# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 267303 times)

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1228
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #850 on: 10/04/2013 23:54:51 »
We have one Pincho,

About that fact, we should feel fortunate.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #851 on: 10/04/2013 23:57:23 »
Yeah, it would become rather confusing if we didn't :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #852 on: 14/04/2013 17:51:55 »
I think I can give two good arguments for not expecting a time reversal from relativity. One is thinking of 'c', the other is about the guy 'frozen' at the event horizon. As you approach 'c' , accepting relativity, the distance you measure in front of your motion will shrink. What would you expect to happen in a time reversal? And that one can be seen two ways, either never 'overcoming c', or 'overcoming'. From 'c' and relativity the last on doesn't exist, but we can still wonder 'if' :)

The other is the case of that guy frozen at the event horizon, according to your measurements. Neither is logical, or if they are, they still becomes so tangled up in my mind that? Because the guy frozen is just a gravitational equivalence to the first question of 'c', as I think.

And the one defining any experience and measurement you make is the arrow we find. Somehow you will need to assume no arrow existing at all for you measuring, to be able to define it to go backward. Because as long as you believe yourself to have a arrow under which you measure I don't see how you will be able to define what you observe under it to have a different direction.
=

(what I did here was to imagine it just as some imagine a 'systems processes' to present them a time reversibility. I just stepped up to a macroscopic system and did the same. Because if you can define a microscopic system as time reversed, then I expect myself allowed the same in a macroscopic. If that isn't true then we have not only 'two arrows' possible (under one:) But we also introduce 'emergences' locking it macroscopically.)
« Last Edit: 14/04/2013 18:38:56 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #853 on: 14/04/2013 18:02:17 »
The last one is presumably possible. But then we don't have a arrow of time at all. And all constant are either downright wrong, or at least terribly inappropriately described. And I don't think they are, some things may need some redefinitions in my mind, 'motion' for example, but just as motion exist, and distance, so do constants.

Constants are theoretical definitions, and possibly also sort of 'time less' representations, in my mind. But the way we create/find them involve time, as they represent mathematical constructions defining natural processes under a arrow.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #854 on: 14/04/2013 18:14:55 »
If you treat it from causality, then we have a arrow. If you treat it from relativity, you can reverse any action, but you can't lift out one of them, in this case the arrow, or 'time' solely. And if you treat it from the idea of it all being a movie, in four dimensions, you will find the same. So no, I don't believe in it.
=

That's also why I use locality to define this arrow. Because if it exist, why does it differ in comparisons? The best way to attack that one is to look under what circumstances we can find it to always be the same, and then, from that, find a way to relate it to a constant.

And that constant is 'c'.
« Last Edit: 14/04/2013 18:45:20 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #855 on: 14/04/2013 19:22:37 »
And yes Pincho, you're not bicycling thinking of it (time) from a fractal perspective, but I'm not sure how it would join frames of reference. Time can to me be seen as a representation of a 'whole universe', as well as a representation of something creating that local arrow. You might be able to use some fractal behavior describing a universe as related to your local arrow, maybe? But then also realizing that in my view, all local arrows are the same :) Which becomes a rather theoretical description if you want it to be a 'whole representation' of a 'common universe'.

And as the force carriers are light, informing us of change?
And locally a constant?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #856 on: 14/04/2013 22:45:38 »
There are some other, more obscure, reasons for my thinking too. More particles than anti particles are one. CPT symmetries and violations are another. Both seems to me to indicate a arrow under which we live, and symmetry breaks or 'emergences' becoming under it. That's also why I presume we will find ways to describe all processes as describing a arrow, when finding the right experiment. And yes, it may be so that some processes can't be described both ways, yet, but if we have a arrow they should be describable from it, and we should be able to reverse the process. What would a 'emergence' be without a arrow?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #857 on: 14/04/2013 22:59:19 »
And now we're back to entropy.
So, does that describe a arrow, and does it allow for a 'time reversibility'?

"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)
=

Which one?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #858 on: 14/04/2013 23:05:55 »
And doesn't it seems as we found one more just now? The one describing micro states. in or out of equilibrium. How do they get in or out of those states? If there is no arrow under which they can be defined to change?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #859 on: 14/04/2013 23:40:56 »
You can't use temperatures, even though those are related to it. You can easily assume that final state of entropic sameness/equality to have a temperature, how would time end with that? I don't think you can define it that way. If you use 'c' as a clock, then the clock either stops passing some scale (Planck scale, anyone?:) or when no more 'photons' are exchanged. Are there no more photons exchanged at that state? Then there are no temperature possible either if I'm thinking right.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #860 on: 14/04/2013 23:46:47 »
Entropy must be important, and very relevant to a universe like ours.
But it's not a arrow.
Not to me.
=

It is a major expression of our arrow, as I think.
If the arrow was a hollow tube in which processes 'moved' and 'changed' then entropy tell us about the conditions of those processes, but not about what the tube comes from.
« Last Edit: 14/04/2013 23:49:43 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #861 on: 14/04/2013 23:55:07 »
Because the 'tube' is also 'c'. And nowhere have I found anyone able to explain why 'c' is, and what makes it exist. And everything ticks to 'c' here, inside your body and outside it. Einstein does not explain 'c', he uses it. The guy or gal explaining 'c' will be the next Einstein in my eyes, or Newton, or Planck, or ... There are so many good thinkers out here :) But we seem to forget about the axioms. They are what needs a explanation, together with constants.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #862 on: 15/04/2013 00:27:58 »
Now think of that 'point(s)' from where a universe might come. Use 'c' as a clock. Imagine at what scale it would be emergent, containing a room and arrow. Is that scale gone? Or is it still here.

It's still here. We have scales, we have physical descriptions in where things stops making sense, under Planck scale. It's also the place where we define light to take 'one step', propagating. Is one step countable?

From where?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #863 on: 15/04/2013 00:36:01 »
To me it becomes similar to the question of 'relative (uniform) motion'.
1 object= no motion perceivable.
2 objects= free to define any, or both, to move. (relative motion)
3 objects or more= Relative motion, containing measurably different 'speeds'.

This is assuming a motion to exist naturally, we could assume all objects to be at rest with each other too, which is another proof for motion existing.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #864 on: 15/04/2013 00:51:04 »
This one is really strange. You start with defining a arrow locally as a constant, and then relate it to 'c'. Those two I'm sure of. Doing so scales automatically becomes all-important. Because the definers of my, and yours, reality must then be at a scale that I can't measure? And as everything breaks down with scale? A Black hole compressed becomes a infinity, a inflation starts form a very small scale, no matter where you define its possible 'center' to be, or not. It all relates to scales. Quantum mechanics is all about scales.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #865 on: 15/04/2013 00:52:59 »
Scales, and fractals.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #866 on: 15/04/2013 00:58:07 »
Because fractals is still the best argument I can find explaining how something simple become complex, ignoring evolutionary theories not using a fractal behavior for this. Or do you have a better argument for why something becomes complex? And yes, I don't think you need to assume it taking up more space becoming complex? We can give it a predefined space, and then a arrow, to see it evolve in our minds.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #867 on: 15/04/2013 01:15:26 »
Let us assume a universe of fractals, each defined from local constants. Between those fractals we have force carriers we call light, informing us of all other objects. That must involve a way of defining a common space. That we all find the arrow to tick the same is then related to those force carriers too.

So, what would dimensions be, from a local definition?
=

I don't like the idea of predefined space really, because it becomes too much of a archetype to me. You could also assume that 'space' is a relation to the complexity, and amount of possible relations, we find. That would allow a 'space' to adapt to the descriptions you find, possibly :)

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1228
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #868 on: 15/04/2013 01:32:19 »
Because the 'tube' is also 'c'. And nowhere have I found anyone able to explain why 'c' is, and what makes it exist. And everything ticks to 'c' here, inside your body and outside it. Einstein does not explain 'c', he uses it. The guy or gal explaining 'c' will be the next Einstein in my eyes, or Newton, or Planck, or ... There are so many good thinkers out here :) But we seem to forget about the axioms. They are what needs a explanation, together with constants.
Allow me to first confirm that I in no way consider myself an Einstein, far from it. Having said that, the suggestion I am putting forth here does not represent any preconceived assumption about my self assumed intellect.

Now that I hope we all understand, I am just suggesting a possibility for the foundations that determine light speed in our universe.

Several years ago, before we found that the universal expansion was accelerating, it occurred to me that observation put the expansion very close to light speed when comparing distant objects in opposite directions. Some were even saying that it appeared that if one added the velocities of these together, one would find velocities greater than light speed. Of course, we know that speed is relative and nothing in our universe can exceed that of c, relative one to the other.

I then began to wonder if universal expansion was, in fact, the limiting influence on the speed of light? That is to say, the expansion itself determines the velocity of light.

Now that we have observed the acceleration of expansion, and if my former suspicions were found to be true, we would have to conclude that the speed of light may be accelerating also. But how many years of observation would we need to calculate the difference?

I realize this idea is rather flimsy but I thought I'd post it here anyway just to see what you think about it.

« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 01:42:20 by Ethos_ »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #869 on: 15/04/2013 01:56:04 »
well, as I remember you can define a expansion as moving FTL, you just need to find the proper astronomical distances between you and what you measure. The problem with defining it is two-folded though . You won't be able to measure that object anymore, as soon as the distance becomes so great that it can be defined as FTL, that as no light signals ever more will reach you.

The other is that the expansion is at a fixed rate, sort of, although accelerating. That means that even if we define the distance between two objects to expand FTL, there will be no part of a locally measured patch of space that expands any faster than the next one, beside it. It's just when you add all those patches up you will find a FTl effect. And we don't experience anything changing although you can assume, defining it as a infinite universe, we already are 'moving' FTL relative some other, to us never knowable, objects. A real 'speed' of Earth, accelerating to 'c' would give all sort of relativistic effects, time dilations relative the rest of the universe, as well as contractions.

What you may be thinking of is the light having a scale, adapting to the scale of a universe?
And so also take a less 'time' propagating, if compared with a former scale?
=

No, that one would also show itself locally, unless you assume everything to scale the same. and then we won't be able to prove it, one way or another, anyway, a nice idea though :) And I agree, a expansion seems to tell us something about 'space' and the universe too.
=

One thing I'm satisfied with, using my ideas, is that we won't see any time reversibility, unless you get down to Planck scale at least, but there 'time stands still' using my formulation. Maybe you can imagine a 'negative time' as in reversible passing it though? I don't know, myself I rather think of that as 'time less'.

And we need to remember that we all carry scales with us. You can choose any frame of reference and scale it down, any location in space and time. As for the last posts I sort of lose myself there :) It's easy to see why I prefer 'degrees of freedom' before 'dimensions' though, thinking this way. But 'dimensions' are here, just as 'motion', and that I would call emergences, defined by force carriers.
« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 02:10:26 by yor_on »

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1228
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #870 on: 15/04/2013 02:05:44 »

What you may be thinking of is the light having a scale, adapting to the scale of a universe?
And so also take a less 'time' propagating, if compared with a former scale?

Exactly yor_on, you've managed to say it much better than I. This is exactly what I'm thinking. Because the scale changing with expansion could represent the management over light speed itself.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #871 on: 15/04/2013 02:14:46 »
The problem is that if light really changed relative the universes expansion we should be able to measure it locally. Unless everything changed, but then we still would need to explain how we still can find that expansion existing. Because in such a scenario nothing should change locally, but neither should it do so globally, if you see how I mean there. Everything would expand the same, meaning that nothing would change relative something else, and a expansion shouldn't exist then as I think.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1228
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #872 on: 15/04/2013 02:20:19 »

unless you assume everything to scale the same. and then we won't be able to prove it, one way or another, anyway,

That would be the problem wouldn't it. But it seems to me that everything would scale the same, together as it were. We would never notice any change but the change might still exist.

Nevertheless, as you say; Most assuredly, expansion is telling us something profound about the underlying nature of the universe. And maybe, the reason light has chosen the speed it now propagates at.
« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 02:21:50 by Ethos_ »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #873 on: 15/04/2013 02:35:29 »
There is one way more to define it, and that would be from constants, and histories, using the arrow of time. Because if those constants would change with our measurements (over time) it won't matter if everything seems to stay 'the same' macroscopically described. And using 'c' for it we find that this is a definition relative a arrow split into even chunks, and a distance. So if you assume that 'c' gets faster, relative some earlier description, although unmeasurable so, you then would have to assume that the arrow also are 'speeding up' :) to make it fit, as it seems to me.

From my view, as I relate 'c' to the arrow, it doesn't matter what speed 'c' is, it will still be a constant relative the arrow, and distance. I think of 'c' as a constant first, a clock next, and a 'speed' as a distant third. All of this are local definitions though.
« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 02:46:21 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #874 on: 15/04/2013 03:02:21 »
So, can constants change with scales? If a whole universe would change, would constants change? Two ways, either you somehow 'know' the earlier measurements, distances, clock etc, in which case you should be able to find it change. The other would be if everything was in a equilibrium, all balancing out the same, giving you the same constants as always, one ampere still being one ampere, even though 'changing' using the eyes of a God. I don't expect constants to change under that definition, but I'm not sure? What constant do we have not relying on natural processes? Because it must be some constant not related to nature at all, as it seems to me?

Take a look at dimensionless constants.
And Dimensionless quantities.

Would any of them be able to change under the second proposition?
=

This one relates to the way you arbitrarily can decide a number for some definition, and then use that to define the rest. If you change that number you naturally change the calculations, but the results should still be of a same balance, relative outcomes. Otherwise the universe becomes magical to me :)
« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 03:20:21 by yor_on »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #874 on: 15/04/2013 03:02:21 »