The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 279367 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #550 on: 17/05/2012 15:03:51 »
Against that you have the idea of a lot of energy 'confined' in a very small space at the Big Bang. Which needs to be explained. One way of defining it is to assume that we live in a chain of Big Bangs, each one assuming a preexisting geometry from which it 'spawn' a new SpaceTime. I'm not so happy about that definition as it presumes causality chains 'existing'. The question is if there is causality chains existing outside our 'symmetry break', or if that description belongs to what we have only?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #551 on: 17/05/2012 15:11:11 »
If you look at symmetries they're not causality chains as such. And what they presumes are neither descriptions of 'c' either. They are about equilibrium's, and balances. All causality chains presumes a linearity, to me best expressed as the arrow we exist under. But if we assume that the arrow needs 'mass' to exist, was there a arrow before it? What can there be without a arrow?

Indeterminacy?

The real problem is how to define something happening not using interactions. All interactions presumes a temporal direction, don't they?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #552 on: 17/05/2012 15:22:51 »
You can assume that as long as we find bosons we also must have a arrow. But if you define it as I do, as a static reality without propagation, but with some sort of arrow presenting us with outcomes representing motion and propagation to us? I don't know there, you can define a arrow in interactions but with bosons?

Interactions needs matter to exist.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #553 on: 17/05/2012 15:33:53 »
Yeah, I know. It seems as if I use two descriptions. The arrow as 'mass/interactions' alongside with the idea of an 'time' preexisting as some 'field' having a temporal direction to us. But that is 'time' and 'time' I do think have a objective existence, although the 'arrow' becomes a description through interactions and mass.

So yeah, 'time' is strange. It has a lot to do with indeterminacy to me.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #554 on: 17/05/2012 15:43:40 »
For a universe to exist you need a geometry. Indeterminacy is a description of something not needing that. It neither needs 'dimensions', nor a 'arrow'. But a Big Bang then? When did it get a arrow? In the first creation of 'particles'? Or was there a temporal direction before that? What is a symmetry?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #555 on: 17/05/2012 15:58:51 »
Think of it from my view of locality. Then the arrow is what changes in each Planck sized point and 'time' is the description of what 'pressures' behind those, or 'that', 'point(s)'. and as the 'points' in my local definitions are the exact same in all that matters, equivalent to 'c' they are indistinguishable locally, having the same original properties, as equivalently  'local arrows', and on that small scale, equivalent 3-D environments. The idea of a distance measured presumes a arrow existing, all experiments we do presumes it. And us using the idea of repeatable experiments also presumes the possibility of locally same environment possible. And that is what the principle of locality I've formulated here guarantee. But it doesn't guarantee anything of what we normally take for given, as distances existing as a objective 'reality', as in a 'indivisible same and common universe' for example.

Instead all becomes observer dependent.

What we have in common is the principle of locality.
« Last Edit: 17/05/2012 16:07:18 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #556 on: 17/05/2012 16:03:18 »
In such a universe a 'dimension less point' is an description of something more or less permeating what we see, from that 'point of view' we make no sense, and 'distance' isn't there. But to us it is. And that 'point' is all 'points' as it make no sense discussing such an idea using what we have. That's also why I expect SpaceTime to be a symmetry break.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #557 on: 22/05/2012 19:50:59 »
Then we have gravity, as a result from a geometry?
Don't we need something more than that?
Mass and? Space?

But if space is gravity, at least as translating it into 3D? And then with the arrow as the dynamic component creating 'motion' as in a casualty chain? How about 'inertia', can one replace gravity with 'inertia'?

As all non uniform 'motions' becomes 'gravitational?

Then 'inertia' might be a defintion of a 'real universe' without the time component and uniform motion seems the natural state of our universe? And that makes sense to me, if I'm assuming that to break inertia will cost you 'energy'. A ground state of 'gravity' maybe :) without accelerations. And a inertial universe don't really need a time component to 'exist', does it? It may exist statically, although to get 'motion' you need causality changes. Weird thoughts again :)

Space exist, just as 'distances' does, observer dependant, defined through mass.
==

I don't know, as ususal :)

You could consider uniform motion as being 'still', in that there is no 'absolute reference frame' from where you can define a absolute motion. Or you can turn that around and state that there are an infinite amount of 'absolute reference frames', all of them defining 'motion' relative themselves.

To define 'motion' relative locality makes the last one ring more true to me. But there must be something creating it, even though it always is locally defined.

And those are just loose thoughts. Inertia is weird.
« Last Edit: 22/05/2012 20:00:03 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #558 on: 22/05/2012 20:08:21 »
There is one point to be made though. If I define the arrow solely through 'change', as in interactions for example, then I will be wrong. Because we have relative motion too, and in that there are no 'interactions' if 'gravity' is a geometry.

So yeah, 'change' can be used as a local expression of a arrow, but when we look out on the geometry (SpaceTime) we also see 'relative motion'. And to observe a motion you need a arrow.
==

Or maybe I could refer to that as 'time'? The arrow gets its definition in each planck sized point of mass interacting with bosons, but what allows the geometry to reflect relative motion should be something else?

Or??
===

The thing is, we know 'motion' exist. There is no way around that, even though we and the universe, finds all uniform motion to express itself the same, meaning that, although mass may present you with different gravities, in all other aspects those planets, suns etc will express itself 'exactly the same' locally.

So motion exist and is a proof of 'time' even though the 'clock'' may use 'c', with a arrow defined through mass/interactions?

ouch.
« Last Edit: 22/05/2012 20:27:06 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #559 on: 31/05/2012 03:07:38 »
Pete just showed me another proof for motion, and also a point in that different uniform motions although equivalent also is frame dependent in form of their relativistic mass, as expressed from the measured EM field. It must differ between different uniform motion as measure by you.

But locally all uniform motions are equivalent, as I think of it. It's needed to have two frames of reference and then measure, but it proves therefore that something called motion exist independent of 'uniform motions' equivalence, as I think of it now at least.

I need to think more about it. To me it has to do with frames of reference and that always assumes someone to observe as we use measurements, defined by our locally invariant wristwatch and locally invariant ruler, although this is a loose definition of it as one might assume that everything, all rest mass as in 'particles', are time dilated and Lorentz contracted relative each other inside SpaceTime, as that is a dynamic configuration best defined from GR as I see it?

I really need to consider this one and see what one can make from it :)
If one can that is ::))
==

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=44254.0
==

seems I jumped over some words here, 'Lorentz dilated' indeed :)
« Last Edit: 31/05/2012 03:17:06 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #560 on: 11/06/2012 14:45:30 »
The point I try to make is that we all presume a arrow. All statistics must believe in that, otherwise there can be no logic to a 'history' or 'histories' proving a hypothesis. To me the question of this arrow is what best will represent it, as 'change' for example.

So I think the 'arrow of time' moves us forward, and does it equivalently so from a 'local' perspective. The next question then becomes what that makes of our ideas of 'motion' and 'propagation'?

If the arrow wasn't there?  Turn it around and wonder. If we had a field it would be static without a arrow, do you agree? No fluctuations in it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #561 on: 11/06/2012 14:53:18 »
You can't put it to observer dependencies either. All observer dependencies involves two frames of reference, in where you measure the other using 'local time and ruler'. And they both involve 'change' as in a dynamic relation, depending on (relative) motion mass/gravity etc. So they too must hinge on a 'arrow of time' being involved allowing this to happen.

And if you use my definition of Planck scale as the correct minimalistic definition of one frame of reference, then..?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #562 on: 11/06/2012 15:29:10 »
To see my point better.

Consider if a frame of reference has its logical 'endpoint', locally at Planck scale?
If it has, where is the 'change' as defined by a local 'clock' and 'ruler' taking place?
The 'local clock' must then by definition relate to that scale.

And that must then become my 'arrow of time'.
Now tell me where the 'change' exist at that scale?

Then consider 'relative motion', as you observing something to change its position in our 3D environment.
That too must then be a description of a 'arrow' allowing it.
Just as you measuring a change in 'particles' interacting.

Both are descriptions of 'change', the first about 'motion', the second about interactions and transformations, but they are different. Both include the concept of a arrow, so where is it?

At Planck size locally? But with 'motion', as observed by you, existing as another 'degree of freedom'?
How can they coexist?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #563 on: 06/07/2012 13:28:47 »
Is there a way of collecting 'statistic evidence' without a arrow?
How?

To me such a situation, assuming that either it would be possible to arrange it 'linearly' as under a arrow of time, or, not possible at all to arrange as there is and can never be any arrow to it, either must become one similar to a quantum computer or something, second expression, I have no idea at all how to see?

To assume the first alternative, that there can be some mode in where we can ignore a arrow, builds on the expectation that this mode must be able to arrange linearly, as our normal experience shows us.

The second describes something where a arrow, as in 'arranging' outcomes and changes, never had a existence and never can be. What such a place would be like I can't imagine. We have a place where if the arrow is something different than what we think, still follow some principle allowing for statistics and probability of outcomes to exist. And what else is a arrow?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #564 on: 15/07/2012 16:06:47 »
Just a slightly weird thought..

How about energy and 'room time geometries'?
A higher energy compress the room time geometry?

Well, it does, but still?

(Rereading myself, it depends on where you are observing if one can call it a 'compression'. Think of a black hole as seen from outside (compressed) or inside (extended space) the event horizon (and all of it theoretically of course).

But it has to be a locally expressed and defined effect, as it makes no sense to me other wise as you can have all kind of masses getting the same effect if considered 'globally'. And how would you define a 'motion' from that perspective? It's as if all points were focuses for a whole SpaceTime, describing it differently depending on observer.
« Last Edit: 17/07/2012 23:53:24 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #565 on: 15/07/2012 16:15:12 »
But then you have uniform motion?

Does different uniform motion store different 'energies' into our SpaceTime?
Or are they truly equivalent?

Assume you see something, a planet with its sun, moving very fast, close to light as you measure it, but uniformly? Does that system have a greater impact on the 'warping of space' as a otherwise equivalent system, that you defined at a hundredth of that other systems speed?

Remember, they are both uniformly moving.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #566 on: 15/07/2012 17:31:05 »
And this. Consider a accelerating expansion, giving the observer a measurement in where he finds all object outside to accelerate away from his galaxy. Is there a energy involved in that acceleration?

In the objects apparent motion, as measured by you?
Can you disregard your measurements?

Maybe?

Myself I prefer direct measurements, not 'inferred' but so much of what physics do and is today is about deducing. We will never measure a Higgs boson, only infer that something 'was there'. In the end it all goes back to one question.

Is causality chains what makes it exist?
Or do we have other modes of 'reality' too?

People wants to ignore the arrow today, still they die :)
Relativity questions time, but not locally.
Only between frames of reference.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #567 on: 31/08/2012 15:53:04 »
I started wondering what makes a constant. We have 'c' which is a 'dimensional' constant, belonging to SpaceTimes dimensions and then we have 'dimension less' constants as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_number#Examples

Why I wonder is because if I assume that there is a 'ratio' between what I define as a distance and time for
some other frame of reference relative what some observer at that frame defines as mine, aka Lorentz transformations, could I interpret this as a 'constant' too?

Because there should be 'constants' describing SpaceTime, we could assume that they all change over time of course, but as you do you will also need to assume that there must be some over-binding non-changing constant defining those 'constants' relationships relative each other. Without such a one how do the dynamics balance each other? We have a 'stable SpaceTime' not a magical one in where things change from one moment to another. That chair you have will be a chair tomorrow too.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #568 on: 31/08/2012 16:43:31 »
I don't know really, but assuming that constants exist, and that they define balances between what we find to exist logically, spaciously and materially? And if we had some way of defining them as indisputable? Would they then represent the framework from where a SpaceTime can be constructed?

I presume that to be true. And then you have the Plank scale, defining a limit for the physics we know. And also the 'principle' of locality defining whatever 'objectivity' there can be in defining/finding 'repeatable experiments' as objective truths creating the platform from where we, experimentally, construct theories. The 'static' number space I use defining a SpaceTime, in my own thoughts that is :) has no 'dimensions'. The dimensions we find will all be represented by what relations and 'properties' different frames of reference has relative each other, if you see how I think there? And to me locality is what defines what 'objectivity' there can be.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #569 on: 31/08/2012 16:51:35 »
You see, even when assuming constants dynamically changing as a relation to a changing SpaceTime there should be some way to describe that relation in form of a unchanging constant. Either that or we need a new dynamic form of definition for how to describe a 'constant' in such a universe.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #570 on: 31/08/2012 17:04:34 »
To go back to different uniform motions, and their 'storing of energy' inside a SpaceTime. You can either assume that this is so and so also assume a 'whole SpaceTime', or you can assume that it is only in the relations meeting such a 'energy' will exist. Both ways assume frames of reference existing, although the first one differs in that it expect that what we see, looking out at the universe, is the exact same universe, no matter what 'time' or 'contractions' locally defined relative other frames. There is a subtle difference tough in the second example as it if you think of it stipulate that frames of reference exist, but doesn't state that we need a 'whole undifferentiated universe' for those to interact.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: 02/09/2012 05:52:02 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #572 on: 02/09/2012 09:44:55 »
We can't 'measure' a vacuum. Not in the way we can measure a 'particle'. Although decays can't be the sole representation of 'change' as in what a 'arrow of time' might represent, as we have 'motion' etc we still have a 'number-space' in where there is a logic. Think of it as a field of led's, turning on and of, representing for example something moving. It's the geometry that needs to be understood and what makes it observer dependent.

There we have 'c'.

'c' is a constant, and local. If I stop envision a undivided SpaceTime and instead just work with what we have we have 'localities', definable down to Plank scale, each one containing a unique 'frame of reference' including the definition of distance as well as the local arrow of time, expressed through 'clocks' and 'rulers' of varying kind. Those localities (points), as there are as many as there are observers observing them, as in 'counting the amount' (observer dependent) all find a relation to all other 'points' through the mediation of radiation.

And radiation has two definitions, one is the recoil the other its annihilation. What else there might be between those two is not even assumptions to me, it's more of wanting to go back using a Newtonian world image with causality chains and action and reaction than anything revolutionary, and yes, it's called 'weak measurements'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #573 on: 02/09/2012 09:54:34 »
Weak measurements will work of course, maybe not always but I expect it to give us a closer description of 'reality'. But what makes it work, as I think of it, is that SpaceTime has a logic, and as it has there will be 'chains' to be assumed, if you prefer the Newtonian concept. But you can as easily use a number space and then define some logic for it turning on and off 'points' depending on the relation it has relative all other points, or to simplify only those points that it 'interact' with as in having a relation too. But as all points are related, creating our SpaceTime as we look out, the first description is the more correct to me.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11989
  • 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 #574 on: 02/09/2012 10:31:25 »
Some of the ways those points relate to each other, as in entanglements ,should tell us how to relate to the idea of causality chains. A entanglement is 'instant', it's not restricted by distance or 'c'. But it is a relation relative its 'opposite'. In my imaginary number-space there is no distance and no motion but there is a logic defined through a arrow of time that, together with 'c', as they to me are complementary descriptions as defined earlier, will define the causality chains we observe. A entanglement must then become a expression outside those restrictions, and if it exist then it is wrong to assume that causality chains are what create a SpaceTime.

What creates a SpaceTime and what we see are different things.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #574 on: 02/09/2012 10:31:25 »

 

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