The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280005 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #875 on: 15/04/2013 03:27:41 »
The only way I think we ever will find a constant to change, is when something, creating its definition, isn't constant. And in that case it can't be one either. A constant should, per definition, be something 'unchangeable' under time to me. As 'c' is expected to be (locally). But I may be wrong there, although I think we will have different definitions, defining it, if so.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #876 on: 15/04/2013 03:40:45 »
And, oh damn it, sorry but I really enjoy this one. It's about my favorite constants :) excepting 'c'. and it in a way, takes up the same questions Ethos asked.  Can the laws of physics change?

Well, I will cuddle up to 'c', and Planck scale, while you read..
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #877 on: 15/04/2013 04:37:10 »
Just to make you see how nice Planck units are Better than teddy bears.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #878 on: 15/04/2013 05:44:07 »
And, oh damn it, sorry but I really enjoy this one. It's about my favorite constants :) excepting 'c'. and it in a way, takes up the same questions Ethos asked.  Can the laws of physics change?

Well, I will cuddle up to 'c', and Planck scale, while you read..
I also enjoyed this article but this is not the first time physicists have questioned the stability of a constant. The constant G has also been under scrutiny for a while now, I haven't found the link yet, but I will post it when I do.

And yes, c and h are also two of my favorite constants. But I'd like to include G along with e.  Anyway, these four; The speed of light, Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, and the elementary charge constant all play a symbiotic role in the construction of universal reality.

There exist many more constants that we could apply to this exercise but, for the sake of time and simplicity, I'll only speak of these four to make a very simple point.

If only one of these change, it changes every out come. However, if two or more change, the outcome can remain the same when done in proportion.

A very important mathematical concept is the proportion. The fractions: 1/2 = 2/4 is the simplest of examples.

The point I'm making here is; I believe it's very possible that change may occur among the various constants but without effecting the overall outcome. And if I might add, I think it possible that the link between universal expansion and the speed of light may control these proportionalities.

When considering these possible changes, it could still be possible for universal expansion to dictate the speed of light even though we might observe various changes taking place in these other constants. And like defining the possible change to the Planck length, even these changes may be so small as to never be observed with present technologies.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #879 on: 15/04/2013 10:37:40 »
Ethos, you should really open that thread and start to define and describe your thoughts.
We are not of a same mind there.

I use 'c' as a constant, not as a variable. and I do not expect constants to change without us noticing. And if they do they can't be what I consider to be a constant. What I drew up was a thought experiment, wanting to see under what circumstances I could might define constants to change, without me noticing. And the one I imagined isn't one, in my mind, where you ever would be able to proof a change, as it to my eyes crave 'everything to be as usual' measuring.

Any circumstance where you change just one, or a few constants, should be noticeable, as I presume. You are of a different mind there, and that mean that we are talking about different views. What limit our physical definitions, and precision, are our measurements as I think, as long as we don't discuss HUP, although that definitely has to do with it.

But, I presume Plank units to be 'constants', just as I presume 'c' to be one. I don't need Planck scale as such, but it exists, limiting our knowledge as I see it, 'under it', and it fits my thoughts perfectly defining one limit for SpaceTime, 'c' becoming another macroscopically.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #880 on: 15/04/2013 11:02:44 »
And the only thing you have to do defining it is to split 'c' down to Plank scale. And as I define our local  arrow to be equivalent to 'c', becoming a 'clock' I find it most suggestive :) In my mind that is. Furthermore I define all local arrows to be equivalent to each other, using frames of reference 'superimposed/super positioned' to present my idea there. And that makes the arrow a constant in more than one way to me. Even though we then leave comparisons aside, instead looking at what we can define as being locally invariant. From that I want to explore.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #881 on: 15/04/2013 15:25:04 »
That is not the whole of it though. As soon as you identify the equivalence between a arrow of time and 'c' you can lay a new puzzle. Whatever circumstances limiting and defining 'c' should then be applicable to the arrow too. So using this we get a round robin sort of, in some circumstances asking yourself how you would expect your local arrow to behave, from logic and personal experience, in others using 'c' to define how you think the the arrow will behave. And I don't allow 'time reversals' as that would mean what I already pointed out. Light, moving from sink to source. I expect the arrow to define processes, not processes to define a arrow.
=

By that I mean time reversals as questioning causality, making a outcome precede a cause. Not that I find time reversals unneeded. They becomes another proof of the arrow to me, as they can be used to find that there is one existing. When it comes to 'splitting universes' I already define that as we have 'observer dependencies', splitting my reality from yours, as locally measured. But the arrow won't go backwards.

Well, in 'my universe' that is :)
=
=
Why people want the other way to be more logical I don't know, actually? I've tried to see the reasoning, but as far as I can see it starts from comparisons, and assuming a absolute same common universe in where we exist. I expect the idea of us all existing together to be defined by light, force and information carriers, and that one, or very similar, was first suggested by SoulSurfer, if I remember right? As soon as I read it I realized that his way of looking at it simplified a lot of things for me, and recently I have found that what I call 'paths', defining 'relations', are much more to my taste than using dimensions. Both of those fit each other, and my thinking, although it has taken me a long time to free myself from dimensions. Because we have them :) And they, as much as 'c', define the universe locally and globally.
« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 17:04:20 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #882 on: 15/04/2013 15:35:00 »
So using this way of thinking I'm slowly moving away from what we see, to something existing in the same 'imaginary space' as 'constants' exist in. What Einstein liked to think of as his fifth dimension maybe? I don't know, but I can see why he wanted it. And I want it too. If we use 'paths', and look behind what we find to be matter, and possibly also use the idea of fields(?) to describe a universe, then dimensions becomes a expression defining us, and the universe. It's just one limitation more.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #883 on: 15/04/2013 15:41:52 »
and thinking of a universe in terms of limiting us makes 'emergences' and 'symmetry breaks' very plausible to me. It also fits with the idea of 'micro states', at least as I think. And I need fractals.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #884 on: 15/04/2013 15:45:55 »
That's also why I'm asking if someone has another idea, simplifying the process from 'simple to complex'. And as I do not use arrows, jumping forth and back, instead expecting it to point one way solely this process need to be explained in as simple a 'initial state' as possible, although leading to complexity. And that is what fractals do, as far as I know?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #885 on: 15/04/2013 15:59:51 »
And as relativity question both distance and time, defining it as local expressions, I accept that. Einstein was right, as in most things I've read about. (and that people stole and run around with his brain, without any consent, is a sacrilege to me. Reminding me of the dark ages. We should be better than that by far, but we're not. We're still thinking in archetypes.)

I'm not twisting his theories, just looking at it from locality.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #886 on: 15/04/2013 16:09:15 »
Using dimensions you lock yourself up. Using 'paths', or loops, or strings and branes, you open up for new ideas. They are not what we see, but assuming they can exist the question should be why we find dimensions to exist, and what they signify? I'm not partial to a holographic universe (yet:) so I need some other explanation to why observer dependencies, coming from 'c' exist. But the idea of 'paths' serve me well there, as they allow me to ignore dimensions, and using 'relations' to define processes, as well as those paths, you can connect whatever sinks you like to a source, as long as it has a logic and fit my presumptions, or archetypes.

Because I have some. And they are called constants.
« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 16:13:21 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #887 on: 15/04/2013 16:14:49 »
So maybe the best question is.

Do you think constants exist? If you think they do, what do they signify?
The limits of a symmetry break?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #888 on: 15/04/2013 16:31:54 »
One more thing, using Planck scale as one limitation, 'c' definition as a 'speed' as another, we find ourselves in a universe that is what I call 'plastic'. It adapts to observer dependencies. And then thinking of a inflation, black holes, accelerating expansion, and what more?

Scales.

We have a universe that won't fit the Newtonian definitions, although those are what we still use, normally. A relativistic regime is also connected to temperature, 'relative motion' and definitely accelerations, 'energy' and 'mass' relativistic and proper. But it exist now too, being at rest with Earth, if you just use scales.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #889 on: 15/04/2013 17:47:43 »
I wrote "I expect the idea of us all existing together to be defined by light, force and information carriers, and that one, or very similar, was first suggested by SoulSurfer, if I remember right? As soon as I read it I realized that his way of looking at it simplified a lot of things for me"

You don't need dimensions for that, you need paths and a arrow defining lights 'rhythm'. Because either you define it as 'propagating' in which case both QM, and Relativity, becomes mysterious, with the duality existing, and different camps defining it as having a origin either as 'photons' or 'waves' or 'fields with excitations'. Using light as a clock you can allow it to 'propagate' as one definition, but also assume that you don't really need one. As long as it follows the logic we find from defining a propagation, and sources and sinks. Using that you also can define the duality as belonging to the circumstances defining the measurement. Because you and your equipment, and the way you set it up, are part of the measurement as I think. All relations defining it are. And to my mind there also is a fractal pattern to it, although I don't see how to describe, or define, that one. But there should be, in my mind.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #890 on: 15/04/2013 18:11:07 »
From that point of view a 'weak measurement' becomes just another way of arranging circumstances under a arrow. And it won't prove a thing, more than you can arrange a experiment to any satisfaction. Or if you like, it proves that there still is a logic, however you measure. Direct (local) measurements are more valid as stepping stones for ideas than 'weak' in my eyes though, but that is me.

Although, if your local arrow being equivalent to 'c' would be correct, can either be seen as a definite proof? It's a logic puzzle where all experiments outcomes, weak and 'strong' (direct, locally defined) just would describe the relations defining them.

So, if the arrow is what I propose, do you find repeating several 'identical' weak experiments under it to come closer to a 'truth', than making a single 'strong' one?

And from probability then?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #891 on: 15/04/2013 18:20:18 »
It also has to to do with those four dimensions we define. In relativity, and as I read it, they are one thing, So using this as a stepping stone, no 'weak experiments' can ever be defined as 'identical'. although using light as a 'clock' and defining it such as it will be the relations defining a outcome, light giving you a same pattern each repetition, you may be able to define them as being 'identical', assuming that all things involved are. Because then you can keep the cake, and eat it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #892 on: 15/04/2013 18:45:03 »
can scaling something be defined as a fractal behavior?
=

If you stop thinking in terms of matter and space, instead defining patterns, to what we observe. Is there a smallest scale for those patterns, and what would you think their constituents to be?
« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 18:48:58 by yor_on »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #893 on: 15/04/2013 19:11:14 »
can scaling something be defined as a fractal behavior?
=

If you stop thinking in terms of matter and space, instead defining patterns, to what we observe. Is there a smallest scale for those patterns, and what would you think their constituents to be?
Spheres of Planck dia.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #894 on: 15/04/2013 19:35:44 »
Maybe?

I was thinking of light myself, but that is a dimension less quantity.
Although it fits 'paths'

But yeah, I don't know, the universe we have is presumed to break down at Planck scale, becoming infinites.
Wish I knew that one.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #895 on: 15/04/2013 19:56:10 »
Maybe?

I was thinking of light myself, but that is a dimension less quantity.
Although it fits 'paths'

But yeah, I don't know, the universe we have is presumed to break down at Planck scale, becoming infinites.
Wish I knew that one.
Light does propagate from it's source outward as waves, similarly we view a sphere with a center having various paths from this point outward. Maybe these fractals you speak of are only the geometric possibilities that the geometry of a sphere structurally resembles?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #896 on: 15/04/2013 20:08:47 »
Depends on how you define it Ethos. Myself I was long attached to the idea of discrete light quanta, still is at times :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #897 on: 15/04/2013 21:12:12 »
You know. I've been thinking about spin. I guess we all do when we dive deep enough, oxygen disappearing etc :) The spin of a electron is defined as, classically described, being faster than lights speed in a vacuum (around 100 times greater than 'c'). And that one goes a long way back if I remember right? So where is that 'spin' situated, the whole electron, or just a part of it, and could one give it a 'scale'?

A electron is approximately a point particle, maybe definable somewhere down to a limit of 10^-18 meters, possibly?
A Planck length is equal to 1.616199(97)10−35 meters

So, and don't take me too seriously here. could one use scales and spin, for defining where our descriptions lose coherence? and yeah, I need to think about that one, a lot I guess :) And then we have HUP too complicating the picture. But it would be nice to define some limit for where particles start to do 'impossible things', as having a full rotation of twice 360 degrees. Then again, maybe it really is a 'point particle', which then handsomely would explain its behavior, as it then 'breaks down' from any realistic physical description. Against that is the fact as we have 'photographed' it in a fashion, finding it to present us with a size?

« Last Edit: 15/04/2013 21:14:55 by yor_on »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #898 on: 15/04/2013 22:35:55 »


A electron is approximately a point particle, maybe definable somewhere down to a limit of 10^-18 meters, possibly?
A Planck length is equal to 1.616199(97)10−35 meters


Depending of course upon which shell we find the electron, there seems to be a definable size but from what I've read, the location of a single electron can be represented more like a cloud of sorts incasing the nucleus. Nevertheless, your question about an approximate point particle starts one to thinking. And spin, ...................that is one peculiar idea for us to wrap our minds around.

There are going to be many interpretations for the true geometry of a single electron. Just for the record, mine would be something like this; I see a point at the center of an electron with Planck scale dia. around which the negative charge spins creating the spherical cloud we observe as it's size. This definition is of course coming from someone who has never seen one and probably never will......................?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #899 on: 16/04/2013 12:16:09 »
I don't know. Either it is in a 'probability cloud' for real, or this is just a mathematical description stating that we can't pinpoint it, except approximately. I lend to the later myself as a movie with it 'moving' indeed states that something is there, even though I'm not sure what 'this' thing moving is.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #899 on: 16/04/2013 12:16:09 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length