The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 279327 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #750 on: 09/03/2013 03:22:08 »
So does this mean that the universe i see don't exist? Nope, it's just my try for a alternative description of what is 'behind' what we see. Newton is right, And Einstein, and all those others, as Noether and Plank and Shrödinger, not to mention those mathematicians defining equations and constants of all sorts. Think they all are right, sometimes you just have to look to their context and time. The sciences we established, and the ways we defined for testing propositions are a remarkable thing, along with philosophy, mathematics, not to forget ethics (and literature, all sorts:) it must be the best representations of the human spirit we have. Then we have the finer arts too of course, as painting, all good representations.

But I love relativity. It's somewhere there between philosophy and hard core mathematics, and before all, it makes you wonder.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #751 on: 09/03/2013 03:29:26 »
If light is considered a constant, and the universe described as relations, then duality is a result of those relations, relative 'c'. It's another way to build a universe. But you need a arrow. To me the arrow arrange outcomes, not outcomes arranging a arrow.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #752 on: 09/03/2013 03:35:53 »
And the arrow, what does it get its definition from? Frames of reference, or locality. I would say locality.

Your clock and ruler. What does it mean?

It's a expression describing your local room, and time. That's the one that never change. That's the one defining repeatable experiments. That's the one giving you a invariant lifespan, no matter how fast you go, or what mass you rest on.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #753 on: 09/03/2013 03:44:34 »
Using light as a constant, we need 'relations'. Those must then define what you see, together. So a experiment showing you a wave will then be a result of your arrangements, as will a 'photon'. And I'm rather strict on the arrow, and outcomes. You might have ideas for how to prove a simultaneous wave/particle duality, but as far as I know you only can get one of those outcomes, at a time.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #754 on: 09/03/2013 03:54:22 »
In fact, give me a experiment that proves both, simultaneously, but I mean prove. And I like simple experiments, so keep it simple please :) Relativity is simple, the mathematics behind it less so. The more elaborated your ideas becomes, the more equations you need to describe it, the fewer will read it. My are simple, light doesn't propagate, we have real causality chains defined from a local arrow, equivalent to 'c'. That arrow does not go backwards, ever.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #755 on: 09/03/2013 04:02:52 »
So how do we get distance and motion? If light refuse to 'move'? Heh, that one is weird, isn't it?
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #756 on: 09/03/2013 07:18:56 »
So how do we get distance and motion? If light refuse to 'move'? Heh, that one is weird, isn't it?
Your questions could be clearer in digits.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #757 on: 09/03/2013 13:15:46 »
Agreed, but that should mean that I have a definite theorem, but this is just blueprints, or an essay :) Simplified, made to my satisfaction, and more I get to 'understand' the less satisfied I will be with it too, most probably. And it's pretty weird, even if it solve some of my problems with QM and relativity. I cut the Gordian knot, by defining light as non propagating, well, as I think now. And that may change :)

Let's go back to uniform motion and geodesics, this time from observer dependencies. It doesn't matter if there are 'real objective' paths and a 'whole unified universe', or not. Because of one reason, as long as both descriptions give you a same result then both are valid. But turning it around it also means that it need to explain all those theories that already been fitted to reality, as well as classical descriptions.

And there light propagates, and we don't see planets and suns jump geodesics just because you change coordinate system, As taking a rocket to mars. Why?

To my thinking it has to do with the regime we're in. Relativistic effects needs a lot of energy expended locally, even though it in no way compare to the effects we see in a universe shrinking. We can spend such a energy, but only in particle chambers/accelerators.

But what differs my thoughts is that I think that even if you can't measure the effects inside our ordinary regime, the universe and energies bound today, they still must be there.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #758 on: 09/03/2013 13:28:16 »
And if they are they share it with HUP. It's about what makes a universe, either you think that 'jumping geodesics' due to changing coordinate system is a 'emergence' created through motion, and inside our arrow it also then must born by accelerations. Or you define it as progressively magnified effect, coming to be as soon you get out of sync , no longer definable as being at rest with a uniform motion. 'At rest' and 'uniform motion' isn't necessarily the same, well, not in the way they express themselves in a geometric universe. All suns should have a uniform motion, but they don't need to be 'at rest' with their neighbors, although it still might be possible to define a sun to be 'at rest' with some other sun thousands of lightyears away. so there is a difference. And that difference leads to a definition of 'relative motion' as something being, or not being 'at rest' with other 'relative motion' but all of it sharing a 'uniform motion'.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 15:23:59 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #759 on: 09/03/2013 14:30:33 »
Dimensions or paths?

Citing myself here.

"Ever heard of the Fractional Quantum Hall (FQH) Effect? It's a really strange effect where if you pass a electric current through a wire, having a magnetic field perpendicular on the wire, the electrons inside that wire suddenly deflects sideways. Now pointing to the surface of the wire, generating a voltage across the wire's width. and that's called the 'Hall effect'. So, how can electrons behave this way?

Well, it seems the answer lies in that they combines into a new kind of 'particle', called anyons. Anyons are somewhere in between fermions (normal matter, like electrons:) and bosons (photons and gluons for example). Fermions prefer to have a reserved seat in space (Pauli exclusion principle & Fermi–Dirac statistics). Bosons, on the other hand, can happily all join into one big superposition, in where they all together take no place at all (Bose–Einstein statistics). But 'anyons' is a third state which are neither bosons, nor fermions, and as the electrons 'clump together' to create this state they also suddenly begets fractional charges, called the FQH effect.

Sure but how do they do it, and why? A very understandable explanation I saw discussed it from the point of 'folds'. There are some definitely weird things about our 'ordinary electrons' too btw. One electron can in certain circumstances be positioned in two places simultaneously, but, there is also the possibility of two electrons only taking one 'place', 'standing on top of each other', and it is this effect we will discuss now. The reason they can do so has to do with that there are two quantum states possible for each 'reserved place' in space. So the 'space' we discuss here becomes a double-folded, three dimensional, space.

Did it hurt your head? I liked it a lot, to me it has to do with how I should see 'dimensions'. Remember those very small 'rolled up' dimensions that string theory speaks about? Add to that the idea of dimensions, as in our SpaceTime where we have eight 'corners', so 1 2 4  8 (ours)  16 32 ~. So is that it? Or is this another description of what a 'dimension' could be seen as? This idea also takes a fair shot at explaining why you have to 'turn' a electron 720 degrees to give it a 'full turn'. Can you see why? It has to do with those two 'folds' it exist in, turn it a full 'circle' (360 degrees) and you will have 'moved' it in its 'interior fold' to a start position of its 'exterior fold', another 360 degrees will give you the original start position back in its 'interior fold', all as I understands it."
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #760 on: 09/03/2013 14:34:08 »
And yes, to me it has to do with how light can be seen as non propagating. Because in a universe of paths, light describes them. And it don't need to propagate, as long as it has a arrow creating causality.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #761 on: 09/03/2013 14:43:36 »
What happens to our definitions of length, width and height in a universe of paths? Nothing as far as i can see, matter and space is something in a symbiosis. A atom is 99,999 etc 'space'. And mass express some really weird properties inside that atoms constituents, especially when it comes to quarks if I remember right? And in relativity both mass and space shrink in the direction your relativistic motion, as I see it. And it is 'real'.

Treat it as a game, with rules.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #762 on: 09/03/2013 14:52:39 »
Stop giving me the impression that each 'dimension' somehow becomes a 'plane of existence', it gotta be wrong. Use paths instead, as points connecting to other points, described by light. Light, or force (information) carriers creates your 'dimensions'. Well, as I see it :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #763 on: 09/03/2013 15:05:26 »
Mass exist, mass takes place and mass can be touched. Space is a description of what is between mass, space can't be touched, but space also takes a place. Then we have 'forces' as the electromagnetic, they too take place (or not:) and, depending on definition, they must touch. Then we have 'bosons'.

Bosons are stuff that takes place, as light, but don't really need to. You can superimpose all photons/light there are and it still will refuse to take a place. But if it didn't take a place in the universe you wouldn't have light. You can up the complications by describing waves, quenching, reinforcing, and decoherence. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-decoherence/
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 15:16:15 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #764 on: 09/03/2013 15:30:03 »
Do as God is said to have done :) 'Let there be time'.

Causality needs a arrow,
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #765 on: 09/03/2013 15:36:53 »
From my view a particle gets its three dimensionality from the 'forces' interacting at those points, making it up. There must be a way to describe that from paths, without involving 'planes of existence' knitting together, aka 'dimensions'. And as soon as we have this definition of a particle we also must find a room, a arrow, and 'gravity'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #766 on: 09/03/2013 15:41:35 »
What makes a particle of mass isn't that clear, I prefer to think of it as a emergence due to broken symmetry. A fault in something else. But, as they interact we have something defining our 'dimensions'. Consider a empty space, how would you prove it to be three dimensional? you just see, but you are not there as matter. Can you prove it?
=

You can't actually. Why?

Where is the frame of reference needed for defining a rotation?
Relative what?

(I stipulated 'no matter' just so that you wouldn't be able to use yourself as some 'static' proof of a three dimensionality. But the reasoning for rotations holds even if you would be there as matter)
« Last Edit: 09/03/2013 16:10:52 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #767 on: 09/03/2013 15:59:37 »
Because that is what our universe seems to be in my mind. A number space, or points, defined by some hopefully simple rules, each point using its own clock and ruler to define other points from. All points able to find a exact same frame of reference, when 'superimposed' or positioned. The dichotomy defined by relativity and some few forces, interacting over a causality defined by your local arrow/distance relative all other points.

You need to differ between what is locally constant and what happens between frames of reference. They get redefined by 'c'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #768 on: 09/03/2013 20:21:00 »
So why do I find problems with a propagation, some of them are quantum related, others may be seen as macroscopic, as us following a 'light path' experimentally. You don't need 'dimensions' to define a universe as i see it, but you definitely need paths, their 'end points/patterns' described in the relations between 'forces'. I would have loved to make it all out as relativistic time dilations and length contractions creating 'forces', creating 'particles' etc, but I don't see how that should be done.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #769 on: 09/03/2013 20:28:45 »
And you need a arrow to create a plausible causality, and if you know a way to reproduce a effect, then you just need to define 'one particle' and some rules for that one interacting. Like some 'fractal universe' huh :) Or as I think, downscale 'c' into a Planck scaled local constant, split into a 'length', and a 'time', and a 'energy'. Then you got yourself the local point from where you can move the moon.
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #770 on: 10/03/2013 16:20:05 »

=
Where is the frame of reference needed for defining a rotation?
Relative what?

(I stipulated 'no matter' just so that you wouldn't be able to use yourself as some 'static' proof of a three dimensionality. But the reasoning for rotations holds even if you would be there as matter)
Rotation defines some slowing of time.Rotation is just motion of masses relatively of another masses.We don't know general formula of gravitational-kinematic slowing of time.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #771 on: 10/03/2013 17:53:57 »
But it's not about time simplified, although any rotation is :)
It's solely directed to the archetypes we live with, 'dimensions'.
And the question is about how you would find one, no less three, in a totally 'empty space'.

Rotations is a solution to it, but only relative something by you defined as being 'at rest' with you. Without that frame the space you see can have any dimension, even none as a guess.
=

And 'at rest' here is a tricky one too. If one believe in motion we can give, the observer and the frame of reference defined as being 'at rest', any motion you like. As long as it is uniform. So what is a 'absolute motion' here?

A acceleration?
« Last Edit: 10/03/2013 23:45:56 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #772 on: 10/03/2013 18:17:54 »
But we can use time.

Think of the space. It could be a still photo, but introduce a observer inside it and you introduce a (although strictly local to the observer) time. Having introduced time you could argue that you by that also must find a distance, if we go by relativity. Because you have a 'room', and a observer. The observer measure in time, and therefore distance must exist, even if not measurable, to be consistent with relativity. which would exclude the 'none dimension' but still allow us define anything from 'one dimension' to '???? dimensions'

But if you go by measurements solely that 'room' is no 'room', and have no 'dimensions' as far as I can see, until measured.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #773 on: 10/03/2013 23:55:55 »
If you define it as a local energy density inside that room, no body, just a density, to then accelerate it? That one is so weird, and undefinable as it seems to me. Because even in a uniform motion you then can assume a gravity created, possibly? But it seems to me as you also can assume, as it is a uniform motion, that it is moving in a geodesic created by its own 'mass'. And if you then accelerate it you should create a higher energy density which will bend the space it propagates in even more. How would you prove it to move? You can't prove that, you need some other frame of reference even then?

We would define it as 'moving', but that is us knowing that if you accelerate something relative a universe's 'relative motion' you actually displace yourself relative the universe.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • 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 #774 on: 11/03/2013 00:17:47 »
Then again, how  can you define a geodesic in that empty space? That is also a assumption from 'relative motion', isn't it? so you may have something acting in a direction (gravity) but you won't find a motion? And as it is energy we're talking about here I see no way to split it in 'constituents' of something. Otherwise one might think of it as those, each one, following a geodesic defined by whole of the aggregate of 'energy constituents' making up that 'energy density', relative each ones 'place'. But as you don't have any way to define that space?

And place here is no easy thing to define anyway, as it must be some sort of bosons, assuming a 'existence'. But something allows two particles colliding at relativistic speed to create more mass than the particles themselves, each one counted on by its own mass (while at rest, before a acceleration).
« Last Edit: 11/03/2013 00:25:12 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #774 on: 11/03/2013 00:17:47 »

 

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