The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280385 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 #675 on: 06/03/2013 14:22:01 »
From a quantum reference I would define a 'frame of reference' as a point defined through four dimensions. The time and location in three degrees of freedom (all locally defined.)

From a point of discussing macroscopic phenomena we instead can use being 'at rest' with something.
=

Or maybe both are acceptable in both perspectives? The 'difference' being that from a quantum perspective each point becomes its own definition having a relation to each other point that will change in a acceleration. Not the points themselves, but their relation relative each other. And that craves a 'room' or some similar proposition. But you could also express it as those points aren't 'at rest' with each other, while accelerating. So yes, 'at rest' do work there too.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2013 14:28:26 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 #676 on: 06/03/2013 14:46:43 »
Because that is close to how I feel 'motion' should be described. As existing in two separate definitions.
Uniform motion being locally illusionary, existing differently (as speeds) when compared, at rest.
Accelerations as something changing relations between 'points' locally, not being at rest under it.
=

But if it is so, what then would 'motion' be?
We need a room to define and experience it as both being 'the same'. But they don't seem to be, to me. although you can place them under one umbrella, they are locally very different.
 

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 #677 on: 06/03/2013 14:55:17 »
The room we see, what makes it?
Space and matter, you need both. Depending on how to see it you might consider it as a 'box' in where we have energy densities, some touch able, others not. Or from my slightly weird view, something created through mass, using gravity. In my view all points are, in a way, the same. And what we define as their locations are the restrictions 'c' place on us, as well as other constants presumably. In Einsteins view I don't think you can split the arrow from the room, and he's right. The room and the time are one and the same.
 

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 #678 on: 06/03/2013 15:05:44 »
Can you see how it might work from my point of view? You accelerating, changing all points relative each other, in your ship. From a looser definition though still being comparatively 'at rest' with each other, and all those points redefining all other points outside that ship, from distance to 'energy' and 'time'. And if the room and time you measure for other points are defined through your local clock and ruler, at rest with you. Then time and the room are the same, they are in a set relation to each other, invariant locally, redefining the universe you measure. But it does not cost 'energy', other than the locally expended for the acceleration.
=

But the room is one slippery bas*'d. Particles need room. Boson's don't :)
Locally we all reserve a place, as matter. So how can your measurements tell you that the 'room' shrunk? It consists of matter too, as well as space.

That takes us to what 'degrees of freedom' means. You can use the 'box' and define dimensions inside it, measuring. Or you can use locality and question what makes a 'box'.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2013 15:13:37 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 #679 on: 06/03/2013 15:31:54 »
But if we give each point, let's say four values. A time, and a location in three dimensions, and then consider all points being equivalent, as in superimposing them. How big does a universe needs to be? In a way it's about time to me, as a flood, sweeping it all with it. Time defines distance. You don't need a ruler for that even though it is very handy when defining speeds. There is no way you can misunderstand the time it takes for you to locally traverse some distance, although you might put into different 'segments' describing it.

But particles still need a room. And you can redefine room and time when accelerating, and as far as I know? Those redefinitions will stay when you stop that acceleration, to subsequently (uniformly) coast away.
 

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 #680 on: 06/03/2013 16:38:03 »
But it is very strange. Imagine a box in where we have two descriptions.
Uniform motion, being illusionary locally described.
Accelerations, being 'real' locally described.

We always needing two different frames, not at rest relative each other, to find a energy when discussing uniform motion. But also finding that uniform motions can shrink the universe, locally defined.

What shrinks a universe differently, as described relative different uniform motions? And if all uniform motions are equivalent, or illusionary, why does the universe differ between them?
 

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 #681 on: 06/03/2013 16:46:24 »
It can't be energy, not as I can imagine it any way? It don't seem to have to do with energy transformations at all in fact. At least not from the point of you shrinking a whole universe by choosing a different uniform motion? And the time you measure other frames to have must differ too, depending on that motion. Take away all other objects, keep yourself, are you moving? You will know a acceleration, assuming it has to do with points not being able to stay 'at rest' with each other, but in a uniform motion they will be 'at rest'.
 

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 #682 on: 06/03/2013 17:12:15 »
So we have four dimensions defined, and then we have motion. Motion becoming and describing interactions, splittable into uniform motion and acceleration. Uniform motion existing without cost, accelerations always costing. Why can't we define a energy to uniform motion locally? If the universe is a 'box', containing us, having a finite energy content, then uniform motions must be assigned different costs too. Otherwise I see no explanation for why we find different energies released in a collision?

But if all uniform motion are found equivalent, locally measured, you then need to define that energy to some other location than the objects moving. And that should be the stress energy tensors definitions.

Assuming it from locality, and not relating it to a 'box' at all, the definitions becomes slightly different. Then all uniform motion can be equivalent, and motion is ill defined from the beginning, not by Einsteins thoughts, but by assumptions grounded on how we have observed it locally from Earth, from the beginning of dawn, as they say :)

Einstein wanted realism before all, and he wanted the universe to be what we saw. One big place in where everything that is co-exist. Locality agrees on that what we see is what we get, but it uses the local invariants, or constants, to define what it is we see. And if you use them motion becomes so weird, both types do. And 'dimensions' becomes ill defined too, as they too goes out from a archetype of one big undifferentiated universe, same for us all. Instead the only anchor-points for a objective reality becomes local, or being 'at rest' with something, which in some strange way becomes the same from locality's view.
 

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 #683 on: 06/03/2013 17:30:46 »
And the really tricky thing about that 'local' realism is that what it describes is not what you see. Because as soon as you measure, you should be introducing another frame of reference, relative you and your detector. Can you see how I think there? You can't really measure strictly locally, although, if you can define it as being 'at rest' with what you measure it is a 'local description/measurement', possibly? Because the constants, as 'c', are in reality made through observations between 'frames of reference'.

Although it is those very constants that are the 'objective reality' that define each point in 'locality'. Meaning 'c', and a arrow defined through invariant even chunks of 'time', described by splitting 'c'. And those are the same in each point. And when it comes to 'distance' that by definition (of 'c') becomes just as invariant locally.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2013 00:12:53 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 #684 on: 07/03/2013 00:32:29 »
Being at rest, versus accelerations. One free of costs, the other costing. One where all motions locally becomes equivalent, the other always noticeable locally. Uniform motion becoming a equilibrium, accelerations being what disturb the balance. Life consist of accelerations, as I suspect :) in a very wide meaning. Every time there is a transformation there should be a acceleration involved. Or can you see some part of the universe not fitting such a description? So, accelerations is about the arrow, but uniform motion?

That depends on if you think a uniform motion really exist. We use frames of reference to define those, but without a frame to compare it too, it disappear 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 #685 on: 07/03/2013 00:53:14 »
There seems to be a balance to it though, a dynamic equilibrium sort of. We being somewhere in the 'middle' of a room-time geometry, where the parameters for both room and time, as defined from your local reality, dynamically adjust for accelerations/mass and uniform motions.

I could assume that as different uniform motions treat other frames of reference differently, as blue shifting light when moving uniformly close to light, there should be a local difference between different uniform motions, But I can't find it? Except, when measuring between frames of reference.

It's about reality, and the way we do measurements. We do them locally, then we theorize about why they act as they do. But if locality's measurements are what defines your life, do they lie? How should I define reality if I won't accept what the measurements tell 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 #686 on: 07/03/2013 01:12:51 »
Does a uniform motion blue shift light? Does the light on Earth blue shift due to any 'motion' defined relative some other heavenly body? Inside a 'black box scenario' the light from a light bulb (uniform motion) will be the same locally, doesn't matter how fast you define that box as moving. But when it comes to relative motion the light from other suns will both blue and red shift, depending on the direction relative those. We call very distant stars 'fixed stars', meaning that they are too far away for observing any 'motion'.

Uniform motions do not blue shift light locally, also described as that light-bulb being 'at rest' with your detector, enclosed in that 'black box'. Accelerations do it though, as well as red shifting it, again depending on from where you measure relative that light bulb, and the overall direction of your box. Meaning you are free to define a motion, or a 'gravity', depending on choice, inside that (uniformly) accelerating black box.

Mass also blue shift light, but does it equivalently over its whole surface, like on Earth. Meaning that there is no 'red shift' existing, depending on acceleration defined to some direction. Or if you want to describe mass as a acceleration (motion) then it should accelerate inward toward some center, equivalently, this assuming a perfect sphere without tidal influences. Better include a 'flat space' (no other 'gravity' existing) for it too :)
=

Now, if a acceleration is gravity, where in that 'black box' does it come from. After all, gravity is a preferred direction to me. Does it come from the end where you find light to be red shifted, or from the end where you find light to blue shift?

The blue shift defines the origin, don't you agree? And energy?
Is energy mass?

This one is easy to see if you think of light as waves, stretching or compressing relative you, depending on your motion relative that lights origin. But you can discuss it in form of photons too, and photons are not waves. They do not stretch, or compress, as far as I know. Inside that black box you either 'rush forward' to meet the light originating from the light-bulb, or constantly accelerate away from it (becoming a red shift)

But in a uniform motion there is no such thing definable?
Why?

If it now is a motion?
« Last Edit: 07/03/2013 01:36:04 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 #687 on: 07/03/2013 01:51:43 »
How will you know your speed inside a black box? You will know it through the acceleration, as you will observe 'gravity', as well as 'blue/red shifts', depending on where you are relative that light bulb. But as soon as we have a uniform motion that definition disappear. Let us assume that there is a scale for the local blue shift, depending on acceleration. Let us define it such as (ignoring local gravity for the moment) 'distance' has no meaning for you inside the black box, there are no windows, and no way to measure what's outside it.

So forget distance, instead we need to define how we will know that we're close to 'c'.
How will we know?
« Last Edit: 07/03/2013 02:04:01 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 #688 on: 07/03/2013 02:07:47 »
A 'infinite' blue shift, but depending on where you are, but observed from the other side of the light bulb?
A 'infinite' red shift?

And if we look at it as a energy distribution then?
Which side of the light bulb has the most 'energy'?
 

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 #689 on: 07/03/2013 02:19:28 »
Then we look at uniform motion, and imagine a same scenario.

No blue shift, and no red shift. You can accelerate how much you like, you can through your acceleration define it to be very close to 'c'. But your subsequent uniform motion will not confirm it, inside that shielded black box the light will be 'as always'. and the energy distribution inside that room should be equivalent through all any direction measured, as I think.
 

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 #690 on: 07/03/2013 02:24:14 »
And there is one part more to it :) as always.

Would you define yourself to be at rest with the light bulb in both scenarios?
 

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 #691 on: 07/03/2013 02:32:49 »
From where I stand a uniform motion must be being 'at rest'. But a acceleration? Even though you can define it as you having a set distance to that light bulb and so be 'at rest' with it, it still seems to do things to you and your environment, aka particles. It's two definitions inside each other to me. The one macroscopic being 'at rest', but the one describing particles relations to each other, and 'energy', in a acceleration not being 'at rest' at all.
 

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 #692 on: 07/03/2013 09:27:37 »
The normal definition of something being at rest with something else don't discuss this, and it took me some time to realize that it primary considered itself with a geometric definition of what being 'at rest' meant. You being enclosed are indeed 'at rest' with that black box. But then we have quantum physics and small scales, and we have 'frames of reference'.

A frame of reference is a tricky definition to me, it's about you measuring some other point in space and time, using your clock and ruler. But there is nothing stating where one frame start and another one ends, as far as I can see it's more a question about what your definitions are. You as I believe that Planck scale is about 'constants'? Then you may use that as a definition. You want it to be about a geometric expression, as a black box, then that is correct too.

Whereas the first contain two frames, defined as one plank length as described relative another, or maybe one atom described relative another, a black box contains a multitude of atoms. In the one using a macroscopic black box we don't concern ourself with descriptions of how atoms might redefine themselves relative other atoms, but maybe we should?

Frames of reference is what Relativity is about, and from that small scale I would expect all accelerations to redefine any and all particles relations visavi the others, add infinitum. Or would you expect it to be otherwise? I take frames of reference very seriously (which is a odd thing to state :)

So, from my point of view then. First you need to come to grip with what you expect to be a smallest meaningful frame of reference. Then you need to find the same for a smallest meaningful description of lights propagation. Those two (clock and ruler) involved gives you also the smallest length of a segment of 'time' as well as 'length'. Then you need to ask yourself what that should mean from relativity's geometrical descriptions of macroscopic black boxes.

Because 'black boxes' are very powerful instruments for juggling ideas. Ideal definitions of something isolated, a 'perfect system' if you like. The hardest thing is to find some new angle there, as Einstein and his contemporaries was pretty da*n good at considering it all. But somehow they never took frames of reference to its conclusion, as being something 'real'. As I first meet it, it always came described as thought experiments, in where you are free to define it any which way as long as we other can follow your logic, and agree. Also see that it stays inside what limitations you set up.

But if there is a smallest meaningful frame of reference, then it exist. No mere thought experiment.
 

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 #693 on: 07/03/2013 09:45:56 »
And it is using both definitions I find a 'uniform motion' to fulfill whatever demands I can imagine for being 'at rest'. But I won't say the same for accelerations. I had some serious problems trying to understand 'relative motion' from my view. Because 'relative motion' is about degrees of motion, as defined by you, observing other suns for example.

If relative motion is 'no motion' then, how can you find it to have degrees? You need to consider that from frames of reference too. The 'trick', or thought juggling, is to realize that without another frame of reference there is no such thing as 'motion'. That statement would be untrue if I saw some way to define a local 'energy', measurable nota bene, to different uniform motions (the light bulb blue shifting). But I can't find it, and neither will you.

'Relative motion' then becomes a lot stranger, if you think it through.
 

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 #694 on: 07/03/2013 09:53:38 »
Another fallacy that is really confusing, and easy to get stuck on, is to consider that 'black box' from less than ideal descriptions. You point out that 'sure, inside it it is so, but that is relative the outside. If you only used fixed stars you would know your speed' for example.

That is wrong.

A black box is the perfect definition of a universe, small, easy to carry, just put into your pocket and take it up now and then to reflect on the universe :at large :) A black box is not about if the universe is 'closed' or 'open', It's about using a minimalistic approach to reality, trying to see what defines 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 #695 on: 07/03/2013 10:00:25 »
And relative motion is what got me wondering about how we define 'dimensions' or 'degrees of freedom'. Because we do have 'degrees of freedom' to uniform motion :) And now some physicists will hate me ::))

But it is still true.
And it has to do with 'energy.
 

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 #696 on: 07/03/2013 10:03:57 »
Does the universe have a finite energy? Any which way you consider it, do you expect it to be a finite magnitude, or 'undefined' translatable into 'infinite'. We have laws of conservation, do those tell us anything 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 #697 on: 07/03/2013 10:15:21 »
'energy' is about transformations, as far as I can see. Also from a wider angle about 'emergences'  as heat. Is heat then 'energy'? Heat is kinetic energy to my eyes, particles interacting, transforming one another leaving a excess of radiation. One nice idea is to describe it from opposites, you drop a apple, the floor stops it, negating the 'force' you found the apple to get from 'gravity'. Applied on a universe this idea predicts that the energy needed to create a universe is, 'negligible' almost. Because you just need a little more than those opposites to 'unbalance' the equation, balance or equilibrium.

So, do you think this idea state that the universe has a 'finite energy'?
 

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 #698 on: 07/03/2013 10:24:47 »
And it has to do with those 'degrees of freedom' to me. You can imagine it several ways I guess. The way we have choose is to define a 'box' of sorts, called a universe. In that box we can measure stuff, we also find that stuff as matter have three 'degrees of freedom' defined to them making a sphere possible. Take away one degree and you will have something that disappear from one angle, to exist from another. Take away one more and you get our ideal definition of a filled circle, only view able from the back and front (sort of). 'Degrees of freedom' is the perfect choice of words for it, much better than 'dimensions' to my eyes.
 

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 #699 on: 07/03/2013 10:29:15 »
Because a degree of freedom fits locality, dimensions don't. If you take a point and then draw a line from it, imagining that this line describes a path, you have gotten yourself a degree of freedom. Apply a 'dimension' on it instead, and you filled in a background for that path, all to my eyes. A degree of freedom is just a path.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #699 on: 07/03/2013 10:29:15 »

 

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