The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 279601 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #575 on: 02/09/2012 10:52:03 »
And all those 'unique points/frames of reference' are equivalent. The local time you have is mine too, as proven if superimposing our clocks and rulers (same frame of reference). But we still find a discrepancy in a Twin experiment where we theoretically can prove a time dilation. So what does that state about time? Or better expressed, what does it state about the room-time? Does it make the arrow illusionary? Nope, you aged, I aged, even though us finding a different age when meeting up again. But none of us found time to behave differently locally.

So what did we introduce making this possible?
Motion.

And as uniform accelrations then is equivalent to mass (GR), as tested and found in measuring gravitational time dilations by NIST.

What is motion?
And mass?

In what way do mass represent 'motion'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #576 on: 03/09/2012 12:23:31 »
Thought I had finished this stuff but? Maybe not.
Let's wonder about gravity. Gravitons? Higgs bosons? Or a distorted space (GR)?

Or what combination of the above?

In a numberspace the only requirement I can see for anything resembling 'gravity' is that it has a logic. I don't need it to become a 'force' do I? Why do we still think of everything as involving forces? Well, maybe in a way we have them, as some sort of circular reasoning but Einsteins universe is as far as I see observer dependent. And what do that make of a 'force'?

What sort of gravitons are observer dependent, or Higgs bosons?

It's like the difference between SR and GR. GR speaks of SpaceTime as it is, although still keeping to what we 'know' from birth, looking out on a 'indivisible universe, same for us all'. But that's just not correct to me. The universe Einstein describes isn't 'indivisible', it's very much divisible, although still coherent in that what we see is the 'same' adjusting for our frame of reference, meaning 'where I am'.

Seems to me we have a really hard time letting go here.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #577 on: 03/09/2012 12:33:10 »
The point all seems to avoid is questioning 'c'. Get me right here though, I'm not talking about 'variable speeds' :). That's just people wanting to avoid the universe Einstein describes and as I expect would destroy most of the subsequent theories existing if proofed, including QM. To my eyes the question should be 'Why can 'c' exist'? What type of universe demands 'frames of reference'?
=

Maybe 'destroy' is too hard a sentence, but it would certainly force everyone to reconsider all mediating of photons and change their calculations/ideas accordingly.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2012 12:46:49 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #578 on: 03/09/2012 12:50:38 »
'Forces' and 'virtual photons' seems to me to be very close together. Indeterminacy fits my number space much better though. I like the idea of statistics, what I don't like is the way we have of trying to fit everything into our preconceptions.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #579 on: 04/09/2012 01:51:09 »
There are two ways this universe present a 'coherence' to me. One is the way we can find a balance between 'frames of reference', aka Lorentz transformations, translating my universe to yours.

The other is 'locality' in where your local ruler and time never vary to you.
Then we have the mediation by radiation, making all this possible, being a 'constant'.

If you relate the arrow to 'c' it becomes very easy to see why your 'time' is unvarying.
When it comes to the ruler you have to look at what is a minimalistic definition of a 'frame of reference'.

And there we have Planck scale, defined as where light take one step in one 'time'. It makes a lot of sense to me to use that definition as a minimalistic 'frame of reference'. Then you introduce time dilations and LorentzFitzGerald contractions for those minimalistic frames of reference.

It expects you to accept Relativity as a true description of course.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #580 on: 04/09/2012 02:09:48 »
In a way it's similar to statistics I presume. Where/when does the contractions and time dilatations become noticeable? And how do mass 'overcome' them before it? Two good questions that I think is important. Mass is weird, but so are Space, and Time :) Assuming those contractions and dilations there should be some threshold(s?) for defining limitations in a mass. Or you might want to argue that it balances out per 'statistics' as it is mass(?) which is a weird thought indeed :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #581 on: 04/09/2012 02:19:20 »
Just freewheeling thoughts here :)

Then we have 'motion'?
It seems so important for redefining frames of reference, doesn't really matter if you define it as 'relative' or not, does it? It still is 'something' that redefine the universe for you locally. And all real first hand measurements needs to be done locally to be confirmed. And 'locality' guarantee you a 'same frame of reference' on for example Earth, loosely speaking though considering the scale I defined a 'frame of reference' before. But?

Motion is weird too.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #582 on: 04/09/2012 02:29:55 »
You can't escape 'locality'. Wherever you go it will be there, doesn't matter if you're accelerating or uniformly moving. What ever experiment you do, accelerating or not, should be able to be repeated in this universe by someone in a equivalent situation, as I see it. And 'c' must be 'c' wherever you go here, no matter if you accelerate. If you could find a way to prove that there is no constant, all of this should be wrong.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #583 on: 04/09/2012 02:54:09 »
And then the weirdest thought of them all. In a indivisible 'same' universe I can put the 'potential energy' as something possibly 'anchored' in SpaceTime (well, let's say between two objects), Or I can define it as a relation between them? If I now accept 'locality' as the definition i have a third alternative, as I think then :) Because with 'locality' my definition can't be yours, except from a very strict local perspective, as in a equivalent situation (uniform motion for example) doing a 'repeatable experiment' if you see how i think?

Using 'locality' what mediate information is radiation, which is a constant, Globally as well as locally giving us a same value. The information I gather is my representation of a universe, and unique. So me and another object interacting as in relative motion, represent two 'realities' and what mediate them into one is radiation. Accepting that radiation has a recoil and a annihilation I can move that description to my numberspace and there leave all speculations on what it does between those. And then I can define 'potential energy' to the moment 'frames of reference' meets, possibly? As if we had two definitions/universe meeting. Crazy isn't it :) What more I can do with that is to find a simple reason for how 'space' can be contracted. It doesn't exist :) although it does. As I said, this one is slightly weird :)
=

Moving it to my number space means that radiation has certain thumb rules that I need to follow. It has to express itself as a constant,  and it has to allow for the 'motion' by the 'masses' existing, etc. And you need a logic for that. A little like a very good computer game in where you have thought up a lot of intricate rules that then gets written to the screen, so to speak.

This way of thinking of it release me from a lot of definitions I otherwise would have to consider. And? I don't know, wish I did though :)
=

And no, I don't think I believe it, although parts of it I'm not sure. Space is per definition 'empty' classically, although assumed to become a 'foam' of energy, 'virtual particles' at a small scale. But if you as I define a LorentzFitzGerald contraction as 'real' from the frame of reference measuring it? How do you reconcile that with the idea of a measurable area of 'virtual photons'? I can only see that as frame dependent. But it makes me wonder.
==

There is a third alternative though, at least as I think. Indeterminism instead of all this 'virtuality', That let's me free from considering areas, hopefully :)

"Just to give you an example of how seriously this is taken by physicists, the following is quoted from Abner Shimony, "The Reality of the Quantum World", Scientific American, January 1988.

Shimony describes "indefiniteness" and the "superposition principle" (you donít really need to know what they mean) then continues:

"From these two basic ideas alone -- indefiniteness and the superposition principle -- it should be clear already that quantum mechanics conflicts sharply with common sense. If the quantum state of a system is a complete description of the system, then a quantity that has an indefinite value in that quantum state is objectively indefinite; its value is not merely unknown by the scientist who seeks to describe the system. Furthermore, since the outcome of a measurement of an objectively indefinite quantity is not determined by the quantum state, and yet the quantum state is the complete bearer of information about the system, the outcome is strictly a matter of objective chance -- not just a matter of chance in the sense of unpredictability by the scientist. Finally, the probability of each possible outcome of the measurement is an objective probability. Classical physics did not conflict with common sense in these fundamental ways."

"A number of theorists have maintained however, that [quantum-theory-described physical systems] ... differ from one another in ways not mentioned by the quantum state, and this is the reason the outcomes of the individual experiments are different. The properties of individual systems that are not specified by the quantum state are known as hidden variables. If hidden variables theorists are correct, there is no objective indefiniteness. There is only ignorance on the part of the scientist about the values of the hidden variables that characterize an individual system of interest. Moreover, there is no objective chance and there are no objective probabilities."

Shimony then goes on to report on recent experiments which very strongly indicate that hidden-variables theories are wrong. Indeterminacy is an objective fact and not just a matter of scientists' lack of knowledge. "
« Last Edit: 04/09/2012 03:45:15 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #584 on: 04/09/2012 21:20:08 »
Another screwy thought :)

Assume that 'c' and the arrow has a equivalence, then consider a black hole. You stand far away from the event horizon measuring a infalling object. Now translate the information you get from the 'photons bouncing/sent back'. What happens with those photons as they find their way out from the gravitational 'field' to your measuring device, do they clump together (blueshift) or spread out (redshift)? What I do here is to assume that a blue shift can be translated into a lot of photons 'clumped together' spatially, as defined by you, with a redshift expressing the opposite situation.

Why I'm asking is because if 'c' and 'the arrow' is equivalent then that equivalence should exist in all situations, and also be able to be described in form of 'time dilations' as perceived by the far observer. Partially I'm thinking of the Planck definition of lights propagation and also about 'c' itself. Don't know what sense this question make but my thinking goes as if the arrow is a description of the room, then a 'time dilation' also should be able to be seen as a description of the room you observe.

'c' is a invariant balanced relative the room, as well as the arrow of time you measure. And all of it relative 'locality' namely 'the observer'. And when something 'redshift' the room observed could be expressed as changing (growing) for you, and so become 'compressed' relative you with a blue shift.

And no, you don't have to take me seriously :) But I like it somehow.
=

in a way this question is also about what consist a 'motion'?
=

Now imagine light falling in, you at rest relative it. Should it blue/red shift? Not as I think, the room-time geometry for a uniformly moving object should therefore be the exact same in all situations, following a geodesic.
=

Rereading it, this one is frustrating to me, with different (relative) uniform motion you must get different local blue shifts, as well as the gravitational blue shift. Looking at it this way, also assuming that description to be one between frames of reference, it should put more 'energy' into your system the faster your relative motion. Assuming this you get a situation where all celestial object must have their own definition of distance and 'energy' available in the system. Even if assuming the sun moving with you you still will have those distant ones changing their energy output relative your solar systems motion. So I must be wrong above, but then again, I'm not sure what I meant there :) If we consider a whole Solar system, can we then define that as one 'frame of reference'?

Looking at it again I think I thought of it from the idea of the room being related to what energy you measure locally from radiation, so assuming that there should be some way of excepting uniform motion from it, as we use that description as equivalent frames, no matter what speed you measure. The question here is, are they really 'equivalent', if you can relate it locally to blue and red shifts? And you must be able to do so if we ever will have a notion of how to measure a, local, speed, closing in on lights. If there is no way to differ uniform motion locally, then blue and red shifts can't be defining a speed either.

You really need to read this closely :) It is about how you will define yourself as closing in on lights speed in a vacuum. In this case reasoning about it, a speed becomes a definition relative some other objects, aka frames of reference, not about being able to measure a speed inside a same frame of reference. Meaning that using blue and red shifts locally still will be comparison between frames of reference. But it also question what a 'speed' then means? Does it exist?


What one can use to define a equivalent frame of reference is black box scenarios, you enclosed inside that box doing a experiment. And in that motto all uniform motion are inseparable from each other. So you observing light must then, per definition, become a comparison between frames of reference, and so also relative. But how to fit that to the idea of you being able to measure blue shifts locally, related to your so called 'relative' uniform motion? Can you see my point here? It's a contradiction in terms to me, to be able to measure something (local blueshift) from that defining myself getting closer to the speed of light, at the same time as defining it as a 'relative motion'.

How do you define yourself, relative what? We have one frame locally to compare ourselves against, that is radiation. It's the frame creating 'relativity' and locally invariant for all frames of reference. How do you measure? What do you need? Radiation, and if that is what you use? Isn't that a definition of locality? I can assume a black box scenario, but to do the experiment you will need radiation. Will that radiation 'locally' inside the box fit the radiation outside it? No, it will not, inside the box the light bulb moves with you and your box, outside it comes from those distant stars that seemingly are 'standing still' relative you, as they are so very far away, and there the blue red shift will be considerable depending on your (relative) motion versus those. Would you define the inside of that box as a 'same frame of reference'? Maybe? If so, can you define what relative (uniform) speed you have, from inside that box, using the light from that light bulb? No, you can't. But? What then makes us able to define ourselves as closing in on light speed? If this is the definition of a uniform motion? Think about it.

So what do you use to prove a 'motion'? Those distant stars radiation? The CBR? And what does your 'motion' do to those frames of reference? And, are you really moving at all inside that black box?

It's about light and motion.
=

Let me put it another way, using 'displacements' and 'absolute motion' relative 'light clocks'. Think of your retina and the light bulb as a 'light clock' of sorts. The light wanders from the light bulb to your eye, assuming that there exist a real 'absolute' motion your box are moving in space as the light wanders. Assuming you at the aft, the light bulb at the front of the box motion this means that there will be a displacement if observed by someone being 'at rest'  relative whatever origin you had before starting to move. To those observing the light from behind, outside the box, it must have to traverse more space than you find it to have, as you and the light bulb are at rest with each other, being 'still' relative each other. That as you are moving through space according to them, even though not noticeable for you. At the same time you will be seen as 'rushing' towards that light from their frame of reference, but it's wrong to assume that they will see this as a blue shift, to them it will be a red shift, as you both are moving away from them. So will it be a blue shift to you then? Well if there is a absolute motion it should, shouldn't it? But it's not, that light inside the box will be the same as on Earth. And either you are traversing that space as measured by them, or you're not.

It's weird.
=

If this is true, what is a time dilation, and how can uniformly moving objects, depending on their 'relative motion' relative you (locality) be expected to show a 'time dilation'. Do we need accelerations at some 'prior time' for that?

Assume that all moving objects, relative you, once had a state in where they first came to be. The state is undefined, a singularity, but as interactions come to exist we get relative motion. Would that make sense? I don't know?

Can you have a relative motion without a acceleration? Depends on your definitions that one, doesn't it? :) All uniformly moving objects need some reference frame from where we define a 'motion', and according to relativity we have no 'absolute reference frame' that can give you a 'absolute motion'. It's all relative your reference frame.

What does this thinking do to a 'time dilation'? It states that you arbitrarily can define yourself as differently 'time dilated', simultaneously too, depending on reference frame chosen, doesn't it?

But that will not hold true for 'gravity', only for 'uniform (relative) motion'
=

So, in which reference frame will you actually experience a 'real time dilation' uniformly moving?
Radiation.

Your local frame as expressed relative light. You can measure your 'relative motion' in the blue shift of that light locally.
« Last Edit: 30/09/2012 15:45:07 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #585 on: 04/09/2012 22:14:44 »
So, do we have a 'absolute reference frame', or not?
Relativity is, as Pete once pointed out to me, something between 'frames of reference', and there you have no 'absolute reference frames', only relative. But you also have 'locality' implied in relativity. Without locality there would be no repeatable experiments, and nothing we could agree on. And this reference frame, light, is the one creating that 'locality'. So 'locally' you can use the blue shift, and as light is a constant in all 'frames of reference', as I see it, then we all have a frame that 'won't change'.
=

So, assume you have two bubbles (frames of reference) A and B. Both in 'uniform motion' , and both measuring a speed relative that blueshift. Assume them to have been one bubble originally splitting in two, but before that synchronizing all measuring devices to a same quality.

We don't need them to see each other, we just will assume that they have some sort of way to exchange information. They both locally measure the exact same blue shift, giving them a speed. Do you think it should be the same, if we magically could place them beside each other having a same direction?

If you think so then you accept locality. It's not about a indivisible SpaceTime, it's about common nominators, and as far as I can see all of them local. In reality it's not fully correct. Suns are in relative motion too, and it matters which way you chose relative that Sun, but the example, assuming the sun to be in a same direction relative them, should make it work approximately at least.
=

If it wasn't this way we would have no way to define our speed at all, relativistically. We will use the blueshift, and very distant stars, so far away that they seem 'still' relative us. And just possibly, in uniform motion, the CBR (Cosmic Background Radiation)
« Last Edit: 04/09/2012 22:42:53 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #586 on: 05/09/2012 16:49:36 »
I wrote "Now imagine light falling in, you at rest relative it. Should it blue/red shift? Not as I think, the room-time geometry for a uniformly moving object should therefore be the exact same in all situations, following a geodesic."

And then discussed if 'relative motion' should be seen as creating a time dilation or not, finding it to be true as relative the blueshift measured locally. This one is really tricky to consider, it must be so that a local acceleration, and its subsequent uniform motion, will express the infalling light as blue shifted. But that is also relative other suns, isn't it :) and so 'relative'. But it must be a measurement of a 'time dilation' as defined locally. I'm still having trouble with this one as it in one way present me with a 'local evidence', in another way could be seen as 'no different' from using any other frame(sun) and their relative motion.

To see why I make it 'important' you need to consider 'locality', and the question of 'how' we ever can be sure we are moving/accelerating. Either this is a proof and the we have 'motion', or we have only 'accelerations'.

Think about it, I do :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #587 on: 07/09/2012 06:55:27 »
I have this though. Make a measurement locally of the lights energy, assume the star in front of you, then accelerate and pray that the star hasn't suddenly changed its energy output. Will the light blueshift? If it does, would you consider this a proof of 'motion'? What will happen when you stop accelerating, once again uniformly moving, will the lights energy go back to what it was before the acceleration, or will it stay put at a higher energy (blueshift)?

What do you think?

I think we have 'motion' locally
« Last Edit: 07/09/2012 06:57:38 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #588 on: 12/09/2012 07:25:01 »
Another thing that keeps nagging on me are geodesics. Assuming that gravity is the metric of Space, can there be null paths, paths containing no 'resistance'? I assume that the path taken by a photon is the one without resistance, assuming otherwise gives a red (or blue) shift. But how can that be at the same time 'gravity' is the metric? Gravity will red or blue shift light so? I like the idea of a recoil and a annihilation much better, leaving the 'journey' in between as is. That means non existing.

The point is that gravity must exist 'everywhere'. It is how the universe defines itself relative all object existing. But there are good reasons for assuming all of those things. Or how would you define a geodesic? A place of no 'gravity' or a place where the 'gravity' is minimal? To work against gravity should cost energy, on the other hand, if gravity isn't energy but a relation and a geometry? Then photons can 'move', maybe :)
« Last Edit: 12/09/2012 07:31:29 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #589 on: 30/09/2012 09:58:07 »
Is a gravitational wave really a wave? In what medium then?

If it is not, what about rotating a rod very near 'c'. Will it create those distortions/waves? What will their frequency be? Will we be able to measure them? I wish we had a Black rotating hole closer to us :) as some are assumed to rotate near 'c'. They would provide us with so much information.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #590 on: 01/10/2012 08:19:00 »
Take the gravitational blue shift as the photon impedes on your detector (on Earth). The photon gets it due to the 'equivalence of acceleration' it meets passing through the gravitational 'field' surrounding Earth. Where is the 'null path' in that reasoning? What exactly makes the photon 'accelerate' there?' A geodesic can't be a 'path of no resistance' if thinking this way, instead photons seems to be able to 'accelerate' gravitationally?

Why would a photon blue shift if it always exist in a geodesic?

One reason is 'frames of reference'. Assuming that we magically could be traveling, 'at rest' with that photon, we will find it to not change its energy, ever, all as I see it. Each photon only has one energy, not several. When it 'meets' that gravitational field the relation between your detector and what you measure (the photon) change. But the idea of a photon is a mass less, 'age less', particle that never can be at rest, expressing a same speed in all frames of reference, uniform or not. The last statement is the modern interpretation of Einsteins relativity, but it makes sense to me. If it is a constant it better be so in all 'frames of reference'.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #591 on: 01/10/2012 08:32:16 »
To see my point, assuming its energy to change intrinsically you must introduce 'time' for the photon, and that is not the definition of light/radiation as I think of it. And there are so far no proofs for a 'photon aging' that I know of, and that has been tested again and again astronomically, with light from very far away stars.
=

So, where does the blue shift 'exist'? In the photon? In your detector? Or in the relation between those two? And the measurement you make, what gives it its value? A photon can only be defined/'measured' through its recoil, as in the way something react as it lose energy to the creation of a photon, and it its subsequent annihilation. All 'photon paths' assumed are theoretical constructions adopting the causality chains we observe macroscopically. (I'm not discussing Feynman's definitions btw, using those, taking them seriously we get a even weirder 'reality' than assuming no paths at all)

It's worth thinking of.
=

(Feynman's definition can be seen as a wave 'interfering' with itself, existing in a multitude of configurations, and possible paths, simultaneously. In the end/outcome leaving only one 'path' existing to us. And thinking that way it becomes a pure wave perspective, with no place that I can see for individual 'photons' to exist in? Also it introduce a 'space' in where those interactions must take place, everywhere, always, that we can't measure. And if you want to take it as far you can you must ask yourself what those other 'paths' then would represent physically. But it's a lovely concept)
« Last Edit: 01/10/2012 09:01:23 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #592 on: 01/10/2012 08:48:58 »
What would it take to find a definition of photons, giving us what we measure, without introducing 'paths' as in macroscopic causality chains? And, if you use that way of thinking, what would it do to our definition of waves?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #594 on: 01/10/2012 17:11:53 »
We define ourselves relative what we see, and what we see are defined relative us. You become the maker of your own unique positional grid describing a universe. Einstein created, or defined, a universe consisting of 'frames of reference', each frame unique. All of those frames need a observer to be defined though, without the observer there is nothing to be observed. But I believe him right in defining the moon as existing even when not being observed. What differ us as 'matter' from inanimate matter is the way we correlate observations into theoretical models, using histories and experiments. Does that make us the only observers? As I see it everything is a 'observer', interacting through the relations created in 'observing' each other.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #595 on: 01/10/2012 17:35:39 »
The question is what defines a frame of reference. Is it enough with being at rest? Clearly not, 'gravity' sees to that showing it not to be the best practical model . And that's why I define both the arrow and 'frames of reference' to Planck scale, as in a theoretical definition of what create our 'mosaic' frames of reference, each one 'observing' other frames and so interacting. And if you read me before you know how I do it, and hopefully agree in that it has a logic. So I believe the smallest theoretical definition of a frame to be at Plank scale, but, then we have HUP throwing a wrench into our observations. That's also why I expect scales to describe something fundamental about physics, and us. Then we have the arrow, there it also seem to have to do from which scale you look at it. then we have 'motion'. It's not that I doubt it exist, I just think it's not properly described. Our descriptions of 'motion' must always be relative something, except in a acceleration, in where all constituents creating me will experience a same 'force', or 'gravity', loosely defined now. And then we have our preconceptions, if i may, of what 'degrees of freedom' is, defined through our observations mediated by radiation. I'm not sure what motion, accelerations, scales, and degrees of freedom really is, but I'm pretty sure it's different from what we expect it to be normally. Imagine yourself 'traveling' through those scales, and watch how the universe disappear.
« Last Edit: 01/10/2012 17:39:59 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #596 on: 01/10/2012 17:53:06 »
In a way that journey takes you through a geometry too, the scene changing with the scale, and with the arrow 'stopping' at Planck scale where it vibrate at 'one step', not being able to bring out a outcome to be observed as it has to take that step first, but it can't at that scale.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #597 on: 01/10/2012 18:12:06 »
It seems as degrees of freedom is connected to scales too. And, or maybe but :) the definitions of those degrees must exist simultaneously. It's not as they manifest through scales, although they will seem to do just that to our observer, journeying through them. In a static universe you can't differ between scales. To do so you need to introduce a arrow first. The arrow is what allows our observer his journey and it will also be what defines its end.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #598 on: 01/10/2012 18:14:20 »
Can you see why I wonder about degrees of freedom?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #599 on: 01/10/2012 18:24:25 »
In this view reality, whatever that is, becomes as a SpaceTime cone, starting its 'ticking' somewhere above Planck scale, ending it at 'c'. Or maybe it topologically could be seen as something ending and starting at a same point? as a endless loop of some sort, where degrees of freedom defines what you observe? And yeah, it's weird.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #599 on: 01/10/2012 18:24:25 »

 

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