The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 278517 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #925 on: 17/04/2013 10:59:00 »
And this, you defining each frame as unique, accepting accelerations and uniform motion to describe different states. Then a uniform motion really is 'being still', and a acceleration is its opposite, as it seems to me? Meaning that 'relative motion' only makes sense from that 'common universe', but disappear as a definition as soon as you define it as a 'multiverse', split into unique frames of reference, locally defined. And if you, as me, then also want to find out at what scale you can place that 'frame of reference'?
« Last Edit: 17/04/2013 11:01:51 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #926 on: 17/04/2013 11:09:25 »
From that definition a macroscopic state of being 'at rest' makes sense to me, but to really make sense, thinking of it from scaling, I want it to be fractal. Can you see why?
=

and yes, this is more or less me thinking in 'ideal' terms. I'm not considering particles now, only being 'at rest' relative a acceleration, as some ideal states, defining a universe.
« Last Edit: 17/04/2013 11:11:20 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #927 on: 17/04/2013 11:18:22 »
You can forget about energy changing in relative motion for this. Those are representations relative 'relative motion' and 'c'. But as I'm splitting all frames into unique 'universes', also discussing if a frame of reference can have a scale, you could see it as something dimension less. From locality we then get two new 'constants' of a sort, to add to a 'clock' defined by 'c', equivalent a arrow. Uniform motion, and accelerations.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #928 on: 17/04/2013 11:45:52 »
Then we come to 'space', and here you better hold to your hat :)
As this won't make you happy.

Using locality, I do not need to fill a vacuum with energy. I think it should be possible to define it from the mass we see instead, Because a vacuum should then be a artifact of the 'common universe' we define us living in. In my 'multi-verse' though, and as strictly from locality as I can make it, I don't need it to 'jiggle', at different energy levels aka a 'Mexican hat', although I still need indeterminism describing it. Because it exist, just as dimensions.

It solves the problems I have with defining where the energy should be defined in a vacuum, in a acceleration. I like cutting Gordian knots, maybe a little too much.. This one is highly controversial though, and also very preliminary for my thinking, meaning I still need to see where I go wrong :) And there is no mathematics to it either.

But, if it now could be that way, would the stress energy tensor be wrong? Not from a common universe, as I see it. To me it has to do with that you can see a universe several ways. light is a particle is a wave is a field.. Three ways, none the ultimate answer, why not accept it?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #929 on: 17/04/2013 12:00:48 »
This one also has to do with my definition of light 'not propagating'. Because, if it doesn't, what makes you think that it would need to spread 'energy' everywhere? Think of it as a pattern, with holes. The holes are 'something', they are where matter is not, but from locality? How would you define a patch of 'space' from locality? But if light isn't propagating you can imagine the arrow presenting us 'sheets upon sheets' giving us a temporal direction, each sheet giving us a slightly changed pattern.

Against this idea: light is a dimension less property. For it: light do have a energy, we still have to prove without doubt that a 'vacuum' has it too. Casimir force is not a proof, it could be a result of mass as well.
« Last Edit: 17/04/2013 12:10:09 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #930 on: 17/04/2013 12:08:18 »
Those are most definitely thoughts though. Mathematically I'm very sure the stress energy tensor makes perfect sense, even though I don't get it myself. But it would make sense from locality too, you just need to exchange 'frames of reference' for a 'common universe' and it will be needed.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #931 on: 17/04/2013 12:21:31 »
Remember

This is just 'New Theories'..
So I refuse to be sued :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #932 on: 17/04/2013 12:36:37 »
And what would be local equivalence to that origin, filled with temperature and energy, before matter? Well, I don't know really, but I'm wondering about those 'micro states'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #933 on: 17/04/2013 14:50:42 »
Then again. Assume a Higg boson. We can't measure it, but we find it to 'exist'. There is no 'energy' measurable, unlike a photon or a wave, which we always will be able to define at its detection. From that you can assume a 'space' filled with 'energy'. And it fit's the idea of a 'field', although it makes it hard for me to define it from locality, unless I want to define a 'particle' as containing several frames of reference interacting in some way. I can do that of course, as I define it to Planck scale. But the energy must then become unmeasurable, only existing from indirect evidence. And there is one thing more, even though 'space' or a vacuum has no definition more than being a distance in three degrees of freedom, (and so possibly a arrow?) you can still use it to define yourself locally from it, relative the universe, or 'frames of reference'.

So maybe? I don't know. I would prefer it as it is classically described, something without matter and without resistance, a void. I don't find distance being the main problem there, but the idea of it containing energies. Because it fits badly with the idea of a 'infinite' space to me, and as I take observer dependencies seriously it also open for interpretations on how you will define a 'energy' to some defined patch in that 'common space' it assumes.
=

and yes, it also won't fit a expansion. Not if I define conservation laws as something belonging to a 'system'. You can make it open ended of course, meaning chaotic or if you like 'infinite' but that's not how I read it. "In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves."

Isolated?
In what manner?
« Last Edit: 17/04/2013 14:56:52 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #934 on: 17/04/2013 15:06:27 »
The point is that I believe in the conservation laws, and Noether's theorem. But with a expansion bringing in 'new energy' you will have to both redefine the conservation of energy, as well as you will have to accept some sort of enclosure defining your common universe, with the new space somehow welling in at all points (as I read it), 'gravity' and mass counteracting it, keeping their positions stable relative each other. You don't have a 'isolated system' from that point of view. And nature are 'open ended systems', that's the exact reason why global warming is so tricky to model.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #935 on: 17/04/2013 15:14:18 »
Take a look at the definitions of Conservation of mass and energy 

"The concept of mass–energy equivalence connects the concepts of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, which continue to hold separately in any isolated system (one that is closed to loss of any type of energy, including energy associated with loss of matter). The theory of relativity allows particles which have rest mass to be converted to other forms of mass which require motion, such as kinetic energy, heat, or light. However, the system mass remains. Kinetic energy or light can also be converted to new kinds of particles which have rest mass, but again the energy remains. Both the total mass and the total energy inside an isolated system remain constant over time, as seen by any single observer in a given inertial frame."

by any single observer in a given inertial frame.
That's locality. And that's the only way making sense of it too.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #936 on: 17/04/2013 15:16:49 »
Will this be correct assuming space to expand?
With new energy coming in to keep 'space' in a same equilibrium?

Maybe?
But it's no longer a isolated system.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #937 on: 17/04/2013 15:24:02 »
To keep it a 'isolated system' you will have to assume this common universe to 'loan' or 'grab' the energy for a expansion from something else existing? What would that be, 'zero point energy'? Nah, that's a oxymoron (contradiction in terms). We have two things, space and matter, so if it isn't space, from where can you 'lend'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #938 on: 17/04/2013 15:26:04 »
anyone feeling lighter, have the planet shrunk today? :)
Well, if we all shrink together then.

And that one can be seen two ways. Either that is the 'expansion', or it is the universe 'grabbing' what it need for it.
=

But, in that case, will all constants stay the same?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #939 on: 17/04/2013 15:31:15 »
I think that is the only case in where I would expect all constants to stay the same. But I'm not really sure if they would do that? Everything involving a constant would need to balance out for this proposition to stay true.
=

What about gravity, and mass? In such a proposition mass disappear. That mean that the gravitational potential must change, doesn't it? Even though you still will weight the same, assuming a balance, your mass versus Earths, shouldn't you still be able to measure a difference? Between 'heavenly objects' for example?
=

Nah, don't think that will be 'it'. So, where does it get this expansion from?
« Last Edit: 17/04/2013 15:56:17 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #940 on: 17/04/2013 15:48:55 »
There might be one way though? Assume that with less 'unmeasurable' energy in a vacuum, you make it expand? But, how would that fit a inflation? And what would it do to the Higg boson, or field? Geometrically you have a expansion, taking 'energy' from 'space', not new 'energy' welling in. And in the Higg model that should mean a weaker inertia over time, if I'm thinking right. I don't believe in that one either.
=

But I still like it . .
I place that one in the same proud category as my idea of light being what give us that 'dark mass' :)
You know, depending on direction in a 'system'.
Heh.
« Last Edit: 17/04/2013 15:53:11 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #941 on: 17/04/2013 16:01:16 »
I need to make this a SF, although fantasy's are more open ended, thinking of it :)
I will offer a limited pay for rent here. A franchise sort of :)

You give me money for a book, I promise to spend it. And, presuming all go well, in the end we can write a book about the book, I was meant to write. Eh, not by me of course :)
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #942 on: 17/04/2013 17:00:31 »
I need to make this a SF, although fantasy's are more open ended, thinking of it :)
I will offer a limited pay for rent here. A franchise sort of :)

You give me money for a book, I promise to spend it. And, presuming all go well, in the end we can write a book about the book, I was meant to write. Eh, not by me of course :)
While reading your thoughts yor_on, I've observed you beginning as a scientist, transforming into a philosopher, and now becoming a comedian. But the truth is, you did make me laugh my friend.

On a serious note however, I'm slowly being persuaded that you may be on to something. As time ticks by at the Planck rate, I'm beginning to see and understand the value of the fractal in all this. And while doing some math last night, I found a peculiar connection between phi and pi. I'm still trying to unify these figures so I'll wait until I've found sound math before posting it.

In any case, I'm now convinced that we live in a fractal universe and about this knowledge, I must confess, you deserve the credit for my transformation.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #943 on: 17/04/2013 19:58:16 »
Hmm :)

If you think it might be fractal, I'm sure you've been toying with the idea before too Ethos. what I write started from confusion, and considering it all, it will most probably end in confusion, so please, don't take it too seriously.

What I am serious about is the arrow and 'c' equivalence, and the idea of it being possible to judge all arrows as equivalent. the rest seems to follow naturally in some way, although in its own time, and for a trained scientist it will be no certain proof of anything, although I think it fits my thinking. And I argue for fractal processes, because I hope for the universe to have the good sense of not getting more complex than it needs. Just as we humans want it, at times at least :) Although, I don't think of a arrow in itself as fractal, I still see it as a 'linear process'. Processes inside this linearity are most welcome to present me with a fractal behavior though, and as it is processes that fills up, and define, a universe?

but don't expect me to make sense, even though I try at times :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #944 on: 17/04/2013 20:14:32 »
The thing is, were I bold, or crazy, enough to define it as a 'fractal arrow', I would also need to define a fractal 'c', and that one would most definitively give me a extensive headache. There are two schools (more, but for this it will be two, I'm lazy, no joke) about the properties of a arrow, as I think. One defining it from processes, one way or another. The other thinking as me, that there is a arrow, although I don't necessarily see it as a dimension, more as a major path, that you can 'stop', there referring to comparisons with other frames of reference, but not reverse.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #945 on: 17/04/2013 21:59:09 »
In a universe with both matter and space being a artifact we need Planck scale, and 'forces', or a field? And if we need a field we might need 'energies' too, don't we. energy everywhere, some defining matter, others defining 'space'. I need to sleep on this one, maybe it will make sense tomorrow?

Today I'm happy over my sudden understanding of 'relative motion' being a effect of 'frames of reference', 'comparing' each other, sort of :) because that's one irritation less for me. I hope i can limit it to uniform motion and accelerations in the future, from locality. also the realization that comparing energies in a uniform motion not being a answer to anything more than the fact that 'frames of reference' exist, and that we do compare.

It's rather small steps as I should have seen that one a long time ago, but it's hard breaking free from one daily observations, and there everything can 'move' relative something. Good on me :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #946 on: 18/04/2013 13:27:36 »
Nope, didn't become any clearer :)

ah well, if we think of frames of reference from Planck scale instead we get two definitions. Point particles and bosons being without a known scale, becoming one thing under that definition. And those we can relate a scale to becoming a other. Without size, no frames of reference 'comparing each other', with size 'comparisons being made'. Rather weird that one :) isn't it?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #947 on: 18/04/2013 13:40:44 »
So, do a photon have a frame of reference? Depends, we see them, don't we? How else would we exist? But they are indeed 'dimension less'. We are, in a way, drawn out (painted on? Don't find the right word in English, in Swedish I would call it 'utsmetade' but?) on the 'fabric' of space time, just as a holographic universe imagine. there we become 'three dimensional' representations of a two dimensional reality if I got it right.

'Forces' filling us in? don't know.

From the point of a photon, we become something that have a beginning and a end, or just a end possibly. In this universe we find photons to have a beginning, and a end, but nothing in between, experimentally that is. We find the signs of a 'recoil' as a photon leaves although we will not observe the photon leaving. And we detect them annihilating. From that we assume a motion, even though unmeasurable. Using locality, ignoring comparisons between frames, we are left with what? Planck scale, isn't it?

So, is a recoil possible from that scale? Don't think so, you need 'composites' of a greater scale (atoms) to see that one. Annihilations then? No, and for the same reason. Where are the composites? light interacts with matter.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #948 on: 18/04/2013 13:44:28 »
And that might be 'fields'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • 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 #949 on: 18/04/2013 13:50:00 »
From that point of view you also get a cone, 'materializing' a arrow, following the scale, magnifying.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #949 on: 18/04/2013 13:50:00 »

 

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