The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 281282 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 #825 on: 10/04/2013 19:11:11 »
Then you have to link those experiments Ethos, so we can see them. Because to me there is no such thing existing, I'm afraid :) Although I limit myself to our universe primary, although giving it a somewhat broader definition.

On another matter, in another post I wrote "If you imagine yourself free falling towards a event horizon, it doesn't matter if we define it as moving, or you, as long as we are discussing uniform motion. If we now define the speed to close to 'c' it means that from the infalling observers perspective the rest of the universe would speed up, possibly even go to its entropic 'death of equality/heat bath' before you ever reach that singularity's center, maybe even at the event horizon."

Now, should I take myself seriously? That it won't matter whom I define as 'moving' for a time dilation? We need uniform motion to define time dilations, as well as we need accelerations and gravity to define it. But will it not matter who is moving relative who? We can find that a acceleration is a excellent description defining who is 'moving', but without it?

Well, one answer possible is that relativity is about one frame of reference, as compared to another. And so it is a relation between two frames, both using a local clock and ruler to define the 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 #826 on: 10/04/2013 19:29:21 »
1. Can you see what such a reasoning imply if there only was one frame of reference existing in a universe?
2. Can you define your local room and time using someone else's clock and ruler?
3. Do your local clock and ruler ever noticeably change relative yourself?


To make a little better sense of those questions we will assume that macroscopically being 'at rest' with something is approximately correct. And that 'yourself' is a representation of the whole mass of you, at rest with your room, or earth, for example.
 

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 #827 on: 10/04/2013 19:47:57 »
1. I'll leave this one to your discretion :)

2a. Yes you can, although it may become difficult practically you can naturally import whatever definitions of 'time and distance' you want. And set them as your 'local measure'.

2b. No you can't, not if we define it relative comparisons between frames of reference. Because it won't make observer dependencies go away. Your time and the next frames time will still differ, as will contractions.

3. No, if it did we would have to question all agreed upon repeatable experiments, as they then would become approximations.
==

2b. (?) Can we use that one to define who is moving? What contraction we find locally measuring?
Well, what is 'uniform motion'? Is it equal any other 'uniform motion', or is it not?

Locally all 'uniform motions' are equivalent, but relative other 'frames of reference' they are not.


 

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 #828 on: 10/04/2013 19:54:19 »
2b is really complicated, because it is also so that you are perfectly free to define, who is moving relative who, in that case. There is no certain way to define it, that I know of? So you might want to define that one as being equivalent too? But then we have 'relative motion' as expressed by three or more objects relative each other, and there we definitely can define different 'uniform speeds' to exist.
 

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 #829 on: 10/04/2013 20:07:38 »
On another matter. Am I right in assuming that a contraction and a time dilation are two sides of the same coin? I assume that to be correct, but if I'm wrong there a lot of my reasoning would change. Because then we can't use a gravitational time dilation to also assume a contraction being involved. And a universe does not need to 'shrink' just because of your 'uniform motion/speed/velocity'.

But I'm pretty sure they are a symmetry.
 

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 #830 on: 10/04/2013 20:15:31 »
Think of mass, your mass. You stretch out your arm to lift your mug. The mass of your fingers and hand touch it, and hold it. What frames of reference, by your rest mass, will be closest aligned to the same 'frame of reference' with your mug? Think of gravitational time dilations (NIST) and the way I assume contractions to become the other side of it. It becomes a chain, doesn't it? Where the part of your rest mass, closest to the mug, becomes more or less 'at rest' with what it holds. And the chain goes all the way back to the rest of you, doesn't it? A unbroken chain of particles, as much 'at rest' with their neighbors as they possibly can be, biologically.
 

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 #831 on: 10/04/2013 20:50:41 »
But then there is one thing more, and it is macroscopically being at rest relative microscopically. Either you can go out from a microscopic definition in where you may want to use Planck scale to define a smallest common nominator for a frame of reference. Then you just keep using it, scaling up to macroscopic phenomena. Or you define it as it somewhere becoming a 'jump' from the microscopic to the macroscopic, a 'emergence' if you like. If you do that you can keep both definitions, as I think, the macroscopic being 'at rest' as well as the microscopic example. How do QM treat it? The change from a microscopic system to a macroscopic?
 

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 #832 on: 10/04/2013 20:56:18 »
Doesn't it make you think of fractals too?
 

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 #833 on: 10/04/2013 21:16:17 »
Ethos, rereading myself, what I mean is that I do not expect time reversibility. Entropy I expect though, it makes sense to me too, even though some of its definitions seems to collide for me. But I expect only one arrow, as defined locally. With that arrow directly related to the clock 'c' becomes, split to Planck scale.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #834 on: 10/04/2013 21:18:17 »
Then you have to link those experiments Ethos, so we can see them. 

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v74/i16/p3249_1
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #835 on: 10/04/2013 21:24:44 »
Ethos, rereading myself, what I mean is that I do not expect time reversibility. Entropy I expect though, it makes sense to me too, even though some of its definitions seems to collide for me. But I expect only one arrow, as defined locally. With that arrow directly related to the clock 'c' becomes, split to Planck scale.
Yes yor_on, I don't expect time reversibility on the Macro level either. But there seem to be cases where it may in theory occur at the quantum level. For the sake of argument, I too believe in only one arrow of time, at least as viewed on the cosmic scale.
 

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 #836 on: 10/04/2013 21:28:56 »
"The maximization of entropy postulated by the second law of thermodynamics, perhaps the most general law of physics, remains one of the most puzzling issues in contemporary science. There have been at least twenty other different and often mutually exclusive definitions of entropy.

Thermodynamic entropy (Gibbs) always increases; statistical entropy Boltzmann) tends to increase, while informational entropy (Shannon) decreases with the arrival of a message. In Shannon's equation, entropy and information are positively related, but many authors consider information as negative entropy.

This terminological confusion reflects deep conceptual discrepancies. Contemporary science includes three contradictory models: (1) Mechanics (Newtonian, relativistic, quantic or statistical), postulating static structures and reversible change; time reversibility implies a cosmic symmetry and the conservation of information. (2) Evolutionary theories that postulate a temporal increase in complexity and diversity. (3) Thermodynamics, postulating involution toward resting equilibrium (Clausius) and disorder (Boltzmann).

Statistical Mechanics provides a scenario in which mechanism and thermodynamics can coexist by explaining entropy as a probabilistic phenomenon; however, it allows for reversibility (excluded by the second law), it fails to explain why either evolution or irreversibility occur, and it must explain the tendency to maximize entropy as the result of initial conditions, which are both arbitrary and untestable. 

Two solutions have been offered to the contradiction between evolution and thermodynamics: (a) the expansion of space, both physical, and genetic; and (b) the hypothesis that entropy increases necessarily only in closed systems, whereas open systems such as biological organisms and other complex processes may reduce their internal entropy by importing free energy from the environment, and exporting entropy to it."

From "Entropy as symmetry: theory and empirical support".  By Sabelli, H. (1994)
==

And yes, there are people arguing for time reversibility. But that's no proof Ethos. They state that they interpret it, arguing for it to be a proof.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #837 on: 10/04/2013 21:39:26 »
But then there is one thing more, and it is macroscopically being at rest relative microscopically.

The Macro and Micro cosmos reside within the same universal space. The problem with seeing any time reversal in the Macro is; one would have to organize every single quantum artifact within a single Planck unit of time for it to become a universal event. And that would only be for one unit of Planck time, 1.6E-35 sec. Absolutely no way for these rare phenomenon to become a universal fact. Therefore, absolute time moves in only one direction. Maybe reversed in another universe, but not here.
 

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 #838 on: 10/04/2013 21:45:27 »
Ethos, you need to open a thread for your ideas :)
And start from what you think are the simplest definitions.
Break it down into small parts and we will see.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #839 on: 10/04/2013 21:49:25 »
Ethos, you need to open a thread for your ideas :)
And start from what you think are the simplest definitions.
Break it down into small parts and we will see.
I'm confused, I thought we were agreeing? I'm sorry if I've offended you yor_on, I must be misinterpreting something................Sorry
 

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 #840 on: 10/04/2013 21:58:33 »
What I meant is that you have your own ideas of how it might be, not the exact same as mine Ethos :) You need to evolve them in a thread, then we argue :)

another way to see it then.

Time reversibility becomes a logic in my eyes, the logic defining a arrow. How would we find a arrow if the history of interactions wouldn't be reversible (as in recording some process to then play it backwards). If it is a logic it should demand to be reversible at any scale, if it isn't reversible we will have to look at emergences as I think now. And change the way we measured it, to find that reversibility process, which in a way also can be interpreted as some sort of fractal behavior, possibly?

What my view means is that we need reversibility to make sense of our 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 #841 on: 10/04/2013 22:33:48 »
There are two different major definitions of time 'reversibility' that I know of Ethos. One is discussing causality itself, suggesting that the effect/outcome can precede the cause. That one is easy to argue against as, accepting a arrow, you then only need to destroy the cause coming after, to create a effect/outcome without cause, which becomes mind boggling to me. The other is the idea of time-like closed loops, as traveling backward in time using some brane, or maybe black hole? In that idea you can 'change' a outcome by preceding it, traveling backwards in time, to then change its initial state, sort of splitting it from the universe you came from. That one is harder to argue against as I don't see how I ever would know that it had happened?

But myself I don't expect the arrow we have to disappear before we too disappear scale-wise. And there is a thing differing our views, in where I think you have more support for your view Ethos :) But to me it's logically inconsistent to assume that you will see something expressing itself under the arrow we know, but backwards in time?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #842 on: 10/04/2013 23:01:59 »
But myself I don't expect the arrow we have to disappear before we too disappear scale-wise. And there is a thing differing our views, in where I think you have more support for your view Ethos :) But to me it's logically inconsistent to assume that you will see something expressing itself under the arrow we know, but backwards in time?
Defining what we mean by past, present, and future is really at the heart of these issues. Allow me to ask you a question regarding these aspects of time.

Generally speaking, when people talk about the past, present, or future, they typically assume that the past, present, and future somehow reside in the same universal space.

My question: How do you view this, does the past, present, and future all reside in the same universal space? Or as others understand reality, are each artifacts of different and separate existences?
 

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 #843 on: 10/04/2013 23:15:18 »
I know I may seem inconsistent there :)

But I'm getting old, heh. Anyway, yes I agree, you can define the universe as a 'block', theoretically. In that 'block' you have all interactions possible. but that 'block' is not what we will see. We will see a universe consisting of four 'dimensions' as I think, not glued together. They will have one arrow at all scales, pointing into the future. That's what makes us unique. Because in my eyes we are only a part of a 'larger' timeless universe. But the universe we have will not allow the arrow to go backwards, the best I expect us to do is to find something 'frozen in time', as hanging on the event horizon of a immense black hole. But to find time to step backwards in this universe would then become equal to finding light propagate from sink to source, and yes, I've heard about that one too :) Feynman was a man of immense imagination.

but in my view light doesn't propagate, in that theoretical universe, but I differ that from the one we can measure. Here we define light to propagate, and it does.
 

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 #844 on: 10/04/2013 23:28:55 »
There are a lot of things I question Ethos, just as you :)
But we need to define what we expect inside the degrees of freedom we have, and I do not expect time reversebility to be anything more, or less, than the expression of the logic defining a arrow, and 'c'.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #845 on: 10/04/2013 23:39:59 »
How would it be possible to have an arrow of time? The energy would have to navigate around everything.. it seems to be impossible to me. If you like a fractal universe then use fractal time as well.
 

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 #846 on: 10/04/2013 23:41:35 »
We have one Pincho, you will grow old you too :)
 

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 #847 on: 10/04/2013 23:43:24 »
But yes, I think fractals can be used for a lot of processes. With the arrow being the container of it.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #848 on: 10/04/2013 23:46:30 »
I am not necessarily growing old. That's just an interpretation. I say I'm not growing old. But I can't go into detail in your thread.
 

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 #849 on: 10/04/2013 23:51:53 »
Good on you :)
Myself I doubt I ever will become older than thirty three :)
At most, and I do have to insist there..
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #849 on: 10/04/2013 23:51:53 »

 

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