The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 279056 times)

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #500 on: 06/03/2012 18:06:01 »
Yeah, the arrow :)

If it is as 'local' as I expect, around Planck scale, what could we refer it to?
Matter?

The Vacuum?

Definitely matter, above Planck scale around where we see atoms, maybe smaller.
It's also a question about how you expect a atom to be 'formed'.
'Piece by piece'?

Or as an 'Emergence'?

(That question is also about the 'sea/lightening storm of quarks' creating more 'mass' than their 'constituents')
And why they 'stay put'?

What holds them?
Gravity?

Because gravity is the metric creating 'space' as I think of it.
But also geometry, because to create a 'hold' the geometry must twist.
But why would it do it at this very 'small plane' to then loosen up into curved 'SpaceTime' at the macroscopic?

And a vacuum then?

A classical nuthin..
A quantum mechanic 'sumthin', and hey, what about indeterminacy?
'Virtual photons'?

Zero point 'energy'?
The conservation laws?

And something more? That fell out of me mind as I wrote this.
'Distance' is a conceptually plastic thing in Relativity. And depending on how you look at the 'arrow', also in a local setting.
What rules? Only 'now', or past, present and 'future'?

We live in a sea of 'memories', they define a 'history'. We use that history to find probabilities defining a future, and it works..
Why?


==

Think about it, I do :)

Classically 'space' does not exist, only matter does, and gravity.
Space is a symmetry to matter. There is no way you can define invariant mass without a vacuum involved in SpaceTime.

Then we have relative motion, that always will be locally defined and so 'plastic', versus accelerations.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2012 18:40:05 by yor_on »
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #501 on: 11/03/2012 01:15:15 »
So, a background dependent SpaceTime or not?

In any 'strictly local' interpretation of SpaceTime, as mine is, there can't be a background dependence. It always need to be a locally defined 'SpaceTime'. If you instead assume that what we 'see' intuitively is correct, presenting us the 'same' SpaceTime, well? Won't you need a 'background' from where it emerge?

Time dilations may be possible to define in such a scenario, as 'streams' in the 'ocean' of time, locally invisible as you 'drift' in them, but visible when comparing your clock/stream to another 'frame of references' clock/stream.

But what about a Lorentz contraction?
==

There is one point more I would like to make. In my descriptions the arrow of time never change, not locally. And that 'arrow locality' is dependent on the 'ideal clock' I use which is 'c'. The 'speed' of light in a vacuum.

Assume I'm wrong, then think of 'streams of time'.
Now tell me what the right time is :)
==

And one point more. (it never ends, does it?)

Radiation joins us. In a very weird way that constant becomes a 'background' of sorts, defining a same SpaceTime, using a locally same 'clock' when chopping light in pieces, keeping SpaceTime together. But that is no 'background dependence' you ever have seen defined, except here. Well, I haven't at least, doesn't mean that nobody else thinks of it too :) Usually there always seem to be several, thinking similar things when one look back at it.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2012 01:34:20 by yor_on »
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #502 on: 11/03/2012 03:26:31 »
Thinking some more about it. assume you have two ships A and B traveling very fast uniformly. will their 'space' contract with their velocity? Assume one to have half the speed of the other relative some 'earths' measurement. Earth measures them as they are 'beside each other' according to Earth and get one 'distance' valid for both. A:s measure of the distance to Earth will be different from B:s as A defines B as being 'beside it'  and I don't have to consider simultaneity for this. I only need to consider that they have different velocities relative Earth.

And the 'time stream' Earth finds A and B to be in will also be a result of their velocity. So even when thinking of it as 'streams' in the ocean of 'Space'-Time it is observer dependent, aka locally defined. I'm not sure how to construct a 'SpaceTime' that only can be seen as being of 'one measure' for all observers? And that seems necessary to me for defining it as an 'ocean of time, presenting local arrows/streams?'

Maybe I'm missing something here? Still, locality is the simpler solution to me.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #503 on: 17/03/2012 08:24:40 »
So is space a geometry, or should that be gravity, and do I have to include the arrow?

Maybe the arrow is a illusion, maybe it is the way the dimensions exist that needs it, but why does it 'move' us then? Can you split the arrow in two? One that is the 'motion' of it and the other being its 'static origin'? I try to when I call it 'time' and differs that from a arrow, but is it correct?

If all of SpaceTime is a geometry we get our 'closed SpaceTime' don't you agree :) No you don't, you point out that if we include more dimensions the question becomes, not meaningless, but rather weird as we then depending on definitions can get a limitless 'space', as well as a '3(4)D-space' with chinks in it. And that is strange, isn't it?

If the arrow is a local phenomena, of a 'universally same speed' --although still strictly local-- as proven by us imagining superimposing objects, then, is that belonging to the geometry too?

I think it seems that there are more than me here wondering that :)
So how would you describe it?

Remember that according to my specifications it must be 'local' in each point, also that I think it might be possible to ignore the vacuum for it. that simplifies it for me as I don't have to consider those chinks 'opening up'.

But if you think of it that way we have left the 'very small scales' where I think of it as a 'static field/number space' instead discussing what we see macroscopically, and there we always have an arrow. And macroscopically SpaceTime is a 'beast moving'. The macroscopic SpacTime is a definition of outcomes, The small scale QM world is a description of indeterminacy, so where does one end and the other become?

Scales?
Geometry?
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #504 on: 17/03/2012 08:33:22 »
Probability? (statistics)
And decoherence.

Does that answers it? Those two are totally conceptual definitions, well, excluding statistics then as that is where I see us getting those concepts from. Interactions are 'real', you can't say that an outcome is undefined, but, probability does not guarantee singular outcomes as far as I understands
=

Maybe you could call decoherence a 'real' phenomena though?
If you think of it in form of interference, and define it such as everything obeys that principle? I think I need to write about decoherence and discuss what I understand about it. After I get some sleep :)
« Last Edit: 17/03/2012 08:51:46 by yor_on »
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #505 on: 19/03/2012 15:43:00 »
Okay, I will blame this one on Messenger  :)

A Lorentzian space/aether. When I looked the modern concept up it seemed to me that there wasn't much that differed it and Einsteins, as long as we stay in SR. In GR I'm not as sure though?

But it struck me that if you define the 'aether' as radiation, you would have the best of both worlds.
ahem :) Because to me radiation is what we observe, everything, through. All definitions we have come to us from interacting with radiation in some way, electro chemically magnetically whatever you can think of.

Or can you see any interactions not involving radiation?
Then message me and I will look into it.

It all depends on what you want to call an 'aether'. If you're into QM, then we have 'bosons', some you can 'see', some you only can infer indirectly. The old type of aether though, expressing itself as some sort of 'resistance' (defining an absolute frame relative 'motion'), seems not to exist, although if you like Higgs :) You might want to use that, possibly?
==

Why I prefer 'radiation' for it is because you can, from a strictly local perspective, define it as a constant ('c')
And that, if you think of it, is the only way you can measure. Locally.
Using any other way is not a direct measurement, and it will not be your clock and ruler.

It depends on where you expect reality to exist, 'here' in a direct measurement /observation, or as something conceptual.
Assume there is a 'reality' we can't see, only described conceptually. Then you invalidate the measurements you do, and the results from your experiments, that as you presume a 'hidden reality'. Science do not build on 'hidden assumptions' but on experiments proving a concept. So to reach for that 'hidden reality' you always will need experiments validating it.

And there we have a problem, as the universe control so much more energy than what we can create in a experiment. The only way is cosmology, but there you don't set up a controlled experiment, instead you watch and infer. I think it will be very difficult to prove a 'hidden reality' through that. The other way is theoretically, and they also join in describing the cosmos. But pure logic/math can lead you astray, as math seems to contain a undefined amount of solutions depending on your premises, and definitions.

and even if you set as a premise that there is a hidden reality, describing a 'whole universe', it's still not what we see experimentally. We see local definitions of 'time' and 'distances', and the only thing joining those, being radiations constant.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2012 16:09:31 by yor_on »
 

Offline Messenger

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #506 on: 20/03/2012 02:43:51 »
Okay, I will blame this one on Messenger  :)

A Lorentzian space/aether. When I looked the modern concept up it seemed to me that there wasn't much that differed it and Einsteins, as long as we stay in SR. In GR I'm not as sure though?

Glad to be of service     :D.  Heckuva thread!
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #507 on: 24/03/2012 14:08:34 »
Why do I suggest that we can ignore 'space' for the arrow?

Well, in one way it has to do with 'dimensions' and the way we define science. As long as we agree on that science is what we can prove experimentally all those 'bosons' we expect to 'propagate' becomes uninteresting for this. We see them in experiment with particles, or infer them may be the correct description, as theoretical explanations for the behavior of what we can measure.

And then we have 'change'. What is that change in a Cern experiment?
The theory behind why it 'change' has no importance for what it is changing in our measurements..

Then we come to the theory behind.

What is a dimension? Is 'time' a dimension? Maybe?
SpaceTime is definitely existing and it is 'plastic', defined locally in measurements.

It's not 'theoretical'. A lot of people still don't get it, but it is proven to exist, and as 'one thing'.
That we split it is because we're here, and observe it as three 'real' touchable 'dimensions' and the one 'untouchable' called the arrow of time.

And 'space' is what change.
In a Lorentz contraction of matter, what do you expect to change?
The 'atoms' (aka matter itself), or the warping of space?
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #508 on: 24/03/2012 15:15:24 »
That leaves us to wonder why a 'space' can change?
You have two simple choices there.

Space is 'something' that 'exists', filled with a lot of 'stuff' as bosons and 'real touchable particles', all in 'motion'.
Or 'space' is somewhat of a 'illusion', defined through locality.

Myself I look at it as a illusion, defined in locality through radiation and gravity (the metric of space). And the constants we find giving us the limits for our observable SpaceTime. And why I do this may, at least in part, come from experiments, as the wave/particle duality but also from the arrow.

If I define the arrow to changes, then the arrow is what change. And even though spaces distance may change locally it will still be as 'empty' classically. Your measurement of distance may change, but if you experiment on that 'changed vacuum' it will behave the exact same as before.
« Last Edit: 24/03/2012 15:20:13 by yor_on »
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #509 on: 24/03/2012 16:07:10 »
Then we come to relative motion.

All relative motion is the same in my eyes. They must behave the exact same, with the exception of your measure of 'distance'.
The speed of light in a vacuum will be the same for you. The experiments you do uniformly moving will also behave the same.

So, uniformly moving could be defined as you 'being still' in that motto that your relative motion doesn't mean a thing for your experiments.

And accelerations is a gravity.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #510 on: 28/03/2012 14:41:21 »
Energy-momentum conservation and the expansion. do they go together? Why not?

Tell me, do you expect the 'new' space coming into existence to differ from the 'old' space? Or do you expect that space to be exactly the same type of 'space'? So, relative the expansion that 'new space' is perfectly the same. And distances is 'what'? Relativistically seen?

Observer dependent?
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #511 on: 12/04/2012 02:15:06 »
If we look at the 'forces' creating a SpaceTime, as 'gravity', radiation etc they all seem to meet at 'c' to me. When and if dimensionless point(s) exist, and they must do if you at all believe in 'bosons' ability to be superimposed upon each other, and you are close enough to a Black holes. Then, at that 'point' :) physics breaks down, our ordered universe and mathematics have no description of that state.

If you think of it as a 'geometry' SpaceTime comes out from such a point as 'c', where all 'forces' sort of stretch out at angles to each other, creating the four dimensional room time we see. And that original 'point' is described by 'c'. Temperatures for example can only exist in 'interactions'. So radiation alone, is that a temperature? No, it can't be, 'space' isolates, it does not 'heat up' as radiation 'propagates' in it.

To get to a temperature you need a phase transition, what I think of as an 'emergence' from bosons to something interacting. That is unless you assume that 'photons' do interact, but if they did and we assume 'space' to constantly contain those, why doesn't 'space' heat up? Then we have indeterminacy and 'virtual photons'. Indeterminacy is a better description to me than the idea of 'virtual photons' As soon as you assume 'virtual photons' you gift that description with 'properties'. First of all, it must have a 'arrow of time', at least as observed from our perspective. It also assumes 'propagation' which I find doubtful.

Indeterminacy do not need a 'propagation', and whatever 'arrow' it will present you with will only exist as a outcome. And thinking of photons 'propagating' it becomes just a description of the rules we have inside SpaceTime. We find a constant we have defined using a ruler and a 'clock', that gives it a constant  'speed' in a vacuum. So we assume that this is true, and it is, well, for us it is :)

But to me that is a result of constants, defining rules for how this SpaceTime works. We see matter 'move' and we 'move' ourselves so to assume motion to exist for everything we know of, including 'bosons', becomes a very reasonable proposition. And as we can 'measure'  both distances and time it all made sense, until Einsteins Relativity.

Because there 'motion' can only be defined two ways. Relative something else, as Earth. Or strictly 'locally' as a 'gravity' defining your 'absolute motion' in a acceleration. And both types of 'motion' warps and distorts the SpaceTime you will observe. And the distortion, according to some 'inertial' observer, is not a 'distortion' for you locally in that acceleration, or 'relative motion'. It's a very real thing for you, describing SpaceTime exactly as it is, for you.

We can gloss over this and assume a lot of things, or we can accept it. If you accept it 'distance' will have a 'plasticity' as you can prove by measuring a distance, then go extremely fast, to find that 'distance' shrunk (Lorentz FitzGerald contracted).

But is the same true for the arrow you are in? Not as I can see, the arrow you use to measure that 'distance' is locally the exact same for you and that arrow is a 'constant' in my eyes. Directly coupled to 'c', which also becomes my ultimate 'clock' of choice. So the arrow is locally always the same, but the distances you measure locally will differ. And a acceleration is a 'gravity' and 'gravity' will dilate the time which explains why you measuring in a two way experiment will get different answers to lights speed in a vacuum. I saw a quite ingenious idea in where you by splitting a photon and giving it two paths possibly could do a 'one way' measurement of 'c'. But it would only be viable under Special relativity, which ignores accelerations and 'gravity'.

In the SpaceTime we exist in, you can't ignore 'gravity'.

So think of SpaceTime as a dimension less 'point' from where there stretch out, at some sort of angles from each other, limitations becoming a four dimensional SpaceTime in where we live. And remember that this 'dimension less point' is not localized at any position, or rather that it is 'located everywhere'. And that fits 'indeterminacy' to me.

Because indeterminacy are 'fluctuations' that only exist in becoming a outcome, or if you like and now we try to exclude a arrow, described as a probability where it only begets a arrow in 'outcomes' as 'interactions'.
=

My spelling, and punctuation marks, sux
« Last Edit: 12/04/2012 03:25:22 by yor_on »
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #512 on: 12/04/2012 02:40:03 »
To see it better, it's about 'c'. And 'c' being the beginning, end and definition of all 'points' inside our SpaceTime. And all of those 'points' are the same 'point' as I see it. The original Big Bang is still here, what has changed is its 'phase transitions', or 'emergences'. Those 'emergences' follows, or/and possibly also create new 'constants' defining the room time geometry we live inside. So :) ignoring a 'arrow', well, in a way I'm ignoring it, in another not at all, the Big Bang is constantly 'acting' upon us redefining the universe we measure and observe.
=

By writing 'create new 'constants'' I don't mean that I expect there to become totally new 'constants' inside SpaceTime. I should have used 'redefine (new) constants' instead me thinks :) We will find more 'constants' as I expect, but they are not 'newly created' inside the arrow. But there was one more point to writing 'create'. Because, inside this arrow we are, do you expect all constants to 'have become' simultaneously? Or do you expect there to be one 'constant' that sort of 'defined' the rest of them?

I don't know there. To me 'c' is the one binding all other constants, but?
Maybe they all need to be seen as one simultaneous?
==

Sounds almost 'mystical' , doesn't it :)
But it isn't, it fits.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2012 03:15:39 by yor_on »
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #513 on: 12/04/2012 04:03:08 »
So what came first, 'c' or gravity?
Is gravity a 'force'?

Not in my view, I think of it as Einstein defined it. As the 'metric' of 'space'. It defines space, and creates the 'distances' we find, and it obeys 'c'. It is coupled to mass and accelerations and the idea of 'energy'. And the same can be said of mass, it's coupled to gravity and 'c' and in a very conceptual way also to 'accelerations'.

So they go together. But first must have been constants, because without a constant defining a limit I have severe difficulties imagining how we would be able to see a 'order' to our universe? So the constant(s) defines the rest. What one might assume is that they come together of course, but then the constants are what we see, not matter (mass) and bosons, only constants.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #514 on: 22/04/2012 15:50:50 »
Then again.

One of my tenets is that the constant 'c' and your own local arrow of time are equivalent, and the proof is simple, you will never find 'c' to vary as long as you include the gravitational 'time dilation' and you will never find your own life measure to vary either relative your wristwatch, and they are both locally defined. I refer to it as a 'clock', but you might also see it as a 'arrow of time' in that both have a arrow. The whole idea of any 'speed' is presuming a arrow to measure it in, as well as a 'distance'.

And locally neither 'distance' nor your clock lies. You might refer to this as a 'absolute frame' if you like. Because it must be the closest definition to a absolute frame that I can think of.

What is needed for a 'absolute frame' is that we all will find it 'equivalent' in our measurements. And that we will do as soon as we join the same 'frame of reference', or as here, 'locally' are ruled by the same 'invariant' constants.  We like to think that science is defined by repeatable experiments don't we :) And to get to that you need equivalent frames of reference.

And that is what we have, 'locally'.
« Last Edit: 22/04/2012 15:52:23 by yor_on »
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #515 on: 22/04/2012 16:11:20 »
Then you have 'what changes', as in interactions. The problem for me is to define what is real and what is hypothesis's. I do it by referring solely to what you actually get as a result for primary evidence of something, secondary evidence will to me be the type of 'interactions' we infer by trying to make it hinge together by hypothesizing what we can't measure directly.  Then we have a third type, pure deductive reasoning based on math and logic. the last type presumes that the universe is built on those two concepts, which I too hope it to be, by the way :)

If it's not then we're all out of luck.

But I see the third manipulation as being more problematic in that it assumes some 'God like' definition to exist, at least if what you do is to purely manipulate the math we know today. To me real first hand experiments must be what defines the reality, inferring from those coming as a close second, with manipulating logical symbols representing our ideas according to some contemporary tenet a rather questionable picture.

So, is that what I'm doing?

I don't see it that way. I'm using a constant 'c', and to me it is a very real constant defining SpaceTime. Then I expect there to exist a 'arrow of time', pointing one way, and the evidence for that is overwhelming, none of you reading this are an 'immortal', are you? :) if you are, feel free to define how ::))

Just 'c' and then what we know of the local definitions of 'time'.
And doing so 'time' stops being an abstraction, it becomes what joins us, just as radiations constant joins our descriptions of others frames of reference, allowing for Lorentz transformations.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #516 on: 22/04/2012 16:34:15 »
So why do I discuss interactions as an idea of 'time'?
that goes back to the way I define the arrow, locally solely.

If 'the arrow of time' is a locally same phenomena, then you are a definer of it. And you are made of 'interactions', aka mass. And a 'distance' is also a local definition, as is 'a arrow of time', per relativity. Changeable concepts in a comparison between 'frames of reference'..

The type of 'absolutes' I define or, if you like, just suggest :) are all local phenomena.

It's like all we are, or at least gets defined from, comes from one single conceptual 'point of existence', widening into SpaceTime as we observe.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #517 on: 22/04/2012 23:23:28 »
Then we have the 'proofs' for time being in some way two folded, backwards and forward. I think of that as mirroring, and that leads me to symmetries. I don't know why symmetries comes to be, they follow temperatures as I understands it, and temperatures are defined by 'first hand interactions' of 'mass', not 'bosons', all as I see it.

Against that you have the 'energy/heat' radiated by a sun interacting with matter. So yes, bosons have a 'energy', but left to themselves? Will they show a temperature? Or do they first need the phase transition creating particles of 'rest mass'?

And momentum :)
What is the total momentum of our SpaceTime?
Null?
==

I usually try to put in references to what I mean but lately it has become more of me just saying what I think. It may be me getting senile, or lazy, but this one I'm sure you all will enjoy..

And it's especially for those of us wondering about 'radiating charges', yeah..
I'm talking about you Graham :) but even if one doesn't care about that at all it will still be enjoyable. To me it's about 'relative motion', 'accelerations'', and 'forces'..

Notice how Einstein considered a 'acceleration'.
« Last Edit: 22/04/2012 23:48:11 by yor_on »
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #518 on: 23/04/2012 11:49:15 »
Symmetries?

If you define one, will that be traceable as 'interactions' leading to it? And what if SpaceTime indeed is 'one thing', where the time is a function of the room? As I understand the concept Einstein saw space and time as being 'one and the same'. A definition in where the 'room time' becomes a geometry, the same way as he looked at 'gravity', as not being a 'force' but a geometry.

That is a big difference from defining it as 'causality chains'. And there 'c' is what defines this undivided SpaceTime. But it does not answer why it has to be so. Maybe he was right, and if that is true then symmetries and constants becomes all-important for defining the 'room time'. It also breaks away from casualty chains in that a symmetry not necessarily need to 'hinge together' for us, if using our older linear definition of 'interactions' leading to outcomes.

It's like a puzzle where you can lay the pieces one and one and get one answer, then lay them as symmetries, and if you get that right, get another answer. But this is just thoughts, nothing defined.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #519 on: 23/04/2012 16:56:24 »
I will add what i find quite questionable now :)

Motion
Propagation
Accelerations
Forces

But 'times arrow' :)
Nope.

That what makes everything possible. Without you have no 'interactions' to discuss. But then again, what are symmetries? Maybe that builds a arrow? Lay your symmetries correctly and you will see a 'arrow' emerge.

I don't agree with those thinking the solution is 'one way'. The universe is probably much simpler than that, but what it use becomes complex very quickly, under a arrow. And we look at it under a arrow, so all our ideas comes from this. We might be a break into something that is very simple, with our arrow defining a 'reality' that makes sense to us linearly.

Whatever the arrow is, it use 'energy', transformations, 'interactions'. It gives us a past that fits the future, that's why we have statistics that work. And probability. And it is equivalent to 'c' in the way it defines time locally.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #520 on: 24/04/2012 11:26:29 »
Yeah, I know, all of those exist :)
But they are still questionable, if you as me find relativity to be correct.

And how can anything be simpler than 'one thing'? Don't really know how to express that one, that has to do with what the arrow 'is'? I'm thinking of 'interactions' there, and wondering if now the universe could, at some conceptual plane, be described as 'static'? That is as simple as it can get, but also a 'place' where a 'arrow' can't be, as well as a place where 'interactions' becomes 'limited ' or/and non existent.

So how can I get both?
It's about how to lay the puzzle.



 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #521 on: 24/04/2012 11:46:18 »
Entropy=heat=temperatures=particles but not 'bosons' alone.

Or you might want to argue that Entropy is what 'equalizes'? If it is so that the symmetries we see are 'phase transitions' defined through 'temperatures' that also becomes our 'entropy' then there can't be any, as a presumption, before that first 'phase transition' creating particles of rest mass.

But that sounds quite weird, doesn't it? On one hand I doubt the description of 'bosons' being able to interact. But on the other I assume a first 'phase transition' when only 'bosons' could have been there? But I use 'space', 'propagation' and 'heat' to define that one. There is no more 'heat' in space due to 'bosons' as far as I know.

So what would make it work?
Scales.

When does a 'dimensionless point' become a point? What is 'compressing' something? And what is a 'arrow'?
The 'arrow' expands our universe. The 'arrow' inflated it too. To that I can add, what are 'dimensions'?
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #522 on: 25/04/2012 01:43:22 »
So can you define the arrow to 'change'?

I'm not sure, although I like the idea. Considering Victor Senchenkos proof of time being non-existent, in where he imagined putting one leaf in a refrigerator with the other laying on top of it open to the environment I realized that light still would be a constant, no matter what temperature you use. And if the clock best describing a arrow is 'c', and the arrow being locally equivalent to 'c', then it shouldn't matter to it what temperature there was. that 'clock' would still have a same 'time keeping' locally.

No, it doesn't seem as change is sufficient for describing it, not if considering it over a 'whole undifferentiated SpaceTime', but, if you agree with me on that locally defined all arrows is one and the same relative interactions, then the interactions we find to be different comparing, is just another proof of the constant 'c'.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #523 on: 25/04/2012 01:47:00 »
It has to be locally defined, you can't define a 'same' arrow of time in any other way.

Wrote this just now elsewhere, but I think it's correct, well, as for now at least :)

"The constant is defined in a vacuum, not in mediums having other densities :) And refraction is defined from a vacuum. You can use 'change' as I think, but only from a purely local definition and doing so there will be a same arrow, relative any interaction and no matter the temperature.

But it has to be a local definition in where you, using 'c' as your 'clock' of choice, splitting its locally invariant 'speed' into even events/chunks of 'time', measure that against your local interactions by mass. Then all interactions will have a same 'time keeping' as I see it. And that I can define as a 'arrow of time', same for all interactions locally.

I better point out that as far as I'm concerned all measurements you can do directly is local. For measurements at different frames of reference, conceptually seen as a 'system', you will need to consider time dilations, relative motion, etc."

Heh :)
=

The point is that temperature and environment has nothing to do with this (local) definition of 'change'. The leafs may disintegrate differently as compared by a observer, but the local definition of a arrow will hold as I see it.
« Last Edit: 25/04/2012 02:17:42 by yor_on »
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #524 on: 25/04/2012 13:53:38 »
So 'c' and the arrow is equivalent. And as I define a frame of reference down to Planck scale you get another 'border' there, fitting in that it is the shortest 'step' light can take. One Planck length in one Planck time.

So two constants defining a 'scale', 'c' and the Planck scale. And gravity becoming equivalent to 'c' at the event horizon, as that is where lights geodesics all  must point to the 'center' of that Black Hole, and no light passing it to us.

'c' is the king pin.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #524 on: 25/04/2012 13:53:38 »

 

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