The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280250 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 #600 on: 01/10/2012 18:31:42 »
I wrote 'As I see it everything is a 'observer', interacting through the relations created in 'observing' each other.'

Assume :) that each constituent of a universe only needs some relations to define itself through, look at it as some sort of 'infinite' dimensional matrix, in where all 'particles' find their definition through relations, 'observing' each other. A little like those computer simulations in where you set some simple rules and look at how patterns grow, disappear and come back in new positions, and also, think about how fractals seem to work.

How many relations does each 'particle' need? To create that universe?
« Last Edit: 01/10/2012 18:34:58 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 #601 on: 02/10/2012 19:21:45 »
As this thread is highly speculative, and so clinically, **, ahem :) Let's do another dive.

Think of SpaceTime as your bag, it contain you and everything you ever will know, you push the bag and it change shape, but it won't disappear. Then wonder what the matter inside the bag is :) The bag is defined through some simple parameters as 'dimensions', space and matter, and 'c'. If now those 'dimensions' could be seen as descriptions of what we can notice instead of God given truths :) we live in a dimensional bubble of sorts, in where there are other degrees of freedom that we can't notice. Now consider your bag again from that perspective and again, wonder what matter is. The envelope defining matters limits is 'c', what happens if something exist outside 'c'? What does it do to it?
 

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 #602 on: 14/10/2012 15:27:39 »
So what is that 'bag'? From my point of view it's, really really, non existent :)
But it's also what defines the limits for our existence, and what we call SpaceTime.

And forces then?
 

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 #603 on: 24/10/2012 09:52:46 »
Okay, what takes up most of my time is trying to see why light won't bend depending on your uniform motion relative it.

It assumes that there are different uniform motions, relative whatever definition of a 'marker' you use.
It assumes that different uniform motions will affect a 'time dilation' & 'LorentzFitzGerald contraction' as per the often used 'light clocks examples'.

The elevator must also becomes a light clock as that (outside) light hits the opposite elevator wall, falling through the peephole drilled.

You better think about it. If there is no 'time dilation' in different uniform motions my understandings of 'time dilation' and uniform motion must be wrong. If that is wrong then all uniform motions have one 'same' arrow of time, and no length contraction, assuming that those two are complementary phenomena.

So, does light bend differently inside that 'frefalling' (uniformly moving) elevator as described form the inside. Depending on your 'relative motion'? As measured against some same 'marker'?

Nope. It doesn't.

If that is true, we then only have accelerations as presenting time dilations and contractions. Because in Einsteins universe you have two definitions of motions, uniform & accelerations.

Uniform is also being at rest.
Accelerations is equivalent to gravity.

Time dilations and LorenzFitzGerald contractions will then become accelerations.
And that must be wrong? As in the MM experiment where Lorentz first introduced a contraction. Because that's a uniform motion, lights constant. Think about it.
 

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 #604 on: 24/10/2012 10:03:03 »
I'm starting to see why Einstein preferred algebra before geometry, describing relativity :) Using geometry we have preconceptions of what it means, archetypes sort of, that we want to make sense. Using algebra you don't look at geometries, instead you manipulate symbols according to some logic, and assuming that mathematics is the language of the universe what falls out from your calculations must be the way the universe treats it, but also as defined in/from your 'system'.
 

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 #605 on: 24/10/2012 10:18:32 »
Okay, you have two definitions. One from inside the elevator where the light won't 'bend' in a uniform motion. another for the outside observer that will find the light to bend, even if you're moving uniformly. And so the geometry observed is observer dependent.

But in a acceleration then? Isn't that a infinite amount of uniform motions too? No, it's not, that definition must be wrong as there is constant changes in your intrinsic frame of reference. And those must be there or you can't have a acceleration.
 

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 #606 on: 24/10/2012 10:21:12 »
And that makes the arrow observer dependent. But in a twin experiment that dependence also will show itself to be objectively existent for us both simultaneously, my twin and me, as he has aged less than me in his travel? How did that happen?
==

Better expressed, what is 'time' (and its arrow). Is it something belonging to SpaceTime? A constituent of it, that you can't isolate, or is it a part that you can lift out and treat by itself?

It has to be a constituent if so, a statement unable to lift out.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2012 11:19:43 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 #607 on: 24/10/2012 10:31:58 »
Using locality you get a very strange universe. Because according to locality we do have a constant arrow, defined by uniform motion, no matter its relative 'speed' as measured against something else. And that uniform motion is the also at rest aka 'still'. It is no motion at all, as defined locally.

That the arrow is locally a constant (invariant) is easily proved by superimposing frames of reference. From it you can easily see how a arrow and lights constant goes together.
 

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 #608 on: 24/10/2012 10:37:18 »
Then uniform motion is no motion. what makes us define it as motion is the way we compare frames of reference. And what we use then is the information mediated by that old constant 'light'.

Light is a uniformly moving 'propagating' experience. It informs us of how frames of reference distorts, depending on relative motion and acceleration . But 'relative motion' exist? how does it exist? Relative you comparing, no other way.

Accelerations can be felt inside whatever frame of reference you exist in though.
 

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 #609 on: 24/10/2012 10:40:41 »
Can you turn it around?
Give us a same experience, instead finding light to accelerate/decelerate?

As some mirror definition?

That would then be a purely cerebral exercise as the experiments we do only points one way. As light being a constant, but it's worth thinking of.
=

That one has to do with how I should see SpaceTime. a 'globally same' experience as we seem to assume it normally, or as a purely 'locally same'  experience, it joined by lights mediation between 'frames of reference' into a 'globally same' experience, loosely speaking there.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2012 10:44:37 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 #610 on: 24/10/2012 10:52:04 »
so, what made that traveling twin to age less relative me. From my frame he 'slowed down' as per 'light clocks'.
From his frame he did not, but what about that acceleration he found to exist 'intrinsically'?
 

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 #611 on: 24/10/2012 10:54:40 »
If light 'bends' in a acceleration then that is what I might call intrinsic change, belonging inside a frame of reference, possibly? It depends on how you want to restrict a 'frame of reference', to what scale? Is there a scale in where a acceleration intrinsically disappear?

Do you think it can exist?
 

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 #612 on: 24/10/2012 11:26:34 »
If time is 'interwoven' into SpaceTime then what are our other degrees of freedom? They too must be a definition you can't split out, would you agree to that?:) Not only relativistically. So when we split them to define speeds, time versus distance, we are describing a local relation of something, or a relation relative me observing, but not a objectively 'globally true' relation representing all observers measurements.

So why do we insist on being able to split them? If they're not splittable?
 

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 #613 on: 24/10/2012 11:35:20 »
From locality's point of view you can imagine it as a 'block universe'. In it you have some representation of what becomes a minimalistic block to us, representing 4 'dimensions', the arrow and three other degrees of freedom. The 'blocks' can only be defined through the observer as I suggest for now.  That means that you need a observer dependence for it to beget a 'existence', and so it also should mean that we're just as 'unsplittable' from SpaceTime as any other thing we find to exist in it. When you find something to exist through a observation or experiment, and find others to agree, through observations and experiments you have a definition of existence that makes sense to me.

So, even if the 'blocks' as such is observer dependent they also is what allow us to exist.
 

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 #614 on: 24/10/2012 11:42:37 »
But each 'block' is then, as I consider it, its own definition of locality. And that thinking goes back to 'scales', and 'frames of reference'. In such a universe the 'blocks' becomes our minimalistic definition of what is 'true', all comparisons between them becomes translations of 'locality's reality', and expressed as relations. So a block is something having a length, a width and a height, we at some scale finding it invariant locally, 'propagating' in time, but one way only.
 

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 #615 on: 24/10/2012 12:09:17 »
I said that I could see why Einstein preferred arithmetics and algebra describing it. It has a importance to me in that what we call geometry in Einsteins universe then could be considered a secondary effect from that algebra. We have geometry and we use it, it exists, but from the universe's side?
==

This is me thinking of the universe as a 'whole thing', containing us all. And it's truly tricky to define what that should mean considering locality. But I have this feeling that Einstein considered the universe as in some way being the 'absolute same' for us all, as some container keeping us inside.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2012 12:29:34 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 #616 on: 27/10/2012 13:25:55 »
It's like the idea(s) of 'dimensions', degrees of freedom, to me. If I start by assuming that there are a infinite combinations of degrees of freedoms, then what makes Einsteins container? And what hinders different 'sets' of freedom to coexist? You could argue that because we're the ones measuring, being conscious observers, we have the last word in defining those degrees of freedom. And that's true, but only true for us. Instead of something coming from nowhere becoming a universe you can, adopting this point of view, argue that a 'birth' of a universe is the observer(s) defining its/their environment/container. And there we have 'constants'

Instead of something out of nothing, you now have 'something' (slightly less, depending on possibilities/probability) containing a 'universe', coming from a multitude of possibilities.
 

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 #617 on: 27/10/2012 13:41:40 »
To me it's about what those dimensions means?

We use three spatial degrees of freedom and one temporal called the arrow of time. The arrow has only one way to go, and so has those dimensions, they are directly coupled to the arrow. You can't have any degrees of freedom without it. And I think Einstein is right in that they all goes together, and that you can't dissect one, ignoring the rest. The arrow becomes meaningless without those spatial dimensions.
 

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 #618 on: 27/10/2012 13:46:42 »
Assume that the arrow really can move backwards, what would it do to the spatial dimensions? If we think of a Big Bang and inflation/expansion we now have a environment that 'disappear'. What will it do to our idea of logic? How would you build a 'observer' able to draw conclusions?
 

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 #619 on: 27/10/2012 13:51:46 »
There is one way though, but that is assuming logic and causality chains to be a limited description. Because what we have would then be more to a quantum computer. Something that in itself contain all possible combinations and answers simultaneously. Then what we call the arrow is somewhat of a symmetry break from that.
 

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 #620 on: 27/10/2012 21:11:37 »
I wrote "so, what made that traveling twin to age less relative me. From my frame he 'slowed down' as per 'light clocks'.
From his frame he did not, but what about that acceleration he found to exist 'intrinsically'?" I'm still trying to melt that one :) and keep coming back to it.

There is a very weird phenomena here. Think of the elevator becoming a light clock of sorts as it move uniformly through space. Then consider the way that light will 'bend' and also take a longer time to hit that opposite wall from the far observers point of view, equivalent to a 'slower beat/time', as per the twin experiment.

From the far observers point of view the traveler age 'slower', from the travelers point of view time is 'as always', neither faster nor slower. How can both perceptions describe a same happening? Going out from geometry it seem to become a statement of what I said before, doesn't it? That you can't part the arrow from the other degrees of freedom and treat it isolated. Also it becomes a statement of locality as the only way to define a reality first handedly, 'experimenting'.

This way the arrow is existent, no illusion, but also a expression of changed geometries. And then we have the twin experiment in where we rejoin the traveler with his twin, and origin. There we get a (theoretical) proof of what? Not only observer dependence, as it then would be enough with finding what we already discussed. But also a proof of some 'objective reality' in where the observer dependence finally creates actual physical changes. How can 'relative motion' slow time? And if you think of it, also reconstruct the geometry the traveler perceived traveling.

Both of those are proofs of that 'dimensions' is a joined phenomena to me.
 

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 #621 on: 27/10/2012 21:16:01 »
And furthermore, it questions accelerations importance for explaining a time dilation/contraction. Because you can assume this time dilation to exist in all uniformly moving objects relative yourself, using the light clocks examples.
 

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 #622 on: 27/10/2012 21:35:12 »
If you define this primal 'block' to some scale, like I use Plank scaled 'block' of four degrees of freedom, then that also must become your ground for defining 'yourself' relative any other frame of reference, mustn't it? And here we meet presumptions again :) Because when I define myself relative other frames of reference I don't think this way, normally.

It's 'me' relative everything else, isn't it? And 'me' is definitely not Planck scaled, but to be correct I think we need it to be. And all those 'blocks' creating 'me' must then find the same effects as we do macroscopically. But it's also matters coherence that plays a big part here. The way matter take a place, and its constituents, particles, keeps their place in a acceleration. And now I discuss accelerations primary, not uniform motions. Because maybe I can imagine all uniform motions to be 'at rest'? And if I choose to do so I fail to see external 'forces' at play there, but in a acceleration I see something 'resisting'? If that word now can be used. And it 'resist' you on a particle level as I think of it.
 

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 #623 on: 23/11/2012 20:40:33 »
There are two things communicating, light and gravity. Where the gravity defines the geodesics for light propagating. This is assuming that mass and gravity is what goes together naturally, as well as propagation of light. Still, if we assume that 'gravity' is a result of bosons then what are bosons? Quantified radiation?
 

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #624 on: 23/11/2012 22:21:53 »
Hi yor_on,
What follows is an excerpt from: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46034.msg400132#msg400132
It is about how "the light and gravity communicate".
If you do not like it, I will remove it. I would appreciate your comments, anyway.
Regards,
zordim :)

So, here is an easy and accurate derivation of the true relativity equations, which could (should) had been done as soon as Einstein predicted the gravitational red shift of a photon.
Actually, the first scientists who were in position to derive the true relativity equations, in the year 1900, were both Max Planck and Henry Poencare. Because, for that derivation, one needs only the following:
-   Newton’s gravitation law f33ec113eb82cfe1a333b23963e51230.gif
-   Planck’s equation for elementary EM-radiation energy fec5ba0bf5af436050d2818707df8996.gif,
-   Poencare’s derivation of 2d00b6f64620360b29b985ec45fc50aa.gif (on the basis of Maxwell’s and Poynting’s works (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608289.pdf [nofollow], page 2))

Moving of the mass 7df277d9664a7f8b42e7942e9cc325c8.gif radially away from a gravitation source for some infinitesimal distance b4688aaaaf17fad03225929fe56ad458.gif, would require an infinitesimal work, which – according to the Newton’s gravitation law – is

4b2729dc45578d238a35359731fb8aa2.gif.

In the case of a photon, 7df277d9664a7f8b42e7942e9cc325c8.gif would be the photon’s non-inertial mass. Or, we can put instead 30f3be85c9e8eb75835b2e38c5b044cb.gif. From the energy conservation principle, follows that when a photon moves radially away from a source of gravitation, energy of the photon e8081f48a6c6fb7fd8e725d7a56f502a.gif has to reduce for the amount e1d05039943632bf0c5bb9a6f886ed4f.gif.  Hence:

8656c8fb84d645bef07487174d82ce60.gif 
And this equation gives the theoretical explanation of the Pound-Rebka experiment:
55c13903cb62ffb290242a052bd6c728.gif, where 6ab71c133cfac6c071d4e091f7edbad9.gif, bf2bf74e0a848cc387f2cba57d3a4161.gif

Follows the energy equation of a photon:
043f693494262f9c95f9039e66a0f0cf.gif ,
where e8081f48a6c6fb7fd8e725d7a56f502a.gif is the photon’s energy very, very far away from the gravitation-source.

From fec5ba0bf5af436050d2818707df8996.gif follows 6e9f3dc333cc693040f10b5dc47289b2.gif. Namely, since the EM-oscillation frequency is 4fdefba26320686bb2bd0579a0df421c.gif then the period of that oscillation is 84a5e8b51ea20114002dadd852b0f222.gif
From 5fec765e4fb7b5e24cb33f4e49200fe6.gif, and from fec5ba0bf5af436050d2818707df8996.gif follows c497389e1e19c9e35232e465ff629d15.gif.
At some fixed radius, an infinitesimal part of the time period ae53c13954b330a106eabd90c3297c8c.gif will be 109d693670aad010ca15cee12b5c0e00.gif.

Now, the velocity of a photon can be derived:

85daa8ae589338414bc5d0eca3d1b95b.gif

924cbfc30aaa1022e18a8f3287aba54d.gif
057124c69e4356b62ffba77bb6f27498.gif

So, obviously, it cannot be like this. The only explanation is that we made wrong starting assumption. Namely, according to the equation for time period, the time period of a photon increases as the photon moves radially away. We know that acceleration is negative for a body which moves away, that is, the change of its velocity 80457cf3a7b15afb8f491f8ae06680db.gif is negative. But, that is the case for inertial-mass bodies. The velocity change of a photon which moves radially away is positive. The key point is to realize that 92e4da341fe8f4cd46192f21b6ff3aa7.gif and c9faf6ead2cd2c2187bd943488de1d0a.gif are the properties of space, and that matter affects the space in the way that it causes the 92e4da341fe8f4cd46192f21b6ff3aa7.gif and c9faf6ead2cd2c2187bd943488de1d0a.gif to increase within the space occupied by matter. Outside matter, and further away, 92e4da341fe8f4cd46192f21b6ff3aa7.gif and c9faf6ead2cd2c2187bd943488de1d0a.gif decrease. Therefore, according to the Maxwell’s equation fd984ce4b0d24187f8d5fc3601107210.gif, the allowed velocity, that is, the velocity of our photon, would increase.
Hence, in the previous velocity-equation derivation, the starting equation should be
2b871b7c0b53fa21ee6a13acfc318c12.gif,
and we would then get that the velocity of the photon which moves radially away from the source of gravitations is

da1220be92c6a69b90078150b7f9c3b8.gif

And, the length of a photon would change as:

1ab494421bb03dd2d4ac429ebf46e290.gif
Shapiro time delay [nofollow]
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #624 on: 23/11/2012 22:21:53 »

 

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