# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 278913 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #650 on: 08/02/2013 19:53:22 »
If it has no arrow, then it is wrong to expect it to intrinsically fit what we define as its properties, including a speed. Those properties are a effect of the limitations we meet, and how we measure, inside a arrow. When you measure a speed, you first define a way to measure a length and then a way to measure something moving that length, using a clock. The clock is arbitrarily defined into even chunks of 'time'.

But without a clock there can be no distance, you need both existing for you to be able to measure. If a photon is timeless intrinsically it will not propagate, as we define it, not from a local point of view. And that is what I wonder about, locality and measurements.
==

Assume it is a 'field'.
Why does it have excitations?
And what makes it ordered so that we experience our arrow of time?

Could you assume a constant excitation, with only those creating our 'room and arrow' perceivable by us?
(And that was presumably the weirdest thought I have today :)

Maybe a better way to put it is, how does something intrinsically timeless create a SpaceTime?
« Last Edit: 08/02/2013 20:06:46 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #651 on: 08/02/2013 20:21:33 »
There is a difference to photons versus waves if you think of it this way. A photon is a 'dot', a wave is something with a length, and heights/troughs. The first one is 'dimension less', but a wave needs our three degrees of freedom to be described (the room). Both though needs a arrow to become a 'outcome'.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #652 on: 08/02/2013 20:50:36 »
What would you call a wave, two dimensional? Then you have a charge moving, it creates a electric and a magnetic field, perpendicular to each other, as observed by some 'inertial observer', standing still relative its 'motion'. That field needs three dimensions to be described classically. Although there seem to be ideas and equations assuming it to be possible to describe with fewer dimensions, it's not what we see. The forces act out from the charge in a three dimensional way, it's two vectors, not a scalar and a vector, so although you can reduct it mathematically it then becomes a description of something 'not here' as I think of it.

(A two dimensional lattice is a lattice in where you can ignore the third dimension as it have no direct influence on your measurements, as I understands it. That does not state that the third dimension have disappeared. It's used to describe graphene lattices for example)
« Last Edit: 08/02/2013 20:55:50 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #653 on: 08/02/2013 21:15:58 »
We live in a three dimensional world, every time you hug someone you can get that confirmed :) but the dimensions, including the fourth (the arrow) are also the 'degrees of freedom' that things can 'move in'. It's from that world we find a photon to have a 'speed', and it's from that world we find its 'timelessness' experimentally, primary through astronomical observations as I think.

Its timelessness depends then from where we stand, looking at it. Or you can turn that one around, we are the ones finding time to play a part for defining it, as in our 'arrow of time'.

So is the arrow an illusion?
It can't be for us, it's part of evolution and entropy. Both assumes arrows.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #654 on: 08/02/2013 21:25:45 »
One nice way to define it would be to give time some imaginary magnitude, from null as in a photon, to ??
But that is not how we perceive time locally. You moving relativistically will still find your clock and ruler to 'behave as always'. And any experiment you can do will verify that you're 'locally correct' thinking so. Imagining 'densities' of different 'time clouds' depending on where you are, or do, is not correct. Not if you accept that the only way we can verify 'reality' is by repeatable experiments confirming, and joining, our observations into one reality.
==

There is another simple argument against it. Your (local) measurement of some other 'frame of references' time depends on velocity/speed. So you changing your speed must find the 'other persons' to age differently. You can assume three observers having three speeds, relative one earth they all measure, getting three definitions of the 'aging' involved there. All of them originating at that earth, all of them returning to it in their life times. For simplicity we can assume that they left together, and arrive back together.

Are all three right?

As far as I understands it they are :)
So how would one earth have three different 'agings', simultaneously?

Earth, loosely defined as being in one 'frame of reference' have only one 'aging' locally, same for all involved, instead the people returning will find themselves to have aged differently relative that. And relative each other.

But no one found their 'time' to change locally, as experimentally verified.
« Last Edit: 08/02/2013 21:53:18 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #655 on: 08/02/2013 22:18:40 »
And all of this comes from one fact, as I see it at least. That 'c' exist. Or better expressed, is a 'constant', defining what 'time' is. And you can split 'c' down to Plank scale, getting those smallest, physically imaginable, even chunks of 'time'. But can you pass that scale? The arrow should scaling-wise end there as I expect. I'm not sure about 'time' though. As a wave in a medium, the arrow seems split-able into smaller and smaller parts, just as you can magnify that wave into smaller and smaller parts, but I think it breaks down at Plank scale. From there it seems to become meaningless trying to define smaller 'bits' of a 'speed' physically.

If this is true then the arrow needs us to exist :) All of us, and the room we exist in.
And 'time'? Is nothing we can define, maybe we can call it 'timelessness', but there needs to be something from where the arrow can emerge. That very small place is in a way the very place the Big Bang might have came from too. And in Einsteins world the universe needs to be four-dimensional, you can't just pick out time and treat it as something not existing, because then you left SpaceTime.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #656 on: 20/02/2013 09:39:34 »

If I relate 'c' to the arrow, then define it such as becoming a unchanging value locally, able to superimpose all frames of reference into one single frame, all frames becoming equal locally.

Then I might imagine the arrow as a constant unchanging value, introducing relative motion, accelerations and 'forces'. To do that I imagine something otherwise static, also assuming some more degree of freedom allowing us different descriptions of forces and motion, as described from our local measurements.

We have one degree of freedom in 'c' being 'c', no matter where you measure it locally. And I'm including accelerations in this, assuming that they are explained through Einsteins equivalence principle. Because to make it work we need 'c' to be a constant as I expect.

Then 'c' is a description of a arrow that you can cut into slices, each slice defined from locality, and each slice static. But you need something more to make it work. Assume that each point in each slice have a theoretically same value. Meaning that although I may measure that point differently than you, its 'intrinsic' value is unchanging from some theoretical standpoint.

At the same time as all points will be found to be the same, if joined, they present us with different value(s) when comparing points, as measured from locally done experiments.

You need something explaining why. What would be 'motion' in such a scenario?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #657 on: 20/02/2013 09:42:15 »
Isn't that a really weird property?

'c' being 'c' everywhere?
Does that tell you that our classical descriptions of motion is correct.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #658 on: 20/02/2013 09:53:56 »
If you go out from a strictly local perspective the degree of freedom seems like a cone, widening as you compare your point of reference to others. Like cones beside cones, beside cones, making up one single 'frozen' slice of SpaceTime, or a multitude of SpaceTimes, all joined through the 'force carriers' light becomes. Cones are not a good description in that it assumes a arrow, but it still feels as a working description to me. Maybe you could assign it some other value though, or degree of freedom?

What would make a lot of SpaceTimes into one?
'c'?
=

You might think of those cones as having a temporal direction though, then also imagine that each instant still being 'frozen'. One way of defining it could be from a perspective in where everything that is, and ever will come to be, already in some way exist, outside our limitations. Then the arrow (constantly same locally) would describe our journey through that static reality.

What that seems to imply to me is then that, as we all define reality differently according to relativity (and so locality), the degrees of freedom needed for such a perspective is all points ever existing, through it all.
« Last Edit: 20/02/2013 10:16:01 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #659 on: 26/02/2013 08:50:20 »
heh, I keep on writing, some of it just plain wrong, most probably. A wave is one dimensional according to the 'paper definition' in where you can see a wave as only needing one dimension, even though it has troughs and heights. But to me that wave, if it has the freedom to move in any way dissimilar to 'point like' feels more as something two dimensional. and it all goes back to what a dimension or degree of freedom should be seen as. I would call one dimensionality 'point like' as a photon, and as wave is depicted as well, a wave? It has more degrees of freedom than our point particle. I would not use a paper to describe it, instead I would look at what we believe it can do.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #660 on: 26/02/2013 08:56:01 »
We have four dimensions defined, and we all agree on them existing in our ordinary world. What if :) those dimensions all are 'point like' originally? But defined through a arrow we find them describing both photons and waves. A puzzle of dots, arranging themselves through a temporal arrow into what we observe.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #661 on: 26/02/2013 09:01:01 »
And as it is the temporal existence that defines what we see, it leaves you free to arrange experiments proving both concepts. And our free will actually existing from that very small planes uncertainty principle. Free will would then be a macroscopic redefinition of HUP, which I kind of like as I do think free will exist. You can have both, eat the cake and leave it, but only before a outcome.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #662 on: 26/02/2013 09:22:19 »
This kind of thinking leave us all in a constant super position, with our 'will' defining what outcomes will be. But particles don't have 'free will' do they? No, but they got two (three?) other things going for them. They got HUP, and they got 'interactions', also introducing 'frames of reference'. Interactions are the cage from where the probabilities come, super positions is the state existing before those interactions, and frame of references are what we measure.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #663 on: 26/02/2013 09:38:39 »
It's impossible to define a interaction without using some sort of arrow. So, as I see it, before the interaction there must be a arrow. A interaction must also be a series of 'outcomes' constantly emerging, just like splitting 'c' into some smallest parts, to then define/find a mathematical limit of what we can expect to observe.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #664 on: 26/02/2013 09:53:48 »
If you look at a 'arrow' from that point of view, it becomes something of a plane, constantly emerging through outcomes, like rings on the water. That plane is 'now' constantly, but we never experience that 'now' consciously although all particles defined exist in it. We have memories and histories over the 'past' defining what outcomes came to be, but they are not set in stone :) or if you like, 'logic' definitions explaining what we observe. And that sounds pretty weird don't it? But I think it eh, almost might :) be true, the past will be redefined from where we are depending on what and how we measure, and track your logic into the history of whatever phenomena we want to prove. A temporal plane lightening us up is what exists, and it 'moves' through 'outcomes'.

Told you I was weird :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #665 on: 26/02/2013 10:05:45 »
And that temporal plane is locally defined as unchanging, having a same rhythm, or 'local clock' at all 'times' in my view. It defines your existence, and you using it with those other three degrees of freedom will find a very centric view of reality. 'Rings on the water' is how I look at it, but it is still a static phenomena to me, as it is possible to freeze it at any instant imaginatively. Every point creating its own 'rings', or 'reality' interacting through what we call 'c', and those other constants we might define. Constants are really tricky to define, as they in a way is the 'delimiters' of our existence. Your life may be locally defined, as well as what you measure, but 'constants' are something else. They are 'objectives' in a ideal sense, something 'objectively true', if correctly found and defined. Which makes them more weird than me I think :) And so hard to define.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #666 on: 26/02/2013 10:20:29 »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #667 on: 26/02/2013 10:56:43 »
There is a point to 'constants' that I really find enlightening. And it has to do with fractals too. It's not what you see but what orders it. Take a look at Feigenbaums constant, and those 'strange attractors' that orders physical phenomena. Let us assume that they exist. Are they then allowed a 'dimension'? I think they are, they represent some degree of freedom(s) that we indeed can measure indirectly but have no ordinary 'room' for, at least as I can see?

Does that mean that they don't exist?
They exist to me.

"Conformal dynamics of fractal growth patterns without randomness.

Many models of fractal growth patterns (such as diffusion limited aggregation and dielectric breakdown models) combine complex geometry with randomness; this double difficulty is a stumbling block to their elucidation. In this paper we introduce a wide class of fractal growth models with highly complex geometry but without any randomness in their growth rules. The models are defined in terms of deterministic itineraries of iterated conformal maps, generating the function Phi((n))(omega) which maps the exterior of the unit circle to the exterior of an n-particle growing aggregate. The complexity of the evolving interfaces is fully contained in the deterministic dynamics of the conformal map Phi((n))(omega). We focus attention on a class of growth models in which the itinerary is quasiperiodic. Such itineraries can be approached via a series of rational approximants. The analytic power gained is used to introduce a scaling theory of the fractal growth patterns and to identify the exponent that determines the fractal dimension."

From 2. Davidovitch B, Feigenbaum MJ, Hentschel HGE, Prscaccia I   Conformal dynamics of fractal growth patterns without randomness.   PHYS REV E 2000 AUG;62(2):1706-1715

and

" Mitchell Feigenbaum
Toyota Professor

Attempts at the analytical description of nature regularly encounter strong nonlinearities. The majority of existing methods treat only weak nonlinearities and consist of corrections to behaviors that are simple distortions of linear behavior. The methods in the strong case, on the other hand, are largely recent developments and pertain to behaviors qualitatively distinct from linear ones. One of the most striking such behaviors is the appearance of highly erratic spatial configurations and/or highly erratic temporal evolution, a phenomenon called "chaos."

The hallmark of chaotic motion is a lack of predictability despite the total absence of any random ingredients. Even if one should want to determine just statistical properties of these motions, the methods of statistics cannot be applied in any straightforward manner. This impediment is a consequence of the fact that the motion, rather than exploring all possibilities allowed to it by the constraints of finite energy, finite resources, etc., instead lies in a highly complicated subspace -- a so-called strange set or strange attractor. Thus an a priori calculated average over "everything" will generally produce erroneous results.

Since the equations of motion of an object usually can be cast in a form that is indifferent to where the origin of time is taken, one encounters a process that repeatedly applies the same rule to whatever happens to be there at a given moment. It also often transpires that these rules are "scale invariant," so that what the rule evolves from a given size detail is loosely proportional to that size. In consequence of those two observations, the strange sets encountered in chaotic dynamics can be amenable to a treatment that hierarchically, by rules of scaling, builds up more highly complicated details from those less so. Generically, such objects are called fractals. The method that treats them is termed "renormalization" from which it is to be inferred that after applying a scaling-down rule followed by readjustment of the overall size successively, a definite but highly complicated object continually reemerges.

It is the main effort of this laboratory to extend the scope of the problems over which these methods hold sway, to extend the methods themselves developing appropriate mathematics, and to improve the methods for extracting such information from actual experimental studies ranging from fluids to brains."

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #668 on: 26/02/2013 11:22:57 »
There is a really big difference though, between 'strange attractors' and 'weak experiments' (to me that is:). Weak experiments trying to prove a propagation, aka physically existing 'path' of photons for example, are to me hypothesis's at best. Strange attractors exist.
=

What I mean is that you can find Strange attractors physically measuring. In that manner they are a part of your reality. The 'path' of a photon though, is a reasoning building on the assumption that Newtonian world image must be correct, therefore photons must have a 'physically real path/trajectory".

There is a world of difference between those reasonings, and from where they go out, although they both becomes theoretical expectations/descriptions of a 'reality'.
« Last Edit: 26/02/2013 11:35:22 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #669 on: 06/03/2013 13:13:03 »
I want to go back to time and its arrow, because that what's really confounding me. I can't see any universe with ordered sequences existing without it. But then we have the idea of 'superpositions' to consider too. They imply another 'order' in where it all exist shoulder by shoulder, simultaneously. And if we accept superpositions and a arrow as 'co-existing', then methinks we have the best of both worlds :)

And what differs them?

Scales definitely do, as the smaller your scale, the more indeterministic things seem to become.
Amount interacting? I think that's part of it too. And there you need to consider what does the information (force carriers), and what restrictions define them? This one is important, more important than you might believe.

'Forces'? They exist, don't they?
Well, I think they do, but I also think that they go out from the very small local 'invariance/constants', becoming that strangely defined 'locality' we all exist through in my thoughts. And what we see comes from ..

'Emergences'? Nothing weird about that one, as long as you consider it from temperatures, which then ultimately must become a question about 'energy'.

But think of it as points, each point creating a unique universe, measurably so. Now, where is your 'reality'? Does it go out from you, or is it a collection of 'histories' over local universes, all translatable to each other? On a lighter tone, we're all egoists :) but we all also want to communicate, and tell each other about the way we perceive things, and what we think is the 'most important things in life', don't we?

So communication defines our position in space and time. And there we had the 'force carriers' again. Or as I think, the ultimate constant. 'c'.

Crack that one, and the universe, and physics, will change.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #670 on: 06/03/2013 13:33:32 »
What I mean with 'forces' is that they are mirrors of 'frames of reference' interacting, and a 'frame of reference', as a point in space and time, should have a scale. That scale should be Planck scale to me? And 'under that' we have 'indeterminism' as I expect, and no 'universe' defined either. The one about all 'forces becoming frames of reference interacting is tricky though, and I'm not sure how it should come to be.

But the arrow defines outcomes, not outcomes defining a arrow. You need a arrow to assume a outcome. To assume a outcome to become the arrow, is to me as looking back over histories. But I can't see how a outcome ever can come to be without arrow preexisting, giving it a temporal direction. If you know how that outcome can come to be without a ordered sequence to it though, you might convince me :)

And probability does not cut the meat there.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #671 on: 06/03/2013 13:43:37 »
Because if you consider frames of reference from locality I expect them to be a sort of 'constants', all of them able to superimpose into a same definition of room and time. So what 'frame of reference' would then interact with the 'locally same' points? You need some matrix, lattice, whatever, defining the room, as well as a arrow, and then also define the difference of measurements relative comparing different points.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #672 on: 06/03/2013 13:58:57 »
Think of uniform motion from my point of view, and how you can't measure any difference in energy locally. It's a slippery subject in that we have no clear definition of what 'locally' should mean here, but we can consider it as you measuring some atom vibrating in your laboratory. If the universe we see is description of points interacting then the 'energy' changing locally, in your measurement, only should be able to come to be in a acceleration, as I think. Because the other points you see, and define yourself relative, as well as them relative you, are separated. And what communicates between them are under local definitions.
==

Meaning that you can't measure directly, other than from those local definitions.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #673 on: 06/03/2013 14:10:03 »
We could define it such as different uniform motions exist.
A 'frame of reference' in this motto would then be you, being at rest with your laboratory.
Now accelerating it will introduce local changes in all points making you and your laboratory up.
Comparing your former uniform motion to the 'new' you expect to exist, and measurably can prove relative points not being 'at rest' with you and your laboratory, is illusionary though.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #674 on: 06/03/2013 14:17:10 »
Think it through.

I'm not contradicting myself, even though it seems I am :)
Different uniform motions exist, and you can prove it astronomically.
But, that is between frames not being at rest with each other.

Locally though, all uniform motions are the same.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #674 on: 06/03/2013 14:17:10 »