definitions exist. 

It seems as both our linearity and ourselves only is existing macroscopically, ever thought about that? As a macroscopic 'system' you too is well defined geometrically, communicating, thinking, living and dying. But when looked on as constituents you disappear to become something different.

Furthermore, is there a linearity to QM? Or to Black holes?
All 'linearity' I ever expect to be found, will be as defined macroscopically, and only as 'limited cases'.

PS: Remember my clever government now leading the EEC in their environmental considerations, and that Russian methane pipe under Swedish economic waters? Seems we found it a good solution after all, we ratified the proposition. Now we just need to bore after oil and natural gas (methane) in those seas too. Then we've done what we could to follow the 'world leaders' in 'progress'. Well, the fish is more or less gone anyway, so?

So, don't you dare say we won't shoulder our responsibility.
In fact, Monty Python. Throw yourself in the wall, here comes Sweeden ::))
 
----------------------

Which brings me to consciousness and 'religions'.
A subject not easily abridged :)

If I tell you that my mind will die when I die, will you accept that?
Or do you see it as there is something keeping it intact even at that point?

I personally expect my 'mind' to disappear then.
In Tibetan Buddhism there is the idea of 'bardo'
One book described it as:

--Quote-----------

The word "bardo" is commonly used to denote the intermediate state between death and rebirth, but in reality bardos are occurring continuously throughout both life and death, and are junctures when the possibility of liberation, or enlightenment, is heightened. The bardos are particularly powerful opportunities for liberation because there are, the teachings show us, certain moments that are much more powerful than others and much more charged with potential, when whatever you do has a crucial and far-reaching effect. I think of a bardo as being like a moment when you step toward the edge of a precipice; such a moment, for example, is when a master introduces a disciple to the essential, original, and innermost nature of his or her mind. The greatest and most charged of these moments, however, is the moment of death

-----------End of quote-------

No, I don't know what a 'bardo' really is or how to recognize such a one. But I do expect that if there is a 'time without arrow' existing outside our SpaceTime, and if we all belong as much in that as we do here, then we all are 'immortal' in some sense of the word.

But I do not expect it to be a chain of rebirths of a 'singular' or 'multiple' personality slowly evolving into enlightenment or 'Buddha hood'. But I expect that we all are connected, and that we all come from the same origin. And I believe that the research Tibetan Buddhism have given the art of dying is invaluable. I know there is a Christian counterpart to it, but it's not as systematically developed as far as I know. But if you have any knowledge of it being different feel free to tell me.

The problem with us is the way we deem narrowness of mind to become a 'path' of  'right thinking'. And our never-ending ability of lying to ourselves, making us believe that this creates truths. It closes our sight from the small things that makes life worth living, as friends, family etc. ( And of course, in my eyes, single malt :)

The same author also had this thought.

---------Quote---
 
What the masters must suspect is that there is a danger that people who have no strong belief in a life after this one will create a society fixated on short-term results, without much thought for the consequences of their actions. Could this be the major reason why we have created a brutal world like the one in which we are now living, a world with little real compassion?

---------End of Quote--------The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying by Sogyal  Rinpoche


For myself I will clearly state that I do not expect myself, as I am now with that personality, memories etc. to exist after death. Although I'm inclined to expect some part of what I presume to be 'me' to still 'exist', it will not be 'me' anymore, and I won't expect it to follow any times arrow either. ''Me' is a construct shaped by and in our 'times arrow', obeying its laws. But never the less I do care about the world we might leave to those coming.

As for other religions ideas of us getting placed either in a heaven or a hell I doubt them. If you're seeking for a hell, why not go to some small arms war and join the civilian's (no gun mind you), or volunteer for the slave trade, or .. So no.

Which doesn't mean that people of any 'true faith' should be seen as misguided, there are a lot of good honest people that trust in their faith, acting in a very moral and humane way, holding to concepts of ethics even when leading to their death. And truer than that you can't be.

But let's go back to Buddhism for a moment.

According to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, you will actively have to 'fight' mentally to reach 'enlightenment' while you dies. 'Enlightenment' which I then presume to represent an analogy of my idea of us all being connected in that other 'time less state'.

If so? Why should it be that way?

If we all come from something without time, distances and motion. Why would we need to 'fight' to return as we die? What would it do to my concept of 'emergence' if it is was true?

Then that 'emergence' take on a new and stronger shape.

And life becomes more of a 'craving' for our universe than we might expect. Both Buddhism and my thoughts seems to agree in that there is possible a state of enlightenment on Earth though. For some that state could be when we 'do unto others as we wish them to do unto us', as I believe the bible to see it. But how about those of us wanting, no, craving to be humiliated and punished to find their life 'worthwhile'? Do they fit under this idea?

So that statement doesn't seem to cover all, only that part of us living, reasonably happy or unhappy, without craving to receive hurts. The Buddhist view starts to make more sense then, viewing life as an 'illusion', with our common goal being the freeing of ourselves from 'samsara' a.k.a.  'the wheel of life' with their rebirths.

But then they also point out that 'life' is well worth living and not meant to be thrown away.

---Quote----

As Tibet's famous poet saint, Milarepa, said:
"My religion is to live—and die—without regret."

--End of quote-----

And that truly is a lofty goal, hard to reach, but also dependant on what you yourself represent as you say it.

Without me meaning any offense to Milarepa, I know we have mass murderers saying, and meaning, much the same? Mostly they seem to have parts of their frontal cortex (lobe?) damaged, (according to brain scans). The part(s) relating to emotions and the possibility of empathizing with others, but that doesn't mean that they are lying when saying and believing so. As one stated.

"I'm a mass murderer, I just enjoy killing."
So, no regrets, smiling, sincere and very proper looking as he said it. No different in appearance from your friendly stockbroker. But he wouldn't mind having you for his next victim.

So the idea I have of a greater 'information space' and of us being the ones opening SpaceTime up to the concepts of 'ethics' and 'right and wrong' might be closer to 'reality' than what you expect. As those concepts might create a 'enlightenment' for us all when followed through. And that's one crazy idea, ain't it :)

It seems to me that we are creating those concepts as we evolve , lifting ourselves by our hair. Look at how the ways of having 'fun' by mayhem and cruelty have changed through the centuries to see it. And maybe that is one reason why we then would find it so hard to become 'enlightened' as we die. As that would constitute us voluntarily 'signing off' without finishing our 'Universal goal'. Can you see how I think here? Yep, another weird idea :)

Gautama said:

"This existence of ours is as transient as autumn clouds.
To watch the birth and death of beings is like looking at the movements of a dance.
A lifetime is like a flash of lightning in the sky,
Brushing by, like a torrent down a steep mountain."

For myself I always felt closest to the idea of Tao.

Tao doesn't differ between living and dying, it's all the same, just different :)
And Tao takes a clear pleasure in life's simple things.

But in the end they all speak about the same.
SpaceTime and what's beyond.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #63 on: 13/11/2009 02:33:52 »
Your title is correct; it is much too long to read. :)

Just a scan through tells me that there are way too many ideas in the postings. I can't compose a reasonable reply without consuming as much carbon as you did in your posting. :)

But about global warming; that is about money; it is a scheme to redistribute the wealth from those that have it to those who would like to have it. It will have absolutely no affect upon the atmosphere, except maybe to pollute it more from the jet engines of those who are in line to get the money.

Crises should never go to waste, as our politicians repeatedly say, they should be milked for all the resources the populace will provide.   
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #64 on: 22/11/2009 16:17:10 »
Sorry Vern.

Don't agree. There's to many signs telling us that it's happening worldwide. But you're quite correct to state that it's far to long :)

As for redistribution of money?

Money is what you get from resources, they may be intellectual or related to material resources. When you look at it that way you will find a lot of countries having 'resources' Not only our western society.

And we all need a little redistribution I think. But global warming doesn't care for your money. If you look to what I wrote before/above you will see that I find the idea of 'bribes/ baksheesh' being useless.

In that we both stand on the same side.

But it doesn't matter. As I said, Earth doesn't care about you and me arguing. And the signs are already outside your window.
« Last Edit: 22/11/2009 16:28:14 by yor_on »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #65 on: 22/11/2009 22:47:16 »
Quote from: yor_on
Don't agree. There's to many signs telling us that it's happening worldwide. But you're quite correct to state that it's far to long :)
I see no signs; only corrupt people spouting false crises so that they can gather up the wealth of the world. I remember when the crises was global cooling. Up until about ten years ago now it is global warming. There's been no warming in the past ten years, that is why they now call it global climate change.

The potential cash flow is too great to let a cooling spell spoil it.

 ;D
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #66 on: 23/11/2009 03:39:12 »
Vern, As I wrote, we are of two minds on this. To believe it or not?

Well, you and me just have to wait some years, and see what's happening. People see what they want to see, and depending on where you live Global warming will express itself differently, so even when Australia becomes more or less inhabitable there will still be spots and people wanting to see it as something not connected to Global warming.

If you look at what I've written about in my essay you will find that my sources is picked with care, just not to open up for cheap arguing about whether you can trust them. They are from reputable sources and they are 'scientific' that is grounded on what climate research states today. That also means that they try to be conservative in their outlook. Me? well I extrapolate their results into what I believe to be the reality. But if you look you will see that I clearly state what is my views. That is, if you have read it?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #67 on: 23/11/2009 11:22:47 »
You wrote a lot of stuff :) I scanned through it. I got high grades in my speed reading courses; I think I understand most of what you wrote.

We all selectively choose sources of information that fit our own thinking. Maybe you and I have chosen different sources as climate change indicators. But I see no indication of a warming trend from the sources I respect. In fact we currently enjoy a relatively calm period of climate change activity.

Al Gore has already pocketed over $700,000,000 for himself from this farce. Now we see powerful unions like SEIU trying to cash in. They would like to swell the ranks of new organizations world wide. We are in great danger from these thugs.

Edit: Make that seven hundred million; I corrected it.
« Last Edit: 23/11/2009 17:19:27 by Vern »
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #68 on: 23/11/2009 15:40:27 »
You wrote a lot of stuff :) I scanned through it. I got high grades in my speed reading courses; I think I understand most of what you wrote.

We all selectively choose sources of information that fit our own thinking. Maybe you and I have chosen different sources as climate change indicators. But I see no indication of a warming trend from the sources I respect. In fact we currently enjoy a relatively calm period of climate change activity.

Al Gore has already pocketed over $700,000 for himself from this farce. Now we see powerful unions like SEIU trying to cash in. They would like to swell the ranks of new organizations world wide. We are in great danger from these thugs.

Absolutely Vern:

The Global warming is being produced from the hot air expelled forth from the lungs of people like Al Gore.

It's the agenda that the Globalists will use in their attempt to usher in world government. The goal is not climate control, the goal is total control of every human being on this planet.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #69 on: 23/11/2009 17:22:48 »
I am glad you can see through their plot. Yes; it is the globalization movement. It is designed to destroy the current system of governments so that they can replace them with a global government. From what I have seen of Obama policy they want that global government to be a communist dictatorship.

« Last Edit: 23/11/2009 17:24:37 by Vern »
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #70 on: 23/11/2009 18:28:13 »
I am glad you can see through their plot. Yes; it is the globalization movement. It is designed to destroy the current system of governments so that they can replace them with a global government. From what I have seen of Obama policy they want that global government to be a communist dictatorship.


Thank you for the comment Vern, I value your thoughts also.

The current propaganda is very appealing; "World govenment will abolish the need for war."

While this may have some truth to it, let's examine one of the reasons we fight wars in the first place. 

War is one of the means by which a dictator can be removed. If we surrender our national sovereignty over to a gobal government, we give up the right to resist if a despot takes power. As long as the USA maintains it's national sovereignty, we have recourse. If we surrender to a centralized authority, all options are gone. We will be forced to accept what ever comes down the pike and if it resembles something like what we fought against in the last war, we'll have no ability to resist.

War is terrible but there is something much worse!

It's called dictatorship under the control of a despot. Remember the past, it's a roadmap to the future!!!!!!!!

...................Ethos
« Last Edit: 23/11/2009 18:40:20 by Ethos »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #71 on: 29/11/2009 17:22:43 »
There is a sort of 'dictatorship' if you like to our Earth. It is less in what we humans want to dispute about than it is in Earth's own inevitable processes. The question now is if it is us that have disturbed them or not.
And that one I believe to be answered already. The next question is if we can stop it. And there I'm quite cynical, and actually in accord with a lot of your views relative the viability of the proposed actions as the Copenhagen deals etc.

Most honest people believing that there is a general Global Warming happening due to human interference I would expect to agree.

That on the other hand has nothing to do with Global Warming itself.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #72 on: 29/11/2009 17:45:19 »
Have you heard about the latest scandle. They are cooking the books.

Quote from: the link
You haven’t heard it from America’s mainstream media yet – even Fox News hasn’t covered it – but the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John P. Holdren, is a key player in the Climategate e-mails flap, which is shaping up as the biggest scandal in the history of modern science.

Holdren is an intractable global warming activist with no time for climate change skepticism. In a New York Times article, he contended that such questioning “has delayed – and continues to delay – the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge.”
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #73 on: 29/11/2009 18:50:58 »
Vern If you want to discuss or argue about global warming please take it somewhere else. I know what I think and those kind of sites won't change it. If you find fault in my sources here then tell me. But I didn't write my 'essay' to argue Global Warming :) Even if it may look so for some.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #74 on: 17/12/2009 20:51:45 »
Well. As I’m already sort of ‘weird certified’ due to my essay here I thought I would take it up a level more. I like to say that what we see at a QM level is due to ‘emergences’ right, and that from there to our macroscopic reality there will be yet another ‘jumps’ or emergences defining our  ‘arrow of time’.

I also suggest that what we call ‘dimensions’ might be a little different that our mainstream definitions, not that I have any tests for that, except suggesting a way of experimentally proving the existence of the mainstream theory of ‘dimensions’, that is, how to prove the existence of a ‘two dimensional’ system inside SpaceTime, which would put all my ideas to a rest when it comes to dimensionality.

Let’s talk about the electron for a moment. I say it’s an emergence right. So what does that mean? Geometrically we might not define the exact location of any electron but we can still see the perturbations of it. So whatever it is it does have a distinct placement geometrically, would you agree to that?

Now, let us assume :) that what we call an electron is something very ‘fast’, as seen inside SpaceTime, creating a figure inside spacetime.

How could it do that?

One idea here is whether you could see it as a one or two dimensionally plane, rotating itself into what we define as three dimensionality.

Now, you need to see the difference between my idea and ‘dimensions’ in general. There is no ‘Lego’ to it. You can’t really play with the concept of ‘dimensions as ‘planes’ that we can connect, or are ‘interconnected’.

What creates ‘dimensionality’  is the ‘times arrow’, and what we have is ‘emergences’.
There are some constants we hold true inside SpaceTime. One is the speed of light, which keeps our universe in shape.
If everything comes down to ‘c’ in a vacuum then what is creating the electron should have a relation to that too.
So our electron should be ruled by ’c’ inside SpaceTime, and an electron is definitely ‘inside’ SpaceTime.

So?

Can light ‘paint’ an electron?
How?

And why would there be any consistent ‘cavity’ for it to ‘paint’ in?
One idea is to see it as a light quanta bounded to a certain ‘form’ ‘moving’ as we see it, creating the properties we call an electron. But why would it be ‘bounded’ to a certain form?

Let us take a plane, now, if you want to see it as’ one or two dimensional’ is not that important for the moment, we’ll just call it a transparent ‘plane’ existing by itself. Let that plane be ‘undefined’ as for size, and let us then start to rotate/twist it. The rotation is through all axles we can imagine, creating our 3D ‘ball’, but still transparent.

If we now placed a red point of reference on that transparent plane, as defined by some coordinate system. What will we see as the transparent ‘plane’ starts to rotate?  And geometrically ‘twists’ simultaneously in all ‘directions’, up to the speed of light.

Well, that might become an ‘electron’ to me, and lifted up to a macroscopic scale, perhaps  also matter. And also create the apparent ‘motion’ of that same point of reference that we, ‘in reality’, know to be stationary.

And to that you might add that what I call its ‘rotations/twisting’ to me is our ‘arrow of time’.

Well, to me ‘times arrow’ is what moves it, rotating/twisting it, creating us. ‘Times arrow’ is what defines law from chaos, and with ‘times arrow’ defining a direction macroscopically we will have a ‘filter’ defining our reality.

For that to make some twisted sense we might need to look closer on how many transitions that ‘arrow’ might take before it becomes macroscopically clear. In a QM environment Feynman’s diagram describes a time going several ways, simultaneously. But still with some sort of ‘directionality’ to it, which is one reason I prefer to refer  QM:s ‘arrow of time’ as ‘whole processes’ and ‘emergences’, instead of it going ‘two ways’

At that plane ‘times arrow’ is yet undefined even though existing, all we can talk about there is the ‘particles’ probabilities giving us a most probable direction. And as we come into a macroscopic perspective we have (nowadays) gone from Newton’s certainty of celestial unchanging ‘laws’ to admitting that there exists a possibility of probability steering us even here.

The ‘plane’ I play with here is not bound to any specific point in space. In a way it can, from our perspective, be seen as existing at all points independently of each other, like an unlimited amount of ‘planes’ all rotating.

And the rotations is created by what in the end becomes our ‘arrow of time’. So what I’m suggesting is that there is a concept of ‘time’ that could be seen as ‘the holy grail’, unmoving, in which all is resting. And that the ‘arrow of time’ is what gives it a direction and emergences, materializing SpaceTime, creating our ‘reality’.

In a way it’s a perpetual motion machine as what we see as forces and all other manifestations then comes out of a ‘nothing’, created through an ‘emergence’ without any real substance when seen from that other ‘original’ point of view.

In this way you can’t split dimensions, not without taking away our arrow, And that suits my ideas of ‘motion’ and relativity :)

But that doesn’t mean that the electron and matter behaves the same. Times arrow at a QM level behaves differently from our macroscopic reality begetting different ‘properties’.

There seems to be natural constants defining SpaceTime. Planck defined some of them, Maxwell and Einstein others and of course all other mathematicians and theoretical physicists exploring, like those recurring ‘magic numbers’ you can find in chaos mathematics.

Those are our ‘walls’ defining SpaceTime, and what creates and protects our manifestations. So now you might ask yourself if there are one or many electrons. Well, the questions is to my eyes wrongly defined. If what we have on one ‘original plane’ is without numbers, then what we see inside SpaceTime is also ‘nothing’.

The concept of numbers and mathematics is the tool by which we explore the ramifications of where we are, they can tell us a lot of that, maybe all. But when it comes to how to define an ‘origin’ we might find trouble using the same mathematics.

The emergences and the way those natural constants come into play will only define our ‘walls’, no matter how we refine them. We will need a tool for explaining what ‘emergences’ is too, and why we seem to go from simplicity to complexity, ending in our consciousness.

As for why an ‘electron’ as seen from inside SpaceTime would be defined as ‘existing’ only inside one (loosely) defined location seems to go back to our concepts of geometry. And as we know SpaceTimes geometry is a very ‘pliant’ definition, changing with motion, acceleration and mass, creating different definitions depending on your frame of reference I have no problem accepting that most of what we believe as being true just is definitions of frames of reference.

And if it is so, then an electron might only be a geometric, yet undefined (3D) figure, created through times arrow emerging, bound by the natural constants it creates (properties) as it emerge.

What this concept do to a ‘four dimensional’ reality, well, with times arrow we could be seen to live there already. And a five dimensional, and up  ~ .  If times arrow is what is defining out three dimensional then what is needed for a five dimensional would be?

Wish I knew. As it is I suspect that it might exist, but also that it, just as our SpaceTime, will be a ‘whole’ experience, not applicable to ‘splitting’ into simpler interconnected ‘planes’ as we seem to do today. 

But I’m just guessing.

So what other conclusions might I draw? Well, there are a lot of people that want to see the photon as carrying a mass (restmass), however small. We know that photons are the ‘carriers of exchange’ of invariant mass to energy as well as the opposite, energy to invariant mass. So it might seem as a reasonable approach to attribute some sort of restmass to a photon.

For myself I have always preferred the concept of momentum, and as momentum only attributable to a system when it interacts. Can you see how I think here? That momentum are belonging to both photons and invariant mass as a ‘hidden’ variable that we can’t define without knowing the ‘relative’ speed and mass. Therefore only expressive of redefining our interpretation of a ‘system’ and it’s various parts as it interacts, just like our photon does. Pure ‘invariant mass’ or restmass/proper mass on the other hand is what will be invariant intrinsically in a object, no matter its weight and speed (frame of reference).

Do you see the difference?
But it is still true that light ‘transfers’ mass.

---Quote---

Let me explain how an atom could be created. You may already have heard of
Einsteins famous equation:

E=m*c^2

This means that energy is equivalent to mass and vice versa. This means if
you have enough energy, you can create something with mass, like a
particle. The more energy you have, the heavier the particle can be.       

A common example of this equation in effect is a process called Pair
Production. In this process, a gamma-ray (remember, that is a high energy
particle of light) becomes an electron and an anti-electron (a positron).
The positron is the same as an electron in every way except it has a
positive charge, not a negative charge like the electron. A positron is
what is known as a piece of anti-matter.  This process starts out with
energy (the photon, which has no mass) and becomes two things with mass,
the electron and positron.

The opposite effect is called Pair Annihilation. The positron and electron
collide and produce at least 2 photons. Mass becomes energy.

From this you can see that if we could get enough energy we could produce
any particle we wished. However, to produce a whole proton, we would need
to have a photon with an energy over 1800 times larger than needed for the
pair production. The heavier the particle you produce the more energy you
need.

It's difficult to explain how much energy this is, but it is actually a     
very large amount. If we think of the energy of the light coming from a
normal lamp bulb as being 1 unit of energy. The energy needed for pair
production, to produce an electron and a positron, is about 1 million
(1000,000) units of energy (you would need one billion normal light
photons to produce just one pair production photon.) So to produce a
proton and anti-proton you'd need about 1 billion (1000,000,000) units of
energy.

And controlling such high energy photons is difficult too. So you can see
that producing even just a hydrogen atom would take a lot of work. Much
more work than just getting it from somewhere on the Earth, like from the
atmosphere.

----End of quote-----


Anyway, to me light is light without any restmass, which also simplifies my understanding of lights ability to travel at ‘c’ in a vacuum at the same time it intrinsically still is ‘timeless’. And what we see at its ability of transference or transformation (momentum) is a relation created at its interaction and therefore what I call an ‘emergence’.

To me all ‘forces’ and results of ‘forces’ is types of ‘emergences’.

That we have mathematical definitions from Maxwell to Planck to Einstein defining the relations between mass and light doesn’t change this.

But how can a light quanta (electron) be ‘enclosed’ inside a arbitrary part of ‘space’, macroscopically seen, to create that ‘geometric figure’ giving us a ‘electron’? Well, according to my idea it can’t, it’s an ‘illusion’. It’s ‘standing’ on a plane but ‘times arrow’ rotates that plane, creating our 3D experience. As for the discussion of how ‘many thingies’ there is, to me that question becomes meaningless under a QM level.

So, according to the tome of me, distance and motion doesn’t exist at all :)

What we have is a ‘plane’ of time that is turbulent (rotating), at last emerging into a macroscopic ‘one-way arrow of time’ that, as it does so, also creates our three dimensional SpaceTime with its macroscopic properties. And that mean that SpaceTime is a beautiful concept, totally true and undividable.

Also it makes me see gravity not as a ‘force’ but as a property belonging to SpaceTime, being instantaneous in that motto that it is ‘always there’ in every point of our SpaceTime being the expression of SpaceTime wrapping itself due to the emergences of matter. Inertia is also an expression of that ‘instantaneous force of gravity’ taking its toll at a course change.

If gravity moved at the speed of light only, without existing as a ‘field’ most orbits would fail as all heavenly bodies exerts a gravitational influence on each other, and as the ‘time delays’ imposed by ‘c’ on those ‘gravitons’ then would destroy the conservation of angular momentum balancing all orbits against each other. That means that the ‘gravitational attraction’ traveling at ‘c’ would be ‘behind’ time-wise where those other planets, suns etc would be in ‘reality’ when that ‘gravitational attraction’ reached its goal, increasing the conservation of angular momentum until the orbits would fail.

On the other hand, there is a possibility that if we took away, let’s say, our sun ‘instantly’ that the gravitational ‘balance/field’ would take ‘c’ to readapt itself, like eight minutes before telling our earth that the sun was gone, like if it was some sort of net existing, and the removal of our sun then would propagate at ‘c’, as some ‘ripple’ in that same gravitational net.

But it becomes strange in that we then should have some sort of ‘glue’ that then would represent the ‘field of gravity’, keeping the orbits ‘balance account’ straight against each other at all times.

At the same time, if gravity was propagating at ‘c’, it still wouldn’t become influenced by gravity’s propagation (gravitons?). Like two opposite laws working against each other? Then we seem to need some ‘law’ defining the way this ‘glue’ works and how it can counterbalance the propagation at ‘c’, keeping the conservation of angular momentum intact. And as I don’t know of any such law?

It’s easier for me accepting that gravity indeed is the topology of SpaceTime and as such as ‘instantaneous’ just as a topology of matter, like our earth, exists without any ‘propagation’ involved.  And it explains ‘inertia’ being a ‘instantaneous property‘ too. And yes, to me it becomes just another expression of ‘emergence’, if so.

Another good example is a black hole, if you consider that the EV (Event Horizon) hermetically excludes all ‘propagation’ of forces, why would it have a ‘gravitational field’?
As long as we accept that all ‘forces’ are limited by ‘c’?

There is some ways to look at it, one is that gravity (gravitons?) doesn’t need to consider the EV and so somehow is excluded from SpaceTimes limitations while still ‘propagating at ‘c’’.  Another would be to say that the ‘gravitational field’ somehow was defined prior to the collapse into a Black Hole (BH) and since then stayed the same, or growing depending on your views.

The first one is very strange if we define a black hole as a ‘singularity’ excluding all propagation, including gravitons. The second is also very strange in that those ‘gravitons’ emanating should need to come from ‘somewhere’ if it is a force. And remember that the BH is not ‘there’ anymore, the EV excludes it.

The third I can see is to define SpaceTime as a ‘dynamic’ ever existing topology, ‘updating/adapting’ itself instantly as ‘emergences’ happens, like if matter accumulates, breaking down into a BH. And then all BH will be a ’breaks’ or ‘holes’ in SpaceTimes topology, and as such becoming infinitely deep gravitational wells.

So?

Am I perfectly certified now, or have I missed somewhere :)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #74 on: 17/12/2009 20:51:45 »

 

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