The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280784 times)

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #800 on: 19/03/2013 22:07:52 »
But you can't measure it locally, in a uniform motion?
=

And if you think of it, in a acceleration, assuming you do it in steps, uniformly 'coasting', interleaved with accelerations? will the next time you accelerate, at one G constantly and uniformly, give you a new and stronger blue/redshift as measured locally inside a black box? Or will it give you the same value, not caring about your definition of a 'speed', from those earlier uniform accelerations?
« Last Edit: 19/03/2013 22:14:22 by yor_on »
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #801 on: 19/03/2013 22:26:32 »
What do you think. Myself I think it will give you the same value?
And that one should be testable.

Where is then the 'infinite energy' located?
Can't be in your local definitions of a energy measurable, can't be in your local definitions of a clock and ruler. Your atoms won't start to jiggle any more, at least not in that uniform motion. You might expect it to jiggle in a acceleration though? But as that also is a question about how I should define a frame of reference, relative scales? And I just don't know there. Using a ideal definition I would definitely refer that to the question, if Planck scale is a meaningful definition in physics. If you think it is so, then I'm with you :) And to me it fits so well with light as a ultimate time device.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #802 on: 20/03/2013 09:23:51 »
So, assume you do this, over and over again. Will you reach 'c'.
Nope.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #803 on: 20/03/2013 09:29:39 »
Will your flashlight still tell you that you are 'standing still' relative 'c'?
Sure, it must.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #804 on: 20/03/2013 09:32:06 »
So, is 'c' a definition relative a 'speed', or is it a relation relative you?
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #805 on: 21/03/2013 13:10:54 »
From a definition of it being a relation foremost, and a 'speed' secondly, scaling becomes all important to me. Because what is a frame of reference from scales? And what will being 'at rest' mean? Can I consider being at rest as some type of fractal behavior from mathematics? Or do we need a 'qubit' defined as being what 'really is'? Then we have strings and loops :) See where my headache starts?
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #806 on: 24/03/2013 20:13:19 »
Take a quark gluon plasma, ask what its entropy are, not its temperature. Can we limit it to two big definitions, out of equilibrium and in a equilibrium? The equilibrium could then be seen as a symmetry, a 'entropic sameness' and when coming out of that equilibrium you get symmetry breaks. Or would that be too simplistic? It would huh :)

It is about temperatures, but looking at it this way it seems as symmetry breaks isn't defined to one single temperature. Instead it becomes about what the 'micro states' of a 'system' are, in a 'equilibrium', or not?

"In April 2005, formation of quark matter was tentatively confirmed by results obtained at Brookhaven National Laboratory's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). The consensus of the four RHIC research groups was that they had created a quark-gluon liquid of very low viscosity. However, contrary to what was at that time still the widespread assumption, it is yet unknown from theoretical predictions whether the QCD "plasma", especially close to the transition temperature, should behave like a gas or liquid. Authors favoring the weakly interacting interpretation derive their assumptions from the lattice QCD calculation, where the entropy density of quark-gluon plasma approaches the weakly interacting limit. However, since both energy density and correlation shows significant deviation from the weakly interacting limit, it has been pointed out by many authors that there is in fact no reason to assume a QCD "plasma" close to the transition point should be weakly interacting, like electromagnetic plasma."

"scientists at Brookhaven RHIC have tentatively claimed to have created a quark-gluon plasma with an approximate temperature of 4 trillion degrees Celsius." Is it about temperatures or is it about microstates?
Or both?
=

Both I think? Because we already have one definition of what temperatures is, and now we're getting some 'flip flop mechanism', inside all temperatures, possibly? It's getting weirder and weirder, the universe :)

So was a quark gluon soup 'entropically' in a equilibrium, at some arrow of time? And from where did it get created, from what? Light by itself has no temperature I know of? If it had a vacuum would get warm, and it won't. But then again, maybe it's not about temperatures at all, maybe it's about microstates? Which then should mean that light (radiation) had a different (same) state at that instant before a symmetry break? But I don't get how it would lead to a quark gluon plasma?
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #807 on: 24/03/2013 20:24:39 »
As if you need that setting of light to get a symmetry break. You then get mass (quarks) and 'force' (gluons) or fermions and bosons if you like, and from there we introduce temperatures as we see it normally, those able to interact through that same 'flip flop mechanism' introducing new 'symmetry breaks'. It's a very nice idea at least :)
=

But not very probable, I think we can test that one too, as it must mean a entanglement, if I'm thinking right.
« Last Edit: 24/03/2013 20:27:39 by yor_on »
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #808 on: 24/03/2013 20:30:52 »
What is a boson?
A Higg?
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #809 on: 24/03/2013 20:33:08 »
Can fields be entangled?
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #810 on: 24/03/2013 20:40:13 »
Entropy and entanglement becoming a symmetry of sorts? *Think I need to sleep on that one.
heh :) And I thought I was the one weird here? Jumping to conclusions I am (Yoda)
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #811 on: 24/03/2013 20:53:26 »
Or am I bicycling in the great younder? I'm not sure on how to define that entropic quality of 'sameness'.

"Not all systems have the property that the entropy increases monotonically with energy.  In some cases, as energy is added to the system, the number of available microstates, or configurations, actually decreases for some range of energies.  For example, imagine an ideal "spin-system", a set of N atoms with spin 1/2 on a one-dimensional wire.  The atoms are not free to move from their positions on the wire.  The only degree of freedom allowed to them is spin-flip: the spin of a given atom can point up or down.  The total energy of the system, in a magnetic field of strength B, pointing down, is (N+ - N-)*uB, where u is the magnetic moment of each atom and N+ and N- are the number of atoms with spin up and down respectively.  Notice that with this definition, E is zero when half of the spins are up and half are down.  It is negative when the majority are down and positive when the majority are up.

The lowest possible energy state, all the spins pointing down, gives the system a total energy of -NuB, and temperature of absolute zero.  There is only one configuration of the system at this energy, i.e., all the spins must point down.  The entropy is the log of the number of microstates, so in this case is log(1) = 0.  If we now add a quantum of energy, size uB, to the system, one spin is allowed to flip up.  There are N possibilities, so the entropy is log(N).  If we add another quantum of energy, there are a total of N(N-1)/2 allowable configurations with two spins up.  The entropy is increasing quickly, and the temperature is rising as well.

However, for this system, the entropy does not go on increasing forever.  There is a maximum energy, +NuB, with all spins up.  At this maximal energy, there is again only one microstate, and the entropy is again zero.  If we remove one quantum of energy from the system, we allow one spin down.  At this energy there are N available microstates.  The entropy goes on increasing as the energy is lowered.  In fact the maximal entropy occurs for total energy zero, i.e., half of the spins up, half down.

So we have created a system where, as we add more and more energy, temperature starts off positive, approaches positive infinity as maximum entropy is approached, with half of all spins up.  After that, the temperature becomes negative infinite, coming down in magnitude toward zero, but always negative, as the energy increases toward maximum.  When the system has negative temperature, it is hotter than when it is has positive temperature.  If you take two copies of the system, one with positive and one with negative temperature, and put them in thermal contact, heat will flow from the negative-temperature system into the positive-temperature system. "

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/neg_temperature.html

As well as.

"Exploration
Entropy drop: Scientists create “negative temperature” system
Bizarre setup may help researchers model dark energy.

by John Timmer - Jan 4, 2013 6:21 pm UTC

    Physical Sciences

120
In a negative temperature system, temperatures get lower as more atoms pile up close to its maximum energy.
LMU/MPQ Munich

Over the past decades, researchers have made significant progress in cooling objects closer to absolute zero, the temperature at which all molecular motion reaches its minimum. This has allowed them to study unusual states of matter, like Bose-Einstein condensates, which behave quite differently from the materials we're familiar with. But absolute zero is as low as a temperature can get, and we can't actually reach it, so progress will ultimately be limited.

Maybe not.

As thermodynamics defines temperature, it's theoretically possible to have a negative value. Yesterday, a team of German researchers reported that they were actually able to produce a system with exactly that. They found that the negative temperature system was stable for hundreds of milliseconds, raising the prospect that we can study a radically different type of material.

To understand how temperatures can go negative, you have to think in terms of thermodynamics, which is governed by energy content and entropy. In a normal system, there's a lower limit on energy content—absolute zero—but no upper limit. If you start with a system at absolute zero and add energy, the atoms or molecules it contains start occupying higher energy states. With more energy, they start spreading out evenly among these states. This in turn increases the entropy of the system, since fewer and fewer atoms are in the same energy state.

Now imagine a system where there's an upper limit on the energy state an atom can occupy. As you add more energy, more and more atoms start occupying the maximum energy state. As this happens, entropy actually starts to go down, since an increasing fraction of the atoms begin to occupy the identical energy state. In thermodynamic terms, you've reached negative temperatures."

It is a very weird idea, and I like it.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #812 on: 24/03/2013 21:23:27 »
And this is a byside.

A theoretical physics FAQ by "Arnold Neumaier
(University of Vienna)
I like to see people grow"

I have used his thoughts and views several times without linking to them. And I really think I should. He's quite enjoyable.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #813 on: 24/03/2013 22:17:04 »
Okay, Verlinde. Tried to read him but lost myself on the way once. But he's been in my mind since then, not because I think 'entropy' answers the universe tea and all, but because I got this feeling that he was sincerely trying to present a alternative description, even when getting 'hyped'. And 'micro states' makes sense from my perspective too, although I'm not sure how it would explain gravity. You could imagine them as opening and closing 'paths', possibly? Macroscopically becoming what we call 'geodesics'. But then we have 'bosons' as the Higgs bosons, which is a rather different idea than 'photons' to me in that I can't measure it. What are the microstates imagined for that kid of pimpernel's? And I say imagined, as long as none show me the experiment proving the concept. Anyway, reading about micro states I found this.

"Gravity is not a force let alone an amalgamation of forces. Since Einstein we know that the effects we refer to as 'gravity' can be understood as the absence of straight line motion in bend spacetimes. And now Verlinde has postulated that this bending, and hence gravity, is nothing more than the consequence of differences in densities of micro states available to the system.

Verlinde's central idea is that in a theory in which spacetime is emergent, inertia and motion are both based on differences in information content. "

Which indeed are related to some of my questions too.
What is 'motion'?

I'm using 'locality' describing the universe, based on relativity. Verlinde is using the concept of a 'same common universe' as it seems to me now? But maybe I'm wrong there.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #814 on: 30/03/2013 13:41:44 »
Multiverses :)

Think of it as 'paths', not dimensions. Accept that relativity insist on observer dependencies. Accept defining a universe locally. Then each description becomes a multiverse. Now accept the other definition of a 'multiverse' in where you have splits aka bifurcations, each 'branch' becoming a instant tree. Now think of 'paths' again. Relations defining a universe, not dimensions. Then what you have is not 'multiverses' but a infinite amount of concurring relations, each path containing a multitude of simultaneous branchings, as 'connection points'.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #815 on: 30/03/2013 13:46:29 »
And I'm not sure it needs to be a infinite amount any more. Because maybe it's describable from a origin of a finite amount, although leading to 'infinity' of combinations? If we define a infinity as something uncountable.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #816 on: 30/03/2013 13:52:34 »
Can you see it? As some imaginary space in where you have all those paths coexisting, ignoring the arrow for this. The relations connecting to the observer, defining a 'reality'. Now you can have your multiverses back :), and they will not disturb conservation of energy.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #817 on: 30/03/2013 14:04:32 »
And this one I think Douglas Adams should have some recognition for. Because, remember the mice? Creating Earth as their 'super computer'? Doing diabolical experiments on us, laughing darkly at us as we thought we were doing it on them?

Well, this (multi) universe becomes just as the inside of a 'brain' too, in my thoughts :)
But a 'brain' that gets its definition from a arrow. You only need one arrow, equivalent for all of those 'multi verses' I drew up here. Because they 'coexist'.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #818 on: 07/04/2013 13:41:23 »
Another thing to ponder.

What would, or could, be a definition of a dimension, without a space for it to exist in?
I like paths more and more.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #819 on: 08/04/2013 10:00:14 »
Bear with me now :)

Remember how I want to split reality into two camps? 'Uniform motion' being equivalent, giving us a same platform from where we define 'repeatable experiment' locally? Although I presume the same to be possible for accelerating frames, if equivalent, I still differ that from the former. The universe is in 'uniform motion', and if it isn't, it at some place and time will 'correct it' into geodesics, aka 'uniform motion', after a collision for example.

Now think of microstates from observer dependencies. Will they be express themselves the same? As observed relative some other frame of reference, defined by your local clock and ruler?

In a uniform motion?
In a acceleration?

What I'm asking is if a 'local equilibrium', as I like to call it :) also will be observed to be a equilibrium relative being observed from another frame of reference? Also if you think your measurement would differ between being observed in a uniform motion, relative being in a acceleration?

To see it better you can think of it in form of red and blue shifts, and temperatures naturally. As different frequencies/wavelengths contain different 'energy', that will interact differently with rest mass, 'jiggling it'. Also it depends on, and now I (typically) forgot that one :) Ah well, hopefully I will remember it later. Heh, remembered it, what do you think? Even though uniform motion will reset both time and distance when comparing between frames, just as a acceleration. Will a '(locally measured) equilibrium', in one uniform (relative) motion, still be a equilibrium if measured (as in 'compared') from another 'uniform (relative) motion? It's worth thinking of.  And now I better let this one rest for a while.
==

Wish one had a little more time correcting a text, and making it more understandable. As it is I keep getting those ugly comments :) at the bottom here..
Life huh :)

And it's still weird :)
Micro states as 'symmetries' and 'symmetry breaks'.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2013 14:44:44 by yor_on »
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #820 on: 08/04/2013 10:24:05 »
Better point out that if you think it won't present the same 'entropic equilibrium' when compared from another frame of reference in uniform (relative) motion, it still can be seen two ways. From a 'same common universe' it can't then be a 'entropic equilibrium' for a whole universe. But from locality it is you that defines that 'entropic equilibrium', always locally.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #821 on: 08/04/2013 14:52:48 »
You can argue the same about any symmetry I presume? To be a symmetry it should have a way to be 'whole', without observer dependencies before a symmetry break. Then we at least get a universe that's united, behind those frames of reference we observe. then again, maybe it's the other way around though :)

So, how will we describe observer dependencies then? If so I will presume that there must be a way to mathematically find a equivalent pattern, which then to my eyes should represent some sort of fractal behavior. Because the universe must be simple, or maybe it isn't, we go out from archetypes when we define 'from simple to complex' although it seem to be correct as far as I can see, inside our symmetry break, But it don't have to be.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #822 on: 08/04/2013 15:40:12 »
To have anything similar to a meaningful, eh, conversation about this we better check up on how we define it.
Always liked 'math pages', the guy writing is quite clear and educational. You might have to reread it at times :) But, who cares? Things must be allowed to take the time they need.

So first. Reversibility and Entropy.

Although, I have my own view about time reversibility. I find it proving a logic, the universe is logic :) doesn't mean that you can reverse time practically, but for all other purposes you can treat it that way mathematically.

Then the big question. Is a symmetry also a entropy?
How?

Stackexchange has a interesting exchange :) of ideas there, that you might want to ponder.
Does high entropy means low symmetry?

Finally I was thinking of Smolin :) Primary because I value his honesty. It's that and imagination one need, and dare to be brave. He and strings look at it somewhat differently, at least as I read, but both are valuable tools in my eyes, for exploring what might lie behind what we see. But I guess those two will get our minds working overtime as it is :)

So, may I wish you welcome to headache central :)

 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • 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 #823 on: 10/04/2013 17:13:57 »
On the question of God.

God is what you make of him/her. It will be your daily life that tell you how seriously you take it. And it's a existentialistic question before all, a question about if there is a right way, and a wrong, to live. I'm not religious myself, as far as I know :) But I've meet some, very good, people being so. And.. I don't know, do I?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #824 on: 10/04/2013 18:04:20 »
Reversibility and Entropy.
Experiment has shown evidence of time reversibility at the quantum level. The question we should be asking is: "Can we possibly equate such phenomenon with the obvious complexity at the macro level?"

For me at least, the Vector that Entropy shows us is one directional at the Macro level. This is because, to have complete reversal at the Macro level, every single quantum action would need to also reverse in harmony. And the law of probability is totally off the scale against this.

The law of Entropy is the framework thru which Time operates in our current cosmos. Can we imagine a different universe where this law works in reverse? Of course, with an infinite possibility, we have to concede that. However, IMHO not in this one.

In our universe, Time and the law of Entropy skip happily along together. And I believe they do so in one direction, the single vector of time.



 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #824 on: 10/04/2013 18:04:20 »

 

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