The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 279304 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 #775 on: 11/03/2013 01:23:42 »
But if we look at a Big Bang we have to assume it comes from something, don't we? Doesn't matter if you define it as 'cyclic', there should still be a instance where it is '0'? If you think of it otherwise I expect you to assume constant interactions and a constant 'space' of some sort existing. And a cyclic universe uses a arrow in that I can describe it as a linear process without problems, even if you think of it as some time symmetric solution where time 'oscillates' forth and back. But I can't define a start and a end to such an idea, then again, neither can you. To make such a proposition the room as defined relative frames of reference should become a illusion. Because the relation between a room and arrow is defined in relativity. You shrink a room through your speed (acceleration) but locally your ruler and time is the same, and all things at rest with you will have a measurable distance and 'time'.

And the arrow we have is only pointing one way, experimentally described. Neither QM, nor relativity has a experimental proof for a time reversal, as I get it?

So, how far can we shrink that room?
 

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 #776 on: 11/03/2013 09:24:01 »
99 % of what I write gotta be bs, at least missing that rigorous treatment. But 1% should hopefully make some sense, or we introduce a holistic principle in which that 1%, holistically applied, indeed becomes a 100% of perfect sense. So you see, nothing can be wrong here. Anyway.

One of the really big reasons why I question a space, and propagation, is the wave function and EPR. John D Norton is a nice guy, creating some of the best explanations of relativity I've seen on the net. And he's a professor in the history of physics too, that is a real bonus to me as I enjoy people that present their propositions on what history they searched out for themselves. Because you better face it, as you get older you will find yourself to getting fixed views, and if those views involves only authorities subsequent fixed views new 'Einstein's' will find a problem getting heard. Einstein came when QM was getting created, by a lot of people, trying to describe atoms, constituents, and the mathematical relations between them, and how to count on them. You had a mix of people being pure theorists, with people not so much interested in new theories as with experimentally and mathematically find ways to validate the theories already there. I don't think it's the same now. Now we have two camps, QM and relativity, with QM being what catches peoples interest, mine too. Does this mean that QM 'must be the final answer'? Well, I'm not sure, not as the ultimate answer to the universe, time and all. We've had periods like this before, historically, where people 'at last' thought they had found what the universe stands on.

'It's turtles, all the way down.'
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
 

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 #778 on: 11/03/2013 10:26:48 »
So, how do you want it to be?
Dimensions, or just 'paths'

Wanna bet that we're going to find more 'dimensions'? I think that is a safe bet.
Wanna bet that those 'new dimensions' can't ignore the ideas of 'older' definitions of 'new dimensions'? Another safe bet.

 I like the idea of paths, because that tells us that any which way you find it to be, no matter how many dimensions you find necessary, it still comes down to some principle(s) of how paths connects, relative 'forces'.
 

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 #779 on: 11/03/2013 10:55:51 »
Applied this way dimensions is a wrong description, although it is the one that fit a non relativistic approach to reality. Because we really can define three dimensions, and it makes a perfect sense in our normal views of reality. Until we beget relativity, and until we beget QM, and until we beget string theory and branes, or loop quantum theory, or ?.

And the same goes for motion, although motion makes perfect sense normally.

And the same goes for 'potential energy', because you will need another way to describe the stress energy tensor than to place it in a 'space' if there is no 'space', well, as I get it. Depends on how you define that naturally, maybe you already decided that 'space' is a questionable thing.

 

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 #780 on: 11/03/2013 11:11:53 »
I'm not saying that 'space' must be 'non existing' from all points of view, just as we can define a length, a width, and height to things. It's a symbiosis with matter, you need both. But it sure becomes elusive, and in a universe of paths it must be the relations between paths that decide the 'space'.
 

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 #781 on: 11/03/2013 11:15:09 »
And gravity? Well, looked at it from me, that's just another path. But it is the major path defining 'space' astronomically at least, from a very small point of view we find stronger forces.
 

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 #782 on: 11/03/2013 11:19:18 »
And that's also why scales become something in its own right. And then we have chaos theory, and fractals. I expect fractals to be able to describe how a seed becomes a oak, or a human.
==

Well, I'm not sure if it is 'enough' to catch it all, but the starting principle should be fractal to me.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2013 11:22:05 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 #783 on: 11/03/2013 14:09:58 »
It's been taking me all too long to free myself from the concept of 'spaces'. We use it everywhere, as in a mathematical 'space' for example. String theory use it to, a eleven dimensioned 'string space' but its no ordinary 'space' or 'dimension'. Have a look at Dimensions.  I know I started to get confused from the beginning, comparing the idea of a defined 'space' to relativity, and looking at strings and discussions about 'back ground dependencies' or not, as in loop quantum theory (Smolin) I still got that feeling of 'dimensions' being discussed without getting to the 'point', if i may. But paths don't demand dimension's, we are the ones demanding it.

It should be about degrees of freedom to me. Dimensions being something that you 'fill in' automatically, limiting the paths in your mind. There is a difference, in that if I stop 'filling it in' giving me some plane, everything might be described from singular paths, which is how I first thought of strings. As describing paths, the paths describing a universe.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2013 14:24:36 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 #784 on: 15/03/2013 17:16:12 »
So, how weird am I :)

Weird enough to question integers, and weird enough to question fractions too.
Using paths I can allow stuff to do whatever it takes to create a relation, ignoring 'dimensions'.

I can allow 'emergences' as a qubit universe, because it will be just as with our definitions of 'dimensions'. A representation relative 'emergences' and 'scales', relations related to our measurements, and how we do them. We need to free ourselves from too strict definitions of what a universe need to be. It can be many things, depending on definitions and choice of experiments. Each picture has a observer, and none see the same picture, the rest is communications and our need to agree on what we see. Our need to agree on what we see is what have created definitions, as what a 'repeatable experiment' should be, or a 'sigma value' defining something as more 'probable' than something else.

But the universe we find is many colored, it contains a multitude. It likes logic, but it don't like to be 'pin pointed' as being one or another. It can be seen as being both smooth and 'fractured' into 'bits', and that must be scales. We're just starting our journey there, and we will meet surprises.
 

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 #785 on: 15/03/2013 17:33:13 »
You can in fact use this way of thinking to look at human relations too. From a one to one description we will constantly surprise each other, well, those of us having a anchor defining ourselves. That anchor is a fragile thing, and 'evil' do exist. It's also called 'because I can', and that definition used with logic will create environments none sane can feel comfortable in. We use communication to agree on what a society should look as, and each other. In a way you can track it all to relations, and they change. But the hope with physics is that they all, in the end will come down to some simple logic principles, creating the complexity we see.
 

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 #786 on: 15/03/2013 17:38:15 »
Want to take it a step more?
The universe you live in, in the end, will then come down to ethics, and what they are?
Logic, and ethics.
 

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 #787 on: 15/03/2013 17:50:24 »
And using that we're back to 'locality' and the idea I have of it being there we find the real constants. You won't find them by comparing frames of reference, not physically. A mathematical constant are in its own 'space' defining real physical relations. Because that is what we go out from, we go out from that we really are 'here'. And we go out from a 'same universe' in where we exist. And none of my writing would exist if this wasn't true. So we are here, and we better communicate. No doubt about that, but our definitions also want simplicity, don't they? Mine too, I prefer simple :)

And I hope we'll find 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 #788 on: 15/03/2013 18:24:29 »
And that is 'reality', you, relative a universe. Don't run to some other wanting him to define it, define it yourself. And you better start with defining who you want to be.
 

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 #789 on: 15/03/2013 18:51:49 »
And 'points'?
Well, I use it because I can't find a better description. Doesn't state that this is the best description. Maybe one can avoid 'points' and just call it 'relations'? I don't know, but I know that using 'points' you will find observer dependencies. And we don't want those, do we? We want one universe being the same for us all. We don't want quantum jumps, we don't want observer dependencies. 'We want it 'simple' for Gods sake' !!! :)

Yeah, but 'simple' might just be us lacking the right words to describe it. We don't have them yet, doesn't mean we never will. We have a lot of new words today, describing new relations that we never would believe in, if we didn't have the experiments validating them. And in a way we 'invented' them to describe it. The mind is flexible and with new words comes new understanding. And that's education, and, you better make it fun..
 

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 #790 on: 17/03/2013 14:59:05 »
Better warn you. This is me and my close friend single malt, from the islands. A unique taste, to me reminding me of tar, the sea, and (I'm sorry to admit) seagulls. And as I'm a writer by nature, I need to write :)

----------Quote—

In Galilean SpaceTime the physical existence of an absolute time is assumed.
The pioneer of physics Isaac Newton defined it in the following way.

    "Absolute, true and mathematical time, in itself, and from its own nature, flows equally, without relation to any thing external; and by other name called Duration. Relative, apparent, and vulgar time, is some sensible and external measure of duration by motion, whether accurate or unequable, which is commonly used instead of true time; as an hour, a day, a month, a year. It may be, that there is no equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is liable to no change."

Because of this absolute time the global notion of past, present and future is the same in all reference frames. If two events are simultaneous in one particular reference frame, this means that they are also simultaneous in all reference frames. . . Within the framework of Galilean Space-Time, faster-than-light speeds are possible in principle. However, electromagnetical waves are limited not to exceed the speed of light c, which usually depends on the direction of the light signal the reference frame in which it is measured. The speed of light is constant only in the absolute space-time frame, which is also called the Newtonian rest frame.

--End of quote---

So was he right after all?
Use locality.
 

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 #791 on: 17/03/2013 15:04:23 »
This is the key assumption, taking a turn.

"If two events are simultaneous in one particular reference frame, this means that they are also simultaneous in all reference frames."

What does it step out from? A definition of the universe being the 'absolute same' for us all I think? So would you call a relativistic description of a position, in space and time, accelerating, just to make the point clearer although I don't need that, as being 'the same' as the guys, defined as being a 'inertial observer'?
 

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 #792 on: 17/03/2013 15:06:02 »
Newton may have had his notions :) We all have our own, don't we? But he was a impressive thinker, and still is to me.
 

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 #793 on: 17/03/2013 15:09:04 »
Using locality you get it both ways. You can eat the cookie, and keep it. It has to do with how you define 'repeatable experiments', locality, 'c', relative motion, and 'reality', as well as mass and a position in a space.
 

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 #794 on: 17/03/2013 15:14:18 »
Then we have 'systems'. Depending on your logic, restrictions and definitions of a 'system' you can make that system truly wondrous. Using QM, statistics (as that is what it comes from to me) and thermodynamics (entropy) you can define a 'negative temperature'. Let me ask you, if I had a thermometer, would I still find that 'system' to fall outside our common definitions of a temperature.

That's what I call a 'reality check'.
 

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 #795 on: 17/03/2013 15:20:42 »
A lot of what we do today, is redefining words and concepts. Why? Because the older descriptions doesn't really fit the experiments, although they fit our common impression of a 'reality'. What I think 'systems' are missing though is that (commonly shared) anchor defining them from. And that's another possible definition of what I call 'locality'. the one place where you in your imagination can superimpose all objects there are, finding them to share a absolute same 'frame of reference'. Destroy that definition and everything I write should be wrong.
 

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 #796 on: 17/03/2013 15:44:01 »
Destroying locality you either will need another anchor, or you must define it such as there are none. If you define it the last way, you also must question all constants we ever defined.
 

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 #797 on: 17/03/2013 16:11:56 »
So, a scale, what is it?
Can you apply a relativistic point of view to that too?

I think you can, if you introduce frames of reference.
Using a local measurement it should be found to be equivalent to any other locally done experiment though. If I'm right.
 

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 #798 on: 19/03/2013 21:47:18 »
There is one thing I wonder a lot about. A relativistic frame of reference relative a 'energy'. There is a correlation and if we assume something of mass it must expend more energy the closer it comes to lights speed, in the end finding that energy to become 'infinite'. At the same time its room 'contracts', doesn't it? What about a energy density relative the room it locally measure? Does that too increase to 'infinity'?

Light having its own frame of reference, never at rest, having a momentum related to its 'energy' if we discuss a photon, or frequency if we discuss a wave. But still able to interact with us (matter) through 'motion' and 'mass', decreasing or increasing that energy relative us.

What is motion?
And '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 #799 on: 19/03/2013 22:02:11 »
In a way this becomes a question of what we mean by 'infinity'. The room only contracts in the direction of my motion, allowing me to presume that it stays the same at a straight angle. Now, infinity is by all means infinite to me, but mathematically you can define it to be of different magnitudes, infinity's all of them, but still of different 'size'. Can I assume that type of definition to have a relevance to the universe, existing at a straight angle to my motion? Or does it stay unchanged?

I will assume it stays the same.
Then the 'volume' of a SpaceTime contracts, locally measured.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #799 on: 19/03/2013 22:02:11 »

 

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