The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 281423 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #700 on: 07/03/2013 10:34:55 »
Applied on relative motion, this sort of thinking ignore a background, you don't need it. What you need is paths, and the paths together with 'gravity' defines a universe.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #701 on: 07/03/2013 10:38:07 »
And now we go back to 'energy'. Finite? Or not?

That has to do with your definitions of a universe. Is it a 'container' of sorts?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #702 on: 07/03/2013 10:57:43 »
Can you see why I prefer to call gravity a 'preferred direction'? Remember the way we first tried to describe 'gravity'? As some 'rubber mat', in three dimensions? Never made my day that one, it just confused me.

If you want to stay with dimensions, why doesn't a geodesic find 'friction'? After all, we have a dynamically changing universe filled with 'gravity', acting on, and being acted from, mass. Where those gravitational potentials meet each other, why is there no friction in that geodesic?

And there isn't..
Remember us discussing uniform motion, and the absence of 'blue red' shifts?

Paths though, without a background, also fills in a universe.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2013 11:02:17 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #703 on: 07/03/2013 11:13:21 »
So, Einstein was right again (Well, I think so :) No surprise there, he's so exceedingly cool that man in his thinking. Gravity must be the 'metric' of the universe, defining it.

And if you consider it from 'paths' creating what we see, or 'geodesics' defining a universe, filling it in, including 'densities, 'energy', distances etc etc' then, is the energy finite or undefined?

Well, the conservation laws seem to work?

You could imagine it as densities and buoyancy, Our 'universe' becoming something of a certain buoyancy, in where we experience it, and ourselves, as being what is 'real'. Using our observations, and measurements we then go to define 'limits' for that universe, as a length, a width, a height, and of course, a arrow.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #704 on: 07/03/2013 11:21:05 »
Using this idea you will find a 'aether' almost impossible to define. Because there is nothing guaranteeing any end to what consist of 'densities'. My assumption is that for a aether to exist, you first need a 'closed universe', how else can you describe that piece of 'no motion'? From a unlimited universe? Maybe, but I don't think so. And the universe I see is 'unbounded', and 'unlimited' in all degrees of freedom, those we know and those we don't. But our experiments give us the constants defining the limitations inside which we exist.
=

Furthermore I happily find it fitting the idea of us just needing some very small 'local' change, to 'pop out' a new universe. Because it's not 'energy' per se that comes to be created, it's more like you get 'constants' that redefines some, in our case. 'volume'. The 'energy' should already be there. Also I think it suits Einsteins definition of the arrow belonging to the room we see, meaning that they aren't really 'split able'. And 'redefine' shouldn't be read as if a universe comes from a 'known territory', more than I expect whatever there is before to have 'energy'. But as I don't know what 'energy' really is, more than transformations?

Tell me, how cold can it be?
And how hot?
« Last Edit: 07/03/2013 11:53:28 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #705 on: 07/03/2013 12:22:40 »
In such a universe, does light propagate?

Maybe, although I prefer to think of it as not. Using relative motion as a description between 'frames of reference' the universe is not your toybox. You can't just open it and define a 'motion' relative the box's walls. I'm finding constants to be more and more interesting there. Also what degrees of freedom really means for this universe.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #706 on: 07/03/2013 12:52:22 »
Geometrically expressed I would expect such a universe to have a size defined by its dynamics, and constants, not by some predefined volume. So what about the inflation? And the subsequent accelerating expansion? If it exist, does it need to cost 'energy', and how is it transformed if so? Into what? Or is it a cause of Einsteins so called biggest blunder, 'the cosmological constant'?

And another thing. Assume that you create a theory describing to great detail how things seem to work, now assume that along comes another that have taken a different approach, both theories are slightly inconsistent but both fits amazingly well. Must only one of them be right? Or can there be several way to describe a same thing? Relativity is about 'frames of reference' and geometry, also about constants, gravity, symmetries, energy and mass. Quantum mechanics is about probabilities, entanglements, indeterminism, statistics, and what more? The standard theory seems a little of both to me.

You need to read me from that approach, I'm not saying that I need to be correct in any of this, but it is how I view it, and to me it's a ongoing work. Or just me, blathering away :)

The cosmological constant.



 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #707 on: 07/03/2013 15:49:44 »
So what about a arrow? Think of a 'superposition'.

Make it into a circle filled with dots. The circle becomes the boundary defining some limit, the dots inside represent probabilities. Now imagine the circle as a universe, inside it are all probabilities that exist for that universe. But first, is there a limit to probabilities creating other probabilities, creating new probabilities? In that case we can imagine it a as a static representation.

If it is so that you can assume new 'unique' probabilities created through interactions of 'old' probabilities though, defining uniquely new patterns, then it is a 'dynamic system' to me, and not static, as I think for now at least. Like this, we define some laws for their interactions, a game. Can the outcomes from such a proposition vary indefinitely? In a static universe the circle could be seen as the probability's limit, and inside it you would find what we call the arrow, described through outcomes inside it. But in a 'dynamic' system able to create new unique configurations, this reasoning fails to me.

Because there are no boundary's if this is true, and the thought up circumference, describing some limit to probabilities can't exist. Maybe that too can be seen as a expression of 'free will', meaning that although the rules may be simple, the result can be just as complex as you imagine, and then some.

(Thinking of it naively a lot of 'history' seems to be cyclic, it keeps coming back, people recycling the same dumb mistakes, although, to their generation the mistakes seems 'new', often called 'visions' :) But now and then something unique happens that will change the way we live. Like a new theory describing electricity.)

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #708 on: 07/03/2013 18:38:48 »
I better admit it, I'm not that happy about the definition of a 'same universe'. Pick it apart I say :) If you do, you find matter following geodesics, defined by mass/gravity, and all in relative motion. That one opens for other ways to untangle 'energy'. Is energy conserved? Well, if the universe you see is observer defined, can you define where it is conserved? But matter then, the 'energy' in matter? You burn a slab of wood, it transforms into ashes, some of it disappear in smoke, some of it in heat. Is it conserved?

Is heat conserved? is Earth open to space?
Where does that heat go.

And space is a Mexican hat?
Energy densities.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #709 on: 08/03/2013 10:59:02 »
To be honest I very much doubt that Einstein would be too pleased with my interpretation of his theories. I have this suspicion :) that he would like it to be one universe, with light propagating, as in some pyramidal scheme. Building on Newton, with corrections at very high 'energies' where we then find relativity to step in. He seems to have been very 'down to Earth' when it came to realism, although still creating a unified theory, building on observer dependencies. But it his theories I'm using and no one else. Although I stop before the stress energy tensor, it becoming so esoteric , and difficult to imagine, that I don't know where I should put that 'energy', and yes, also questioning 'potential energy'.

Because considering it as paths taken, or vectors/velocities/geodesics, in something without resistance you have two things. No resistance and paths taken. There is no resistance if what the paths do is to follow geodesics, and gravity is nothing more that a preferred direction described from local dependencies, relative the 'relative motion' described from other objects in space.

One of the things we do, all of us, is to use a 'whole universe'. So you can't decide a 'energy', what the he*, use a whole 'universe' and it becomes definable and understandable. But if there is no such thing then? What if the universe you see is your description, and your measurements? Translating it to my view of a universe must be possible as that is simple logic. Otherwise the universe would become magic.

So you have to believe in logic. The universe we see is logic. Then measurements, do you believe in that the measurement you make describes your reality? And here you better be awake.. Yes or no?

And do you believe in 'repeatable experiments' defining truths?
But the universe is observer dependent?

How can both be correct? That we, each one of us, find a different description when comparing frames of reference, yet still define it so that if a experiment is the 'exact same', giving us a exact same outcome, then it must be real? And how can we get those 'same' results?

And that is local measurements, being the same. Frames of reference, not being the same. To get those experimental results locality must become a equivalent platform for us all, no matter what 'frame of reference' someone might define us too.

Furthermore, it must also be the origin of whatever makes us think we have a 'same universe'.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #710 on: 08/03/2013 11:19:34 »
The next step is to take it into absurdum :)

And that means quantum. Does this type of 'locality' have a limit? If you trust quantum logic it should, as far as I understand it. It ends at Plank scale. That's scales my friends, your life defined from scales. So, scaling becomes important in this universe. 'motion' may be ill defined (as I see it then), but scaling is not. I mean, it got to be one of the most 'local' tests you can do of a universe, no matter what you're looking for.

So scales. but 'motion'?

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #711 on: 08/03/2013 11:31:42 »
Then a third step. Motion as split into uniform motion and accelerations. Sometimes I use the idea of freezing it, mostly to describe what I feel is behind it all, some static representation existing, before that 'motion'. But uniform motion is being still. Your life consist of accelerations, although I can freeze those in my mind they become two different descriptions. Uniform motion being 'still', relative motion being you comparing your 'uniform motion' relative some other objects 'uniform motion' (as described by light, and yes, I could make it more precise but this is a discussion to me).

But accelerations is life.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #712 on: 08/03/2013 11:49:11 »
Let's go back to uniform motion. You're not moving, unless you look at some other heavenly body, in which case you find yourself to gain a 'relative motion'. So what are those other bodies doing? How can they show me different geodesics, containing different speeds/velocities if they aren't moving?

Well, how about asking yourself, why is the universe observer dependent, while we wonder about that, too?

I don't know, or I do, it is a result from 'c' being a constant, and us doing local experiments finding uniform motion to change nothing locally, although still presenting us with a 'energy' when compared to another 'frame of reference' (collision).

But it is logic, if you put it together with observer dependencies. Both say the same, reality is a local description. Frames of reference is not your reality, although all to real in a collision. So what is a collision? Frames of reference becoming one?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #713 on: 08/03/2013 11:58:01 »
So what is a geodesic, assuming you're not moving?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #714 on: 08/03/2013 12:10:39 »
What tell you those other bodies exist?
Light, or radiation.

That weird pimpernel. Existing through the 'recoil' described in matter- not existing in between that and- its annihilation. You can measure the path of matters geodesic, everything that stops accelerating will follow a geodesic, everywhere. A football exist in its path, but light only exist intrinsically, in its annihilation.

And we call the way it 'propagates' a 'duality'. You can depending on experimental setup either find it to be 'wave like' or 'quantized' as a 'photon'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #715 on: 08/03/2013 12:15:01 »
You can not find it to be both simultaneously though, except theoretically, there is no experiment I know of showing light as both a wave and a photon in its annihilation, simultaneously? You can assume that all light quanta of a same energy are equivalent, and looking at astronomically you also can assume that it is intrinsically 'time less' (ignoring astronomical and other red shifts here, as well as blue shifts). A lot of people don't like that.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #716 on: 08/03/2013 12:16:18 »
I don't like it either :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #717 on: 08/03/2013 12:19:55 »
But it has to with definitions, do we have a 'indivisible same universe' as normally though of? If we do, then we will ignore relativity for this, to define it such as there are immutable astronomical distances, that light propagates over.

But if we have a relativistic universe, in where all motion, except accelerations, are being 'still' as far as we can measure locally?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #718 on: 08/03/2013 12:31:45 »
Accelerations define change, the recoil define a change locally, the annihilation define a change, also locally. but a 'uniform motion' in between?

And that, ahem, friends, is that a result of a arrow?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #719 on: 08/03/2013 12:33:05 »
The football you follow is actually described by that same light we can't follow in its 'uniform motion'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #720 on: 08/03/2013 12:50:49 »
It's becoming a universe having very little practical connection to how we experience it normally, doesn't it? A universe that in some motto can be seen as being 'static' if we allow uniform motion to be locally 'unmoving'. If you want to have some fun you can define it as your aether :) it being impossible to prove you wrong, using local experiments.

And this is probably where you shake your head commenting to yourself, 'and he think he is sane?'
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #721 on: 08/03/2013 13:02:33 »
But it has some nice points to it. It makes why there is no resistance in a geodesic understandable, and how all those relative motions can crisscross each other never finding a obstacle for their 'motion' unless colliding, in which case they momentarily might be seen as joining a same 'frame of reference', although I'm pretty unsure how to describe that one. Then again, 'frames of reference' if you really start to wonder about what it should mean, is not solely about comparing points in space and time, it's also about defining points in space and time being 'at rest' with each other.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #722 on: 08/03/2013 13:07:24 »
But do they need to collide to be able to influence each other? How about binary stars, and gravity waves?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #723 on: 08/03/2013 13:08:50 »
What 'propagates' a 'gravity wave'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • 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 #724 on: 08/03/2013 13:23:20 »
Let's reason a little. If a geodesic is no motion, how can we find other objects to move uniformly? Well, using a definition of a 'whole' same universe for us all we can't, I would say. To do it we need to find some other way to describe what we observe. A universe consistent with constants, presenting us with a same underlying logic, but splintered into observers describing it locally. That universe is not 'whole', unless you define it such as each interpretation of it is 'whole', locally described. But only a God would then be able to see it, as it really is.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #724 on: 08/03/2013 13:23:20 »

 

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