Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:06:15

Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:06:15
This is just thought's and questions, no theories, not even hypothesizes, okay, some hypothesizes, possibly? And no, I haven’t even begun to touch all there could be said. And I’ll leave it, as is, so you can see just how confused I am. Yeah, I’m confused. The dichotomy between particles and waves never stops confusing me. And time, and mass, and distances and.. . It would be nice if there was a common background to it. And I probably misstate some ideas, oh yes, I’ve done it before, but here I’ve tried to avoid it, well mostly :) And I have to split it into several parts to fit it in here so... Well, it's at least entangled?

Then, on the other tentacle, if it’s not argumentative and just ‘adapts’, where is the joy of reading? Also it seems I’ve lost my ‘password’ since my last visit. Well, sh* happens, right? Just look at ‘Global Warming’. And it’s been some time since I was here too, due to my lack of ‘medium’. Yep, I lost my ‘crystal bowl’. So feel free to trust me in that I’m me :) I’m pretty sure on that one.. I’ve even checked me in the mirror this morning, in the process finding that one should better avoid doing so. Why? Just trust me on that one.

What it is? A work in progress, regressive progress? Progressive regress? And there is no real order to it either as I’ve added to my questions, quotes and views, where ever I pleased. So if you find one part boring or ‘incompetent’ try another. Well, judge for yourself. I’ll freely admit to wishing it was more ‘elegant’, as well as shorter. Try to read it ‘holistically’, the way it came to, it hopefully will make more sense at a second reading, but, probably not? If so, do try to read it backwards.  To me it all knits together :) Remember, if read holistically one percent will be quite sufficient for you to build the continuance of it according to all known principles involving holistic information.  And if you find me lifting up the same old things repeatedly, you’re wrong, I wrote them after that…

So they’re definably new.

And you don't really need to take it seriously, and all that said..
I do.  For now.

( I do too choose too to do do so, so? :)
I’m planning to have that inscribed on my tombstone too.

RIP (e)
. . . . . For now.

And my next work will be ‘The second coming’.
Catchy title, ain’t it? ( Don’t worry, you’ll get it..)


---And now for that Warning Label---

One way to read it might be to see it as a entangled try for that really confused science-fiction, connected to sanity by only the thinnest of threads, soon to slip through your nerve-dead fingers, leaving you a disjointed wreck oozing revolted innocence at those fellow compatriots accusing you of reading it.

If you don’t like my views I mean :)

And yes, I’m arguing myself through a maze here, discussing ‘wrong and strange ideas’ to see if I understand them to ‘my’ satisfaction. Remember that I started to write it for my sake, not yours, also that ‘it’ may have, to you, all to obvious false conclusions. ( Easily satisfied you say? Yep, that’s me. - Oh, you :)

And I try to argue for there being a distance-less quality hidden inside SpaceTime creating rules we see defining it, yeah :) I know, a little like ‘one dimensional strings’ but interpreted so that it seems to make sense for me. Why it should be so? Well, mostly to diminish my headache. I’m not sure, as I don’t know the math, if one-dimensional strings would relate to how I think this ‘dimension-less reality’ might behave. Physicists or mathematicians reading it, ( if any ) may give up on me all to soon. . .

But please, if you're crazy or bored enough to read it, don't come complaining. And, I totally agree , it’s a totally unstructured hydra begetting all to many heads. With far more wrongs than rights to it I'm sure, but then after all is said and done, that's, .. life for you.. And me. It is in fact just that sort of scary mythological beast you might best avoid. Growing into an ever more uneven shape as it w(j)iggles itself towards obscurity. Making what sense it may out of its meager existence.

Consider yourself duly warned.

----End of Warning text----


As we all know, if its ‘too good’ for you it will contain a warning label.
At least, that’s how my marketing division presented it when they insisted? on me writing one.

I'm afraid that I started it some month ago to cure my boredom (and see if really understood anything at all?:), having no internet connection. Which goes a far way to show you the dangers of that. With the exemption of climate issues where I feel like that old joke. “It seems so bad that it isn’t even the bottom of the bottle, the bottom just fell out”. And there I’m afraid you’ll find me quite acerbic, lashing out. But it would please me if you would read it anyhow.

Yeah, that citation above loses something in the translation. But it’s fun in Swedish.

As we know about beer. . . And climate. Cause we have both. But the beer has been far superior to the climate lately. :) Furthermore, as a layman I most likely will abuse both words and concepts that should have a more refined definition to a physicist. But as it’s just an essay and not any holy grail, please bear with me (and it) if so. And, oh yeah, That ‘arrow of time’, referred to all too often here, is just the universal macroscopic order of ‘events’ creating that ‘unwavering time-flow’ I believe us to observe in SpaceTime. Birth -> to -> Death. So to speak.


Hey, At least I'm still a growing boy.
laterally.

Anyway.


What is momentum? We say that photons, ‘entities’ of no mass still contain momentum. That, to me at least, singles momentum out as something differing from mass. Inertia f. ex. Can a photon be said to have inertia? (The tendency of a body to maintain its state of rest or uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force). SpaceTime 'bends' the paths of photons using gravity but is that the same as it having inertia? When we talk about mass we all know from normal experience that the heavier the car(t:) the harder it is to stop and that is what inertia normally refers to, isn't it? So, would you accept me suggesting that light bends in the nearness of gravitational objects in varying degrees due to their inertia? Nah, didn't think so, inertia to me relates to invariant mass but momentum doesn't. Also I would say that measured in 'energy' (whatever that might be) the photon always use the 'shortest path' energy-wise and that inertia only relates to 'invariant/rest mass' which is the kind of mass that will stay consistent no matter where you place it. Like you moving that chair to Pluto where its weight will change but its invariant mass remains the same.

---Some facts about rest mass contra relativistic mass----Quote--

Rest mass.

The invariant mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass or just mass is a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference...If the system is one particle, the invariant mass may also be called the rest mass."

- - -End quote--

versus Relativistic Mass.

-- -Quote-

" The quantities that a moving observer measures as scaled by ? in special relativity are not confined to mass.  Two others commonly encountered in the subject are a body's length in the direction of motion and its ageing rate, both of which get reduced by a factor of ? when measured by a passing observer. So, a ruler has a rest length, being the length it was given on the production line, and a relativistic or contracted length in the direction of its motion, which is the length we measure it to have as it moves past us.  Likewise, a
stationary clock ages normally, but when it moves it ages slowly by the gamma factor (so that its "factory tick rate" is reduced by ?).  Lastly, an object has a rest mass, being the mass it "came off the production
line with", and a relativistic mass, being defined as above.  When at rest, the object's rest mass equals its relativistic mass.  When it moves, its acceleration is determined by both its relativistic mass (or its rest mass, of course) and its velocity.

While relativistic mass is useful in the context of special relativity, it is rest mass that appears most often in the modern language of relativity, which centres on "invariant quantities" to build a geometrical description of relativity.  Geometrical objects are useful for unifying scenarios that can be described in different coordinate systems.  Because there are multiple ways of describing scenarios in relativity depending on which frame we are in, it is useful to focus on whatever invariance's we can find. This is, for example, one reason why vectors (i.e. arrows) are so useful in maths and physics; everyone can use the same arrow to express e.g. a velocity, (speed having a given direction) even though they might each quantify the arrow using different components because each observer is using different coordinates.  So the reason rest mass, rest length, and proper time find their way into the tensor language of relativity is that all observers agree on their values.  (These invariants then join with other quantities in relativity: thus, for example, the four-force acting on a body equals its rest mass times its four-acceleration.)  This is one reason why some physicists prefer to say that rest mass is the only way in which mass should be understood.

- -End of Quote ----

--

It may be interesting to note here that this geometric notion of describing
SpaceTime wasn't entirely shared by Einstein.

- - - -

Quoted from John D. Norton
Department of History and Philosophy of Science
and Center for Philosophy of Science
University of Pittsburgh----

"In thinking mathematically, or, as Einstein's sometimes said, formally, one takes the mathematical equations of the theory as a starting point. The hope is that by writing down the simplest mathematical equations that are applicable to the physical system at hand, one arrives at the true laws. The idea is that
mathematics has its own inner intelligence, so that once the right mathematics is found, the physical problems melt away. Philosophers will recognize this as a form of Platonism.. Just how did Einstein's physical insight work? One part was an keen instinct as to which among the flood of experimental reports were truly revealing. Another was his masterful use of thought experiments.

Through them Einstein could cut away the distracting clutter and lay bare a core physical insight in profoundly simple and powerfully convincing form.. That geometrical way of conceiving special relativity is not Einstein's. It was devised by the mathematician Hermann Minkowski shortly after Einstein published his special theory of relativity. Einstein was reluctant to adopt Minkowski's method, thinking it smacked of "superfluous learnedness." It was only well after many others had adopted Minkowski's methods that Einstein capitulated and began to use them. It was a good choice. It proved to be an essential step on the road to general relativity. Einstein preferred to think of his theory in terms of the coordinates of space and time: x, y, z and t. The essential ideas of the theory were conveyed by the algebraic properties of these quantities, treated as variables in equations. Its basic equations are the Lorentz transformation, which, in Einstein's hands, is a rule for changing the variables used to describe the physical system at hand. The laws of physics are written as symbolic formulae that include these coordinate variables.

The principle of relativity of relativity then became for Einstein an assertion about the algebraic properties of these formulae; that is, the formulae stay the same whenever we carry out the symbolic manipulation of change of variables of the Lorentz transformation. The emphasis in Einstein's algebraic approach is on variables, not SpaceTime  coordinates, and formulae written using those variable, not geometrical figures in SpaceTime. For many purposes, it makes no difference which approach one uses, geometric or algebraic. Sometimes one is more useful or simpler than the other. Very often, both approaches lead us to make exactly the same calculations. We just talk a little differently about them. However there can be a big difference if we disagree over which approach is more fundamental. We now tend to think of the geometric conception as the more fundamental one and that Einstein's algebraic formulae are merely convenient instruments for getting to the geometrical properties. There is some evidence that Einstein saw things the other way round. He understood the geometric conception, but took the algebraic formulation to be more fundamental"

--End Quotes----

And if you're interested in what he saw as the difference's between those two
approaches you could search on. ' physics + "How did Einstein think?" John D. Norton '

(I’m sorry not to giving you the direct links for my quotations, blame it on my not having a Internet connection. But I swear to that they exist, somewhere :) And no, Einstein was only human and most definitely no saint, as far as I've found out. But that imagination of his was unworldly, and a pleasure. )

---Quote----

The thing that never ceases to amaze me about Einstein is not just that he came up with theories that altered our fundamental understanding of our Universe (that would CLEARLY be impressive enough!). Max Planck did something quite similar in order to explain the color of light coming from hot objects (Black Body radiation). But Planck developed his theories ONLY because he could think of no other way to explain experimental results. Einstein did exactly the same thing WITHOUT any experimental results that needed an explanation! What he did (not once BUT TWICE) was to ask a perfectly hypothetical question, come up with what he thought MIGHT be the result, and then develop the result in a rigorous mathematical formula. In both cases, his theories were radical changes in basic physics. And both times his purely conjectural ideas were supported by experiment!

For SR, he asked what would happen if he moved away from a clock at the speed of light. His conclusion (somewhat reasonable) was that he would never see the clock advance, as none of the light from the clock would ever be from a time past when he started to move away at that speed. He then asked if that meant time was standing still as he moved away at that speed. He then developed a mathematical formalism that made some mind-blowing ideas about the effect of uniform motion, including the famous E = mc^2.

However, even Einstein noted that his formulae for SR had no way to determine what would happen if someone were accelerating. It wasn't a thought or experiment, it was obvious -- so he resolved to fill this gap. His "Aha!" moment was when he asked what would happen if someone was in an elevator in free-fall in a LONG shaft. Again, he developed the idea in a mathematically rigorous way (this took YEARS) and showed that, if his ideas were correct, light from a distant star would "bend" when close to our Sun. When photographs during a eclipse showed that's exactly what happened, Einstein went (literally overnight) from respected obscurity to being the most famous scientist in the world.

Invariably, scientists develop new theoretical frameworks only when the old ones no longer explain certain experiments. Neutrino oscillation, the absence of proton decay, dark matter, and dark energy are all unexplained at this point in our history; and scientists are working furiously to develop theories that would cover these verified results. Einstein, on the other hand, developed radical theories BEFORE anyone needed them to explain anything, and experiments showed that his theories were completely correct! This never ceases to amaze me.
    
--------End of quote-

Wish I knew this guys name.
But hey, all my quotes are good :)

( Btw: Feel free to quote this and the quotes, but also, please tell us exactly where you got it from. With enough doing so I have great hopes that it will end in something where the quoting of who quotes who, will become to the reader as a really thick and estranged phone book, totally obscuring the original quotes as well as any questions in question. It’s a holistic principle in action and I can’t wait to see it. I’ve done my part here, now it’s your turn. Yes, I decisively must insist on your ‘total history’ of ideas and sources origin, through its full hierarchy:)

Doing it this way we will soon have us a TOE..
Yep. Exactitude my aim..
-
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:07:35

Anyway, we know that photons have a particle-similarity in their momentum, one thought experiment trying to take this into account is to enclose photons in a 'perfectly reflecting' box. When weighting that box, before and after introducing the photons, there is expected to be a weight difference. Let us first agree on something, there is no way you can define anything ‘moving’ to not touch the reflective walls in that ‘prison’. To truly define a ‘eigen’-mass to ‘photons’ or ‘waves’ you would also need to ‘freeze’ them inside that box’s space, can you see what I mean? And then weight it before and after the introduction of ‘light’. And as soon as you ‘touch’ something, f ex. that light, to ‘freeze’ it you will change its properties, so that’s not acceptable to me. When something ‘moves’ and then ‘reflects’ it will interact with what’s its ‘touching’, that’s also a ‘rule’ to me, but that said what we here is ‘playing with’ is a perfectly reflecting box. And there it is expected to be shown a ‘weigh/invariant mass’ difference. Weight is something changing to where you are right, like in water you weight less, but  invariant mass is the sum-up/collection of what you really are, no matter where you reside. So do we expect it to be a weight difference or a mass difference here? Do we define it to the box only or to the sum of the box and its ‘waves’ inside. As far as I understand we will treat it as ‘a system’ defined as one single ‘object’ and the ‘mass’ referred to will be ‘restmass/invariant mass’. And that defined I will ramble on. Does that mean that photons have a 'mass' after all? I personally don't think so, one way is to see it as an exchange of 'energy' only, with the photons 'bouncing' around inside that box exchanging what momentum they have for 'lesser energy content' sort of, if seen as waves possibly red-shifting them in the process. If that was correct it seems to mean that this weight should change as photons momentum 'shrinks' with their energy content, or possible termination.

But what does that mean? That you have a 'loosely' defined number of photons 'bouncing' and as they bounce they all loose the same amount of energy? Or that they 'disappear' as they exchange their energy with the reflecting wall through virtual photons as they are of 'one energy quanta'. Or that they stay in that box infinitely as they can't 'slow down', as the box is defined as reflecting them 'perfectly'?

If seen as particles you could expect them to lose 'energy' with every 'bounce' of the walls, mediated by those 'virtual particles/photons'. And as their momentum, to me that is, can't be related to any mass in this case, with them being photons and all I see two possibilities. One is this strange thing called momentum and the other one is the intrinsical energy contained in a photon. If it is related to their energy content. Then, if photons consists of unvarying light quanta, shouldn't that mean that they will disappear from our observation at the first 'impact/bounce/energy loss' with those walls, not caring for any further 'reflection'. But they don’t, well they do, but other takes their ‘place’. The idea behind that is called ‘mediating’, and the ‘mediating’ is done by ‘virtual particles/photons’. If you on the other tentacle see them as waves, then we know that they will reflect, just as from an ordinary mirror and if that reflection was 'perfect' you might assume that they would bounce for ever. That leaves the question of what force(s) one would expect to work/mediate with the box mirrored walls. No matter if you call it mass or if you call it momentum there is that idea of action and reaction. Those virtual photons mediating the force between the photons momentum and the box should loose/exchange 'something' to create an added mass in that box, wouldn’t you agree? You can't have a mass created by those photonical (demonical?) waves without something being distributed/mediated between the box and the waves themselves.

As we all know, as soon as you share that cookie with someone else it becomes less somehow, even before consumed? But not here, instead it seems to become ‘more’ as we compare waves and particles? So what can I guess about the wavelike properties of photons?

Well, they can't reach above lights speed in a vacuum at least. But can they slow down? That we 'know', if meeting something of the proper density they will slow down, as when light travels through a prism, or water and so lose some 'energy' and/or 'speed'. So, can they traverse even slightly through this perfect mirrors 'glass'? According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) they must, as there is no way I know of defining any mirror as being 'perfectly reflecting' without giving the mirrors smallest 'constituents' strange properties violating HUP. So there can't be any perfectly reflecting mirror anyway as I understands it, which to me makes the idea sort of moot, as any wave reflected will lose ‘some information’ meeting ever so shortly that mirrors ‘properties’ before it bounces back.

But, to consider something ‘perfectly reflecting’ and then expect a change of the box’s (system) restmass/invariant mass would indeed be a proof for waves having mass. But the fact remains that even when light do interact with ‘invariant mass’ it do so through ‘mediating’ and if so, there must be something exchanged between the ‘invariant mass’ and the light. And as long as you’re not prepared to see matter and light as the ‘exact same’ simultaneously under our arrow of time then light is not ‘invariant mass’ even though they can ‘transmute’ into each other under certain manipulations, like an atom-bomb transmutes into ‘energy’ or very high ‘energies’ can create a ‘particle’. But to be ‘perfectly reflected’ seems to me to crave that wave not to be ‘touching’ at all, and why would it ‘reflect’ if so? Let that be a warning us all :) any thought experiment craving ‘magic’ to be accomplished will be a ‘minefield’ to walk through. All the same it is an idea that made me wonder.

------Quote---About HUP---

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the values of certain pairs of conjugate variables (position and momentum, for instance) cannot both be known with arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one variable is known, the less precisely the other is known. This is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but rather about the nature of the system itself. In quantum mechanics, the particle is described by a wave. The position is where the wave is concentrated and the momentum, a measure of the velocity, is the wavelength. The position is uncertain to the degree that the wave is spread out, and the momentum is uncertain to the degree that the wavelength is ill-defined.

The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength. Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position. So in quantum mechanics, there are no states which describe a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum. The narrower the probability distribution is for the position, the wider it is in momentum.

The uncertainty principle requires that when the position of an atom is measured, the measurement process will leave the momentum of the atom changed by an uncertain amount inversely proportional to the accuracy of the measurement. The amount of uncertainty can never be reduced below the limit, no matter what the measurement process.

This means that the uncertainty principle is related to the observer effect, with which it is often conflated - (meaning ‘mixed together with’) -. In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is the theoretical lower limit of how small the observer effect can be.

-------------End of quote------

Another way of expressing it may be, that to observe something that small you need to ‘touch’ it somehow. If you ‘touch’ it by radiation f ex. then your ‘light’ will act just as a ‘force’ invalidating that ‘something’s’ state of equilibrium and so also invalidate your results. But that’s only half the truth. You also need to remember that when ‘pinpointing’ very small ‘systems’ or ‘particles/waves’ the ‘information’ needed for defining them runs to ‘infinities’ of needed information, and there we get lost in the wilderness, you will see more of this later in the text, as well as some questions about if there can be ‘limits’ to mathematics?

(‘Heisenberg's uncertainty principle asserts that it is impossible to specify both the position and the momentum of a particle. That ‘uncertainty principle’ can also be regarded as an expression of the conflict between wavelike and particle-like properties. If we use a De Broglie's relation instead and express momentum in terms of wavelength we will still find it impossible to describe ‘simultaneously particle and wavelike properties’.)

But it still leaves the question open if one could see them as 'corpuscles' consisting of some common degree of energy-quanta. Or of several constant degrees of energy-quanta, or if they can change in themselves? As well as the question if 'high energy' radiation of photons then should be seen as singular 'corpuscles', each one containing a higher energy content, or if this just is a effect of it being a higher (denser) amount of 'photons' there at any given ‘instant’ of your observation. If you see them as waves you also should get the effect of them quenching each other but then, on the other hand, they also should be able to reinforce each other, so I presume this to balance itself out? But how have waves a momentum? It's easier for me to relate to momentum if the definition of it resembles a object/particle, on the other hand, light do have very much a wave-like appearance.

So :)
Light have a 'momentum' but no mass?
Momentum = product of a body's mass and its velocity…

Hey, don’t look at me, that what’s my dictionary told me. Probably one of them crazed ‘particle partisans’ writing it. Although.. In the case of photons there is no body's 'rest mass', only velocity. So where is the ‘particle’?
Says I.

Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:08:35
----Quote---

“Momentum is the Noether charge of translational invariance. As such, even fields as well as other things can have momentum, not just particles. However, in curved space-time which is not asymptotically Minkowski, momentum isn't defined at all.”

---End of quote—

But a Minkowski SpaceTime is the exact one you’re in.  Defined by its three spatial (‘spacelike’) dimensions and its one ‘timelike’ dimension. And if you’re wondering about what this lovely girl, Emmy Noether's, theorem was about..

It states roughly that.. 
----------Quote ---

“ if a physical system behaves the same regardless of how it is oriented in space, its Lagrangian …(which is a formula of transformation).. is rotationally symmetric; from this symmetry, her theorem shows that the angular momentum of the system must be conserved. . .The physical system itself need not be symmetric; a jagged asteroid tumbling in space conserves angular momentum despite its asymmetry – it is the laws of motion which are symmetric. . . As another example, if a physical experiment has the same outcome regardless of place or time (having the same outcome, say, in Cleveland on Tuesday and Samaria on Wednesday), then its Lagrangian is symmetric under continuous translations in space and time;

By Noether's theorem, these symmetries account for the conservation laws of linear momentum and energy within this system, respectively….Modern physics has revealed that the conservation laws of momentum and energy are only approximately true, but their modern refinements – the conservation of four-momentum in special relativity and the zero divergence of the stress-energy tensor in general relativity – are rigorously true within the limits of those theories. The conservation of angular momentum, a generalization to rotating rigid bodies, likewise holds in modern physics.

--------End of quote------

Ah yes, it never ends does it. Four-momentum you say?
Really??

Let’s have a look.

----Quote---
In special relativity, four-momentum is the generalization of the classical three-dimensional momentum to four-dimensional spacetime. Momentum is a vector in three dimensions; similarly four-momentum is a four-vector in spacetime.
---

So if I get this right, never thy doubt, someday I might… It relates to that momentum can be seen as being a ‘property’ relating not only to those ‘three distances’ we have but also to the ‘vector’ of ‘time’. Being proposed by Albert Einstein. “The "length" of the vector is the mass times the speed of light, which is invariant across all reference frames:” So why do we need to apply a momentum to time?. It seem to come from the ‘invariance’ of four-vectors under a so called Lorentzian translation which is yet another mathematical transformation. “Relativistic momentum can also be written as invariant mass times the object's proper velocity, defined as the rate of change of object position in the observer frame with respect to time elapsed on object clocks (i.e. object proper time). Relativistic momentum becomes Newtonian momentum only at low speeds.

But of course it is correct, all ‘momentum’ is acting in time and to give a proper definition of it you will need to consider its time component. Also, as that time-component can be seen as ‘contracting’ as observed from the frame of f ex an accelerated rocket versus those objects/time outside, it then seems to make time ‘elastic’, if you like. Compare that to our older ‘Newtonian universe’ where time was seen to always be the same ‘inelastic’, no matter your ‘speed’ or acceleration and you will see how he thought.


----------Quote—

In Galilean SpaceTime the physical existence of an absolute time is assumed.
The pioneer of physics Isaac Newton defined it in the following way.

    "Absolute, true and mathematical time, in itself, and from its own nature, flows equally, without relation to any thing external; and by other name called Duration. Relative, apparent, and vulgar time, is some sensible and external measure of duration by motion, whether accurate or unequable, which is commonly used instead of true time; as an hour, a day, a month, a year. It may be, that there is no equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is liable to no change."

Because of this absolute time the global notion of past, present and future is the same in all reference frames. If two events are simultaneous in one particular reference frame, this means that they are also simultaneous in all reference frames. . . Within the framework of Galilean Space-Time, faster-than-light speeds are possible in principle. However, electromagnetical waves are limited not to exceed the speed of light c, which usually depends on the direction of the light signal the reference frame in which it is measured. The speed of light is constant only in the absolute space-time frame, which is also called the Newtonian rest frame.

--End of quote---

And furthermore, as the light/photons velocity just 'is' having no ‘beginning’ (acceleration) even though an 'end', being its impact on your retina, I'm not even sure if velocity or speed is the right description for it. That as all other velocities/speeds we know of need a accelerate component to them. You can create ‘bosons’ like helium4 by super-cooling but they do not inherit this strange ability of instant ‘c’ that photons is expected to have, as far as I know. “When liquid helium is cooled below 2.2 K, a Bose condensate begins to form in the liquid. At these low temperatures, liquid helium behaves as a superfluid having, among other strange properties, zero viscosity.”

Apropos Helium-4

“The helium-4 atom… In an actual helium atom, the protons are superimposed in space and most likely found at the very center of the nucleus, and the same is true of the two neutrons. Thus all four particles are most likely found in exactly the same space. Classical images of separate particles thus fail to model known charge distributions in very small nuclei.

The nucleus of an atom is the very dense region, consisting of nucleons (protons and neutrons), at the center of an atom. Although the size of the nucleus varies considerably according to the mass of the atom, the size of the entire atom is comparatively constant. Almost all of the mass in an atom is made up from the protons and neutrons in the nucleus with a very small contribution from the orbiting electrons” Superimposed? At room-temperature? That’s interesting.


What we call Bosons and Fermions is what makes up for all ‘particles’ inside SpaceTime.
Bosons has a integral spin and all can occupy the same state  (super imposed) and examples are photons, 4He atoms, gluons. Fermions has a half-integral spin and can only occupy ‘one per state’ (one ‘peg’, one ‘hole’) and examples are electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, neutrinos

“ The spin-statistics theorem shows that all bosons obey Bose–Einstein statistics, whereas all fermions obey Fermi-Dirac statistics or, equivalently, the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that at most one particle can occupy any given state. Thus, if the photon were a fermion, only one photon could move in a particular direction at a time. This is inconsistent with the experimental observation that lasers can produce coherent light of arbitrary intensity, that is, with many photons moving in the same direction. Hence, the photon must be a boson and obey Bose–Einstein statistics.”

And now we know what the heck a ‘one per state’ is. That went back to that definition called ‘the Pauli exclusion principle’, stating that you couldn’t have more than one fermion existing in any given quantum state. What that means to me is that bosons should be able to be ‘superimposed’ upon each other, like photons, without taking any ‘room’ physically, but fermions can’t, and won’t.

As fermions is what makes ‘matter’ possible we should be grateful for that. I mean, your ‘super imposed’ chair, how would you ever find it, and what would you do with it if you found it? One more strange thing about those fermions. Under certain circumstances relating to a few of those types of fermions they may ‘transform’ into bosons like that helium-4.  But then again? I thought that as they now behaved as Bosons they should be able to be superimposed. But now I’m not sure anymore?

” In a superfluid helium, the helium atoms have a volume, and essentially "touch" each other, yet at the same time exhibit strange bulk properties, consistent with a Bose-Einstein condensation. The latter reveals that they also have a wave-like nature and do not exhibit standard fluid properties, such as friction. For nuclei made of hadrons which are fermions, the same type of condensation does not occur, yet nevertheless, many nuclear properties can only be explained similarly by a combination of properties of particles with volume, in addition to the frictionless motion characteristic of the wave-like behavior of objects trapped in Schroedinger quantum orbitals”

So? All Bosons are not the same then? Containing the same properties? Equal but not equal then? Somewhat like our ‘representative democracy’ perhaps? With more of a sliding scale of properties instead? That we deem to be ‘Bosonic’ anyway.. Really? That made it so much simpler, don’t you think? We just need to consider the Boson as being our democratic ‘Man on the street’. With our lovely Fermion as a woman, as they do all the ‘real’ work. Yes I am breaking it down in easily digested parts here. ( Wave to the public now Boson :)

“When gaseous bosonic atoms are cold enough (so that they have a long quantum wavelength) and dense enough (so that the spacing between the particles is on the order of the wavelength), quantum effects become important and the gas may undergo a phase transition into the Bose condensed state. This must be done in a density regime low enough so that the gas does not nucleate and form a solid.” And there I presumed that you could ‘super impose’ them too? As for ‘spin’ and ‘polarization’,  you will find it the later in the essay, or goggle :) 

But there is one other very strange thing, although bosons/photons are supposed to be able to ‘superimpose’ on each other, they also seem to be able to collide. “ For example, photons suffer so many collisions on the way from the core of the sun that radiant energy can take about a million years to reach the surface, however, once in open space, a photon takes only 8.3 minutes to reach Earth. The factor by which the speed is decreased is called the refractive index of the material.”  But doesn’t they get ‘exchanged’ as they ‘collide’ inside the Sun. Isn’t it only the ‘mediating process’ into new photons taking that time (3 million years) ?

That is what you can see in your mirror too, where your photons gets reflected. They collide with the mirror and ‘bounces’. Do you find it strange? I do:) So photons can be superimposed but also collide happily and often? And helium-4 as an atom have most of its constituents already superimposed even without cooling? But when super-cooled down to a Boson state (Bose-Einstein condensation) they still, each one, will occupy a volume just as fermions?

Ahh, the pain, the terrible pain…
“I thought I saw a light a coming, alas, it was only my migraine.”
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:09:45

On the other tentacle, if seen as ‘photonical particles’ what bounces back from your mirror should be ‘new photons’ mediated through the interaction between the mirror and the original photons coming from you by ‘virtual photons’, in their turn mediated from the original photons once hitting your face, mediated from the interaction by a electric current inside your light-bulb, due to Einstein’s photoelectric effect and so originating from Plancks ‘black body radiation’ that “showed that hot objects emit electromagnetic radiation in discrete packets, not as a flow but having ‘discrete jumps’ to it, which leads to a finite total energy emitted. And that result was in direct contradiction with the classical view of light as a continuous wave”

“In a classical wave picture, the slowing can be explained by the light inducing electric polarization in the matter, the polarized matter radiating new light, and the new light interfering with the original light wave to form a delayed wave.

In a particle picture, the slowing can instead be described as a blending of the photon with quantum excitations of the matter (quasi-particles such as phonons and excitons) to form a polariton; this polariton has a nonzero effective mass, which means that it cannot travel at c. Light of different frequencies may travel through matter at different speeds; this is called dispersion. The polariton propagation speed v equals its group velocity, which is the derivative of the energy with respect to momentum.”

And if you to that add the idea of ‘virtual photons’ mediating between particles to do ‘work’ as they ‘interact’, what do you get? Well, except a headache? Here they talk about phonons and excitons too, but let us presume that this is just a more refined proposition for how those '‘virtual photons’ are seen to mediate, specifically, with matter.

Another thing worth considering here is that those ‘virtual photons’.

--Quote--

“In perturbation theory, systems can go through intermediate "virtual states" that normally have energies different from that of the initial and final states.  This is because of another uncertainty principle, which relates time and energy”  That means that virtual particles as where our virtual photon belongs can be allowed ‘energy states’ that is stronger than what they would have if they were photons existing over Planck time.”

“Dirac's second-order perturbation theory can involve virtual photons, transient intermediate states of the electromagnetic field; the static electric and magnetic interactions are mediated by such virtual photons. In such quantum field theories, the probability amplitude of observable events is calculated by summing over all possible intermediate steps, even ones that are unphysical; hence, virtual photons are not constrained to satisfy E = pc, and may have extra polarization states; depending on the gauge used, virtual photons may have three or four polarization states, instead of the two states of real photons. Although these transient virtual photons can never be observed, they contribute measurably to the probabilities of observable events. Indeed, such second-order and higher-order perturbation calculations can give apparently infinite contributions to the sum.

Such unphysical results are corrected for using the technique of renormalization. Other virtual particles may contribute to the summation as well; for example, two photons may interact indirectly through virtual electron-positron pairs. In fact, such photon-photon scattering, as well as electron-photon scattering, is meant to be one of the modes of operations of the planned particle accelerator, the International Linear Collider.”

-------------End of quote--

And here we see the word ‘renormalization’. We will look at that later :) Did you notice their possible polarization states?  Normally there are only two in our ‘arrow of time’.

------Quote-----

The most accurate and complete definitions of virtual particles (e.g., virtual photons) are mathematical. Most non-mathematical descriptions, however, usually describe virtual photons as wave-like (i.e., existing in form like a wave on the surface of water after it is touched). According to QED theory, virtual photons are passed back and forth between the charged particles somewhat like basketball players passing a ball between them as run down the court. Only in their cloaked or hidden state do photons act as mediators of force between particles. The force caused by the exchange of virtual photons results from changes charged particles change their velocity (speed and/or direction of travel) as they absorb or emit virtual photons.

As virtual particles, photons are cloaked from observation and measurement. Accordingly, as virtual particles, virtual photons can only be detected by their effects. The naked transformation of a virtual particle to a real particle would violate the laws of physics specifying the conservation of energy and momentum. Photons themselves are electrically neutral and only under special circumstances and as a result of specific interactions do virtual photons become real photons observable as light.

----------End of quote---

Finally.

“The fundamental nature of the photon is believed to be understood theoretically; the prevailing Standard Model predicts that the photon is a gauge boson of spin 1, without mass and without charge, that results from a local U(1) gauge symmetry and mediates the electromagnetic interaction. However, physicists continue to check for discrepancies between experiment and the Standard Model predictions, in the hope of finding clues to physics beyond the Standard Model.

In particular, experimental physicists continue to set ever better upper limits on the charge and mass of the photon. A non-zero value for either parameter would be a serious violation of the Standard Model. However, all experimental data hitherto are consistent with the photon having zero charge and mass. The best universally accepted upper limits on the photon charge and mass are 5 × 10−52 C (or 3 × 10−33 e) and 1.1 × 10−52 kg (6 × 10−17 eV/c2, or 1 × 10−22 me), respectively .”

---------

So what does it mean that they can be ‘superimposed’? Under what circumstances do they do so?
Waves do it all the time when they quench or reinforce each other as I understands it. And naturally we can lay several waves ‘upon’ each other. Does that mean that they get entangled in the process too? It should, shouldn’t it? So then we might have a ‘entangled universe of light’ too, if we assume this happening normally to non-coherent light (sunlight), and expect it to exist on its own between ‘source/sun’ and ‘sink/you’.

When people try to combine those two aspects of light (particle/wave) into one I’ve gotten the impression that most try to see light as waves but containing some 'focus/nexus' allowing it its 'particle-like' behavior. But how then would light-waves loose energy in our thought up ‘perfectly reflecting mirror box’? Well, as long as there is an exchange with the walls inside, them being an obstacle for the wave's supposed ‘propagation’ beyond, I might expect a certain loss of energy. The exchange mechanism behind that is described as belonging to virtual photons mediating the 'force exchange' developing in the 'collisions', but that we might leave aside for the moment. But If you now consider a wave as something able to 'go down' in energy without 'disappearing/dying' then ..where exactly.., will it loose that 'energy'. I mean, if it has some sort of 'nexus' concentrating or manifesting its particle like properties can I then expect that to be the 'place' where that 'energy loss' will manifest itself if observed as a particle? It seems so to me and that idea makes me uneasy, because a wave is a wave, whatever 'nexus' or concentration of 'energy' it will show you can not be anything else than a effect of limited interactions within it if so. That interaction if so implies to me no less than that our wave/photon now consists of more than 'one' property as it can interact with itself. If that is possible then this 'wave' seems to be able to be broken down into further singular 'bits' and therefore be no correct description of what we see as the properties belonging to a 'particle like' photon.

Let me ask you a question. Think about a dark room in where you have a light-source that you can manipulate the intensity of. You sit in there as the 'detector' observing the radiation from very high (Gamma) to the very low red. Assuming that the intensity of radiation is a measure of the amount of light-quanta hitting your retina in any given amount of time, do you believe that the lower spectrum of radiation will consist of a lesser amount of 'photons' per 'instant' hitting you? And that this then would leave a greater amount of 'space' between them? If that is true shouldn't there be 'instants' without light intermixed with the light quanta? That as if seen as 'light-quanta', photons should be expected to occupy a certain spatial position. And if those photons are of an invariant energy quota then a lower radiation should mean less 'photons' per 'instant' observed spatially. But as far as I know no detector we use will notice 'instants' of darkness intermingled in any constant (unwavering:) radiation, no matter what 'intensity' of radiation measured. So seen as a 'wave' I might expect light (waves) to be of no defined spatial focus/location and therefore unable of keeping a 'nexus' to them as I believe this example to prove.

But we also know we can send defined 'photons' almost like bullets to a detector which then must define clear boundaries/edges to them 'time-and space-wise'? So the answer to that question could be that when seen as ‘photons’ there is no variation to the amount of those photons if they in them selves would consist of different energy content? But wouldn’t they then also need to fill the same amount of space as a wave does to be ‘unwavering’? If you see how I think. And if so they shouldn’t be able to be detected ‘one and one’ inside various time segments. Which then seem to crave that there must be ‘gaps’ to it? Or? Is it all only a ‘relation’ created by the ‘source’ and the ‘sink‘ cooperating? With the idea of photons, or for that sake waves, just being the expressions we use to define that relation? On the other hand it could be so that they are of an defined variable intrinsic light-quota that once set at the source (sun) never will change, except as observed/interpreted by you watching their interaction with f ex. a gravitational object like a Neutron star. Where they to you will seem to accumulate energy, but to themselves still will be in that same equilibrium they had at their source. And if you moved with them they would always be the same to you, unchanging, no matter SpaceTimes geodesics. But, if so, do they only come in one intrinsic flavor (energy content) originally? Or do they have several intrinsic ‘energy contents’ possible? In that case you have all sorts of variables and some of them should create ‘gaps’ between ‘photons’ spatially. Still, if you look at it as waves (radiation) there will be no ‘breaks/gaps’ intermingling between ‘it’ as far as I understand.

-Quotes.

“According to Einstein’s photoelectric effect  in where he proposed that light is made up of packets of energy called photons. Photons have no mass, but they have momentum and they have an energy given by:  Energy of a photon : E = hf … The photoelectric effect works like this. If you shine light of high enough energy on to a metal, electrons will be emitted from the metal. Light below a certain threshold frequency, no matter how intense, will not cause any electrons to be emitted. Light above the threshold frequency, even if it's not very intense, will always cause electrons to be emitted. It takes a certain energy to eject an electron from a metal surface. This energy is known as the work function (W), which depends on the metal. Electrons can gain energy by interacting with photons. If a photon has an energy at least as big as the work function, the photon energy can be transferred to the electron and the electron will have enough energy to escape from the metal. And a photon with an energy less than the work function will never be able to eject electrons. Knowing that light is made up of photons, it's easy to explain now. It's not the total amount of energy (i.e., the intensity) that's important, but the energy per photon. “

--End of quote—

 Am I getting this right? That ‘photons’ then will consist of corpuscles of different strength. And what we call a waves ‘overall strength’ then could be seen as being the same amount of ‘high energy photons’ existing spatially as one with the same amount of ‘photons’ but now of a lower ‘energy level’? And in the first case each one containing a higher ‘energy’. What does this imply? That all ‘light’ is a constant number of photons if seen as localized phenomena in SpaceTime? Then a higher ‘overall strength’ of a wave could be directly related to its photons ‘energy content’? not having anything to do with how many they are per time segment. But if we can send photons one and one to a detector, is there then any limit to how many we can send by a ‘time segment’? I don’t know, do you? But we seem to be able to vary them though? So if I send six photons of strength ‘1’ per a given time segment case_(A). Will that be the same as sending three photons of strength ‘2’?  per the same time segment? Case_(B) ..

Then there seems to be two variables here. I can do A and get the same result as if I did B? But as they both obey ‘c’ ( Lights speed in a vacuum :)  I will be able to concentrate the radiation by sending as many high ‘energy level photons’ as I possibly can under any given time segment. Am I right there? I should be, shouldn’t I? And ‘c’ combined with what possible ‘energy content‘ one single photon can ‘contain’ would then define how much energy I can send per time segment?  So B will always win out here? Doesn’t that imply that they must occupy a defined location in space? And if so, shouldn’t there be ‘gaps’ in that radiation? Ah, we have a problem here. As photons goes they are very small, so small as they don’t even exist inside SpaceTime. They do? But they are size-less, ain’t they? Yep, I’m confused here. If seen as waves how would one explain this? As waves could be seen to be undefined spatially only existing as a ‘local effect’ when observed, then? On the other hand, isn’t that the exact same with our ‘photons’ too? So, can we differ between them? But waves are ‘unbroken’ by time as I understands it, photons is ‘broken’.

And that is the other way to see it, photons as 'objects' of their own, each one of them having a precise amount of energy, a so called 'energy quanta', that they can't lose except when impacting, at which time they will disappear. But don’t we have red shifted waves too, that even is seen to disappear, as observed by you, not ‘impacting’ at all? Like a ‘Black Body’ residing in a Black Hole radiating energy that is so red shifted to your view that it never is seen at all. Possibly not seen even by that ‘black body’?  If you read me closely you will notice that I differ from the idea of momentum being a property relating to mass, believing that momentum is a general description for energy's tendency to react at whatever 'obstacles'. Also I'm not really sure what 'rest mass' or 'invariant mass' is. And also I'm protesting due to that it, to me, would violate the photons ability of 'traveling' at light-speed, as I see that as a direct consequence of its 'mass-less-ness'.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:10:37

Acceleration seems to me to be what build momentum normally. When we accelerate something we create what is commonly known as a 'gravity well' residing outside the rear of that accelerating object (rocket f ex.). That acceleration, if uniform, meaning constantly (Uniformly) accelerating with the same 'force', at one G (Gravity) f ex. will give us the exact same experience as if we experienced a real gravitational field belonging to f ex. Earth. But don’t get this mixed up with ‘uniform motion’ (‘coasting’) btw. We can't, as far as I understand, distinguish between that uniform acceleration and a planetary gravitational field, at least that is, if placed in absolute vacuum with no other gravitational objects/effects like a planets rotation influencing our observations. And even if we had such influences acting upon us I think it would be a real pain in the, ah, to find a difference between our rockets acceleration and us being in a ‘usual planetary gravity’. That as all ‘uniform motion’ to me is a cause of comparing between frames. (Although angular momentum created by a planets rotation would be noticed I think, as it is so on Earth.( which means the product of the momentum of a rotating body –>think- children’s carousel<- and its distance from the axis of rotation ) )  Anyway, ‘Gravity’ only exists in the limited cause of acceleration or in the nearness of a invariant mass (like Earth). This effect of Earth’s rotation is also called the Coriolis force and is seen as a ‘pseudo force’ not existing in an inertial frame outside Earth. Then Earth also have ‘tidal effects’ due to the planets interacting gravitational ‘forces’ but all of those are as far I can see ‘outside influences’ not invalidating the concept.

An ‘inertial frame’ is something uniformly moving (coasting:) from which you measure another frames motion in time, not stating that it in itself have a ‘zero motion’, If you have another frame moving uniformly relative to your ‘inertial frame’ (coasting along) that one too will become a inertial frame according to you. And a ‘frame of reference’ is simply a standard relative to which motion and rest may be measured. So if your ‘frame of reference’ is Earth, then, if we assume Earth to ‘coast’ it also will become your ‘inertial frame’.

Just as a ‘by-thought’ (a low association threshold is mine.) think of a circle. If I state that any circle can be defined as a infinite amount of straight lines slightly ‘angled’ against each other, would you agree to that? Or do you see a circle as something truly ‘bent’? To me, depending on what view one choose SpaceTime will differ. If we look at nature I’ve seen statements to that there exist no straight lines in it, so?

When we on the other hand stops that ‘uniform accelerating’ and instead is 'uniformly moving' (a.k.a. coasting) that 'gravity well' created behind the rocket disappears leaving us weightless, kindly informing us that our planet just took a tea-break, hopefully to come back. Or possibly that we have taken to weight-watching all to seriously. So now you might think of the light-sources inside that rocket accelerating? Shouldn’t there be a difference between the one at the cockpit and the one at the back, if you were standing in the middle of the rocket? As the light from the cockpit then would fall towards the ‘gravity-well’ situated outside the rockets ah, posterior begetting more energy, as compared to light from the back that must travel ‘up’ towards you from that same ‘gravity-well’ losing energy as it does so?

--Quote---

In physics, light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength originating from a source placed in a region of stronger gravitational field (and which could be said to have climbed "uphill" out of a gravity well) will be found to be of longer wavelength when received by an observer in a region of weaker gravitational field. If applied to optical wave-lengths this manifests itself as a change in the colour of the light as the wavelength is shifted toward the red (making it less energetic, longer in wavelength, and lower in frequency) part of the spectrum. This effect is called gravitational redshift and other spectral lines found in the light will also be shifted towards the longer wavelength, or "red," end of the spectrum. This shift can be observed along the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

Light that has passed "downhill" into a region of stronger gravity shows a corresponding increase in energy, and is said to be gravitationally blueshifted.

------End of quote----

You know, I think you are right there, but now we are talking about the light, not gravity. There is no way you can differ that uniformly accelerating rockets G-force from a planetary G-force (not considering if that same planet rotates btw) and the light falling down on Earth will produce the same phenomena of acceleration as the light from the rockets cockpit does. And if you just made a hole in our Earth to that opposite side of the Earth (or its middle) the light coming to you from that hole would be ‘red shifted’ just the same as the light from the back of that rocket would be. The difference is that the gravitational ‘place’ of attraction in the rocket will be placed outside its ‘end’ as it accelerates, but in the case of Earth its attraction is the sum of all restmass ‘coagulated’, also taking out each other in the middle of that object (earth) where, if I’m correct, you would find yourself weightless. But then you could argue that the extra energy the light will get falling in that first half of your new hole (China/Earth) would countermand the ‘climbing’ it would have to do the last half ‘up’ to you at the surface so, okay, we better define it coming only from the ‘middle of the earth’ here :)

As for if light can ‘accumulate’ ‘energy to conserve it and better ‘spend it’ when finding ‘resistance’ I’m not really sure? Also it falls back to the idea of light as a defined non changing ‘light quanta’ or not to me. If it is unchanging but still found to be able to ‘accumulate energy’ and so ‘conserve’ it, then I believe you still will have to look to the question of a ‘larger amount’ of ‘photons’ being created in any given ‘time segment’ by this phenomena. Otherwise the single ‘photons’ in themselves can make that intrinsic ‘jump’ up and down in energy spontaneously and then also emit that energy in discrete ‘steps’. That is, as long as we see photons to be something ‘defined’ as ‘entities’ existing on their own between ‘source’ and ‘sink’. Then the best way may be to see it as ‘unchanging’ I think and the different ‘values’ you observe as it goes down or up versus that ‘gravity well’ being a relation between it and the possible ‘energy/gravity frames’ it passes by, observed by you as its ‘energy’. And if seen as a wave? Don’t know how to quantify that, a compressed or expanded quality in any given time segment perhaps, but would that fall out to be the same as particles? There are different qualities or ‘properties’ defined to a wave, so I’ll leave it be for the moment. I do like my headache to be manageable :) . But what we call its momentum is still there and, as far as I know, not 'adding' any measurable energy to those atoms etc creating this 'frame of reference', that means, not making them rockets electron's 'jiggle' any more?  I may be wrong here? Do the momentum (uniform motion) influence the 'jiggling' of atoms in the rocket if traveling in a ‘perfect space’? That is, will those keep a higher level of ‘noise/jiggling’ constantly when moving uniformly? And why the heck won’t they? If there is a ‘higher’ energy level to a faster ‘speed’

This one is really irritating to me, assume that we are surrounded by a ‘perfect vacuum’, and accelerating. As there is no ‘friction’ anymore there is nothing to react against the atoms of our ship. The only thing that possibly can create this jiggling will then be the acceleration in itself. When we accelerate ‘something’ like a rocket in this perfect vacuum, what exactly do the engines flames/energy/explosions ‘push against’. Didn’t we say that there was ‘nothing’ outside? Well it might be that the ‘pushing’ comes from the explosions in themselves and so crave no ‘resistance’ to push against. But how? A car uses the road to ‘push’ against. A plane uses the air to ‘push’ itself through. But here we have nothing at all to offer any resistance against our ships engines. So why should it move? If we consider the explosion an expanding ball of energy resting inside the engine it will have only on way out from that chamber, as it searches and find that weakest link it will create an imbalance inside that chamber, that means that the force acting from this expanding ball won’t be equal anymore The force finding its way out will weaken out in that direction of the ship and the forces acting inside the enclosed part will ‘push’ the ships walls as it tries to pass through. So to me it seems what ‘pushes’ is the breaking of symmetry or equilibrium in those explosions. Think about it for a moment. The explosions will work the same everywhere, no matter what density there is outside, as long that density isn’t as thick as the engines wall. Do you find it strange? Well, I do. So you need to form that chamber to lead those ‘pushing’ forces in the direction of the ships axis of direction ‘pushing’ it forward with as little loss as possible due to forces acting in the wrong directions, that is out the weakest way, ‘the opening’ as it is.

But what exactly is the ‘force’ acting against? The ship of course, but not space, as there is nothing to create a resistance there, that force can't ‘act’ against anything. So the ship in a way seems to lift itself by its own bootstraps, will you agree for now? What does it tell us about ‘explosions’ and motion? That they can expand from a ‘possibly zero’ area equally in all directions acting out their ‘force/energy’ at any ‘resistance’ meet. That they have a sort of equilibrium in themselves too perhaps if unhindered? It’s strange, there is something that I can’t put my thumb on here, irritatingly enough. It says something but I can’t seem to find it? Maybe that this ‘concentric’ force seems to feed on itself? Expanding as it does without any anchor anywhere except in itself, can you see how I think? Like it won’t matter if we place it on earth, in a Black Hole or space, (although when placed in a Black Hole it will matter :) but the real idea hidden in it is just that, that it gets its ‘force’ from the way it expands from a center concentrically in time. So in a way it is a lovely statement of equilibrium from a zero point of origin if nothing interferes with it. If I by equilibrium mean anything that, no matter if seen as moving, growing or not, will keep its symmetry as long as it stays undisturbed.  So could I say that what we do with the rocket’s explosions is to disturb that ‘balance’ by introducing a density in some directions but not in other. And could forces then possibly be seen as something ‘balanced out’ in themselves? If we used that stroboscope, what would it look like? I have a very low association threshold I’m afraid. Although in fact I’ve never seen anyone defining what a ‘force’ really consist of, neither ‘energy’ or ‘photons’, not to my understanding anyway? Doesn’t say that much, huh :) Awh, anyway, there is a lot of ‘analogues’ and mathematical definitions. So, I will look at them from my point of view here. And my view is really weird :)
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:11:31

Imagine a space in which every point consists of some kind of ‘explosions’ How would it act? As it is ‘space’ and therefore we presume ‘empty’ from matter. Then there can be nothing ‘interacting’ as we can observe from our arrow of time. I wonder? Would it behave as a fountain but going back in on itself, forming something similar to a ball? But as we have three directions in space (+ Time) then you can imagine it ,if caught in a stroboscope, as something slightly twisted in a direction for each flicker of light. That is, if we pretended that this strobe in some way could give us a clearer view, can you see how I mean, like x-rays? In reality its ‘axis’ of orientation will be ‘everywhere’, will seem as a ‘ball’ to us as it’s axis is pointing everywhere simultaneously, but if we just decide one orientation and then assume another ‘fountain-ball’ beside it, what will they do with each other? They will ‘push’ on each other, don’t you agree? So what would be the lowest ‘push’ you can have for creating a continuos ‘distance’’ by forces? Planck size? Yes, I’m wondering if that is what we call ‘space’ and I was not totally honest when I started with a already existing space, as this could be ‘space’ and what was before then would be ‘nothing there at all’ And that would then be my ‘dimensionless existence/distance’. And those three distances that we call dimensions will also be a ‘ball’ in any point of space, pointing their axis of orientation (distance) everywhere simultaneously. Sounds strange? Yep :) What would make ‘space’ able to act this way? Forget ‘dimensions’ for a while and consider it just ‘distances’. We can say that those ‘distances’ seem to grow from every point right? We can also say that they differ in ‘density’, like I’m ‘matter’ but having the same ‘distances’ in me as ‘empty space’. Do you agree? But other than that ‘distance’ as an idea is the same.

To be able to simultaneously ‘take place’ as if ‘point’ in all directions as those ‘distances/balls’ seems to do to me, you will need to question what ‘time’ is to them. If they obeyed our arrow of time there should only be ‘one direction at a time’. If it was quantum logic steering them they should still need some ‘cause and effect chain’ to them as I see it and so not be able to create those simultaneous ‘distances/balls’ . So my suggestion might then be that they express something expanding from no time at all. Which to me then also is ‘time’ but now without any defined direction time-wise, and without casualty-chains implied in it. But then again, if it is dimension less, and ‘arrow less’, then it implies that ‘what pushes’ has no number to it, doesn’t it? It exist on a plane where all equations goes to infinities, and stops making ‘sense’. So we could then call it ‘one’ outside ‘SpaceTime’, but when measured inside our arrow of time the numbers of it might become ‘uncountable’. A start I might ‘understand’ better than string-theory, well, for now that is..

As I understands it string theory works from what we have, with some ‘dimensions’ curled up inside ours? But if string theory doesn’t, and instead works from a coherent zero plane of ‘energy/time’ whatever, building to what we are, then I might be wrong about that? And then this might be a mathematical definition I could understand too, as resembling my own thoughts on it. I’m not saying that it need to be wrong just because it chooses to work from what already ‘is’, just that the answers found then will be slightly ‘skewed’ to ‘fit’. It’s like defining a position spatially, depending on where you do it all ‘distances’ to other ‘objects’ will come out differently. Yep, I’m arguing from a thought possibility of ‘objectivity’ although not in SpaceTime, outside it instead.

---Quote-----

String theory is a theory in fundamental physics that asserts that all matter and forces are composed of incredibly tiny loops that look like strings. It attempts to construct a model of elementary particles from one-dimensional entities rather than the zero-dimensional points of conventional particle physics. It postulates that subatomic particles actually have extension along one axis, and that their properties are determined by the arrangement and vibration of the strings. The undulations of such strings were posited to yield all the particles and forces in the universe. String theory soon ran into mathematical barriers, and decayed into five competing theories, each with thousands of solutions, most of which looked nothing like our universe. Concepts of duality, however, are allowing string theory to overcome its limitations and rise to the status of a TOE. Theory crafted in the mid-1980s, and remains very much research in progress.


(‘Good to know’. The entire solar-system is only one light-day around.
According to superstring theory, space has more than 3 dimensions. A superstring is to a proton in size as a proton is to the solar system. To probe this realm directly would require a particle accelerator 1,000 light-years around.)

----End quote--------

If you take a look at physics today they still seem to place us in the middle of things just like that old universe did before Copernicus put it right, the one that placed Earth in the middle. Not that it us specifically but it is still our ‘living room’ we look out from it seems ,SpaceTime, and from there we try to knot all strings together, with us at the hub . String theory fights with dimensions as I understands it. Dimensions that goes all ways you can think of, out from our ‘reality’. When I was writing this I suddenly realized that this too was one of the ‘things’ bugging me. That we always seem to get in the ‘middle’ of whatever endeavors we see ourselves as undertaking. I prefer a ‘beginning’ of it all that doesn’t concern itself with humans at all. And then, almost as a afterthought, life, intelligence, and humans comes to be. That makes more sense to me, looking at how it seems.

The only thing differing here is that we take a ‘bigger bite’ and speak about SpaceTime as our backyard, instead of just the solar-system like we used too. I've read people believing that they can see four dimensionality, And I’ve seen some very clever imagery? I just can’t produce those ‘cinematic effects’ in my head when I try to imagine a fourth ‘distance’ bound to the three we have, but what I can do is to pry those we have into their smallest recognizable properties and from there start to guess, building on what we ‘know’. So instead of ‘dimensions’ I prefer ‘distances’ as I do know what a ‘distance’ defines. And handling it that way you soon realize that there is something really strange with how we experience ourselves and our different geometrically defined ‘densities/mass’. And I prefer the word ‘density’ before ‘matter’. Why, well take a look at the infinities ‘renomalization’ have to ‘clean up’ just to define a electron, you know what we define as ‘restmass’ a.k.a. what makes up ‘matter’. 

So densities is more ‘neutral’ to me and doesn’t force you to think ‘real’ contra ‘unreal’ when discussing it. Also it makes more sense when describing all those strange phenomena building up to it. So consider this universe through my eyes here for a while. It starts with ‘nothing’, in fact what we deem ‘nothing’ is what its made of, all of it. I name that ‘nothing’ to be ‘time’. Why? Well, I need to give it a ‘name’ because even though it to us consists of ‘nothing’ at all, and so can’t be in SpaceTime under our arrow of time it still ‘is’ and exists. According to the tome of me, that is :) And considering which one of the properties we have that should get the ‘honor’ of being first I believe time to be the right pick. We could also talk about ‘energy’ but then we will have two thingies and I much prefer one. ‘Energy’ to me seems to be a phenomena we observe when straining the equilibrium of SpaceTime. We know how to ‘strain’ it and what we use to do it with we name ‘energy’ but that too seems in the end to become a relation of ‘time’ to me. Then you also need to remember that I use a ‘time’ without ‘clocks’. We can’t do that, well we can in quantum-mechanics but then we see it replaced by what I like to call ‘cause and effect’ which to me seem to be another type of ‘clock’. ‘Cause and effect’ is a kind of ‘time’ too. For people stuck in the supposed linearity of time it often get described as ‘going both ways’ as you can read it that way. To me though it's a ‘relation’, and I believe the whole universe to be constructed from ‘relations’.

And in fact that ‘cause and effect’ we see in QM is the smallest pieces of ‘time’ I believe us to be able to see. After that it all falls apart :) and disappear from our observations. “Physicists sometimes humorously refer to Planck units as "God's units", as Planck units are free of arbitrary anthropocentricity. Unlike the meter and second, which exist as fundamental units in the SI system for historical reasons, the Planck length and Planck time are conceptually linked at a fundamental physical level.” Well I too find them to be eminent ‘Stop-Signs” defining where we lose our sight.

So why did I pick ‘time’. Well one thing was that I was getting quite tired of was my view of ‘time’ being a flow (in SpaceTime). Most, not all of us, but most prefer the view of ‘events’ and then ‘time’ as something created almost like some illusion out of those ‘events’ stringed together. And when we look at a Feynman-diagram that  point of view makes a certain sense. But it never have to me though. Cause all I’ve seen and known in this place tells me otherwise. Time is a ‘flow’ without any ‘emptiness’’ between ‘events’, not stringed together but a ‘whole experience’ for us, just like it treats those ‘frames of reference’ we like to lean upon in physics blending them all into a universe for our admiration. Writing this I realized that I never had taken the time to wonder how it became this ‘flow’ though. The reason for that I might blame on our normal ‘time appraisal’ as something going from A to B, just like we consider distances. But that’s not the only way you can create a ‘distance’ or ‘time’.

Consider ‘time’ the same way I suggested ‘space’ to become. As something emerging fractally from ‘nothing’. But , didn’t I just state that time is a flow? Well, to me it is , but just as it is with ‘black body radiation’ you get certain ‘jumps’ to it, as it ‘emerges/grows’ into our arrow of time. The same as the radiation measured from that ‘black body’ also will be a flow, without breaks for us even though the jumps still is there at that ‘small plane’ as it ‘becomes’. Just like the ‘orbits’ of electrons can’t move ‘seamlessly’ in distance from a atoms nucleus. You see how I think? So ‘Flow’ may not be the best expression, but ‘events’ seems even worse to me, as that would imply something between those ‘events’. You cant have a ‘event’ connecting to another ‘event’ without needing something in-between. If you could it would become a ‘flow’. There are other reasons why I choose ‘time’ before the others too. For example ‘Mass’ creates its Space, but mass as we observe it (QM) is first described through what I call ‘cause and effect’ chains (Quantum mechanically). So ‘Time’ comes before both Mass and Space. And to wonder what this ‘time’ really should be seen like I can’t say. Perhaps what’s causes ‘energy’? Or the exact same?

Energy is also a very slippery thing. As far as I know no one have yet succeeded in defining exactly what ‘energy’ is, ‘work done’ is one description befitting a breathing universe, but when it gets so old that no more work is done then, or can be ‘done’ in it? Its ‘Entropic death’ so to speak, Would you say that all ‘energy’ is ‘gone’ then? In a universe that wastes not? You will still have some kind of ‘matter/soup’ won’t you? Isn’t that ‘energy’ too? And Black Holes. They will be the very last to stop producing ‘new energy’ in their hawking radiation right. Perhaps we’ve been asking us the wrong questions, relating energy to work. It makes sense inside SpaceTime, but it doesn’t necessarily makes sense to expect the same behavior outside SpaceTime. And those ‘cause and effect’ chains I’m talking about in QM could then be seen as whole processes, not ‘bits fitted together’ but processes created from ‘nothing’ following rules of ‘emergence’ to become inside SpaceTime. And ‘distance’ being what gives us our three dimensional image with ‘matter’ as its possible creator. The ‘trick’ you have ‘quirk too’ is to see something that simultaneously build in all distances from a zero point. What we deem as the distances is in fact a product of this ‘building’. Like it’s unwrapping itself constantly in front of us but with us being blind to it. I spoke about mass creating space, remember that there is very little ‘chronology’ to its original creation. If mass do create what we call space, some good questions could then be . .How?  Does it go both ways, can space create matter too? Why should it do be so? We could start with looking at ‘matter’ perhaps?

But when we look at matter, and our definitions of it, It seems to disappear into ‘infinities’. Now, why does it do so? One reason I can ‘see’ is that it’s not ‘really there’. It’s an ‘emergent’ property created out of ‘nothing’. But would it then be right to say that it’s matter that ‘creates’ space? Maybe not, space creates matter too spontaneously, so once again it comes to a question of ‘growths?’ ‘sizes’ ‘magnitudes’ ‘Fractal behavior’. I prefer ‘fractal behavior’ myself though :) as we need to get some ‘distance’ from them normal cause and effect chains we describe inside a ‘arrow of time’. It’s like a puzzle where you can see SpaceTime at least ‘two/three’ ways and lay it those ways and still find a coherent ‘picture’. One ‘normal’ where everything will move as we are used inside that arrow, with the exception being QM. And where we have clear casual chain of definitions and mathematical proofs for how it all ‘hang together’, well with the exception of QM then, where it all becomes ‘messy’ or ‘fuzzy’ but where particles still is bound together by ‘cause and effect’ chains

The ‘Third’ tentacle is how I might see it :)
In that SpaceTime everything ‘emerges’ in ‘jumps’ and ‘size’ is what makes us notice, not the ‘jumps between’. Those ‘jumps’ is done at a ‘basic level’ of SpaceTime to me. It’s at this ‘zero point’ it happens, where it ‘starts’, but for us? It doesn’t happen, ever. Can you understand how I see it? There is no way we ever are going to observe that ‘reality’ even though it is with us the whole ‘time’. And the chain of logic we use to explain the phenomena inside SpaceTime becomes a ‘complementary mathematics’ to what happens on the other side of that weirdly warped ‘mirror’. Our math can’t consider anything outside ‘time’. The nearest I believe it can come is what we have at a QM level. ‘Cause and effect’. At least I think so, it will take really clear minds to decide if you by using mathematical notation following a ‘cause and effect chain’ can give a correct mathematical description of something without it. I mean the mathematical definition of our universe according to what I believe now, might be a slightly flawed ‘0’ And what do you do with that?
With no real ‘cause and effect chains’ creating what we see from Alice’s ‘rabbit-hole’. Even the way you create your equations follows Space-’Time’s arrow’. To me it’s how you see ‘time’ that defines the way your math will treat SpaceTime. And by choosing different ‘starting-points or definitions’ the answers you get will become ‘different’ although in a way ‘complementary’.

So yes, I think Space and Mass is a ‘relation’, some sort of ‘cause and effect’ chain, not necessarily mirrored ‘realities’ , but ‘together’ and able to do/express its ‘opposite’. The reason why it so easy for mass to create space relative space creating mass is probably the intrinsical ‘energy’ defined spatially. That as all matter are an enormous bounded expression of energy/particles/restmass. But space even though containing ‘hidden energy’ is not as spatially concentrated as ‘invariant mass’ is. And that mass is ‘concentrated’ is due to the ‘distances’ we have defining it as a ‘3D geometry’ with a certain location inside SpaceTime. Then we have what’s called ‘relative mass’ which, if seen my way, becomes a geometric concentration of energy expressed in the relation between ‘mass’ (rocket) and ‘velocity/speed’ inside our arrow of time. Perhaps better expressed as a ‘momentum’ than as a ‘relative mass’?

Then I wonder, if that ‘energy/momentum’ built up is better seen as a ‘relation’ for our rocket, versus SpaceTime, and us observers naturally? But if that Rocket would hit something then? The energy released will then belong to both the rocket and that object colliding with it right? And depending on that rockets speed it might be worse, right. So the relation will become ‘real’ when ‘impacting’. But before that? Does this remind you of something? A photon perhaps. Only ‘existing’ in its impact.

---Quote—

To find the real origin of the concept of relativistic mass you have to look back to the earlier papers of Lorentz. In 1904 Lorentz wrote a paper "Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving With Any Velocity Less Than That of Light." There he introduced the "'longitudinal' and 'transverse' electromagnetic masses of the electron." With these he could write the equations of motion for an electron in an electromagnetic field in the Newtonian form F = ma where m increases with mass. Between 1905 and 1909 Planck, Lewis and Tolman developed the relativistic theory of force, momentum and energy. A single mass dependence could be used for any acceleration if F = d/dt(mv) is used instead of F = ma. This introduced the concept of relativistic mass which can be used in the equation E = mc2 even for moving objects. It seems to have been Lewis who introduced the appropriate velocity dependence of mass in 1908 but the term "relativistic mass" appeared later. [Gilbert Lewis was a chemist whose other claim to fame in physics was naming the photon in 1926.]

-----End of quote--
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:15:42
When you move ‘real fast’ you have two effects, one when accelerating, the other when uniformly moving (engines of) in a vacuum. That time-arrow we have also changes according to that. I really need to think about this, as I’m not really sure if you have a ‘scale’ connecting those effects you get when accelerating something and when you just are ‘coasting along’ very fast? There should be? But I’m not sure about how it expresses itself? If ‘time’ is a relation to ‘mass’ and ‘speed’ Could acceleration then be a ‘compression’ of that, like waves getting compressed due to a higher energy. Is that a good analogy? When you accelerate your ‘relative mass’ will be displaced outside your rocket. A good question here could be that if it is a real effect, shouldn’t it be recognized by other objects in the rockets path? Assume that we build up a ‘very near~ light Speed’ so near as almost to become that ‘infinite relative mass/momentum’. Shouldn’t that ‘relative mass’ distort all lights and mass paths meeting it then? That should be testable to see if it is the object itself that contains the ‘distortion’, or if it resides at some point behind the object (rocket). We both know that the ‘distortion’ comes to be by the rocket accelerating, but if the ‘distortion/mass/momentum’s’ localization will be found to reside outside of your rocket and if you define this ‘relative mass’ as being observed in SpaceTime then one could ask ‘what’s wrong with this picture’?

Another very queer question would then be if this ‘relative mass’ would be able to attract other mass? Becoming a Black hole in the process as it now would have what we deem as ‘invariant mass’ joining it, or just build on ‘virtual particles’ coming in its way, and as its ‘size’ grows wrap space and so become even more ‘virtual particles’ in it, as observed from that rocket. And shouldn’t that mean that all acceleration if taken far enough in ‘time’ should end in a Black Hole :) - Hey, why do you look so strange at me, I’m only asking? - So then the idea of Black Holes can’t be formed from acceleration would become questionable? ( I do like the idea of ‘momentum’ better though :) There is a clear difference between a ‘photon’ and invariant mass in my question. With the invariant mass (the rocket), light will move freely at all time and our rocket in itself won’t turn into a Black Hole. But the ‘Black Hole’ created by its ‘displaced’ gravity-well behind it may eat it :) So how do we argue against this one? One way could be to state that as long light runs freely from it, it can’t be a Black Hole, but in this case we are discussing a ‘zero point’ attractor in space behind that rocket, and I know of no way to test if light can run free of it. Well maybe? What would happen if we sent a beam at this ‘zero point’. .?  That light runs ‘freely’ from the rocket, no matter it’s velocity, proves that it can’t be a Black Hole you say? Maybe. .? But are you sure it is the exact same..? The other argument I remember goes back to consider it from ‘frames of references’. A Black Hole will be a Black Hole no matter which reference frame you measure it from, as it’s always created from ‘invariant mass’ not momentum/relative mass. That means that if you passed another object while going that fast it would, to you, become a Black Hole, if relative mass/momentum could create Black Holes. And that this star, to you, then also would be a exact real Black Hole. But to me watching you both that star would still be just a star. So then? How could you be a Black Hole? You get the idea? But then we have that idea of photons becoming so red-shifted as to disappear when emitted from a ‘black body’ inside a black hole? Can this be if so? If velocity can’t create Black Holes according to our ‘frames of reference test’, can light ever be so red-shifted that it disappears from ‘any’ frame of reference?

Anyway, If we would observe that gravity-well to be created behind that rocket, no matter if it ever could become a Black Hole, wouldn’t we then have a ‘zero point’ in SpaceTime, creating the same ‘effects’ as if it was a object of ‘mass’. Am I right? I will leave this, for now, and hope that you can make some sense out of it. Then again I’m not happy about the word ‘relative mass’ as it has no ‘place’ spatially, remarkably near what we expect photons to be. All other ‘mass’ (invariant) we describe do take, and have, a defined, ‘place’ in SpaceTime spatially contained in f ex. ‘matter’. Momentum seems a better word for it, but assume that our experiment would fall out to you (outside observer) observing the light bending/disappearing at that ‘zero point’ gravity well, after my passing rocket. Why, then momentum is as strange or even stranger than ‘mass’. And seems to contain the same properties but without being ‘there’ at all? And also following behind me as I move pass you, to disappear as soon I stop those engines. ( Btw: how’s your headache coming along? Good? Good. Well, you can’t say I didn’t warn you. :) So do that gravity well exist? Will a outside observer see light bend at some point behind our accelerating rocket?

I mean, its like this ‘force’ of relative mass/momentum can’t catch up when I’m accelerating. And it doesn’t really care how slowly I accelerate. It still won’t be able to ‘catch up’ with me, right? So how fast does it ‘catch up’ when I stop my acceleration? ‘Instantly’ you say? No matter what speed I will find myself at? Considering that, will our ‘gravity well’ move farther away from the rocket depending on my strength of acceleration? If it does, and it seems it should? Then you have another strange thing more reminding me of some kind of SpaceTimes inertia, or ‘space inertia’ if you like, than anything solely belonging to our rocket, can you see how I reason here? I try to lift it forward as being a ‘relation’, not belonging to rocket as any ‘force’ even though it is the rockets acceleration that does it relative SpaceTime. I think I would like to see the effect as if you ‘disturb’ SpaceTimes equilibrium, more than anything else. Also that effect from that ‘gravity well’ reminds me of the fact that no matter where you turn in SpaceTime you will find ‘gravity’ working on you. As far as I understand it will express itself as an ‘inertia’ acting on you inside that rocket. A ‘reluctance’ to change direction in SpaceTime. So those ‘gravitons’ bouncing around would then react instantly to your course change and ‘fight’ it too? It’s easier for me to see both space and gravity as something existing in all points. With your mass/acceleration defining a new more ‘concentrated’ relation between  ‘space’ and you :) Then that course change could be the ‘concentration’ of your ‘momentum’ moving in a specific direction acting on a ‘field’, whatever that is, answering you as a ‘unwillingness’ to conform as you ‘bend’ SpaceTime to change your course, well maybe :) In a way this also seems as something pointing to SpaceTime having that ‘relaxed state’ of equilibrium, that we can ‘disturb’ by using ‘energy’ or ‘work done’ as we use that engine. But it also seems to state that there is all kinds of ‘levels’ of ‘energy’ resting in those ‘equilibrium’s’.

If SpaceTime have a equilibrium it seems to allow for all different speeds, mass, or energy levels. You find that equilibrium f ex. as soon as you move uniformly, no matter at what ‘speed’ you are relative ‘whatever’. It won’t treat you differently depending on what velocity you are ‘coasting’, but? Will it then treat you differently when you change course, depending on your velocity? It should, would you agree to that? But to change course you need to engage that engine, right. You’re not a train running on rails, are you? But can I think of something similar to rails in SpaceTime? How about really massive objects changing our geodesic paths in space? Black Holes for example. Are you then running on ‘rails’ when coasting in space? And if so, will you experience that same ‘inertia’ as your path bends to those massive objects when uniformly moving? I don’t think so. The reason, I believe, is that you don’t do any own ‘work’ changing your circumstances. You are in a ‘equilibrium’. Although you, when you fall in towards a Black Hole (while ‘coasting’ by), will ‘accelerate’ as observed from a outside observer, it will still to you inside it be as if you’re ‘free falling’ giving you no information of your ‘acceleration’ as I see it. And that’s strange too, isn’t it?

Here we also have a acceleration inside SpaceTime but this time you won’t notice it? Or is it a ‘acceleration’? Should ‘acceleration’ only be treated as something originated from ‘work done’ by? If so, in this case should I then assume that it is the Black Hole accelerating? But it doesn’t move at all, well maybe infinitesimally, but as it’s a ‘infinite mass’ probably not. But the Black Hole is still the ‘work done’ in this case? Doesn’t make any sense does it? Then, could I say that it is space itself that is ‘wrapped/bent’ around that Black Hole? Why not, So then space itself is what’s ‘accelerating’ our rocket :) ? It seems very much as a ‘relation’ to me, relating to all of SpaceTime not really definable to any single instance, even though we know that without that Black Hole no ‘acceleration’ would have taken place. And how about that ‘gravity well’ behind your rocket? Will it be there? No, didn’t expect it to be either. But how will ‘time’ react then? It will react the same as when you was creating the acceleration by your engines, won’t it? That seems to me also as a statement by SpaceTime, informing us that there is a equilibrium to all its ‘levels’, as long as we don’t initiate ‘work done’ by our engines. So why do I get ‘stretched apart’ in that black hole? As I understand it has to do with that you as a geometric ‘density’ defined in SpaceTime won’t be allowed ‘the same’ considering you as a ‘geometric coherence’ near that enormous ‘gravity well’. Inside its EV, or at the limit of it, that gravitation (tidal forces) becomes so strong and working on such a small plane on you, that the particles making you up will loose their ‘space-timely’ coherence and separate as they interact with all its ‘infinite (equilibrationary) fields’ expanding space everywhere as expressed in distances, with all of them pointing toward the BH core ‘time-wise’. If it is a non-rotating BH of course, otherwise it gets even weirder as you will have its angular momentum acting on you too. Did you get that one? Quite confusing, ain’t it??

But if motion in an accelerating frame cannot be distinguished from motion in a uniform gravitational field what differs that from this? Well that ‘accelerating frame’ we talked about before was constantly, uniformly accelerating at one G right? Keeping one G at all times, and there it seems the exact same as Earth. But when you ‘fall’ into that Black Hole, you are not uniformly accelerating any more, are you? And you don’t use any own ‘force’, you do have the BH gravity acting on you but if you see that as the ‘contours’ of SpaceTime then it is space itself ‘accelerating’ you, but without expending any energy doing so. Much in the same way as you ‘accelerate’ when you start falling. As gravity ‘fades out’ with distance can you call that a ‘constant uniform acceleration’? But even if you think of it as a sort of ‘free fall’ it will still be an acceleration from the observer’s view and all of the phenomena will be there, except your rockets engine generating a thrust creating that displaced gravity-well. And if that observer didn’t ‘notice’ that black hole, how would he be able to differ between you creating the acceleration or ‘Space’ creating it?

Like as if SpaceTime just was ‘balances’ of time acting seamlessly in uniform motion no matter your speed, but when accelerating, or coming near ‘invariant mass’ fall out to finding other ‘balances’ seamlessly, and in the fact of ‘invariant mass’/Black Holes becoming an ‘infinite’ amount of ‘time/mass equilibrium’s’, but all still presenting a coherent SpaceTime to any observer watching our rocket.

 But when considering light bending to a star then, do that photon also ‘accumulate’ energy as it falls inwards? I think so, in a way at least, but in each case only relative the object ‘attracting’ it and you observing it. Can you see how I think here? Its relation or ‘perception of itself’ as a ‘entity’ with a decided energy quota doesn’t change, no matter where it move. But its ‘relation’ to you will becoming a ‘part’ of what you deem as its energy changing. I like to think that a photon always choose the ‘shortest path’ in SpaceTime’ as defined by SpaceTimes ‘geodesics’ .And that if it was on its ‘way’ to you as seen from a ‘source’ (Sun) and then ends up in a Black Hole instead? Well, then it wasn’t on the way to you after all :) No matter your definition of it’s ‘path’ before that ‘interference’ was as defined by us. And seen another way, what makes it move toward that black hole might be seen as its ‘need’ to maintain its ‘equilibrium’. So if we go back to the question if photons can be said to have a unchanging energy quota I believe it to be so, even I’m still not sure if it may be varying intrinsically. I agree to that we can vary their intrinsic energy as observed by us, we do it all the time afterall, but after ‘defining’ its intrinsic energy from the ‘source’ I expect it to be ‘locked? But I’m not really sure how I can define that intrinsic energy spatially and how I should define the way we ‘load’ it either. So I prefer to see it as a combination for now where, as you observe it accumulating energy, sees its relation with you relative that Black Hole that defines it so. As well as it would be for the Black Hole itself if it could observe the photon.

Then on the other hand, what would that Black Hole see if it could ‘observe’ it? Another Black Hole? Remember one thing here, as I see it everything ‘observes’ everything in SpaceTime as long as there is an interaction between them. But a Black Hole? Will it ever notice any ‘interaction’ with SpaceTime? It’s mass is ‘infinite’ right, with only one way in and no way out. And also if we accept the idea of ‘springs’ on ‘springs’ ad infinitum (spring systems), then, can there be a ‘interaction’ between any object and a Black Hole? The ‘information’ gotten from ‘virtual particles’ a.k.a. Hawking radiation comes from an interaction outside our arrow so I have great problems understanding how that in any way can be said to ‘lift out’ any information content from (specifically) that Black Hole. That SpaceTime do gets some sort of ‘information’ I don’t doubt, just not any of the information already ‘gone in’, it’s more of a communication between ‘distance less’ to ‘distance’ or if you like a ‘emergence’ forced by the ‘break/hole’ in SpaceTime. To me a ‘interaction’ implies a ‘relation’ where there, at least, must be ‘two’ actively involved objects ‘inside Spacetime’, somehow exchanging that ‘information’ and therefore ‘interacting’. And if that would be correct I would expect it to be space itself that ‘communicates’ with our in-falling rocket and also with SpaceTime through Hawking radiation? Can you see the difference here? If you have objects inside SpaceTime ‘interacting’ they might do it similar to how Hawking radiation comes to be, by ‘virtual particles/photons’ created at the EV as particle pairs, ripped apart by gravity, but as a Black Hole is infinite, and having one arrow by definition why do you expect it to ‘communicate/interact’?  Isn’t it the ‘space’ inside our SpaceTime that communicates here? And if so, what would make me expect Black Holes to ‘die’ as seen from our perspective?  They seem no ‘real’ interacting ‘communicating’ part of SpaceTime to me? Anyway, if we go back to discussing the possible ‘gaps’ between photons, which then would imply a greater or shorter distance between them I guess that might be ‘true’ too? As we can send them in various numbers and energy content, but I still prefer to see their energy as defined from their source and unvarying after that, with the rest being relations ‘defining’ them to those interacting with them. ( For now at least :), but it still rubs me all the wrong way. To me there should be one explanation simultaneously describing particles and waves. And thinking of it, as we can observe either one in ‘time’ but not both simultaneously what does this question? It seems as ‘time’ to me? And by what do we deem ‘distance’? ‘Time’ too, right? And what I’m really questioning is our ‘arrow of time’, and the way we observe SpaceTime macroscopically following this cause and effect (causality) chain, implied by our ‘arrow of time’. If we stop expecting that ‘chain’ binding ‘photons’ then we might have the cookie and eat it :) as what emerges then will depend on the way we choose to observe, that being the delimiter of our experiment. Well I told you I was confused, didn’t I?

Have you given up on it yet? I’m just reasoning, and down here it becomes a even worse mix and.. That’s it..
There is no real structure to it as some of the stuff you already read build on what you will read later on, but there is some coherence, hopefully? Well, it’s all relative anyway..

Why I wonder about if ‘uniform moving/coasting’ could accumulate ‘energy’ in the particles (intrinsically), creating you and your rocket, is because it then seems rather difficult to accelerate any object to near light. As I would expect that the ‘energy’ contained/compounded inside those molecules atoms, electrons, leptons, quarks etc, 'jiggling' with acceleration then should break down into pure energy at some stage, and before that start to produce all kinds of radiation. And then uniform motion a.k.a. 'coasting' would become really strange as we can't have any real definition of an objects 'speed/velocity' except when comparing it to something else. Which then might mean, assuming that SpaceTime once near that ‘Big Bang’ contained all ‘speeds’, now should have a lot of radiation to it, possibly measurable as sticking out from what we might call the ‘normal background radiation CBR’ (CBR = The cooled remnant of the hot Big Bang that fills the universe, observed having an average temperature around 2.725 Kelvin) or else make any definition of what that ‘background radiation’ consists of meaningless. On the third tentacle we do know that there will be more ‘energy’ bound to this rocket the more we accelerate it, and that energy I would expect to be expressed as jiggling. Ahh, the headache of it all..

What I’m speaking about in fact seems to suggest that all uniformly moving ‘objects’ is 'on their very own' when unable to compare their motion relative some other frame of reference, and so always will have a indeterminate speed of their own. Also that all definitions we make comparing speeds then have to be arbitrarily, and that about the only thing we may be sure of is that those ‘objects’ can't reach 'c' in a vacuum, as long as they are of 'invariant mass'. There exist no universally defined object of speed ‘zero’ to calibrate uniform motion from in SpaceTime that I know of?  If I can create more 'invariant mass' just by mediating virtual photons, what then would that 'invariant mass' consist of?
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:16:52

There is actually some ideas that say that if the mass receiving those is 'inelastic' enough, thick enough so to speak so that no recoil will be meditated by any thought up ‘spring systems’ , then those virtual photons will leave an added rest mass indistinguishable from 'invariant mass'. But why should it do so, if you look at it as ‘springs’ on ‘springs’ on ‘springs’ then something ‘compressing’ the uppermost layer will make it recoil back anyway, won’t it? Even though the motion moving inwards becomes more ‘gracious’ as the other ‘springs’ follows in a cause and effect’ chain. Maybe you could see it a chain of endlessly compressed springs acting in Space-Time countermanding that first springs recoil by their contractions? Then it would be a relation between those ‘springs’ contractions moving inward compared to the time it would take for that first ‘spring’ to ‘expand’ again, right? But then again, all ‘mediating’ is done outside our arrow of time (Plank time)? Even though their effects are observed as being ‘inside’ SpaceTime? Would you agree to that?

So no matter how ‘thick’ this ‘invariant mass’ is those processes will take the exact same amount of time in SpaceTime, that means ‘no time’. So what then is kept inside that ‘invariant mass’? We know that ‘shock-waves’ travel in matter but also that they ‘die out’ at some time? The question seems to become if virtual photons can be said to accumulate ‘energy’ and then deliver it without creating a ‘opposite reaction’ involving them again? And that might be possible I guess as they are allowed all kinds of strange properties, f ex. ‘energy’s’ that are greater than would be possible with them being ‘inside’ Plank-Time. But the reaction from them should be ‘inside’ Planck time though? And if they act so why don’t we observe it normally? Is it them loosing ‘energy’ as the effect travels inward and ‘clings off’, or should I see it as if it was the invariant mass that does it? As the effect will ‘cling off’ in our arrow of time. But here it is presumed to ‘cling off’ without loosing its ‘energy’? If I expect that it is ‘invariant mass’ that ‘takes out’ the energy then? Wouldn’t that countermand the new ‘energy’ the ‘spring system’ expect to become stored as there always should be a ‘action and reaction’ inside our arrow of time as I understands it? If I on the other hand assumed that it became ‘stored’ instead, remembering that it then according to logic seems to need a greater amount of ‘virtual interactions’ as the material is thicker? Then, as they take ‘no-time’ at all to do so in our arrow of time, how do they do it, where/how do they differ between ‘thickness’? Can one even discuss it? And isn’t that like stating that they loose something too, no matter if it is them that does it, or ‘invariant mass’? Once again there is something that I can’t put my finger on, this one bothers me too.

Looking at it again, if ‘springs’ on ‘springs’ negates a two way communication, can that be called a interaction? As the only thing I might be relatively ‘sure’ on doing so would be a ‘Black Hole’. And as, to my eyes, a Black Hole does not ‘deliver back’ any of that ‘information’ it once got, and possibly ‘gets’. How exactly would this ‘spring system’ work on ‘thickness’ of invariant mass? Furthermore, isn’t it ‘interactions’ that defines a ‘information flow’ inside SpaceTime? How can we talk about ‘information’ going only one way and expecting it to be a part of  SpaceTime? As to me Black Holes are just that. Holes in SpaceTime, infinities, enigmas and singularities. They in themselves do not ‘communicate/interact’, the space around them does, due to the Black Hole disturbing/breaking SpaceTimes equilibrium. If you think of space as a 3D landscape, then welcome to Norway and the land of the deep deep fjords. As that Black Hole then would be a ‘never ending fjord’, your metaphorical ‘hole in the ground’ opening to ‘nothing’. Well, as I see it.  :)

Anyway. What differs invariant mass from 'relativistic' as we see it today? Its coherence over time as noticed by the observer, no matter velocity, speed or gravitational ‘fields’ applied on it? (If you wonder why I use both definitions ‘speed as well as velocity’ it comes down to this. Think of two ‘perfectly reflecting’ mirrors. Then put a beam of light between them and let it ‘bounce’. Well, now I can say that its velocity is null but its speed still is lights (in whatever medium it travels in there.) Why? A velocity is the combined effect of something traveling in only ‘one’ direction spatially also containing/having a certain speed measurable in SpaceTime. So when I treat those mirrors and beam as a ‘system’ consisting of two mirrors with a beam ‘bouncing’ between them, that beams bouncing movements takes out each others ‘velocity’ as I understands it, giving it a ‘zero velocity’. But as its speed always is there, it still have a speed as well as its ‘distance done’. This idea of speed goes from distance measured in time and is true as long those two qualities are existent.

I said ‘Its coherence over time as noticed by the observer, no matter velocity, speed or gravitational ‘fields’ applied on it? But, If that is the cause, what makes invariant mass ‘coherent’ to us :)

Now I will suggest the 'arrow of time'.

In fact I find the statement about virtual photons creating restmass a little confusing btw. To see why you could think of a black hole and then possibly agree with me that all 'space' contains 'virtual particles' created spontaneously. Normally the rest result of those spontaneous creations should be 'null' as I understands it, meaning that the ‘work done’ for those ‘virtual particles’ will be none, when observed from our ‘arrow of time’ a.k.a. SpaceTime. but I would expect the space in the vicinity to f ex. a Black Holes core to be quite 'disturbed' creating a lot of  those ‘virtual particles’. And even if space don't act as I expect here, as the Black Hole might negate it by the ‘distances/expanding space’ created, and no matter what inherent 'energy levels' a Black Hole might create near its 'core'. It still seems as all ‘virtual particles’ created there should be taken up as restmass 'sucking' out that energy from space transmuting it into for ever more restmass, without any other objects of 'restmass' needed to act upon it. And there is also the question if those too might be seen as then containing intrinsically different ‘energy quotas’? As we could consider ‘ordinary photons’ to do so, depending on ones views?

--------Quote--------

The existence of virtual pairs helps to explain a process known as pair production. The background is always seething with these pairs of particles. However, in order not to violate physical laws, the pairs always return back to the vacuum before they are observed directly.

However, these virtual pairs can become real particles. It is found that when there are very high energy photons, that the energy of the photons can be channeled into the virtual pairs and the virtual particles can become real. This process is known as pair production. The collision and subsequent disappearance of a particle/anti-particle pair is known as annihilation. What this means is that if there is a large supply of high energy photons then particles can be created.

How energetic do the photons have to be?

Consider proton/anti-proton pairs. Recall that the energy of such a virtual pair is 3 x 10**(-3) ergs
To make the discussion more concrete, let's talk in terms of temperatures. Since the temperature of a gas is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles, we have that 1.5 k T ~ energy or
 T ~(2m(proton)c**2) / (1.5 k) ~ 10**13 Kelvin
So, the gas needs to be hotter than 10 trillion Kelvin in order to make proton/anti-proton pairs.


Comment--note that matter and anti-matter particles seem like that they should be produced in equal amounts. In the Universe, for every billion anti-matter particles produced, there seems to have been one billion and one matter particles produced. Hmmmm.

------End Quote-----------------

But virtual photons inside it becoming mass by lack of kinetic recoil then? A black hole won’t have any recoil, ever, or? (As soon you’ve passed its EV, you’re doomed. Doomed, I say:) And so we now can find two statements expressing the same, as any ‘energy’ near a Black Hole core certainly will surpass the above ‘energy definition’ for ‘virtual particles’ being allowed as ‘popping in and out’, won’t you agree?

---------Quote----

Another general—and quite disturbing—feature of general relativity is the appearance of spacetime boundaries known as singularities. Spacetime can be explored by following up on timelike and lightlike geodesics—all possible ways that light and particles in free fall can travel. But some solutions of Einstein's equations have "ragged edges"—regions known as spacetime singularities, where the paths of light and falling particles come to an abrupt end, and geometry becomes ill-defined.

In the more interesting cases, these are "curvature singularities", where geometrical quantities characterizing spacetime curvature, such the Ricci scalar, take on infinite values. Well-known examples of spacetimes with future singularities—where worldlines end—are the Schwarzschild solution, which describes a singularity inside an eternal static black hole or the Kerr solution with its ring-shaped singularity inside an eternal rotating black hole. The Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker solutions, and other spacetimes describing universes, have past singularities on which worldlines begin, namely big bang singularities, and some have future singularities (big crunch) as well.

Given that these examples are all highly symmetric—and thus simplified—it is tempting to conclude that the occurrence of singularities is an artefact of idealization. The famous singularity theorems, proved using the methods of global geometry, say otherwise: singularities are a generic feature of general relativity, and unavoidable once the collapse of an object with realistic matter properties has proceeded beyond a certain stage and also at the beginning of a wide class of expanding universes. However, the theorems say little about the properties of singularities, and much of current research is devoted to characterizing these entities' generic structure (hypothesized e.g. by the so-called BKL conjecture). ]

The cosmic censorship hypothesis states that all realistic future singularities (no perfect symmetries, matter with realistic properties) are safely hidden away behind a horizon, and thus invisible to all distant observers. While no formal proof yet exists, numerical simulations offer supporting evidence of its validity.

--------End of Quote----------

That ‘cosmic censorship’ idea sounds very near the ‘hand of god’, wouldn’t you agree :)
I prefer to see it as something we will not observe due to our relation with/in the ‘arrow of time’.
In it ‘infinities’ may exist as ‘holes’ in SpaceTime but when they do so they break our ‘arrow of time’ and so becomes closed for us. And no, I’m not religious in any ‘normal sense’, I wouldn’t want to lay the burden of ‘us’ on any single ‘being’, I strongly believe that we have to take care of that ourselves, although I have nothing but respect and admiration for those of any honest ‘humane faiths’, meaning those acting from ethics, humanity, and moral, giving allowance for our imperfections. as for those only giving it ‘lip service’ I won’t even bother myself with considering them. Ah well, thinking of those ‘holes’ in SpaceTime, another ‘infinity’ of mine is that elusive photon. I mean, where would we be without it? So could I then expect a Black Hole to be able to grow even without any 'normal' restmass  ever being involved? Another thing interesting if so, is the question how Black Holes come to be. If they can be ‘produced’ by SpaceTime spontaneously or if they need a ‘break down’ mediated by other ‘forces’ acting inside SpaceTime first? The ones we found so far seems to have been here since the Big Bang if I’m correct? But if they can be produced spontaneously by SpaceTime and then also can ‘grow’ on virtual particles only? Then they can grow in ‘nothing’ as long as there is ‘space/distances’ around them to start in, and as they grow then space around them will grow too as a direct effect containing for ever more ‘virtual particles’. That is, if I’m correctly informed about the relation between invariant mass and space.

Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:18:01
I'm not saying that it's wrong, confusing? Oh yes, but not wrong. :)
Still, considering that virtual particles works 'outside' our veil of 'times arrow'? But the restmass created, if that idea is true, won't be so. That restmass will be safely situated inside our 'arrow of time' to be measured as I understands it. So that may be testable if CERN succeeds in creating their black holes, as there should become an added mass in our arrow of time from those 'virtual particles'. Then on the other hand you might want to say that this phenomena of 'non-jiggling' might be created or if you like ‘countermanded’ by 'times' slowing down inside that rocket, as observed by our outside 'stationary/universal' observer. Remember that we are ‘discussing’ the very ‘idea’ of what ‘time’ is here, not the ‘isolated’ specific physical processes having an importance for ‘it ‘. That, as the buildup of energy then couldn't take place as all processes would 'retard', according to our outside observer, and from the inside everything would seem to be in equilibrium as always as all processes in that frame of reference would equal out. If so, would that mean that there is some sort of 'balancing' equation regulating all processes time/energy wise as seen from the 'outside' as well as the 'inside'. If acceleration and uniform motion both have the same effects on time and mass then momentum is a very strange concept. And no, I know that I’m blending two ‘frames of reference’ into one here ,which isn’t allowed :) But SpaceTime is in fact all those separate ‘frames’, as well as all processes taking place now, then and forever, giving me a ‘whole view’ effortlessly and seamlessly, so, to my eyes SpaceTime seems to care even less than me for that view. But you’re right all the same. I’m ‘playing with concepts’ here.

Let us go back to what we started with, acceleration, 'time' and uniform moving and try a simple test. Let's assume I accelerated my rocket ship 'The Awesome Avenger' to 99.9999999~ of light. After doing so I decide to 'coast' along without using my engine any more. This is now my ‘uniformly moving’ little world. Will I now go back to 'age' at the same rate as I was before mine acceleration, as I'm 'coasting' now? Or is my 'aging' still slowed down when 'coasting' (Time dilation). I'm playing with two 'thought cases' here, one in which 'time' only will differ in the acceleration and ‘work as usual’ (before the rocket and I) when 'coasting'. In the other 'time' will be, ah, adjusted when 'coasting' too.  If the 'adjustment' created only lies in the acceleration then consider me having an extremely high acceleration as observed from that  ‘other party/observer'. According to this outside observers clock I only accelerated by one second to get up to that near 99.9999999~ 'c' speed, and now you better sharpen your wits cause I'm going for a ride :) Now, what time did it take for me inside? Remember that when you're accelerating your 'time-sphere/system' will slow down relative the 'outside/universe'.

Does that mean that I wasn't crushed under the acceleration, as time slowed down immensely and so saved me from those horrendous G-forces? Yep, Flash Gordon is the pilot. . Also, if time slows down and 'jumps' me forward in time relative the 'outside' only when accelerating, shouldn't that also mean that I only can get a certain 'distance' in space before that acceleration and subsequent time dilation ends. So the 'time displacement' I will experience will then only be for that short distance in real SpaceTime (a.k.a. our observers 'acceleration second') and as I after that just 'uniformly coasts' my time then will go back to 'tick' with the universe as 'normally' as it did before? There are some strange implications here.

Then there is also the question if acceleration have any relevance to ‘distance/time covered’. That is if I ‘spend/spread’ that acceleration under an hour instead of an second, will I still get the same distance and ‘time dilation’? I shouldn’t, should I? Or, should I? Presume that I would spend the same amount of ‘energy’ in both cases? If I would get the same ‘effect’ then the amount of ‘acceleration over time’ don’t seem to change my ‘aging’, if I’m thinking correctly here :) which to me seems as a ‘pointer’ if so.

But then again, if that didn’t matter but I still produced ‘different distances’ when accelerating from it? Then ‘distance’ wouldn’t have anything to do with ‘time dilation’ would it? So that can’t be true, can it? Or would I get the exact same distance traveled under that one second expending the exact same amount of ‘energy’ as I would when  trying for a more ‘economic’ solution? But I change the Time/distance variable here, right, even though consuming the exact same amount of ‘energy’. Think about it. I believe them to ‘fall out’ differently.

If acceleration can be described like this. |a|cc|cc|~    . .(a= acceleration, c= ‘coasting’.. | defines the intervals between one 'observers' second |..  (also expressed as ‘distance traveled’ between those vertical lines).  Then that first interval between seconds gave you your speed as you ‘accelerated up’ covering a certain distance, all other seconds afterwards as observed by that observer will produce larger equally sized 'distances' traveled between the ‘observers seconds’ by your uniform moving. Furthermore that first second, if acceleration is the only thing slowing your 'time sphere/frame of reference', then must take into account all possible 'distances' you might be planning to travel. Ten, a hundred or perhaps millions of light years, or parsecs if you like, and at all those possibilities somehow 'know' your finally covered distance and adapt/adjust your time dilation accordingly. Otherwise the acceleration made under the same amount of 'outside observed' time would retard your  'age' the same, no matter what 'distance' you traveled/coasted afterwards.

In other words, ‘distance’/’time’ traveled would have nothing to do with what age you will show when you come back, as acceleration can be 'compressed' differently in 'time' from the observers view depending on, ah, that's right, the acceleration. Also if it was so then all 'time slowing' you perceive relative the rest of the universe (when finally comparing back in your 'original' frame ..Jupiter was it?) has to happen in that 'observers accelerating second. And that one might express as in a retardation subjectively, as if you would be enclosed in a 'bubble' of slow-time inside that rocket, so to speak. That, as if the universe outside your window is speeding up under that first second, relatively seen, then it as easy could be described as you 'slowing down'. If you look at it that way, then that first second you traveled, (as defined by the observer), to you could cover an immense time period and that acceleration could be seen as going at a almost leisurely pace :) never giving you a problem with any G-forces. This last angle on the question does not really have to do with whether acceleration is the thing ‘aging’ you or if is both ’coasting’ and acceleration, but it do have a interest when discussing Black holes and the possible ‘space’ displacement created by them.

I can't see time as a 'force' either. If we take the person traveling in that ship you might ask yourself how that small amount of energy released accelerating your rocket, compared to the energy of the universe that is, can 'age' the whole universe? Turning it around you might want to say that it's not the universes aging process your acceleration change, its more probably the time/frame of reference of your rocket that are excluded from the universes 'normal' aging process by its acceleration. That might seem reasonable as 'time' then could be seen as somehow encapsulated inside that frame, slowing down as the system accelerates but not when it moves uniformly. But why should 'time' act like that? Why would only acceleration arrest 'time', and why would the ‘time’ you spent accelerating, change your ‘systems’ age relative the whole universe? Also it opens to the question if one ever can treat any ‘frame’ or ‘system’ as truly being on its own, ‘independent’ if you may, when discussing ‘time’. If acceleration motion and Space/Time isn’t independent, why do you expect there to exist ‘forces’ defined as ‘independent’. Can’t be? Makes no logic to me. I doubt we can have it ‘both ways’ and to me it seems quite clear that to express something solely on its own relative the rest of ‘existence’ is a very dangerous thinking as we are discussing SpaceTime. Our ‘bubble’ of ‘chains and effect’ not ‘everything’.

Considering that we don't really know any objects 'speeds' except by direct or indirect comparisons I would expect that we can't say at what 'time' the universes 'objective' collective clock ticks at, if there is any? So to me it seems as any interfering of 'time' passed, just as with the interfering of a photon's 'physical' existence/location only can be made through direct observations/comparisons. The photons and 'time' both share that strange property of existing everywhere in SpaceTime, but without us able to give them any 'objective' existence except when observing/forcing the 'event' by observing/comparing. What I infer by this reasoning is that time is not a 'force' although it reacts with mass and speed/acceleration. And to me it seems more reasonable to expect time dilation to work just as perfectly on a uniformly moving system as on an accelerating one. That is, time dilation happens no matter if you're 'coasting' or accelerating. And the best proof of that is still our beloved muon. (further down). There is also the case of 'inertia', ‘relative mass/momentum’ existing in both causes. All of those 'properties will be found in a uniformly moving system (invariant mass) but in different quantities depending on what speed you define to them relative what you compare against (including your best guess about object's ‘invariant/rest mass’ naturally).

Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:18:55

I say that I don’t expect us to define any speed as a 'absolute', without referring/defining it against another 'frame of reference', right. But we can still see whose 'speed' relative any given referent will be the 'speedier' one. So we do have definite proofs of there existing different 'speeds' in SpaceTime. Then there is another thing that seems important, inside that rocket, no matter if its accelerating or 'coasting' your own sense of time will seem as 'normal'. You won't suddenly see your tea (and yourself) acting like in moving molasses as you pour, while accelerating.  So unless we should see acceleration/uniform motion as creating ‘stasis-fields’ of their own, isolated and slowing all processes from thoughts to the movement of molecules there is nothing 'objectively true' about 'time' defining its 'locations'. If Einstein and most other physicists today are correct about time dilation it must work on a very 'small' coherent level, including all 'properties' we know of from space to mass. And observations of muons entering the atmosphere as well as of clocks placed in orbit all points to the same fact, of time dilation being a very real phenomena and working just as well when 'coasting' (uniformly moving) as when accelerating.


- - Quote- - about muons and time dilation-

Taken from " Time dilation and length contraction in Special Relativity"
School of Physics UNSW. Austria.

Particle accelerators generate some short lived particles (eg muons or pions) that travel within a fraction of a percent of c, and (in the laboratory frame) they survive for much longer than their lifetime when at rest in the lab frame. Muons with a half life of 1.5 microseconds are also created several tens of km above the Earth in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. Travelling 50 km at c would take 170 microseconds or 110 half lives, so we should expect their numbers to be reduced by a factor of 2110 ~ 1033 (ie effectively none) to reach the surface. In fact they are measured at sea level and at various altitudes, with rates that agree with the relativistic dilation of their half lives.

Time dilation happens, however counter-intuitive it may seem at first.

Low orbits are the fastest, travelling around the Earth in about 90 minutes, which gives ? of about 1.0000000003. Suppose that a cosmonaut spent 2 years in space. Time dilation due to special relativity (neglecting general relativistic effects) would give an expected lifetime increase of 20 milliseconds.
Lives, let alone life expectancies, are not measured that precisely!

In a typical electron accelerator used to treat cancers, the electrons have an
energy of 20 MeV. The speed of such electrons is 0.9997*c and ? is 40.

Now of course an electron cannot go much faster than this, but it can have a lot more energy. In the Large Electron-Positron collider in Europe's nuclear research lab CERN, electrons (and positrons, or antilectrons) were accelerated to energies of 100 GeV. For such particles, v = 0.999 999 999 95*c and ? is 200,000. Yes, time is slowed down by that factor. And the momentum is increased by that factor too: something that is rather important in the design of the collider because these electrons must be turned to go in a circle.

Nature can produce even larger particle energies. Some particles striking the Earth's upper atmosphere have energies that exceed 2*1020 eV. If such particles are protons (with mass of about 1 GeV), their speeds would be 0.999 999 999 999 999 999 999 995 c. For them, ? is 1011. Now the age of the universe is about 13 billion years for us, but for such particles, the age of the universe would be about (13 billion  years/1011), ie about a month. Such a particle could cross the visible universe in a matter of months (their time).

------End of quote-

…..And…now. for. That -other view.’—Quote--

In fact, if I could travel in a rocket that can accelerate at one Earth gravity in a round-trip to our nearest neighboring galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud, which is 50 kpc ..(fifty thousand parsec).. away, I would find at the end of the trip that I had aged by 47 years, while the Earth will have aged by 326,000 years.
In a round trip to the Andromeda Galaxy (M31), which is 730 kpc away, I will have aged by 57 years, and Earth will have aged by 4.8 million years.

This striking effect sound like pure science fiction, and it is the foundation of several science fiction stories, such as the Charlton Heston version of The Planet of the Apes, but it is a scientifically-verified effect: unstable particles accelerated to nearly the speed of light decay at a slower rate than particles at rest, as expected in special relativity.

---End ---quote---

Now I would like you to consider this thought experiment. If I'm correct in assuming that both uniform motion as well as acceleration creates a time dilation, does that mean that clocks/time adapt their 'speed' depending on what frame and direction you measure them against, that as we when observing them meeting each other (‘A’-> meeting<-‘B’) find that they both have the same amount of 'contraction-ruler/time-slowdown' relative each other no matter from which frame we measure/observe/compare it, ‘A’ or ‘B’.

And with that I mean that ‘A’ actually will see ‘B’:s clock going the exact same amount of 'time' slower as ‘B’ will find ‘A’:s clock to 'tick' as they pass each other, as well as their respective ‘ruler’ shrinking as observed by the opposite party. And both will behave at exactly the same ‘amount’ too. This is as far as I understand a very real effect, and no visual mirage. And I do mean Real, as real as you and me. . Hope you see how I think here, because soon it gets even weirder.

Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:21:49
----Quote---

It could be argued that the length contraction and time dilation of special relativity are purely observational effects. One could say that the only means by which these two effects manifest themselves is by visually observing objects as they move away from us or towards us. Since these objects are always on the move, one cannot say whether the effect is real, or purely observational. But this line of reasoning quickly fails, and has been demonstrated to be false in a variety of settings, as we see below.

When a clock is placed in motion with respect to its original rest frame, the clock actually slows down. We know the clock slows down because it accumulates less time while in motion. If the moving clock is ultimately returned to its point of origin, the elapsed time physically displayed on the clock that was moving will be less than the elapsed time on the laboratory clock, even though they are now side by side in the same reference frame. This was demonstrated inconclusively by Hafele and Keating, but has been demonstrated to an unprecedented level of accuracy in the Global Positioning Satellite system. Each of the satellite clocks is pre-corrected for the effects of its orbital velocity prior to launch.

If the slowing of these clocks due to motion is the result of relativistic time-dilation, the effect is clearly real, as anticipated by Einstein, and is not simply an observational effect. If relativistic time-dilation is a physically detectable event, then relativistic length contraction must be physical as well, as anticipated by Einstein’s train-length measurement proposal. One of the difficulties in Lorentz’s original contraction theory was that he considered the length contraction to be real, while the time dilation was a mathematical artifact of no real significance. It would present an identical problem for special relativity to claim that time-dilation is real but that length contraction is simply a visual effect with no physical basis.

We can also consider the case of muons entering the Earth’s atmosphere. These particles travel the distance from the upper atmosphere to sea level in the course of an average muon lifetime. Even at velocities approaching c, the distance traveled by these particles would require the average life of a muon to be several times its rest value. As we stand on Earth, we can explain the muons’ ability to reach sea level as being due to time dilation. Since the particles are moving very fast, their internal clocks have slowed, causing their average life span to increase several fold. With a longer life, it is easy for them to finish the journey before they decay.

In the muons’ frame of reference, the situation is quite different. The only way this can happen in the muons’ reference frame is if the actual physical distance that must be traveled by them is shortened as in. This is not a visual effect for the muon. If the distance traveled by the muon is not physically shorter, the muon simply does not remain in existence long enough to make the trip, even at speeds greater than .9c. To the muon, length contraction is clearly not merely a visual effect, as the muon is not "seeing" anything. The distance to be traveled by the muon from the upper atmosphere to sea level is physically shorter than the same distance measured by a slower moving particle. The high speed muon performs Einstein’s train embankment experiment first hand.

As the SIM spacecraft follows the Earth in its orbit about the sun, its situation is indistinguishable from that of the high-speed muon. In the reference frame of the SIM, lengths must be physically contracted in the direction of motion, whether or not the SIM is "seeing" anything. To an observer at solar barycenter, no length contraction would occur, but the SIM clocks would be running slowly instead. However, we are interested only in what happens in the reference frame of SIM, and in that reference frame, as with the muon approaching sea level, all lengths are contracted in the direction of motion as compared to the solar barycenter frame, which we will use as our "stationary" reference.

------------End quote------------------

You could argue here that it is not any contraction involved though, just an ‘expanded time sphere’ for those muons. But that seems to me as a mirror image of arguing that there is no ‘expanding time’ at all, only a length contraction. Can you se what I’m getting at? To me both relations are true, inside the muon its ‘time’ will be the same as always, therefore supporting the ‘length contraction’ but outside it we know that there is a ‘time contraction’. And so, to me, it falls down to the question why those properties are ‘variables’?

As I discussed before we had two systems moving uniformly, ‘A’ and ‘B’. Depending on their direction they will either give the same amount of 'Time/contraction' as observed from either frame of reference, spatially as well as time-wise, (--->’A’---> meeting <-‘B’<-).  But then when traveling the exact same way spatially we will find (‘A’--- to move faster - -> and -‘B’-> slower). And if that is true I presume ‘B’ to expect that ‘A’ now  will 'contract' more and have a slower 'time frame' than ‘B’ has. That as ‘A’ will be found to have a higher ‘uniform motion’ relative ‘B’. And I hope we have agreed on that uniform motion also create those effects.

To you this might be perfectly acceptable but to me it creates contradictory results, even though both follows from the same set of rules (special relativity) as I understand it. And with the same objects moving uniformly in both cases. The only thing we did to them here was to change their spatial position versus each other, not changing their speed or mass etc. Also you can consider two unequal masses meeting each other and get similar results as here.

---------Quote----

When two frames are coasting relative to each other, you'll get one result. If one frame is accelerating, you'll get a different result. And, if two frames start with no motion relative to each other and one accelerates away, coasts, and then returns to no motion relative to each other, you'll get still another result. When there's no acceleration, the (relatively simple) rules of special relativity apply. With acceleration, the far more complicated rules of general relativity apply.

----------End of Quote-------

And if we take our thought experiment a step further. All uniformly moving 'systems' must at some point have been 'accelerated' to have a motion spatially, at least if we use our normal perception of how things is expected to behave in SpaceTime, that is, with the exception of photons, entanglements and possibly ‘tunneling’ who have all kinds of strange property's related to them.

But if what I write above is correct then time, speed, distances or ‘relative mass/momentum’ of a object as shown by our concept of 'uniform motion' can’t be defined other than relative something else. As shown by the different answers we get depending on the direction we observe. ‘A’ and ‘B’. It will produce a different answer depending on how that 'uniform motion' is compared by our observer spatially, depending on the two ‘frames’ relative directions of travel versus each other. Why do ‘SpaceTime’ allow such a behavior? And what does it do to our concept of ‘time’ and ‘relative mass/momentum’ and ‘speed’?

And if they move ‘uniformly’ away from each other at, let’s say, each one traveling at sixty percent of light-speed relative that Earth where they took of from then? In this case you will still find the other rockets light reaching you at 'c', as always. You should find that strange as there shouldn't be any possibility of any light reaching you from that ship, I do.  :) It is after all moving away from you at over half light speed with yourself moving in the opposite direction, just as fast. What happens here comes from one of the most strange postulates of Einstein, namely that the 'speed' of that light reaching you still will be measured as being the 'normal' for light, around 299 792,458 km/second. The only thing changing is that the lights energy content (the photons ‘energy’) reaching you will be 'downshifted' into containing a lower energy content per time-frame (red-shift). And of course this holds true when accelerating too.

And this one is very difficult to understand. How did he reach that conclusion? That the speed of light is constant in all reference frames? Because that is what this example states, that light don’t care for your ‘speed’ relative whatever direction you are sending your light at. It comes from a famous experiment called the Michelson-Morley experiment in which they tried to prove the idea of a aether in which all planets and suns was moving. They expected that the earth’s motion would produce slightly different measurements depending on which way their beam of light traveled through that aether as it woul act as a resistance in some directions slowing the beam.

Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:23:15
---Quote---

Initially, the experiment of 1881 was meant to distinguish between the theory of Augustin-Jean Fresnel (1818), who proposed an almost stationary aether, and in which the aether is only partially dragged with a certain coefficient by matter; and the theory of George Gabriel Stokes (1845), who stated that the aether was fully dragged in the vicinity of the earth.

Earth travels a tremendous distance in its orbit around the sun, at a speed of around 30 km/s or over 108,000 km per hour. The sun itself is traveling about the galactic center at even greater speeds, and there are other motions at higher levels of the structure of the universe. Since the Earth is in motion, it was expected that the flow of aether across the Earth should produce a detectable "aether wind". Although it would be possible, in theory, for the Earth's motion to match that of the aether at one moment in time, it was not possible for the Earth to remain at rest with respect to the aether at all times, because of the variation in both the direction and the speed of the motion.

Michelson had a solution to the problem of how to construct a device sufficiently accurate to detect aether flow. The device he designed, later known as an interferometer, sent a single source of white light through a half-silvered mirror that was used to split it into two beams traveling at right angles to one another. After leaving the splitter, the beams traveled out to the ends of long arms where they were reflected back into the middle on small mirrors. They then recombined on the far side of the splitter in an eyepiece, producing a pattern of constructive and destructive interference based on the spent time to transit the arms. Any slight change in the spent time would then be observed as a shift in the positions of the interference fringes. If the aether were stationary relative to the sun, then the Earth’s motion would produce a fringe shift one twenty-fifth the size of a single fringe.

-------End of quote---

To their surprise no such effect was found. The light beams kept to the same speed no matter in which direction they traveled. And later even more accurate experiments was done finding that lights speed were the same no matter if it moved with the earth or from it.

---Quote—

Because it was assumed that the motion of the earth around the sun would cause an additional component to the wind, the yearly cycles would be detectable as an alteration of the magnitude of the wind. An example of this effect is a helicopter flying forward. While hovering, a helicopter’s blades would be measured as travelling around typically at 300 mph at the tips. However, if the helicopter is travelling forward at 150 mph, there are points where the tips of the blades are travelling through the air at 150 mph (downwind) and 450 mph (upwind). The same effect would cause the magnitude of an ether wind to decrease and increase on a yearly basis.

---------End of quote---

What they found was that the light at some direction seemed to have a ‘shorter path’ though?

----Quote---

Walter Ritz’s emitter theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent with the results of the experiment, not requiring aether. The theory postulates that light has always the same velocity in respect to the source.

However it also led to several “obvious” optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If this was correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen.

The Sagnac experiment placed a modified apparatus on a constantly rotating turntable; the main modification was that the light trajectory encloses an area. In doing so any ballistic theories such as Ritz’s could be tested directly, as the light going one way around the device would have a different length to travel than light going the other way (the eyepiece and mirrors would be moving toward/away from the light). In Ritz’s theory there would be no shift, because the net velocity between the light source and detector was zero (they were both mounted on the turntable). However in this case an effect was seen, thereby eliminating any simple ballistic theory. This fringe-shift effect is used today in laser gyroscopes.

------End of quote--

So what did this mean? Even though there were no evidence found for an aether the light still seemed to have an unequal distance to move? Did that mean that the light had different speeds after all? And it seemed to be bound to the way earth was moving? ‘The explanation was found in the Fitzgerald–Lorentz contraction, also simply called length contraction. According to this physical law all objects physically contract along the line of motion (originally thought to be relative to the aether), so while the light may indeed transit slower on that arm, it also ends up travelling a shorter distance that exactly cancels out the drift.

What they seemed to miss was that even if there was no ‘wind’ it was still ‘subtly wrong’ for the light to always keep the same speed. That is if light was expected to be behave in Newtonian way, having one ‘defined’ true speed on its own with ‘distances’ being the same as always? According to that universe neither time nor distance was open to ‘manipulation’ but here we suddenly find SpaceTime to ‘contract’ depending on velocity/speed? Einstein must have thought a lot about this experiment. You might also take a look at the light reaching us from objects in the sky, and then, expecting them all to have different motions and speeds relative us, try to see if their ‘light beams’ speed differ. Although I’m not sure how to set up such a experiment? With a beamsplitter and mirrors perhaps, or electro-magnetically? probably it already been done too? The only difference I know we have noticed though is that those beams, relative us, are red or blue-shifted. Now this contraction, would that explain red and blue-shift? Let’s see space as being of invisible ‘boxes’. Each box we can define as a ‘system’ containing a object moving at some speed relative us. Inside this box there is light produced that ‘leaks’ out to us standing by observing them move. According to the Fitzgerald–Lorentz contraction those boxes will be ‘shrunk’ as observed by us. Does that mean that light too will act so? Yes it does, the interesting thing is how we will observe this ‘contraction’. You have to remember that according to this theory it wasn’t light having a different speed in different boxes, instead it was them shrinking that explained how light could travel unequal lengths. As light, if seen as a wave, ‘shrinks’ inside this box it becomes compressed, this compression is undetectable inside the box and as every ‘distance’ has shrunk an equal amount you won’t notice anything being different inside it. But for the outside observer being at a relative rest this light will seem to be contracted if that object is moving towards him. But shouldn’t it be the same when the object is moving away from him too? Isn’t that invisible box still contracted relative the observer? Of course it is, but as the velocity of it then bears away from you, all ‘distances’ between you and that ‘box’ will grow, if you assume there being an indefinable amount of ‘boxes of space’ that light traverses in-between its path to you.

And as those boxes is not moving at the first box was then that light wave can be seen to ‘expand’ as they try to make up for the growing relative ‘distance’ between you and its source. It’s somewhat like a rubber band describing the relation, as it moves toward you it will contract, going away it will expand. Hope it made some sense. If you want to turn it around you could describe it as all ‘space’ expanding between you and what object you are observing moving away from you and all ‘space’ contracting when going the other way, towards you, but as we have objects inside those ‘boxes’ moving at different velocities we can see that this isn’t really true as those too then should act according to our relation to that first moving ‘box’. Then it must be a expression of the sole relation between you observing and what you choose to observe. Am I making sense here? So it seems to me that Einsteins conclusion is correct. But Einstein had one another idea too that to me is interesting still. ‘As late as 1920, Einstein himself still spoke of a different concept of ether that was not a “ponderable medium” but something of significance nonetheless’. And if my crazy idea is correct there is something ‘more’, even though its right expression to me might be described as ‘less’. My belief that you will find a ‘distance-less’ canvas hiding ‘inside’ SpaceTime creating what we deem as ‘distances’. I really liked his expression of it as ‘not a ponderable’  meaning ‘Not capable of being weighed or considered’. Which I too expect it to be, as I can’t see what ‘math’ will be able to describe it, but then again, my knowledge of how mathematicians create, transform and manipulate equations is dismally insignificant. To me it seems to come to the question if one can describe something without any arrow of time creating the same in a meaningful way. So when I used to state that math is the ‘universal language’ I might need to add this clause “As long as it contains some sort of causality chain.”. And so there might be a unobserved ’hole’ in our mathematics too?
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:25:05

----Quote—

In Galilean SpaceTime the physical existence of an absolute time is assumed.
Isaac Newton defined it in the following way.

    "Absolute, true and mathematical time, in itself, and from its own nature, flows equally, without relation to any thing external; and by other name called Duration. Relative, apparent, and vulgar time, is some sensible and external measure of duration by motion, whether accurate or unequable, which is commonly used instead of true time; as an hour, a day, a month, a year. It may be, that there is no equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is liable to no change."

-----End of quote-



Another thing worth wondering about here is the possibility of 'light/photons' getting so 'down/red-shifted' that we won't be able to measure them. Does that mean that they stop existing? That can't be right, can it? Not if photon's intrinsically are time-less, meaning that they need to ‘impact’ to die, and exist as defined objects inside SpaceTime.  Also they are expected to have an intrinsical unvarying light-quanta according to some ideas? If we allow them to become so redshifted that they will disappear from our frame of reference, for example if considering  a objects ‘black body radiation’ inside a Black Hole what would that state about distances? That they are there but in another ‘time-frame’ not reachable for us outside spectators? And if they can do that there, they should be able to do it if coming from an object moving away from us too. Am I right? Which then should create ‘light’ out of ‘nothing’ as soon as we adjusted our velocity or speed?

But if they can ‘downshift’ their energy spontaneously depending on the energy’s surrounding them, f ex traveling up a gravity well? Is it them doing it or is it only a new ‘relation’ being created? If it is a ‘relation’ only, the question will be if the ‘photon’ ever can change its energy, right? It may be seen as having a certain ‘potential’ when observed by us or as we ‘send’ it away, but is it then containing it, or is it our ‘relation’ that creates it? Because either it is so that the consist of unvarying light quanta that once ‘created’ by the ‘source’ never can change except as a ‘relation’ with something else. Or they do/can change intrinsically over time by them self. Or they don’t have any existence other than that of defining a relation and so only can come to exist in our observation? But if they can change their energy content in SpaceTime even though being of ‘no time’ inherently, how would that be possible? Yep, pretty soon I expect to want to discuss this with a Black Hole too.

Maybe we should take a look at what we see as lights ‘properties’ before we try to define it. As I understand, it is wrong to say that light consist of only one unvarying speed, if seen as a wave it have two speeds actually, as defined by us. So speaking of a single “speed of light” is incorrect. There exist different speeds of propagation for the different aspects of a light pulse. For example, the ‘phase velocity’ is seen as the speed ‘at which each maximum of the rapidly oscillating electric field travels for each frequency component that makes up a light pulse’. And it is very close to what we define as the speed of light and at times seen as to move ‘faster’ than lights ‘information (which normally is the ‘group velocity’) . ‘Group velocity’ on the other hand, is the speed at which the peak of a macroscopic pulse of light moves, and is usually relevant to the speed of information transfer. Those two together are as far as I know what makes up light, Well, you have frequency wavelength, amplitude (Waves) too defining them. But those two, group and phase velocity, is the reason why some state that they can send ‘something’ FTL (faster than light). When they say so they may either be speaking of the phase velocity of that ‘something’, which as stated can’t bear any ‘information’ in it until that time the group velocity ‘comes in to lunch’, in all normal circumstances like ‘traveling’ in a ‘perfect vacuum/space’.  Then again, they might refer to the group velocity as the ‘thing’ doing this FTL. The group velocity can be quite different from ‘c’.

The phase velocity is slowed by the index of ‘refraction’  where the refraction is the amount by which a propagating wave is bent ‘traveling’ inside a prism f ex.  As the light passes from one transparent medium to another, it changes speed and bends. How much this happens depends on the refractive index of the mediums and the angle between the light ray and the line perpendicular (normal) to the surface itself separating the two mediums (medium/medium interface)  while the group velocity is inversely proportional to the dispersion of the medium.  “ The propagation of information or energy in a wave always occurs as a change in the wave. The most obvious example is changing the wave from being absent to being present, which propagates at the speed of the leading edge of a wave train. More generally, some modulation of the frequency and/or amplitude of a wave is required in order to convey information, and it is this modulation that represents the signal content. This is the phase velocity of the amplitude wave, but since each amplitude wave contains a group of internal waves, this speed is usually called the group velocity.

Since a general wave (or wavelike phenomenon) need not embody the causal flow of any physical effects, there is obviously there is no upper limit on the possible phase velocity of a wave. However, even for a "genuine" physical wave, i.e., a chain of sequentially dependent events, the phase velocity does not necessarily correspond to the speed at which energy or information is propagating. This is partly a semantical issue, because in order to actually convey information, a signal cannot be a simple periodic wave, so we must consider non-periodic signals, making the notion of "phase" somewhat ambiguous. If the wave profile never exactly repeats itself, then arguably the "period" of the signal must be the entire signal. On this basis we might say that the velocity of the signal is unambiguously equal to the "phase velocity", but in this context the phase velocity could only be defined as the speed of the leading (or trailing) edge of the overall signal.“

When you read about how someone has succeeded in transmitting a wave with a group velocity FTL (faster than light) the problem is that the group velocity only corresponds to the signal/Phase velocity under ‘normal dispersion’ like what we might find in space and generally speaking only under such conditions when the group velocity is less than the phase velocity. But if those circumstances is violated by dispersing a ‘beam’ f ex through a medium where the ‘group velocity’ succeeds to reach a faster speed than the phase velocity it may come out faster of that ‘medium’ than the phase velocity. But that group velocity won’t represent any actual propagation speed of  its ‘information’. Meaning what makes it possible to make sense out of a radio transmission f ex. creating its ‘message’

“ For example, in a regime of anomalous dispersion, which means the refractive index decreases with increasing wave number, the preceding formula shows that what we called the group velocity exceeds what we called the phase velocity. In such circumstances the group velocity no longer represents the speed at which information or energy propagates.”

And as I understand it this kind of ideas represent actually a ‘slowing down’ of the light as you put it through some medium other than space and then manipulate what is seen as its different properties.

Then on the other hand I have this strange Quote.

---Quote—

“Since the 1980s, various experiments have verified that it is possible for the group velocity of laser light pulses sent through specially prepared materials to significantly exceed the speed of  light in vacuum.

-- --End- quote from—‘Group velocity’ in Wikipedia, ----

(Sorry, I can’t check this up, other than what that once downloaded page states for the moment. I don’t believe this last quote to be entirely correct as it stands though?  If you put  light through anything ‘denser’ than a ‘perfect vacuum/space’ light should slow down. You can’t ‘boost’ light to go faster than in a ‘perfect vacuum’ as I understand it?

If you could then it would state that certain ‘densities’ do create FTL faster than the lights ‘motion’ in a vacuum, even though no ‘information’ might be contained by it? And that would really freak me out as it would imply that density will act the opposite as what I expect, that is, instead of retarding (breaking) the light wave boosting it? (how?) )

Possibly it refers to the ‘group velocity’ that can be seen to do FTL inside some materials. when compared to lights ‘normally expected’ speed through the same, and if so I can understand it, well, somewhat anyway.

----Quote---

“ The group velocity of a wave is the velocity with which the variations in the shape of the wave's amplitude (known as the modulation or envelope of the wave) propagate through space. For example, imagine what happens if a stone is thrown into the middle of a very still pond. When the stone hits the surface of the water, a circular pattern of waves appears. It soon turns into a circular ring of waves with a quiescent center. The ever expanding ring of waves is the group, within which one can discern individual wavelets of differing wavelengths traveling at different speeds. The longer waves travel faster than the group as a whole, but they die out as they approach the leading edge. The shorter waves travel slower and they die out as they emerge from the trailing boundary of the group.”

-----End quote---

And .. Furthermore..

--Quote-----

If we imagine the wave profile as a solid rigid entity sliding to the right, then obviously the phase velocity is the ordinary speed with which the actual physical parts are moving..

…. But….

What we perceive as a coherent wave may in fact be simply a sequence of causally disjoint processes (like the individual spring-mass systems) that happen to be aligned spatially and temporally, either by chance or design, so that their combined behavior exhibits a wavelike pattern, even though there is no actual propagation of energy or information along the sequence..

---------End quote---

So we have ‘something’ that can FTL but can’t keep its ‘information’. What that signifies to me is that even though you might modulate/manipulate (encode) a wave and then send it ‘FTL’ (phase or group/signal velocity depending on medium) that ‘information’ you stored in it won’t be brought forward, no matter what ‘property’ of it you manipulated before both properties are ‘together’ again.

Still, If that last quote would be correct as it stand? With waves exceeding lights speed in a vacuum by doing FTL through ‘materials’, it do state that you can have phenomena that spatially is recognized to exceed ‘c’. Although the statement must be missing something. Now, how could that be possible if it was true? What was it we read just before about ‘casually disjoint processes’. Sounds a little like that idea of mine of a distance less ‘hidden reality’ doesn’t it? 

But it’s also stating that the ‘signal/information’ must obey times arrow even if the ‘light’ may not. And what would that do to our Universe? Not as a universe of only ‘densities’ any more, would you agree? More like a ‘system of rules’ defining a ‘information Space/sphere’ limiting all information but having little to do with its densities and the way they may act. Is that what SpaceTime is? Should we split it in ‘information space’  and “non information space” then as it is only inside the “information space” all  real ‘work’ is being done? There is in SpaceTime processes that seem to expend energy (work done) and others that do not, even though they change the properties of SpaceTime.. Virtual particles is a good example of that to me. So? What if so would that ‘information-space’ consist of do you think? Processes like our rocket engine (interaction/work done/information exchange) and ‘relative particles’ (‘No work done’ if considering a ‘interaction/still a change implying a ‘information’ exchange) This one is really strange to ‘fit it in’.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:25:59
How can the phase or group velocity be able to ‘move/travel/ be outside its ‘information field’? Doesn’t waves have some sort of ‘wavefront’ to them? Does this mean that light consists of more than one ‘thing’ somehow ‘glued together’ to make a whole ‘beam’ or photon? If so that ‘glue’ seems very flexible. Or all waves/photons consist of some sort of ‘entanglement’ expressing itself as a ‘whole’ obeying the ‘information space/sphere’ as related to ‘information/work done’ but otherwise not limited to the speed of light in a vacuum. (Entanglement is thought to be when ‘one’ of something either is ‘split up or Polarized’ into ‘two’ (or more) through some manipulation or event. When later observing one of those new ‘twins’, the other twin is expected to fall out ‘instantly’ to show the exact opposite ‘spin/polarization’. No matter the ‘distances’ separating them. Why I wrote ‘or more’? How about the entanglement of an atom? By a beam?)

Now some may feel an urge to get all physical on me here and start to explain the nature of waves and all kinds of things. I would agree if photons was to be just ‘waves’ but they’re not, are they? They are multi-gifted beings doing things that are mutually contradictory, why else would ‘wave supporter’s’  fight so hard to define a ‘nexus’ to them, without succeeding, as of yet, too?

But if 'time' is something relating to your frame of reference, 'ticking' at a constant rate as experienced by you being inside that frame of reference, no matter your speed or acceleration, yet changing depending on at what direction you choose to measure the same system spatially when uniformly coasting (special relativity). Could that mean that what we call 'time' is more of a 'relation', and so neither a 'flow' nor 'instances/events'?

Yep, tried to sneak that one in, didn’t I.. And I(t) will get worse.
 
If we break down a biological system (human f ex.) into molecules and atoms they all will be seen to 'move' at different 'speeds', or put another way, if we define one 'system' as a molecule and arbitrarily compare it against another smaller 'system' f ex. that of a atom, then knowing that mass produce different 'time rates' just as speed and acceleration do, you might conclude that as seen from the frame of the molecule the atom should 'age' faster as it has less mass. And if so all things, down to the smallest constituents, should have its own ‘time-cloud’ shrouding it. Also the electrons orbital speed should have some impact on the atoms ‘time’. But in fact electron’s don't seem to 'move' at all, as found when we go down in 'size', the electron-cloud is in reality an unmoving 'matter of probability's'. This is also a real 'effect'. And when measuring the temperature of an atom we only talk about the 'vibrational movement' of their outermost electrons, not any ‘orbital speed’.

-----quote—

 "Such energy is received by the outermost electrons of each atom from a source of external energy, such as chemical or luminous. The temperature of a whole object cannot be measured, so that when a given degree is stated, it refers to the presumed temperature of the object when assumed that all its atoms' electrons have the same microkinetic (vibrational) energy."

---End quote---

Now, if the electron-cloud around an atom isn't moving where do we get those 'vibrations' from?
Another way of seeing the question of space and time  is looking at the light emanating from an object coming at you. The faster it (and you) moves towards each other the higher the energy will be as observed by you. And the energy from those photons when measured by you will be (at least) the collective energy from both ‘systems’ moving at each other. This is no ‘sleight of hands’.  When you measure one of those photons it really will contain, at the very least, a multiple of both speeds. This seems strange to me, how the hell does the photon knows your 'speed' to adapt it so correctly at all possible occasions. And if we assume a third object passing simultaneously with a 'lower speed' and take a measurement of the photons coming from it we will get a lower energy reading of those but still adding both ‘systems’ of choice. One way to see it here is to consider it an effect of 'kinetic energy' and therefore not unlike a normal collision depending on the multiplied effect of two objects crashing macroscopically. Remember, as I see it here this photon truly contains the 'energy' measured by you. They are timeless objects intrinsically, ain’t they? But to accumulate energy they seem to have to do some ‘work’ under our ‘arrow of time’? How could they otherwise ‘transform’ their energy-level? As long as we consider them to be defined objects inside SpaceTime that is.

If we instead would talk about a collision between two macroscopic objects (cars) I could proclaim that the effect of their head-on crash as belonging to them both, adding up to the crashes consequences. So is it the same here? In a way perhaps, but here we have this immaterial object (photons) somehow defining this force in our observation. What this phenomena seems to point to, from my perspective, is also that the idea of  the universe, if we were able to measure its total ‘energy’ would find it to be ‘zero’ as that seems a reasonable explanation for it. Why :) Well, to me it points to SpaceTime being ‘one’ without ‘leaks’. Spacetime takes care of the ‘speed rule of C ’ translating it into a different level of energy instead, blue (Highly energetic) or red (weakly energetic) shifting it instead. Which to me indicates some state of ‘entropic rest’, or perhaps ‘balance/equilibrium’ is the better word here? That as an’ entropic’ state of rest seems to be related to measuring the amount of information missing for a complete probabilistic description of a system. How do you do that when you have a ‘equilibrium’? In which “Entropy is the mean number of binary questions that must be asked in an optimal decision strategy to determine the state of a particular realization given the state of the ensemble to which it belongs.” And as the questions to me seems endless depending on your choice/depth of ‘questioning’? I don’t really understand it? But a ‘equilibrium’ I can relate to, as no matter the amount of ‘binary questions’ making up for that ‘state’, if you like, I will expect it to give a consistent answer, somewhat like division ‘1/1, 2/2, 3/3,’ all will give ‘1’, if you see how I think here, no matter what those digits represent as ‘amounts/degrees/numbers/possibilities’.

As for calling that state of equilibrium ‘zero’ or ‘ten’ or ‘forty-two’, that’s up to you.  But can there be a state when the red-shifted photon becomes so weak as to disappear from SpaceTime for the observer? That shouldn’t be possible should it? I mean, we can still have a ‘third party/observer’ moving at another ‘speed’ relative that ‘disappeared’ redshifted photon, getting a measurement of it other than our first observer observing it. And If it was possible what would it mean for our idea of dimensions/distances? That objects can be ‘there’ without existing for your ‘frame of reference’? I mean, this photon you can’t see (not existing) might just be a ‘blink’ away spatially, right? That would make for a quite interesting universe :) So that seems to me as something supporting the idea of a smallest light-quanta always being observable, even if it doesn’t address if that ‘light-quanta’ will be a consequence of something really being there or if it is an ‘effect’ of  ‘limitations of observance’ relative SpaceTime. But as we surmised earlier ‘Black Body Radiation’ inside a Black Hole is supposed to redshift that photon into ‘invisibility’ as far as a outside observer is concerned, as well as for the ‘black body’ too?.  If that is correct it seem to make up for a very ‘radiate’ Universe where any light we observe directly related to our choice of ‘speed’, and with it disappearing, not existing for us, at certain speeds although still being there when measured from another speed? So does it ‘go away’ or not? As we can find it, if being in the right ‘frame of reference/speed”, I would say that it is still there, don’t you agree? But it will still be non existing when we’re out of that ‘frame of reference’? What? Yes, the headache comes marching on…

Now you might wonder what I mean by this Black Body Radiation, or ‘BBR’ as we ‘Sunday physicists’ will call it from now on. Jump on the train of progress. -> :)
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:26:40

It seems as all radiation, just as light, consists of a transfer of energy (heat) through space.

----Several------Quotes---together---

( …Planck showed that hot objects emit electromagnetic radiation in discrete packets, not as a flow but having ‘discrete jumps’ to it, which leads to a finite total energy emitted as ‘black body radiation’. And that result was in direct contradiction with the classical view of light as a continuous wave...It is so-called because the ideal radiator of thermal energy would also be an ideal absorber of thermal energy: It would not reflect any light, and thus would appear to be absolutely black. As far as I understands it? it's a discussion about those discrete jumps of energy creating the ‘flow’ of radiation we measure. That ‘energy’ don’t act as a waterfall where you can steer the flow continuously without stepping. Instead the energy seems to jump between certain levels. Like if I only could turn on my tap in 1 liter 1.5 l. ..2.l ..2.5.l etc. without ever getting the ‘levels’ implied in between those. But it doesn’t state as far as I understand that the ‘flow’ coming at 1.5 liter will be discontinuous to a detector with ‘gaps’ in it. )

At the end of the 19th century one of the most intriguing puzzles in physics involved the spectrum of radiation emitted by a hot object. Specifically, the emitter was assumed to be a blackbody, a perfect radiator. The hotter a blackbody is, the more the peak in the spectrum of emitted radiation shifts to shorter wavelength. Nobody could explain why there was a peak in the distribution at all, however; the theory at the time predicted that for a blackbody, the intensity of radiation just kept increasing as the wavelength decreased. This was known as the ultraviolet catastrophe, because the theory predicted that an infinite amount of energy was emitted by a radiating object.

Clearly, this prediction was in conflict with the idea of conservation of energy, not to mention being in serious disagreement with experimental observation. No one could account for the discrepancy, however, until Max Planck came up with the idea that a blackbody was made up of a whole bunch of oscillating atoms, and that the energy of each oscillating atom was quantized. That last point is the key : the energy of the atoms could only take on discrete values, and these values depended on the frequency of the oscillation:

Planck's prediction of the energy of an oscillating atom : E = nhf (n = 0, 1, 2, 3 ...)
where f is the frequency, n is an integer, and h is a constant known as Planck's constant. This constant shows up in many different areas of quantum mechanics.

“ All objects with a temperature above absolute zero radiate energy at a rate equal to their emissivity multiplied by the rate at which energy would radiate from them if they were a black body. No medium is necessary for radiation to occur; radiation works even in and through a perfect vacuum. The energy from the Sun travels through the vacuum of space before warming the earth. Also, the only way that energy can leave earth is by being radiated to space. Both reflectivity and emissivity of all bodies is wavelength dependent.

The temperature determines the wavelength distribution of the electromagnetic radiation as limited in intensity by Planck’s law of black-body radiation.

---End of quote---------------

Hey, didn’t I say that we won’t ever measure radiation as containing gaps of ‘space’ between it? And here it states that there is gaps? I still say that I expect us unable to measure any gaps in a continuos energy/radiation . The gaps we’re speaking of here is related to the way the radiation builds from a black body… It’s like jumps of ‘strength,’ not relating to any gaps in the continuos ‘flow’ of each level of radiation we receive at a detector. The same way as the orbits of electrons is not in a continuos flow of ‘distances/orbits’ from a atoms ‘center’ but instead is seen to make discreet jumps into higher and lower ‘orbits’ depending on the electrons energy levels leaving some ‘distances’ empty. As far as I understand? I really need to check it up some more when I get on the net.. But then again, as the levels recede/advance they will do so in discrete ‘jumps’ leaving gaps between the ‘energy levels’. So it is strange, why is it so? Why is some ‘distances’ forbidden? “ Ah, ‘distances’, was it?

But if a electron isn’t really there. Is a ‘matter’ of probability, relating to, in fact needing, your observation to become ‘visible’ just as our photon becomes defined in its impact? Then what are those ‘distances it ‘jumps’ ‘orbiting’ that atom. Isn’t this a kind of fractal behavior? Self-descriptive, coming again? And again. And what we call those ‘distances’ will be the SpaceTime canvas it uses to express itself on? So from another point of view we might only have one ‘electron’. But expressing itself through our arrow of time as several at different ‘distances’. But if so then a ‘electron’ is something more extended than we think, and either ‘chopped up’ by our arrow, or something that don’t really care for ‘distance’ at all. Or it could be several ‘disturbances’ emerging at several points in SpaceTime constructing our ‘electrons’. And if that was true what then would be its ‘vibrations’? And why would ‘heat/energy’ multiply those? What happens when we heat up something to very high energies, like putting it in a black hole? It ‘disappears’ from our arrow of time, doesn’t it? it becomes pure energy, photons. And those are mass-less, distance-less intrinsically as they are without ‘time’.

So? Could I say that when you heat up something you create a state where it ‘flickers’ more, ‘out and in’ of SpaceTime, as seen from inside our arrow of time? But why would that give SpaceTime more energy as seen from that ‘electrons’ point of view? Isn’t it us expending that ‘energy’ first, and then getting it back as ‘flickering/vibrations’. Can it be made to ‘vibrate’ more without any ‘touching’ by SpaceTime? I don’t know, but I know that virtual particles spontaneously can create ‘particles’ even though they seem to exist for a very short period of time before disappearing. So probably not, and even if it can it will be for such short periods (Planck time?) that it won’t make any difference to SpaceTime. But then again, virtual particles make a difference even though they are outside Planck time? So?

Considering , if I’m correct, that this distance-less state will have no arrow of time couldn’t particles then be able to express ithemselves as ‘flickering’ and be able to ‘jump’ ‘spontaneously’. As I believe that this timeless experience can express itself everywhere inside SpaceTime. And if certain distances are forbidden, could it have something to do with the Planck length? As those seems very ‘universal’ inside SpaceTime?

Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:28:03


Anyway, it was Albert Einstein who was the first to really understand the consequences of this idea when he formulated the photoelectric effect. “ The electromagnetic field can be understood as a stream of corpuscular bodies to be called photons that make up the electromagnetic field. The revolutionary aspect of this idea was that a stream of particles also could behave as a wave, and there was a lot of opposition to the idea from many established scientists of the day. It was not until 1923 when Arthur Compton experimentally showed that a light quanta could deflect an electron just like a corpuscular body would do it, that this debate was over.”  In fact there are several experiments done where scientists have used ‘photons', that is defined ‘objects’ having a spatial definition in SpaceTime interacting with atoms as some sort of ‘electrons’

Check out “Physicists discover a new form of optical nonlinearity” f ex where they interact  “one atom and one photon – (It) has been observed in several experiments. The main interest now lies in the configuration of one atom and two photons, because the two photons are predicted to interact by obeying a specific set of rules from quantum theory. As Dr Karim Murr explains: 'We can naively picture this in the following: if we have one atom and only one photon, the atom would just absorb and emit the photon several times. If now we have one atom and two photons, the atom would have to make a choice because it can absorb only one photon at the time. The big issue for the atom is the difficulty of the choice, because the two photons are exactly identical. So we can always say that the atom absorbs and emits each photon several times, but it is impossible to tell which photon is absorbed or which photon is emitted.' The result can be seen as an effective interaction between the two photons, an interaction mediated by the atom…

In the experiment, a vapor of atoms at ambient temperature is first cooled, so that the atoms become very slow. The scientists then isolate just one atom from the rest and guide it to a very specific region in space. The second step is to trap light, which is done by reflecting the light between two concave mirrors facing each other. The mirrors are separated by a distance as small as one tenth of a millimeter, and now enclose the atom. This tiny region is the heart of the experiment.. Such a small region comes with a big gift: by confining the light into a small region, the density of the light field becomes so strong that already one quantum of light is sufficient to perturb the atom. The perturbation is so large that the system behaves like a new molecule, but, intriguingly, such a molecule is made of matter and light. This molecule possesses an infinite number of possible configurations: one atom and one photon, one atom and two photons, one atom and three photons, and so on. All these configurations have distinct energies and can therefore be identified in the spectrum of the molecule. This prediction feeds theorists in quantum optics since half a century.”

As you can see it builds on the photo electrical effect explained by Einstein. But one tenth of a millimeter? Calling that a ‘small region’ compared to an atom, and saying that light then becomes a ‘defined’ photon? Ah, Okay ? But it sure sounds cool .. and I can accept that light bouncing there will affect that atom. Somehow this seems to imply that by bouncing a photon in a small enough area you will ‘strengthen’ its perturbation which then should be seen as? Becoming more ‘energy’ per distance? Why? Where does it get it from? Even if it was ‘interacting’ with itself as it perhaps could be seen too, if looked upon as a wave, why should it then be able to enforce its ‘energy’, or is it the momentum?  It’s strange , it also seems to me as if those distances is too big but then again, if you really have defined where that ‘slow’ atom must be? And considering the next experiment? What happens there should happen here too? They should become entangled, right? If it becomes a ‘system’ interacting with one photon it should be entangled, right? And with two it must be the same??

And then to measure it

----Quote---

As in the spectroscopy of conventional atoms and molecules, the atom-light molecule is excited by shining laser light onto it and by detecting the light emitted by it. The scientist Ingrid Schuster and her colleagues have performed two experiments. In a first experiment they varied continuously the colour of the laser light. At low laser intensity the energy spectrum of the molecule is that of one atom and one photon, a spectrum known for more than a decade. At higher intensity, however, they observe a second pronounced resonance in the spectrum for energies which are only consistent with the energy of one atom coupled to two photons. To excite this resonance, two laser photons have to be absorbed by the molecule at the same time. This effect has further been studied in a second experiment: the researchers found a trick to steer the coupled system in such a way that the state of one atom and one photon cannot be created at all. At low laser intensities, almost no light is transmitted, because photons from the laser arrive one by one, and these are rejected by the molecule. At higher intensities, however, the rate of laser photon pairs grows, so that the state of one atom and two photons is populated more and more rapidly. This leads to a nonlinear response in very good agreement with theoretical predictions.

--------------End of quote..

So they entangle it too, right?

There is more :)
“Quantum Memory for Light”. Another experiment asks ‘if given an unknown input state of light, can it be stored with high precision in atoms? And the answer is.. yes.’

“The quantum memory protocol runs as follows: 1. An unknown input state of light is sent to the atoms. The strength and phase of this light is not exactly defined which is symbolized by the thickness of the line in the drawing of the light wave. 2. When light passes the atomic sample there is an exchange of information between light and atoms. A part of the light is stored in atoms (e.g. the phase information). At the same time the atoms act back on the outgoing light. In this process light and atoms become entangled. 3. The outgoing light is detected (e.g. the amplitude part). The obtained result both carries information about the incoming light amplitude and information about atoms. 4. With a feedback system the atoms are rotated by an amount conditioned on the measurement result. From the beginning the atoms contained quantum noise just as the input light, but the fact that light and atoms became entangled in step 2 enables us to cancel the information about atoms in the outgoing light with the initial quantum noise of atoms. The result is a storage of the incoming light state in the atomic system.”

“How’s your headache?” “Just fine thank you”

Didn’t that photoelectric effect build on that there needed to be certain ‘strengths’, the same or stronger than the electron to be able to interact with it? “ If a photon has an energy at least as big as the ‘work function’, the photon energy can be transferred to the electron and the electron will have enough energy to escape from the metal. And a photon with an energy less than the ‘work function’ will never be able to eject electrons.” But here they talk about an ‘unknown input state of light that is sent to the atoms’ interacting with it , but not defining exactly with what, the ‘system’ of that atom carrying out information about it too, as light? Through ‘entanglement’, no less… And if it gets out (reflects) then it has ‘interacted’, that I will agree on :)

The probability of finding a particle at a particular location, is related to the wave associated with the particle. The larger the amplitude (intensity) of the wave at a particular point, the larger is the probability that the particle will be found there. And the smaller that amplitude is the smaller the probability will be of finding it. And the probability of it is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the wave. But the atom acted back by changing the outgoing lights amplitude, right. And that we will perceive as weaker or stronger light, and if it was the frequency we measured instead it would express itself as a color-shift. So if I get it straight they reflect a beam and then use the amplitude (intensity) reflected to rotate the atom by some degree proportional to that amplitude which now, as they say, contains both the information of the original light sent in as well as the reflected information from the interaction with the atom and therefore now is ‘entangled’. That’s okay with me but I can’t see how they ‘cancel the information about atoms in the outgoing light with the initial quantum noise of atoms’ without knowing that original quantum noise before? Can you? Or do they mean that they already had a ‘standard’ for that?

The first experiment was considering light as photons, the next light as waves. So. Does light consist of unvarying light-quanta or not? Does it interact, even when its not interfering with any electrons? It seems so, doesn’t it?. As both seems to work out just fine even though I couldn’t get how :)?  Somewhat like my headache then? Could that also be considered an entanglement?

(what ‘entanglements’ is I discuss at the end of the ‘essay’.)
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:29:07

So what Planck did with his idea that a blackbody radiation came from of  a bunch of oscillating atoms, and that the energy of each oscillating atom was quantized was to give us the ground work for what later became ‘photons’, particles as well as waves. Before this light was thought to consist as waves only. Newton and Huygens seems to have been the first to discover that light travels as waves (late 17th century). Their research was followed up by Maxwells equations 1865, that finally unified the concepts of electricity and magnetism into one whole theory of electromagnetism. In it the force is mediated by the electromagnetic field and the various derivatives of this field lead to the electric and the magnetic fields, respectively. “ The quantum black-body radiation formula, being the very first piece of quantum mechanics, appeared Sunday evening October 7, 1900, in a so-called back-of-the-envelope calculation by Planck. It was based on a report by Rubens (visiting with his wife) of the very latest experimental findings in the infrared. Later that evening, Planck sent the formula on a postcard, which Rubens received the following morning. A couple of days later, he informed Planck that it worked perfectly. At first, it was just a fit to the data; only later did it turn out to enforce quantization.”

Einstein won the Nobel Prize for Physics not for his work on relativity, but for explaining the photoelectric effect. He proposed that light is made up of packets of energy called photons. Photons have no mass, but they have momentum and they have an energy given by:  Energy of a photon : E = hf  ..So this also seem to point to light having different ‘light quanta’ not one commonly defined, but different levels of ‘energy’ contained to each photon?

But if ‘virtual photons’ also can add ‘restmass’ from momentum, then I expect that you will need to consider that ‘energy’ existing outside Planck-length/time too, as being part of our ‘reality’? Otherwise you will need to find another ‘mediator of force’  more ‘inside’ our arrow of time it seems to me? And wouldn’t that be downright, ah,  difficult? But, outside of SpaceTimes boundaries, where ever those virtual photons rests and laugh, will that same ‘law’ that I believed to be true for SpaceTime exist? That the final count of ‘it all’ will come to be ‘zero’? I’m not sure but I would guess so, it could very well be so that our bubble of SpaceTime is a restricted case ‘blown up’ to a certain balance having found a equilibrium with what’s outside Plancktime/length etc (Entropy???). And that seems to imply that this ‘outside’ also is of a ‘restricted’ proportion of ‘whatever’ it is. But your guess is as good as mine, that one is truly irritating as it seems to create even more boundaries depending on your view of such… But hey, let’s not give up yet :)

By the way, what the he* is Plank length?

Well.

" The Planck length is related to Planck energy by the uncertainty principle. At this scale, the concepts of size and distance break down, as quantum indeterminacy becomes virtually absolute. Because the Compton wavelength is roughly equal to the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole at the Planck scale, a photon with sufficient energy to probe this realm would yield no information whatsoever. Any photon energetic enough to precisely measure a Planck-sized object could actually create a particle of that dimension, but it would be massive enough to immediately become a black hole (a.k.a Planck particle), thus completely distorting that region of space, and swallowing the photon. This is the most extreme example possible of the uncertainty principle, and explains why only a quantum gravity theory reconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics will allow us to understand the dynamics of space-time at this scale.

Planck scale dynamics is important for cosmology because if we trace the evolution of the cosmos back to the very beginning, at some very early stage the universe should have been so hot that processes involving energies as high as the Planck energy (corresponding to distances as short as the Planck length) may have occurred. This period is therefore called the Planck era or Planck epoch. " " In particle physics and physical cosmology, the Planck scale is an energy scale around 1.22 × 1028 eV (which corresponds by the mass–energy equivalence to the Planck mass 2.17645 × 10−8 kg) at which quantum effects of gravity become strong. At this scale, the description of sub-atomic particle interactions in terms of quantum field theory breaks down (due to the non-renormalizability of gravity).”

That is; although physicists have a fairly good understanding of the other fundamental interactions or forces on the quantum level, gravity is problematic, and cannot be integrated with quantum mechanics (at high energies) using the usual framework of quantum field theory. "


What this says to me is that we have a definition about the shortest possible limit discernable in our three dimensions + time. It does not state that the scale upward must be defined in Planck lengths or whole multiples of a Planck length though. Would you agree with that? Think of three Plank lengths as a ‘distance’, then take a plank of two planck lengths and push it over those three. At some time this plank will be ‘displaced’ between those three Planck lengths not covering it in even ‘spaces’. And if 'time' is a relation between the observer and what (s)he observes and not a intrinsically true 'object' existing on its own merit then what we see as distance and motion also seems questionable to me. That as the only true measurement we can make of distance and motion is through the use of 'time' as our arbiter. An example of that idea could be that…

--Quote--

it has been known for decades that quantum mechanics predicts certain phenomena that seem paradoxical. For example, electrons and other particles behave as if they can be in two or more places at the same time. Experiments have been performed that suggest "backward causality," where the changing of the parameters of a detector after the particles to be detected are already in flight affects the behavior of those particles, even though they cannot be reached without sending a superluminal signal (signal traveling faster than the speed of light, violating Einstein's theory of special relativity). This is taken as evidence for nonlocality in quantum mechanics, in which two events separated in space are still connected despite the fact that no signal can pass between them without going faster than the speed of light.

--

Time-reversibility offers a possible explanation for these observations. For example, an electron can be seen to appear at two places at the same time when one uses the picture introduced by Feynman (Feynman diagrams). An electron moving through space can be turned back in time by a collision with a photon. Normally this is simply viewed as the production of an electron-positron pair. However, we can view the positron as an electron going backward in time. If, in the "past," it is reversed again by a collision with a photon, it can proceed forward in time again, thus appearing two places at once.

--End -Quote—


Another thing I wonder about is matter and geometry. We say f ex. that we get energy from our food. That food when broken down into molecules consists of three dimensional geometric shapes that fits receptors in f ex. our tongue. Depending on those shapes geometry you will identify them as being sweet, sour,
bitter etc. The definitions/taste our brain creates comes from the way your brain interpret their shape, not from any mysterious inherent 'taste' in them. The same can be said of color-perception and our definitions of the same. How do we succeed in agreeing on what is 'red' for example? Also, what 'energy' is it that is transferred between those 'food' molecules and the larger biological system that is me. Why do I get 'energy' from certain geometrical 'shapes' but not from others. And how come we seem to experience the same 'taste' sweet-sugar etc. Is it inscribed in our brain from birth? How do one inscribe something genetically making you relating 'instantly' to objects you've never seen before and relating to them in a way meaningful to people on the other side of the planet? You tell me. So what we seem to have is three dimensions and time. That is what allows us to comprehend geometric formations as atom's, molecules, mass and distance/space, uniform motion and acceleration. Do you agree? But if time is a property created by comparison between 'frames of reference' where does it all end? At the photon??

We say that all photons is intrinsically timeless, I always thought that this must have to do with them being without mass and therefore not restricted by SpaceTime. We also say that you can superimpose all photons there ever have been, and is, upon each other and that they then still won't take any place in SpaceTime, that to me seems yet another proof of photons being 'unrestricted' by SpaceTimes geometry. You might see their 'timelessness' in two ways. One as seen from their 'inside time-sphere' in where no ‘time’ exist, the other is from the observers macroscopic viewpoint where we define certain objects as being 'sources' of photons, f ex our Sun. From our Sun to the Earth we expect the photon to need a certain time, around eight minutes I believe it to be. So when looking at it this way every photon will produce its own 'time' between source and sink as observed by us depending on distance. Think about it for a moment, as far as we can observe the photon does move. It must ‘move’ as we clearly can observe its sources (Suns) as well as its sinks (observer/detector/eye etc) and those at spatially different locations.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:30:01
But photons also contains 'no time', that photon coming from Sirius to hit your retina has in itself experienced the exact same amount of '(no) time' as the photon that came from your flashlight. But they still traveled different amounts of distance in 'space/time' according to our observations and are of different 'age' to us. To make both views come together as one seems impossible to me as long as we expect our definitions to be three-dimensional (+ time). But if time is a relation, and that is the key point for me, a relation, not any chain of 'events' and neither a 'flow'. (Relation.. An abstraction belonging to or characteristic of two entities or parts together) then it makes more sense. And if so, couldn't we propose a smallest definition of that relation to be the photon, and its opposite? A Black Hole? What would you say about defining it as a Black hole, well, for now that is? We know that Black holes seem to come in different magnitudes though just like mathematical infinities so that definition might not be so simple? But what all Black Holes seem to hold true no matter their relative 'size' is an Event Horizon, defined as the limit for any light to bounce back to our observer outside the Black Hole.

There is that question if you by traveling fast enough could become a Black Hole. As far as I’ve understood a Black hole craves all radiation from it to become enclosed, not able to leave the EV. And no ‘matter’ how fast you travel you will send out light, won’t you? So I don’t think any ‘infinite’ Speed nearing ‘C’ by your rocket and Black Holes can coexist as the same descriptions. But then you have the displaced gravity well behind your rocket too, could that then become something alike a . .? But enough of that, let’s play a little with what a Black Hole might be. And I’m doing what you can’t here, peeping inside the Event Horizon. That’s a strict ‘nono’ as there is a ‘infinity’ resting inside, forbidding us to ever learn anything and take it back to our ‘arrow of time’. But what is life without speculation? So, what we might have is that particle of restmass passing the EV, from there it disappears from our observations, assume that we have a non rotating black hole to keep it easy for me. Now I will guess that the particle, if observed inside, would be seen as picking up 'speed' as it moved down the gravity well, accelerating. The further down it will be the more 'mass/inertia?/kinetic energy/momentum' it will contain and the slower its inherent 'time sphere/clock ticking' should become according to anyone observing it, no matter if they were outside the EV or inside it, as long as they not are moving with it, or being closer to the core than it. At the proximity of the center I might expect this 'particle' to act as a boson, with the same state of 'no time' as a photon if observed by us, but containing a ‘infinite’ energy/mass coming from its former restmass accelerated to lights speed or as near as to be indistinguishable. Remember that this is nothing I can know, I’m just imagining.

So that particle can’t be able to bounce back, and in fact it will break down into photons/energy or 'virtual particles' somewhere on its way long before that, due to the gravitational tidal force(s).  If we now take a photon instead, already existing without 'mass' and see it as containing some sort of boundary defining it and pass it through the Event Horizon it too will 'speed' up as it follows gravity's geodesic path. And just as the particle it will collect momentum and energy although not as fast as a particle. That it's already is without intrinsical time doesn't matter as it is the relation with the observers pace of 'time' that changes. But there is one difference. If you could lift out that first 'real' particle and compare it to the observers universe its 'aging' would have slowed down immensely as compared to the outside universe. But our photon have no intrinsical clock (arrow of time) to compare against the outside and it can’t really break down into anything else than what it already is, a photon. Otherwise both will act the same and from a observers point of view behave similarly, and none will bounce. But the particle will interact with the outside as long as it exists as restmass and the photon won’t. To that one can add the idea of 'warped' space existing inside that EV. If that is correct the ‘space’ inside the Event Horizon has very little resemblance to what the outside observer will see if he measured the Black Holes apparent circumference.

The inside of the EV is expected to be much  'larger' than its outside is, depending on the Black Holes ‘mass’ possibly infinite. The reason for that I understand to rest in the relation of mass/time/space. As the mass nears the ‘infinite’ the space around it will expand and time slow down. For an outside observer this will be seen as a ‘shrinking’ of whatever objects that travels through the EV, just the same as that ruler shrunk as those two rockets near ‘c’ passed each other. This is a real effect and not a ‘viewing distortion’ or mirage just as its ‘time’ slowing down relative a outside observer. But for a observer inside the EV  he would measure himself to be the same as always, finding that it was the space surrounding him that would have ‘expanded’ as to become ‘infinite’. This ‘dilation’ also creates another effect, as the ‘space’ inside is seen to ‘expand’ so other forces will shrink, as the electromagnetic f ex. That should possibly include gravitation too? As space ‘expands’ as seen inside? So the mass or charge you expect something to have, as measured before sending it through the EV into the Black Hole, will adapt itself to the ‘increased’ space and so from the outsiders view become less. If so that should be an added effect for those 'objects' passing the EV making it impossible for them to ever reach that cores absolute center. This effect is also a clear indication of time/mass creates what I call ‘distances’ a.k.a. dimensions.

Here we will have two ‘sizes’ it seems. Both ‘real’ too, how can space behave like that? If you think about it you might agree with me that if it is a question of ‘shrinking’ then the space inside must be ‘denser’ too? As seen from an outside observer I mean, then it should follow that this space must be more filled with virtual particles per cubic cm ‘space’, perhaps the double, or why not that magical number ‘four’ times the concentration as observed by us. Now, if that was true where did those x:tra virtual particles came from? ‘Stored’ in the black hole? Or from the ‘space’ itself? And if we have ‘two’ measurements of what space is then which one is the ‘correct’ one? . Under what circumstances would you accept this? I suggest, when ‘distance’ only is a relation, would you agree? Another question is how this space might behave. Would it be so that the ‘distances’ are largest closest to the center? And then that space folds out near mass petering out, fading near the EV? And if we to that add the Kerr metric relating to rotating Black Holes we should see those objects taking a rotating path as they move in to that core making the distances incredibly vast. As all Black Holes I heard of seems to rotate, their frame-dragging must be enormous with some of them rotating near the speed of light.  The frame-dragging in itself consists of the space outside the EV that gets ‘dragged’ along with the Black holes rotation and so ‘wrapped’ around expanded into itself, somewhat like a rubber-band rotating around an axle will stretch out. And  as seen from the inside it would only add to the 'distances' you would perceive.

That is if we assume/pretend that you wouldn't be 'stretched' into pieces by its ‘tidal forces’. Another effect of the spinning is that those Black Holes is ‘alive’ and in fact generates and delivers energy to the outside EV, somewhat like the generator connected to the wheel of your bicycle did before the battery-driven lights came into play. I don’t see this as a ‘two way’ interaction with the Black Hole though, to me it’s SpaceTime itself interacting with that ‘distance less’ reality hiding behind us even though the interaction is created through a ‘singularity’. If you like you could see it as both the Black Hole and ‘Space’ here had one arrow each. The Black holes directed inward towards its ‘core’ in a spiral fashion, with the ‘Space’ around its EV becoming infinitely larger as it is influenced by both the rotational ‘gravity’ as well as by the infinite gravity resting behind that EV. Neither the rotation, nor the core of that Black Hole ‘communicates’ with our SpaceTime ‘information wise’ but the ‘distance less reality’ may do it. You might say that it is one way communications mediated by that hidden reality that somehow balances it out, creating energy from ‘nothing’ a.k.a. Space through ‘virtual photons/particles’, well, in ‘my universe’ that is. Which to me then indicate a ‘rift’ in SpaceTime. I would guess that the possible space hiding behind those Events Horizons might be infinite. That as that space experienced inside will be created both from how space transforms inside our first description of a non-spinning Black Hole. As well as coming from the Black hole spin at near light speed. It will slow down objects immensely as its mere rotation will slow time, and the space outside the EV expanding to with in-falling objects following its gyrating frame-dragging path into the core. I said that I could see the path of the photon as a straightest shortest line no matter how it bends to gravity as defined from our 'outside' observations. This twisting  path objects will take in a spinning Black Holes might then to my eyes also be seen as a straight line when observed from the inside. Another fun idea is that the time dilation caused by its spinning at times might be as strong around the edge of the EV as at its core, becoming less as you come in between the EV and the core. And if space becomes infinite near the core? What would that do the ‘gravity’. Yep, I've lost whatever marbles I had left now :)
---Quote—from ‘basic gravity’ by mikey@mariner.connectfree.co.uk

“A descriptive way of putting it is that mass generates the space it needs to exist. If the universe had only a few kilograms in it, it would be tiny. The reason it is the size it is, is the presence of its mass.”

-----End quote-

Another way of describing it is that when a object falls in through the EV it not only compresses  according to us outside the EV. It might at some ‘time’ become a Black Hole in itself as it compresses down as observed by our ‘imaginary’ observer. The question then falls to if that ‘space’, as  seen from the inside of our original BH growing, will balance this out or not. If it doesn’t you might have more and more Black Holes created inside that Black Hole, each one with their own EV (or possibly ‘bare’ without a EV)  created after our original one. And with all of them interacting with each other, with the original one being the ‘strongest infinity’. Does that makes your head hurt? Good, then I’m not alone :) What that seems to imply is also that they might never be able to fall into themselves creating those new Black Holes as the gravitation from that original Black hole might hinder our new objects gravitational forces to reach that ‘Schwarzchild radius’ that a Black hole demands, defined as that ‘radius for a given mass where, if that mass could be compressed to fit within that radius, no force could stop it from continuing to collapse’ into a zero size hole which then would be the beginning of a new Black Hole. Also we have all those ‘expanding spaces’. Those ‘expanding spaces’ will be all over that original Black Hole in some scenarios it seems :)

So either you see that expanding space as an ‘optical illusion’ and then define all rulers as shrinking, or you decide that the ruler in fact keeps its size and that that the growing space is a true phenomena, or you accept both of course, myself I tend to the last one, expressing itself different depending on circumstances. If you do like me there intuitively seems some chance that those effects will work themselves out, allowing our black hole to treat the in-falling objects as objects still and not as Black Holes in themselves. Thus simplifying my understanding of it. on the third tentacle? Even if they are constantly  ‘stopped’ becoming Black Holes  shouldn’t they still attract each other inside that Black Hole? And if we then decides that the ‘expanded space’ inside the original EV being just an ‘optical illusion’ from our point of view, they would need to reduce their size immensely as to not come into contact with each other, and so create even larger aggregates of “Black hole wannabe’s’? And that seems to imply that they will need to become Black Holes to hinder it? But if space really ‘grows’ on the inside then it may level itself out? Then there could be a mechanism securing that the closer you come to the core the more immense would space become and the further away would that core be from the perspective of that object, remember that as all other forces 'shrunk’, perhaps gravity too will adapt itself to the greater space and become more ‘friendly’ to that object. Then it would mean that no objects ever, can reach that core? But that seems to contradict the idea of no light bouncing, doesn’t it? You might of course see it as light can bounce inside that space but due to the interaction of gravitational ‘force’ and the ‘distances’ created it won’t ever be able to ‘travel’ back. All of this is from the perspective of being inside, from the outside we will see the object as ‘stopping’, unable to move due to the time dilation created between us and the Black Hole. Some say that nothing will reach past the EV before our universe dies as that is where the transition from our universe to that singularity becomes. So perhaps a Black Hole could be habitable as seen from the inside? We will never know though :)

Another question is of course where its EV would be seen to appear from the in-falling objects frame of reference. If I get it right some propose that you won’t ever reach that Event-Horizon, at least not as seen from the observer. And seen from the in-falling object space would ‘grow’ the closer it got to the Event-Horizon making the EV constantly receding as seen from the in-falling object. As for how that later argument would play itself out I doubt it. It depends on how rigidly you expect a ‘singularity’ to be. Either no information is allowed in and out, but how would it ‘grow’ if so? Virtual particles only? Nah, I believe mass has to reach past the EV in measurable ‘time’ as seen from its own, and the objects, perspective. And if we then state that the observer won’t see it we seem to imply that our universe will be ‘dead’ before it reaches it which also makes no sense to me. Then you would have a ‘entropically’ dead universe on one side and breathing black holes on the other releasing hawking energy, simultaneously in SpaceTime? ”The event horizon is exactly at the Schwarzchild radius. When an object above the Chandresekhar limit starts to collapse, at time zero it has an event horizon radius of zero” and the Chandrasekhar limit is defined as the maximum mass possible for a white dwarf star supported by electron degeneracy pressure, approximately 1.44 times the mass of the Sun and with its lower size around 4 km if I got it right. and anything shrinking into itself further than that will then pass the barrier for a Black Hole reaching that zero size and then start to grow a event horizon as it got feed, creating that expanded space inside it. Yep that’s my headache knocking on my door now, yours too, you say? Well, hallo neighbor.

How about hawking radiation then. Well as far as I found out that is a phenomenon relating to what we call virtual particles. And as they move outside space times restrictions (HUP) they are allowed to be just about anywhere they want, in other terms their 'time span' is to short to impede on our 'reality' except in a 'second hand' manner. And that is what that radiation should be, if so, a second hand reaction. A virtual particle is a description of something possibly existing outside Planck time (and our macroscopic arrow of time) interacting/mediating between all other particles creating the forces and principles we observe acting on invariant mass/rest mass. This it can do with the help of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) allowing it to be existent without it being possible to pinpoint all its properties simultaneously.

---Quote---
Back in 1974, Stephen Hawking showed that black holes shine. According to quantum field theory, pairs of particles constantly pop into existence, recombine and disappear again. These "virtual" particles live on borrowed energy, and they can't exist for very long. But if the particle pair happens to be born just above the event horizon of a black hole, gravity can rip the pair apart. One of the particles falls into the hole while the other half gains some energy, allowing it to zoom off into the cosmos.

---End Quote
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:31:47
If that is correct I wonder how one should see that radiation, expressed in that form of ‘information’?

As it is produced by those ‘virtual particles/photons’ that isn’t a part of our arrow of time? For any information exchange to take place, doesn’t it need a localized ‘cause and effect’ exchange inside SpaceTime? If you look at QM and those Feynman diagrams they still share a ‘locality’ inside our SpaceTime, don’t they? No matter which way you interpret them. Of course one could argue that so do this phenomena as those ‘virtual particles’ created ‘products’ are inside SpaceTime as ‘localized phenomena’. But my point here is that then you’re not referring to ‘what’ created the ‘products’, but to the ‘products’ themselves. On the other tentacle, one can as easily question if the idea of ‘locality’ is what is needed to make SpaceTime ‘do work’ considering the idea of ‘virtual photons’ acting as mediators between all forces. That is, from a viewpoint where you consider those ‘mediators’ exchanging ‘information’ between objects. As they can’t really be counted as existing under our arrow of time if I understands it right? And if they don’t ‘exist’ they can not be said to have a ‘locality’ inside it either if you see my drift. Which they don’t seem to care very much about btw. Which also fits nicely in with my current view of '‘non locality'’ a.k.a. ‘no distances' being what we have in ‘reality’. And last but not least, if  I’m correct in assuming that all processes goes from the simple to the complex? I’m doing it here in my argumentation, but I won’t swear to it. I can see a possibility of things having a ‘pattern’ telling us one thing at the same ‘time’ as they from another point of view will behave otherwise but still consist of a ‘whole’ like some ‘cause and effect scheme’ but not relating to any known arrow of time, neither two-way or one way. But to keep it simple for me I will argue as if we have. ‘No-way, two-way and then finally our arrow, one-way. ( As my headache otherwise will reach cosmic proportions :) But if so, then ‘information’ is an idea resting on something outside our ‘arrow of time’, wouldn’t you agree?

And now for some other weird questions. Maybe Black Holes and photons share the same properties of 'time-less-ness', at least at the core? But then we also have the fact that a Black hole have an ‘infinite’ mass and are the most massive objects existing in our universe as compared to a photon without 'restmass'. How can those definitions exist simultaneously? Having an infinite mass and no time? What the hell is an ‘infinite’ mass anyway? A mass so big it has no end, nothing to limit it? Can that exist inside SpaceTimes arrow? And if the photon and the Black Holes is one possible 'smallest' end-station of 'time' does that mean that this time-relation will express itself differently as it 'grows' spatially to quarks, leptons and electrons, atoms and molecules and... If so 'time' seems to loop doesn't it. We started with a photons 'time-less-ness' and then packed particles together into a black hole to reach the same state of 'time-less-ness'. I think the 'time relations' do change as mass 'grows', a good description of that is a Feynman diagram (sum over histories) in which 'time' can be seen as going both 'backward' and 'forward' when following particles reactions as studied in quantum mechanics. And as a relation 'time' will be a result of the interaction between those, which takes me back to 'energy' and 'geometry'. If I assume that distances and motion is questionable ideas then what is geometry. A definition I found states that it is 'The pure mathematics of points and lines and curves and surfaces'. But without distance can there be a geometry? Well, how about five dimensional geometry, mathematically we can create it and even though I have no idea how a five dimensional chair would look like in 'real life' I believe that they can exist mathematically.

So what then is a dimension? Magnitude or extent...The physical units of a quantity expressed in terms of fundamental quantities like time, mass and length. Take velocity f ex. It has a speed creating a length in time as well as an unwavering direction spatially... Or it can be described as one of three Cartesian coordinates that determine a position in space (length, width, height, XYZ (+ time)).. Those are all definitions of the same object, dimension(s). Can we take away two and leave just one to be the origin? String theory seems to believe so as far as I have understood it, although it is impossible for me to imagine a one-dimensional object. A two-dimensional object I would expect me to be able to see though, from some angles but not from others inside our three-dimensional reality. Like if it contained f ex. 'Height and width' but no length, think about it and you will see what I mean.  So what defines dimensions?

Well, how do we express them in SpaceTime. That's right, as length, width and height. And taken each one by itself what does they describe? Yep, distances. But if a dimension is equivalent to a distance, and furthermore if I suggest that distance to me seems a questionable property, then where does that leave dimensions? If 'time' can be seen as a result 'relation' of 'comparisons' between 'frames of reference' can one do the same perhaps with dimensions? As distance is a measure of time and time to me only is a 'relation', neither a flow nor events. And what we experience as microscopically or macroscopically is all aspects of those 'time relations' or if you like, observations between different frames of reference. Which brings me to another point, the observer. To observe...Discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of...To perceive with a special effort of the sense or the mind. Observation's according to some physicists seems to be able to influence outcomes. Strange, isn't it. But what creates the differences we perceive spatially, space and mass and their different seizes. I believe Chaos theory to be a good guide to that, fractals seems to me as good descriptions for how complexity may come out of simple iterations. Also you have what is called bifurcation's in chaos math, that's where a mathematical 'path' suddenly forks into two and you choose one that in its turn suddenly splits into two, of which you choose one that... ad infinitum. In fact that also have a nice resemblance to what we call 'the arrow of time' being the sum of choices or actions or events made.

As far as I know you can't 'backtrack' bifurcation's to their origin after 'n' iterations, they fork at 'random' even though there seems to be certain mathematical constants describing/containing them statistically. 'Times arrow' reminds me of this too, in our impossibility of traversing it backward that is. Now, to me there are at least two ways to look at this. One is seeing 'time' and its 'arrow' as the 'constructor' of occurrences and 'events' in which case we have three dimensions, space and mass, with time being the universes solitary arbiter. Another way could be to see all occurrences and events as already there, and instead of times arrow talk about consciousness as the searchlight lightening them up. Think of SpaceTime as a block of black fluid glass, inside this monolith all that ever was, could be and ever will be is situated, the order of it I will leave aside for the 'moment'. So consciousness could be the 'searchlight', or if you like, a 'fire fly' inside it lightening up its vistas thereby creating this monolith's 'arrow of time'. Or there might be an interaction between consciousness and 'it' giving that 'black glass' a fluid adaptability in which what we call 'now' always will be brought to the forefront of our observation.

Kind of weird I freely admit, and it doesn't explain the commonality of times arrow, the way we all seem to observe the same events taking place. That brings me back to the question of 'taste' and color-perception, what makes us able to agree on 'red' being 'red' and how can geometric shapes (restmass) in SpaceTime like molecules confer 'energy'? We can break down 'red' to a certain 'wavelength' but that doesn't answer how we observe it to be of that certain quality to us, 'redness' if you like, that seems to be the same for us, no matter where you are born or whom you are. If it is our brain that assign a meaning to all those sensations and if we all are unique beings shouldn't those sensations be 'unique 'too? That is, different in perception as it is my unique :) mind filtering them. You need to think about this if you want to follow my reasoning here, as that is somewhat of a cornerstone to my wondering. It seems as humans no matter their birth or location still experience the world as being much the same, that we do so to me imply that our individual 'uniqueness' have certain guidelines laid down before them, even before the start of interpreting the 'world'. What this in its turn seems to imply is that there is a 'homogeneity' of perception laid down before our minds get the chance to rationalize 'reality', and that this creates our interpretation of our minds beholdings/impressions'. In fact I believe we need our minds to be structured in just this way to ever be able to observe a 'objective' reality similar for us all that we can agree on.

Consider how it would be if all impressions were of a unique kind, its quality and definition differing in each mind relative that unique minds definitions and interpretations. Then all communications could be expected to break down as no individuals 'inner language/map/perceptions' would be the same. 'Red' to me would be something different from what 'red' would seem to you, no matter its defined 'wavelength'. If so only those kinds of standards would be able to give us a cohesive image to agree around. It would be interesting to know if there has been any research on people that are blind relating to what type of dreams they experience, also if there have been any research done on the perceptions of blind begetting sight. What I do know about it experiments done with f ex. glasses turning the world up side down for the wearer. The eyes actually do so by its very construction from birth but your brain turns it back for you. In those experiments, after wearing the glasses for some days, suddenly the world turned back to 'normal' for those participating but when then removing those glasses they found the world to be up side down again.

Another experiment used mirrors to fool the brain that the right hand was the left and letting the person see a inanimate object ending where his (false) left hand seemed to be. They then tickled that inanimate object with a feather as well as the persons (real) left hand. All of them reported after some time feeling as if this inanimate object belonged to their arm.  The brain, on reacting at its visual input decided that the inanimate object truly was a part of its body. That may go to some length explaining how some people 'flies by their pants' as the saying goes and other feats where people seem to intimately associate themselves with the inanimate objects they use. I am thinking of archetypes here and perception. We might say that it all belongs to the quality of our senses being limited by common biological standards making our perceptions similar in quality but I'm still wondering where that ends and 'instinct' takes over. If you see what I'm aiming at you must admit to the strangeness of us all being able to communicate, including all types of communication, words, gestures, mimicking etc etc. And this communication we have is not limited to our own 'kind' solely, we can and will communicate over the 'species borders', our domestic cats and dogs are good examples of that. That most cultures state that animals is somehow inherently different than us human animals is to me just another falsification of reality, probably constructed as we use them as 'things' making the materials for our shoes, filling our plates, etc.

Much of what we seem to know build on inherited 'archetypes', definitions of perception that seem to be laid down before our conscious awareness, and before us starting to manipulating the same. One example of that I know of is a experiment done with newly born babies in where they watch a ball move. Observing (filming) their eye-movements it was found that if you changed the motion of that ball to one breaking the laws of gravity (Going up or suddenly moving horizontally f ex.) their eyes still moved to the expected position where it should be if it had obeyed gravity. It would be interesting to do the same experiment with other animals, puppies :) But, I will jump into the unknown here and postulate that there is a common groundwork laid out defining and modifying our perceptions into one mould, before 'intelligence' or 'awareness' etc comes into play making us able to communicate. So how do you 'code' all that information into DNA and the ribonucleic acid? This question also brings me to the definitions we have of mass and space, what is this 'space'? If 'time' is the common nominator of all distances and 'time' change with speed and mass then distance/space is just another relation to 'time'. And mass must belong to it too, 'mass' seems to me more of a geometric definition of a coherence in time, a density observed, perceived to be the same over periods of 'arrow of time' keeping certain qualities to it, agreed on by all before any conscious interpretation ever being made. And we perceive the absence of 'mass' as 'space' which then is a quality of its own, existing as some geometric 'opposite' of 'mass'.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:32:43
When we discuss those relations it also seems to me that one need to see that it's not enough defining ‘A’ relative ‘B’. There is a wider relation hiding in those two, namely the underlying relation of 'SpaceTime' itself. I find it hard to see how we ever isolate ‘A’ meeting ‘B’ without using another 'frame' as a 'background'. You could make a analogue to a paper containing two 'dots' ‘A ‘and ‘B’, then we allow the dots to move on that paper. If they move then the background must be 'unique' right? To expect it otherwise you need to proof that the 'background' belongs to either ‘A’ or ‘B’ and how would you do that? By referring to another 'background' as you would need that to show the 'paper' moving with ‘A’ or ‘B’. What I’m aiming on here is my questioning if there are isolated 'frames' to be defined in 'SpaceTime', or if we when doing so use a 'mind-trick' consisting of arbitrary choosing one definition before another. I don’t say that it is wrong to do so, just that if I want to see SpaceTime as a ‘whole’ then the idea of lifting forward isolated objects from it and acting only on them can be questioned.

SpaceTime seems more like relations of time to me. This brings me to the question of objectiveness. Some say that everything is relative in SpaceTime and while I agree on that to a certain degree I still believe that there is underlying frames of 'coherence' to it. To see how I think here we first need to consider the idea of 'objectivity' (Judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices). Does 'objectivity' exist? Let us consider our perceptions of taste and color. We seem to agree on them being the same, no matter where we were brought up, or religion, or, well, ‘taste’ :) Is that the same as defining those perceptions as being 'objective'? I don't think so, the most we can say is that there seem to be a set of 'rules' defining and restricting our 'consciousness', before we even start to 'manipulate' the same. And now it sounds as I'm contradicting myself ( So what, I contain a multitude :) but I withhold that I expect a collective coherence to SpaceTime making it a 'whole', instead of just being a infinity of 'frames' coexisting. As I see it, to name something truly 'objective' it should be needed to be observed existing totally on its own without any relation to anything else. That is, it needs to be proven to exist in that specific way having those emanations/properties even while no one is observing it, that to me is when it is unknowable. In that motto ‘objectivity', to me at least, only seems to rest in the vicinity of the realm of Gods. The judgements you make just by the way you set up your experiment/observe will influence the outcome. So, to me 'objectivity' is a most difficult concept.

But we mortals still distinguish 'rules' of SpaceTime, like the one relating to 'sequences'. If you have a certain order of events in SpaceTime as observed from two different frames of reference ‘A’ and ‘B’. Then ‘A’ might perceive one event as happening before another and ‘B’ will observe the opposite happening from its frame of reference. Both ‘A’ and ‘B’ agrees on the event(s) happening but not on their consecutive order. This is a result of different 'time' frames of reference for ‘A’ and ‘B’ relative the events (and their background), but there will still be a 'gold standard' hidden behind it helping them to adjust their observations to one 'objectively timed' sequence only. So SpaceTime does not fall out to only being (time)frames coexisting but to something 'whole' wherein we have our direction (arrow of time). Something similar can be observed when considering the photons intrinsical 'timelessness' and the simultaneous fact that they still are expected to move in 'time' coming from 'source' to 'sink'. So defining 'time' as a relation is the most logical way I can think of for the moment. Now consider the idea of a photon having no time 'inside' its 'logical boarder', can that tell me something about reality. I seem to think that 'time' is a relation, doesn't I. Let's take that white paper once more and make a dot on it. The dot will represent a 'photon', that mythical being. The paper will be our 'background' and you will be the 'observer'. Paper (SpaceTime), dot, and you. If all comes down to relations between 'objects/frames of reference' then what rules?

If we could blow up one 'photon' and allow it to represent the whole paper, what are its inherent relations? As far as I understand there can be none at all. That, as it is without time intrinsically. And as it has no 'time’ interacting inside it, it can have no 'size' either according to my views, To have a certain 'size/geometric definiteness' as observed by a observer you need the concept of 'time' working on it, there will be needed to be interactions created by our arrow of time. So if it doesn't have this 'arrow' working inside it, then there can be no 'distance' to it either. But that opens the question of how we can observe 'photons' at all? One possible approach would be to differ between a 'object' itself, on its own, and possible interactions creating an ‘object’ as the observer/detector 'observes' it. Objects existing ‘on their own’ could then be those that you trust to be there tomorrow too, like invariant mass. Matter have this ‘arrow of time’ for us interacting with it and even on a quantum mechanical level there is a coherence to it in its ‘cause and effect chains’. Then again, couldn't everything we 'know' be seen as a result of 'interactions' and nothing be said to exist solely on its own? No not really, not for us at least, there must be ‘something’ creating what we deem the most probable outcome, like if you send a laser beam directed to a detector I will expect that coherent, very narrowly defined beam of photons to have a limited ‘locality’ spatially and finally impact on the detector.

And it will, if we would place detectors spatially ‘otherwise’ they will not ‘detect’ it. So even if I say that there is nothing existing, except as a ‘probability’ between source and sink, and furthermore not existing even though we can limit/narrow it down ever so much, as we did by using a laser beam. I still have to consider what this ‘something’ is limiting that beams ‘path’. Playing with concepts I might say that this photon to me seems more like a 'hole' in SpaceTime than something truly 'there'. But if time is relations between objects what is those objects then? One opposite I might call photons and 'rest mass’ Why I didn't name it space and mass this time? that goes back to my ideas of distances, space has it, photons doesn't. Inside SpaceTime space and matter do seem like opposite ‘objects’ but when considering something as ‘foreign’ as photons? Then mass and space becomes much the same to me. And space has a higher 'probability' of interactions spatially in time than our photon ever will have. That is what makes space something 'physical', even though 'immaterial', as I see it and possible to traverse by us. Photons are mass-less, point-like ‘particles’ intrinsically without size and without time. 'Empty' space on the other hand seems seething with virtual particles and energy, constantly creating 'mass' out of 'nothing' and disappearing it again and containing 'distances'.

Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:33:25
But there is a strangeness to our photon. Having no time intrinsically, still observed in time. Without acceleration, still moving 'fastest' of all. Having no size, yet possible to define inside the observers 'time' as singular 'objects'. And as a wave, everywhere at the same 'time'.

So, what do you think?
Does a 'perfect vacuum' contain 'something'?
I say it contain what we call 'distances'?
Will it continue to contain that when we stop observing?
To my knowledge it will, as we can find them the same between measurements/observations.

A photon then, does it exist without our observing?
Well, we are basing them on sources and sinks, ain't we?
And if they have a source (Sun) and a sink (you) shouldn’t they be able to exist even between them?

So there you have something containing no 'distance' in itself, existing without 'time', agelessly if you like, but still possible to define as singular 'objects' as soon as we take notice of them. Let me ask you, how can something without 'distance' in itself be said to 'move'?

Take a paper, let's say one light-year large :)
Put that photon on its furthest edge.
Use your imaginary billiard cue to give it that 'push'.
How long will it take to move the whole paper?

A light-year you say?

But if it has no size.
How can it be said to move at all?

And if we jump into its 'timeless' state intrinsically.
How long would it take, as seen from that photons perspective, to 'move' over that paper?

No 'time' at all I say.
In fact I would describe that photon from its own perspective to be everywhere in SpaceTime at all observable 'time'. Or nowhere as that would be as true.

So have it really 'moved'?
And does it really have a 'boundary'?

Or maybe the right question should be.
When does it have a 'boundary'?


Also I need to point out that all definition I use, ever so loosely for particles and photons becomes even worse when defined mathematically. That as they all build on a statistical interpretations as I understands it, created from the observers approximations made for the task at hand. To know one particle you would need more information than what you can find and it also seems closely related to the idea of entropy.

--------Quotes---

Knowing a particular electron intimately is infinitely precious.  A pure state of an electron is defined by its wave function (up to a phase). Thus knowing all about an electron requires in the traditional interpretation to know all about this wave function an infinite amount of information.

-----

How is this notion of information related to information in terms of
entropy?

Informally, entropy is often equated with information, but this is not
correct - entropy is _missing_ information!

More precisely, in the statistical interpretation, the state belongs
not to a single particle but to an ensemble of particles.
Entropy measures the amount of information missing for a complete
probabilistic description of a system.

Entropy is the mean number of binary questions that must be asked in
an optimal decision strategy to determine the state of a particular
realization given the state of the ensemble to which it belongs.

------------End quote---A theoretical physics FAQ--

Seen so what I’m doing here might easily be a travesty and assault on the concept of ‘information’. On the other hand, as I avoid knowing almost all of that information needed and then generalize my views building on generalizations made before me? I just might steer right according to that ancient principle ‘two wrongs make one right’. Or was it ‘two wrongs won’t make one right’? :) The question I might ask here is this. If you can’t ever know all parameters for any given system, not even such a ‘small’ one as a particle, are we sure we are defining them right? I’m wondering if they exist in fact? In a way they must do, just like that ‘photon/wave’ but when trying to observe them we looses sight of them, and the closer we try to come defining them, the more information seems to be missing. On the other hand, we all know that there are no such thing as a ‘simple’ particle. HUP and mathematical ‘infinities’ makes sure of that. I don’t need theoretical physics to see that one. If there would be a 'law' steering the ‘simple’ toward the ‘complex ‘then that law also would need to rest inside 'time'.  On the other hand this universe to me seems more and more to in ‘reality’ working just the opposite way. What we call ‘small’ like those particles is infinite in their possible variations but when they add up to ‘invariant mass’ they become much less ‘fuzzy’, do you agree? So maybe we have it backwards, why would the ‘picture’ become clearer to us as more ‘restmass’ is added to a object, or SpaceTime? Well, up to the point of a Black Holes, that is?

Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:34:34

Do you remember that I wondered what a electron was, and its ‘vibrations’.

----Quote---

A bare electron is the formal entity discussed in textbooks when they do perturbative quantum electrodynamics. The intuitive picture generally given is that a bare electron is surrounded
by a cloud of virtual photons and virtual electron-positron pairs to make up a physical, 'dressed' electron. Only the latter is real and observable. The former is a formal caricature of the latter,
with paradoxical properties (infinite mass, etc.).

On a more substantial level, the observable electrons are produced from the bare electrons by a process called renormalization, which modifies the propagators by self-energy terms and the currents by form factors. As the name says, the latter define the 'form' of a particle. (In the above picture, it would correspond
to the shape of the virtual cloud, though it is better to avoid giving the virtual particles too much of meaning.)

The dressed object is the renormalized, physical object, described perturbatively as the bare object 'clothed' by the cloud of virtual particles. The dressed interaction is the 'screened' physical interaction between these dress objects.

To draw an analogy in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics think of nuclei as bare atoms, electrons as virtual particles, atoms as dressed nuclei and the residual interaction between atoms, computed in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, as the dressed interaction. Thus, for Argon atoms, the dressed interaction is
something close to a Lennard-Jones potential, while the bare interaction is Coulomb repulsion. This is the situation physicists had in mind when they invented the notions of bare and dressed particles.

---------End of quote---A theoretical physics FAQ-

The point here is that word ‘renormalization’. What it states is that we need to make approximations, adapting all our information to fit an already defined form as I see it. And the reason we do it is that we then get a easier ‘understood’ physical reality, more seamlessly fitting as I understands it? Do we really need that?

---------Quote Wikipedia-----

In quantum field theory, the statistical mechanics of fields, and the theory of self-similar geometric structures, renormalization refers to a collection of techniques used to take a continuum limit.

When describing space and time as a continuum, certain statistical and quantum mechanical constructions are ill defined. In order to define them, the continuum limit has to be taken carefully.

Renormalization determines the relationship between parameters in the theory, when the parameters describing large distance scales differ from the parameters describing small distances. Renormalization was first developed in quantum electrodynamics (QED) to make sense of infinite integrals in perturbation theory. Initially viewed as a suspect, provisional procedure by some of its originators, renormalization eventually was embraced as an important and self-consistent tool in several fields of physics and mathematics.

--End Quote--------

----Quote---

To give any meaning at all to a quantum field theory one must first regulate it, by in effect removing from the theory all states having energies much larger than some cutoff . With a cutoff in place one is no longer plagued by infinities in calculations of the scattering amplitudes and other properties of the theory. For example, integrals over loop momenta in perturbation theory are cut off around and thus are well defined. However the cutoff seems very artificial. The use of a cutoff apparently contradicts the notion, developed above, that the short-distance structure of the theory is important to the long-distance behavior; with the cutoff one is throwing away the short-distance structure. Furthermore it’s a new and artificial parameter in the theory. Thus it is traditional to remove the cutoff by taking it to infinity at the end of any calculation. This last step is the source of much of the mystery in the renormalization procedure, and it now appears likely that this last step is also a wrong step in the non perturbative analysis of many theories, including QED.

------What is Renormalization? By G.Peter Lepage----

Here is a somewhat more intricate explanation.

--------Quote--------

Early in the history of quantum field theory, it was found that many seemingly innocuous calculations, such as the perturbative shift in the energy of an electron due to the presence of the electromagnetic field, give infinite results. The reason is that the perturbation theory for the shift in an energy involves a sum over all other energy levels, and there are infinitely many levels at short distances which each give a finite contribution.

Many of these problems are related to failures in classical electrodynamics that were identified but unsolved in the 19th century, and they basically stem from the fact that many of the supposedly "intrinsic" properties of an electron are tied to the electromagnetic field which it carries around with it. The energy carried by a single electron—its self energy—is not simply the bare value, but also includes the energy contained in its electromagnetic field, its attendant cloud of photons. The energy in a field of a spherical source diverges in both classical and quantum mechanics, but as discovered by Weisskopf, in quantum mechanics the divergence is much milder, going only as the logarithm of the radius of the sphere.

The solution to the problem, presciently suggested by Stueckelberg, independently by Bethe after the crucial experiment by Lamb, implemented at one loop by Schwinger, and systematically extended to all loops by Feynman and Dyson, with converging work by Tomonaga in isolated postwar Japan, is called renormalization. The technique of renormalization recognizes that the problem is essentially purely mathematical, that extremely short distances are at fault. In order to define a theory on a continuum, first place a cutoff on the fields, by postulating that quanta cannot have energies above some extremely high value. This has the effect of replacing continuous space by a structure where very short wavelengths do not exist, as on a lattice. Lattices break rotational symmetry, and one of the crucial contributions made by Feynman, Pauli and Villars, and modernized by 't Hooft and Veltman, is a symmetry preserving cutoff for perturbation theory. There is no known symmetrical cutoff outside of perturbation theory, so for rigorous or numerical work people often use an actual lattice.

On a lattice, every quantity is finite but depends on the spacing. When taking the limit of zero spacing, we make sure that the physically-observable quantities like the observed electron mass stay fixed, which means that the constants in the Lagrangian defining the theory depend on the spacing. Hopefully, by allowing the constants to vary with the lattice spacing, all the results at long distances become insensitive to the lattice, defining a continuum limit.

The renormalization procedure only works for a certain class of quantum field theories, called renormalizable quantum field theories. A theory is perturbatively renormalizable when the constants in the Lagrangian only diverge at worst as logarithms of the lattice spacing for very short spacings.

--------End of quote---
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:35:39

Do you remember that I wondered before about  Planck length?
In that quote there came that line stating

" In particle physics and physical cosmology, the Planck scale is an energy scale around 1.22 × 1028 eV (which corresponds by the mass–energy equivalence to the Planck mass 2.17645 × 10−8 kg) at which quantum effects of gravity become strong. At this scale, the description of sub-atomic particle interactions in terms of quantum field theory breaks down (due to the non-renormalizability of gravity).

So you can’t ‘renormalize’ Gravity, interesting :)

And renormlization came from QED (quantum electrodynamics) right?

Which then is " the statistical mechanics of fields, and the theory of self-similar geometric structures, renormalization refers to a collection of techniques used to take a continuum limit. When describing space and time as a continuum, certain statistical and quantum mechanical constructions are ill defined. In order to define them, the continuum limit has to be taken carefully. "

Ok, so we set 'judicial self-elected brakes ' (Sounds nice) on physical processes to make those become finite (view/defin-able?), instead of infinite if I got that right, right :)

" The problem of infinities first arose in the classical electrodynamics of point particles "
Where the equations made showed that the outcome of mass-energy inside a electrostatic field of mass created by a charged particle would become smaller than the Compton wavelength of the electron.

Now, what the heck is a 'Compton wave length'?

" The Compton wavelength can be thought of as a fundamental limitation on measuring the position of a particle, taking quantum mechanics and special relativity into account. This depends on the mass m \ of the particle. To see this, note that we can measure the position of a particle by bouncing light off it - but measuring the position accurately requires light of short wavelength. Light with a short wavelength consists of photons of high energy. If the energy of these photons exceeds mc^2 \ , when one hits the particle whose position is being measured the collision may have enough energy to create a new particle of the same type. This renders moot the question of the original particle's location. This argument also shows that the Compton wavelength is the cutoff below which quantum field theory– which can describe particle creation and annihilation – becomes important. "

Ok I can see that below the Compton wave length we fall down the hole of Quantum Field Theory :)

Where " photons are not thought of as 'little billiard balls', they are considered to be field quanta - necessarily chunked ripples in a field that 'look like' particles. Fermions, like the electron, can also be described as ripples in a field, where each kind of fermion has its own field. In summary, the classical visualization of "everything is particles and fields", in quantum field theory, resolves into "everything is particles", which then resolves into "everything is fields". In the end, particles are regarded as excited states of a field (field quanta). "

So here there will be only fields with 'ripples' according to this idea?
And where does our ‘arrow of time’ fit?
How does it grow from that ‘field ripples’?

And what are its ‘distances/dimensions’?

Lastly.

- - Quote--

Physicist Johan Prins, from the University of Pretoria, South Africa, says that both prior to, and after, the introduction of quantum mechanics, a fundamental problem has persisted. “Classical electrodynamics required that the electron should be modeled as a point-particle, but when they tried to model the electron as a particle with a radius, inconsistencies arose,” explains Prins. Niggling problems with electrons are nothing new, and Feynman himself acknowledged this in The Feynman Lectures on Physics II. One of the biggest problems, says Prins, is that: “today’s electron-electron scattering experiments indicate that the electron’s radius could be infinitesimally small, which causes the energy of the electric field around the electron to be infinitely large.” So in order to avoid completely nonsensical answers, a mathematical procedure called renormalization was introduced to remove infinity from equations, so that scientists could find a workable answer to their calculations rather than what amounted to gibberish. Prins states that this: “procedure has become such an inherent part of all quantum field theories, that at present the ‘renormalizability of a theory’ is accepted as proof that the theory is realistic.”

Prins believes that renormalization provides a distorted view of reality, which is worrying, as physicists have relied on renormalization to inform much of their research, including attempts to reconcile the quantum and classical worlds in order to arrive at the coveted Theory of Everything (TOE). According to Prins, it is not the mathematics that is wrong with quantum mechanics, nor quantum mechanics itself. Rather, it is what physicists assume they are analyzing and measuring that is erroneous. “The electron is not a particle with uncertainties in position and momentum, but a holistic wave that occupies space,” argues Prins. “The uncertainties describe the size of the wave in position and wave-vector spaces. These sizes can morph instantaneously when the boundary conditions change. Furthermore, a photon can merge with such a wave [entangle] to form another electron-wave with a higher energy. It is such instantaneous entanglement that corresponds to a quantum jump.” So, according to Prins, an electron is a wave; not a particle, or even a particle with wave-duality. “There are only waves which can instantaneously morph to occupy a large space [delocalize] or a smaller space [localize] and then act as if it is a particle owing to Gauss' law being applicable,” he said.

………End Quote---

Now, here we find another approach to reality :) Calling that wave ‘holistic’ being everywhere at the same time defining itself at our observation or as its ‘boundary conditions change’. I like the idea of it being ‘indeterminable’ as that fits right into my view too, and boundary conditions is a very nice way of putting it relating to my question of ‘observers’ for me. But my point-like ? point :) though, differing from this is that you can’t have any objects defined, ever. What we have is more like a kind of ‘shadow play’ where that dimensionless ‘times’ smallest? constituents will act upon ‘stimuli’ creating geometrical forms and distances to us, but not through anything resembling our arrow of time. So I take it one ‘crazy step’ further I guess :) On the other hand this ‘holistic’ idea seems quite near a ‘distance less’ universe. And I’m agreeing to questioning the idea of renormalization. A TOE built on generalizing information to make it fit seems like a dangerous choice to make as it either says that to much information is a bad thing, even though I can agree on that at times, or that the information ‘not fitting’ then somehow must be wrong. Of course it could be a problem resting on your choice of mathematical interpretation too, like those parallel lines that always will meet in the end, according to that faultless theorem. So what we describe mathematically by our renormalization may be our exact universe but as we are using a subtly wrong math for it, if followed describing a universe where nothing ‘stops’ and all seems to go to infinities of possibilities sooner or later, we then are forced to ‘limit’ our possibilities. Or it could be so that the math without that renormalization is the perfect correct one for this SpaceTime and it’s us that misses out on the meal, so to speak, not seeing the reality of it at all. Feynman is told to have expressed it this way: "Renormalization is like having a toilet in your house. Everyone knows it's there, but you don't talk about it."


As for needing to ‘dress’ electrons?

What we have is something existing defined as being part of a larger ‘system’ called an atom. It need the properties we give it to explain the properties of that system and its/their possible interactions with other systems growing as we work our way up macroscopically, but not to a more complex view, rather a more unified with clear ‘edges’ macroscopically. If what we have is instant continuos ‘materialization’s’ or ‘disturbances’ of our space creating what we see as part of  a ‘rest mass’ (electron) then I would expect that we will find it ill-defined, it may not be a part of our ‘arrow of time’, perhaps its ‘transitions’ lies on that scale just over virtual particles? And so ‘flickers’ and behaves  ‘indeterminate’ containing infinities of definitions. It can’t be defined as a particle mathematically as it won’t adapt to having any ‘still’ ‘edges/contour’ to it though it to us should have just that, as we see it as a part of invariant mass. If my idea makes sense then I expect objects ‘edges’ to become simpler and clearer to define as they grow macroscopically. And our Black holes is where macroscopic objects breaks down into ‘infinities’ again. But how can a ‘relation’ become mass, doesn't it need something 'material' producing it? In chaos-math there is this idea of 'the mystical attractor' which consists of a consistent area in the observers time containing nothing in itself yet attracting all 'events' around it, or if you like, defined as ‘something’ observable due to the agitation (events) surrounding and defining it. That 'attractor' seems to me similar to my idea of 'time-relations' creating what we call 'mass' and photons, and creating the 'boundaries' defining them. By excluding the idea of 'mass' as something on its own and instead describe it as interactions of time meeting time, creating boundaries, density and geometry as observed by us I come to a much stranger image of our world but, hopefully so that is, a more coherent one.

But it doesn't explain free will and its consequences, like you deciding that 'I
won't read a word more of this freewheeling BS ... Ah hmm, well..
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:36:34

One simple description I found illuminating this is that of a photon, either moving vertically towards an object of mass like our Earth, or horizontally passing it by. It is proved that the photons 'relative mass' will be roughly twice as large for the horizontally passing photon as when compared to it going 'down' vertically impacting on Earth. This is due to the fact that the gravitational attraction between two relativistic bodies is not related to their 'energy contents' solely but also to their energy-momentum tensors. (It is this 'factor of two' that gives the correct 'deflection angle' for starlight passing, bending themselves around our sun). This also illuminates the concept of 'mass' as something not necessarily intrinsical in the object but better described as being a 'relation'. I know that some might see the 'photon' as having an intrinsic 'rest mass', but I don't, I see it as a 'momentum' created by the rule of its 'movement' and differ between momentum and rest mass. Another point that need to be made here is that even though I believe photons to be mass-less it seems that they still can 'transfer' what we define as invariant mass or rest mass. As long as the receiving end of that photons momentum is massive enough so that its kinetic recoil becomes negligible. If that is true somehow the interference by something outside our 'arrow of time' (virtual photons?) will mediate’ momentum’ to something measurable inside our 'arrow of time’. Remember that it is 'relations' we are discussing here created by different 'frames', as observed by you. So if you have two objects 'A' and 'B' attracting or repulsing each other as observed by you, where exactly is this strange thing that I name the 'relation'. Can we say that the force(s) belong to 'A' or 'B' or should we say that it/they belongs to both? Or to neither??

In physics there is a word used to arbitrary define objects and relations as a ‘whole’, ‘unified concept’. It's called a 'system', can we define ‘A’ and ‘B’ and their, ah, insidious relation(s) as being a 'system' observed by you? I think we can even though I find the idea of 'systems' very vague to me. Probably there exist a definition that make more sense than what I have made here :) as I feel that my notion(s) of it still doesn't pinpoint what a ‘system’ really is. As it is now though I would like to look at it, when defined as a 'system', as if those relations takes place at all 'points' in what ever ‘system’ we have defined, in various degrees depending on what the forces acting between the objects is and the 'distances' involved. In fact I would like to suggest that this is what all relations is, something taking place to various degrees between two different 'frames/objects' as observed by a ‘observer’. I will discuss the concept of ‘observers’ and how I see that concept later. A ‘relation’ is very like a mysterious attractor in chaos math, there without one being able to 'pinpoint' to its location at any stage. As we all know if having a relation :) Another way to see it is to incorporate HUP in it (Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle). HUP states that it will be impossible for any observer to measure both energy and time (or position and momentum) completely accurately at the same time for any frame/object in SpaceTime.

And I would expect it to have far-reaching consequences if HUP would be seen as a general rule applying to all objects, subatomic as well as macroscopic, if believing some physicists ongoing research. But as a object gains 'size' the uncertainty of its constituents momentum's and simultaneous positions doesn't add up and increase as I might expect thinking of all that inherent fuzziness, instead they seem to take each other out, with what we finally observe becoming quite ‘sharp’ and easy to define spatially. Take some time to ponder how our SpaceTime might look if uncertainties instead did 'add up' macroscopically, why , my teacup might be situated at my navel instead of my mouth if so, or worse, at both locations simultaneously. But if that macroscopic object (teacup) constituents would be observed at a quantum level its momentum's/positions still wouldn't be possible to define simultaneously, no matter how sharp your instruments are, ever. Some want to believe this theory (HUP) to be hanging on the impossibility of creating 'instruments' good/sharp enough to observe both at the same time, but that, as far as I know, is wrong. There is, and always will be, an impossibility of pertaining both information's at the exact same position in space and time, with the possible exception of when they are observed macroscopically at which 'time' that fuzziness seems to become unobservable.

But turn it around, what does this say about what ‘really’ builds itself up to us? Doesn’t that phenomena need to ‘see’ what it is doing? There should be some way to relate to it. Somehow all ‘forces’ we have defined works, right. They are consistent and repeatable, even when not observable more than as theories, renormalized or not. This states to me that if it can be built it should be able to pick apart somehow. Even if what we find on that ‘level’ to be nothing we can know, we should still be able to see its ‘principles’ of building. And that is what I think we should try for. So what do HUP tell me about distance and the possibility of 'pinpointing' anything? That it's all about relations and 'sliding realities', no 'objective' truths involved. And if you can't isolate/pinpoint a object in SpaceTime without its outlines/geometry becoming fuzzy/doubtful it must mean something.

Going back to our own universe we have photons quarks leptons like electrons atoms molecules at all times interacting, each one I assume to having their own 'time density' showing itself by what and how you choose to observe and 'restrict' your 'system'. Think about it, you as a person have one defined 'time density/ clock tick' even though the 'time density/clock tick' for your molecules quarks etc should be otherwise depending on size, relative speed and your focus of observation. Then it may also be so that when we are on those holy grounds of quarks electrons etc that they don’t interact as we expect at all. As seems to be the case with the electron. And if so perhaps my idea of Plank size being the border for observable ‘restmass’ was a little to hasty. If it is the cause that all particles in that atom needs to be renormalized? Then maybe all of them rests on that indeterminate border of ‘infinities’ or as I see it, on that ‘distance less’ ‘dimension’. To describe a wave as something without any specific location can be seen two ways it seems, for me. You can accept this universe to be really really big :) and then those waves as being as big or ‘bigger’ Or you might see it as size don’t ‘exist’ as all waves might rest super imposed on our universe, according to Johan Prins from the University of Pretoria. To me the later example makes more sense. I told you I was. . ., didn’t I?

Why, well it fits my universe, to me it seems more a matter of questioning the idea of ‘distance’ and its constant companion ‘arrow of time’ to turn things right. I choose to do it using time as the common nominator as I see that arrow of time as what creates a living universe. Mass alone can’t do it as ‘mass’ won’t exist without our ‘arrow of time’, neither can space. But when I introduce my idea of ‘distances’ as being something questionable I also need to ask myself what would allow something without ‘distance’ to be able to act ‘everywhere’ in SpaceTime. If distance doesn’t exist then his idea of a wave imposed on a whole universe seems like some ‘mirrored’ description to me. Making as much sense as my idea although as I understands it not discussing the same ‘predecessors’ as I choose. But as I’m a layman to me things need to make ‘sense’ even without the math if I want to understand it. And so to suffice my curiosity I might have to question the way I’ve tried to describe it as two, more or less, separate ‘reality’s’ communicating here. Perhaps that would be wrong then perhaps it is ‘one’, not two realities, and perhaps ‘distance’ ‘cut us of’ from that true experience. I’m almost religious now, ain’t I? To me it’s still a play with concepts so don’t worry, yet. Could there be some ‘rule’ covering both particles and photons, allowing them this ‘step through’ from nothingness to SpaceTime? As it seems to crave one for us, merely living inside that ‘arrow of time’. And as I said before, I hope? That what I see as creating those different ‘realities, ‘sizes’ and complexities’ to be something similar to a ‘fractal behavior’.

There you are, all problems solved. Send me that Nobel prize.. Sorry, another bad joke.. But I believe that it is our arrow that creates a ‘time direction’ creating a possibility for those ‘shimmering’ indeterminate particles and photons to maintain a continuity and clotting into ‘restmass’, then growing into ‘invariant mass’ creating what we see as distances in the process, ending with creating evermore complexity like the idea of life and from there the idea of Ethics, ‘right and wrong’ and ‘God(s)’. If that would be right it truly is a ‘information space’ opening itself, unfolding into ever more complexity. One more crazy thought, what if the ‘end process’ would be ‘SpaceTime’ admiring itself? And then also, according to this view having done so at all ‘times’ as at on that ‘strata’ what we see as our ‘times arrow’ has no meaning. That one is disturbing though as it seems to imply a ‘clock-work’ predefined for us, so it’s probably wrong. Or it might be that it’s ‘admiring’ all possible outcomes simultaneously in which case ‘many paths’ is what we have? Forget it, just me wondering :)

Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:38:03
Another thing, if you would see this as ‘information’ then I might as easily ask you if that space inside the Black Hole then will contain more information as it has ‘grown’ as seen from the inside and in fact from the outside too, if you accept that your ‘shrinking’ ruler will be restored when lifted out from inside that EV. You might ask if this ‘growing space’, if it is a result of ‘invariant mass’ then somehow will have used ‘information’ from the Black Hole itself? Is that possible? Shouldn’t everything have only one direction here, pointing to the Black holes core? As ‘information’ seemed to be locked to our ‘arrow of time’ when we considered photons and FTL. So if that space has ‘grown’ it cant be because of what we deem as any normal type of ‘energy’ can it? Contained in our arrow of time, but ‘virtual photons’ are still outside it, right? But gravity in itself will point the same way as the objects traveling its geodesics? Or am I getting this backwards? Do gravity walk one way and energy and restmass the other?  But if it all comes from something without ‘distances’ expressing itself in every ‘point’ of our ‘macroscopic SpaceTime’? And the rules then as a effect of some fractal behavior? And ‘distances’ a ‘lie’?

I told you I was. . .

If that was right whatever decisions we make will become even more important it seems to me. What we define our ‘free will’ will then be the ‘searchlight’ through times ‘monolith’ creating our art. Ethics becomes incomparably important then to me, you might wonder if the idea of this ‘beholding’ the universe might be indulging itself in have some importance. I don’t know,  but I would prefer that ‘art’ we create to be something I can feel relaxed with, all said and done, not refugee camps and starving, concentration camps and genocide, but something more pleasing to the eye and senses.

Maybe that ‘monolith’ contains all chains of cause and effect as well as all ‘time’? If that is correct then all possible outcomes exist, and what you think you lost might still be there. And our ‘arrow of time’ also create a coherence to our individual ‘free will ‘as we all are bound to the same ‘arrow of time’. This ‘stream’ if you will, taking us in with it, not excluding that other streams might exist. And the problem of which ‘arrow of time’ then should be seen as ‘most right’ is simple. The one I’m in of course :) Why? Well that’s the one I will know, ain’t it? It reminds me of ‘many paths’ scenarios in which all ‘acts/actions/processes’ should ‘bifurcate/split’ into different universes, constantly creating new ones.  But it could as easy be so that this ‘monolith’, although containing all possible acts and consequences, only realize the time-line we actualize.
Like before consciousness coming, purposely choosing one action before another, SpaceTime just was a ‘mechanical universe’ going through interactions but not really ‘splitting’ up, like a still image containing it all but not ‘realizing’ any of it. I’m not sure I’m expressing this right though. Think of it as a holographic image containing everything but having no need to present a different view until you start to move .And if that’s the fact then our ‘art’ of living won’t be able to find the consolation that on that other ‘time-line’ everything went ‘well’. And if that is true, your choice of living becomes even more important, well, if you like good art :) That is.. And as your 'time density' is more or less the same as mine. And as our planet share a 'time density' with the solar system and that with our galaxies, ad infinitum. They all seem to exist there simultaneously seamlessly, giving different answers depending on your resolution and choice of comparison. But we change SpaceTime by our choices.

So you think I’m weird do you :) Can’t blame you.
Take a look at this though. And remember, it all started with HUP..

-----Quote---------

In 1976 Leggett left Sussex on teaching exchange to the University of Science and Technology in Kumasi, the second largest city in Ghana. For the first time in many years, he had free time to really think, but the university's library was woefully out of date. Leggett decided to work on an idea that didn't require literature because few had thought about it since David Bohm: nonlocal hidden variables theories. He found a result, filed the paper in a drawer, and didn't think about it again until the early 2000s.

Leggett doesn't believe quantum mechanics is correct, and there are few places for a person of such disbelief to now turn. But Leggett decided to find out what believing in quantum mechanics might require. He worked out what would happen if one took the idea of nonlocality in quantum mechanics seriously, by allowing for just about any possible outside influences on a detector set to register polarizations of light. Any unknown event might change what is measured. The only assumption Leggett made was that a natural form of realism hold true; photons should have measurable polarizations that exist before they are measured. With this he laboriously derived a new set of hidden variables theorems and inequalities as Bell once had. But whereas Bell's work could not distinguish between realism and locality, Leggett's did. The two could be tested.

When Aspelmeyer returned to Vienna, he grabbed the nearest theorist he could find, Tomasz Paterek, whom everyone calls "Tomek." Tomek was at the IQOQI on fellowship from his native Poland and together, they enlisted Simon Gröblacher, Aspelmeyer's student. With Leggett's assistance, the three spent six months painfully checking his calculations. They even found a small error. Then they set about recasting the idea, with a few of the other resident theorists, into a form they could test. When they were done, they went to visit Anton Zeilinger. The experiment wouldn't be too difficult, but understanding it would. It took them months to reach their tentative conclusion: If quantum mechanics described the data, then the lights' polarizations didn't exist before being measured. Realism in quantum mechanics would be untenable.

---------End of quote-------------

Yeah? So what??

Well, the question asked in this experiment is stated as.. Do we create the world just by looking at it? Is there a ‘objective reality’ existing before your experiments or are they ‘created’ by the way you look at them. And the reasoning behind it all goes like this..

Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:38:46
-----------Quote--------

According to Bohr every measuring device affects what it is used to observe. The quantum world is discrete and so there can never be absolute precision during a measurement. To know about quantum mechanics, we rely on classical devices. To Bohr this implied that the hierarchy between observer and observed had no meaning; they were nonseparable. Concepts once thought to be mutually exclusive, such as waves and particles, were also complements. The difference was only language.

By contrast Einstein was a realist who believed in a world independent of the way it is measured. During a set of conferences at the Hotel Metropole in Brussels, he and Bohr argued famously over the validity of quantum mechanics and Einstein presented a number of thought experiments intended to show the theory incorrect. But when Bohr used Einstein's own theory of relativity to evade one of these thought experiments, Einstein was so stung he never tried to disprove quantum mechanics again, though he continued to criticize it.

------

In 1935, from an idyllic corner of New Jersey, Einstein and two young collaborators began a different assault on quantum mechanics. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) did not question the theory's correctness, but rather its completeness. More than the notion that god might play dice, what most bothered Einstein were quantum mechanics' implications for reality. As Einstein prosaically inquired once of a walking companion, "Do you really believe that the moon exists only when you look at it?"

The EPR paper begins by asserting that there's a real world outside theories. "Any serious consideration of a physical theory must take into account the distinction between the objective reality, which is independent of any theory, and the physical concepts with which the theory operates." If quantum mechanics is complete, then "every element of physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory." EPR argued that objects must have preexisting values for measurable quantities and that this implied that certain elements of reality could not be determined by quantum mechanics.

(----quote

They claim that given a specific experiment, in which the outcome of a measurement could be known before the measurement takes place, there must exist something in the real world, an "element of reality", which determines the measurement outcome. They postulate that these elements of reality are local, in the sense that they belong to a certain point in spacetime. This element may only be influenced by events which are located in the backward light cone of this point in spacetime. Even though these claims sound reasonable and convincing, they are founded on assumptions about nature which constitute what is now known as local realism.

----end of quote-)

Einstein and his colleagues imagined two electrons that collide and fly apart. After the collision the electrons exist in a state of superposition of the possible values for their momenta. Mathematically and physically, it makes no sense to say that either electron has a definite momentum independent of the other before measurement; they are "entangled." But when one electron's momentum is measured, the value of the other's is instantly known and the superpositions collapse. Once the momentum is known for a particle, we cannot measure its position. This element of reality is denied us by the uncertainty principle. Even stranger is that this occurs even when the electrons fly vast distances apart before measurement. Quantum mechanics still describes the electrons as a single system across space. Einstein could never stomach that an experiment at one electron would instantaneously affect the other.

(Yep, that’s right, without believing in it they defined/discovered ‘entanglement’:)

In Copenhagen Bohr began an immediate response. It didn't matter if particles might affect one another over vast distances, or that particles had no observable properties before they are observed. As Bohr later said, "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description." Physicists' discourse on reality began just as the world slid inexorably toward war. During WWII physicists once interested in philosophy worried about other issues. David Bohm, however, did worry. After the war Bohm was a professor at Princeton, where he wrote a famous textbook on quantum mechanics. Einstein thought it was the best presentation of quantum mechanics he had read, and when Bohm began to challenge the theory, Einstein said, "If anyone can do it, then it will be Bohm."

In 1952, during the Red Scare, Bohm moved to Brazil. There he discovered a theory in which a particle's position was determined by a "hidden variable" even when its momentum was absolutely known. To Bohm reality was important, and so to preserve it, he was willing to abandon locality and accept that entangled particles influenced one another over vast distances. However, Bohm's hidden variables theory made the same predictions as quantum mechanics, which already worked.

In America Bohm's theory was ignored. But when the Irishman John Bell read Bohm's idea, he said, "I saw the impossible done." Bell thought hidden variables might show quantum mechanics incomplete. Starting from Bohm's work, Bell derived another kind of hidden variables theory that could make predictions different from those of quantum mechanics. The theories could be tested against one another in an EPR-type experiment. But Bell made two assumptions that quantum mechanics does not; the world is local (no distant influences) and real (preexisting properties). If quantum mechanics were correct, one or both of these assumptions were false, though Bell's theorem could not determine which.

Bell's work on local hidden variables theory stirred little interest until the 1970s, when groups lead by John Clauser, Abner Shimony, and others devised experimental schemes in which the idea could be tested with light's polarizations instead of electrons' momentum. Then in 1982 a young Frenchman named Alain Aspect performed a rigorous test of Bell's theory on which most physicists finally agreed. Quantum mechanics was correct, and either locality or realism was fundamentally wrong.

------------End of quote------------
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:40:00

It’s from a very nice text, called ‘the reality tests’ by Joshua Roebke.
Get it to your ‘E-library’. I like it, a lot, and the experiment if stringently asked should be long underway now. The question I ask, if I assume that we do have a effect on what we’re ‘touching’ and that ‘distance’ is both ‘true and false’, must then become if we all are in some way ‘entangled’? But we only relate it to some effects right, and only on a QM level as yet? But I see this experiment as questioning that. As if this was correct then the ‘macroscopic’ you affect the outcomes? Then again, that ‘you’ is a matter of particles too…

You could of course define time as being of a different 'dimension' to explain it but that doesn't simplify anything. But  to me 'time' is a relation acting on the focus of a observer. So that would just make my headache grow again just as I thought that I’d succeeded in explaining the concept of dimensions / distances / time to my satisfaction.  What a relation is? You say you don’t know? That young, huh? Well thinking of it, I’m not that sure either. A definition I found states that a relation is 'an abstraction belonging to, or characteristic of, two entities or parts together'. That seems to me to state that without preceding parts existing there can be no relations. So my question here might be if it would be possible to consider it the ‘other way around’, with the ‘relations’ creating the ‘parts’. Why we use the opposite definition is quite simple to understand, that is the way we perceive our reality through our 'arrow of time'. Macroscopically no effect I know of can precede the events creating it. Although quantum mechanics seem to point to reactions/relations being possible to exist with time walking 'backwards' the objects creating it must still be there at both 'ends' and seen graphically the relation still will be firmly placed between the objects as a 'relation/reaction' created by their proximity ‘ (cause and effect). But then again, what about our Big Bang? How did we come to be? Maybe we only can come to be outside of ‘times arrow’. Even though the end processes show themselves inside it to us. And maybe ‘energy’ is getting properties inside that arrow that it does not have outside it. (Emergence)

Mass seems to me to be what nowadays is called 'invariant/rest/ - mass'. That is the kind of 'mass' remaining unchanged no matter what particular transformation is applied to it (like moving it near to a Black Hole f ex.). And with all other kinds of 'mass' more resembling what we call momentum to me. So if we create a uniformly moving system at keeping at 99.999999~ 'c' and compare it to another system moving at only a fraction of that speed, at a measly .1 'c', what differs between them. In this case we can be very sure at what speeds those two systems are relative us observing, that is as we accelerated both, So in that motto we might want to define our observing point as being 'point zero'. Of ‘zero speed’ relative those two objects, of course one could expect it to be possible to measure it inside those uniformly moving systems too, like you using a laser gun inside that 'fast  99.9999~' ship. With you studying that lights syrupy motion as it moves toward the nosecone trying to catch up to the ships near light speed.  There is only one problem with that, the light doesn't care for your ships motion at all, it will move at the exact same light speed inside that ship relative its ‘frame of reference’ (Which is the ship in this case) as it will do for us observing it from 'point zero'. That is 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum and remember that it doesn't care about its 'starting position/objects' relative speed as it leaves the muzzle, to it all other speeds are as if nonexistent. So here we have a light beam moving at 'c' treating our ship as if it was immobile standing still, but we observing this from 'point zero' still know that we have accelerated that ship to 99.9999~ 'c' relative us? Does that mean, assuming the ship was made of glass, ah, thinking of it maybe this ones name should be Cinderella instead, that we from point zero would observe that laser-beam moving near 2'c'? That as it yet moves at 1 'c' (not caring for the ships already existing speed of 99.9999~ 'c') according to the observer on the ship?

No it doesn't, what we would observe though is that this beam would be of a weaker energy-content than what the observer inside the ship would see. Why? Remember that the ship is moving away from us as well as its beam, the reflected light of that beam would express itself as losing 'energy'. But then you might
say, what if he turned the laser around shooting towards the rear, directly at us? Wouldn’t it then become more energetic as observed by us? Shouldn’t it in fact almost  ‘stand still’ relative us leaving us an imense time to wait until it reached us and if so, shouldn’t that first example never be seen by us as both the beam and the ship was moving  with the beam then at double ‘c’ relative us. Yep, it should countermand the ships velocity at least shouldn’t it? And then it would be traveling to us very slowly, syrupy sort of, as there is nothing forbidding light to slow down :).

Wrrrongggg. It will still move at ‘c’ according to us outside observers, but of a weaker ‘energy content’ even though I would expect it to be stronger than when the beam was directed with the ships velocity. The rule about ‘c’ slowing down is only applicable in different densities but here we have the same density, a vacuum. That is crazy, really crazy, that light will treat all other speeds as if they doesn’t exist, don’t you agree? But it does. But it respects ‘distance’, and mass. And another thing worth considering. When light moves inside ‘invariant mass’ it is seen as to move via interactions with the ‘rest mass’ virtual photons as I understand it. That is, it ‘dies’ and gets ‘resurrected’ constantly until out of that densities ‘boundaries’ a little like a bullet constantly rebounding. But changing to a ‘new bullet’ at each rebound if I got it right? But if seen as a wave then? I’m not sure, there is this explanation though. “In a classical wave picture, the slowing can be explained by the light inducing electric polarization in the matter, the polarized matter radiating new light, and the new light interfering with the original light wave to form a ‘delayed’ wave.” Maybe? Then it sounds remarkably like the bullet, doesn’t it? It ‘dies’ which in a way is how it should be if they are ‘moving’ the same way.

How can that be, two persons observing the same phenomena experiencing two totally different things. It only seems possible if we accept it as ‘relations’ and not as any 'objects' in them self. Although this universe exist and it do contain objects of inherent values as seen by the discussion on light quanta and invariant mass, my question now is where they come from and how they exist. Let us take another look on my idea of defining that ‘point zero’ as being of ‘zero speed’. Can I really do so? I said that I believe that I can’t tell the ‘real speed’ of anything before, right? Except as a arbitrarily made comparison with something else. So how can I swear to that this point zero ain’t uniformly moving at 99.99~ ‘c’ whatever as it is. Well, I guess we could measure its relative motion against our universes background radiation (CBR)? Depending on our motion /speed that radiation should be red or blue shifted. That won’t guarantee anything, as far as I know, but it seems the best ‘ruler’ for measuring relative ‘uniform motion’ in SpaceTime as it is expected to cover all known ‘areas’ and seems much the same, even though there are some ‘discrepancies’ to it. It’s still just a comparison of course. Ah, thinking of discrepancies :)

Ever heard of CP violations?

-----Quote..

If we take the entire universe and move it over by 100 meters, we say it has undergone a spatial transformation of 100 meters.  Now imagine inverting space, that is, reflecting every point to the opposite side of a fixed (but arbitrary) center.  This is known as a parity transformation, and is designated by the symbol P.  Another possible transformation of the physical world is to take every single particle and turn it into its antiparticle.  This is known as the charge conjugation transformation, and we refer to it using the symbol C.

    If the universe would remain unchanged after being through a transformation, we say that it is symmetric, or invariant, under that transformation.  In any physical model of the universe, the laws are represented by equations, and we can prove invariance under any given transformation by performing the transformation on the equations and seeing if the resulting equations are equivalent to the original ones.  For example, the universe is invariant under spatial transformations - the laws are the same at any location, and it's impossible to tell whether the universe has undergone a spatial transformation.

    If we consider a universe with no particles or interactions, the physical laws are also invariant under both P and C transformations.  What we find if we introduce interactions is that some that exist in our universe would not exist in a P-transformed universe, and vice versa, in other words, the universe is NOT invariant under P.  In pretty much the same way, we find it is not invariant under C.  Amazingly, invariance is regained (almost) if we consider not just P or C, but the combined transformation CP.
   
The intriguing and maddening observation is that the laws are not-quite-invariant under CP transformations.  In other words, we have CP violation.

----End quote—

It seems that this violation is what creates our Universe, if matter and antimatter was CP invariant then they would take each other out as I understands it (according to those mathematical ‘transformations/equations’.) We create experiments testing our observations. It seems that we can do that theoretically/mathematically too. That is, build a chain of ‘cause and effect’ on paper mathematically which we can ‘grow’ until we find something we believe to be testable physically :) And then search for the evidence of our computations physically inside our SpaceTime. A very clever way of creating and testing a hypothesis, and one of the reasons I believe mathematics to be ‘the language of choice’ describing SpaceTime. Which also include all ‘universes’ we never will observe of course, all though we can give them credibility mathematically. One mathematical definition made (sometime in the end of eighteen hundred?) described a Universe where parallel lines always would meet in the end and according to what I read it was in itself perfectly consistent and provable mathematically. The question then becomes, do that universe exist ‘somewhere’?

Is all mathematics describing a ‘truth’? even if not fitting exactly our SpaceTime. I don’t know, I would guess that Math can be ‘wrong’ too though, creating ‘possibilities’ that never have been before we put in on print. But I’m not sure so I won’t swear to it. But it makes me wonder if it is possible to create a equation/transformation describing something ‘invariant’ without distances involved, that will have it when ‘turned around’? Probably not, then on the other hand our Universe is not ‘invariant’ meaning ‘the exact same/unchanged/symmetric’ under those transformations so the ‘trick’ might be to find that equation that can jump from ‘no distances’ to something containing them and fitting up to the descriptions we already have found defined doing those CP transformations? But if there is an in-equivalence in the SpaceTime we have there seems to me that there should be a ‘rest’ even when doing that transformation. But then again, I’m not thinking that there is ‘nothing’ left when the distances is gone. Something has to be there it seems, to create what we experience. When I say ‘nothing’ I’m thinking of our concept of dimensions meaning that they as well as any arrow of time then will be non-existent. But it seems that ‘pure math as well as hup shares the ‘unknowable’…

--Quote------
In 1931, Kurt Godel dropped a bomb on the mathematical world, as follows:

    To every w-consistent recursive class k of formulae there correspond recursive class-signs r such that neither v Gen r nor Neg (v Gen r) belongs to Flg (k) (where v is the free variable of r).

Did you understand that? Good. I didn't expect you to either. In English, it essentially says that "All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions" (Hofstadter D., Godel, Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, p.17). So how do we interpret that? A consistent system is one where it is impossible for a statement and its negation to be true simultaneously. In other words, "2 + 2 equals 4" and "2 + 2 is not equal to 4" cannot both be true. If they are both true, the system is inconsistent. So if we have a consistent system, it is possible to write a statement that is true, but cannot be proven.

Godel's genuis was to discover that by encoding the symbols of number theory into numbers themselves, and creating rules to manipulate those numbers, it is possible to write statements of number theory that have two meanings. The first is the literal meaning of the symbols themselves. However, if the numbers have been properly manipulated, there is a second "meta-meaning" to the statement, which can be obtained by reversing the encoding. Using this scheme, Godel was able to construct a statement (G) which had the meta-meaning "G has no proof". Since statement G was constructed using the proper formalisms and encoding on the literal level, the meta-meaning must be true. So it is possible to construct a statement which is true, but has no proof. Therefore in the mathematical world, there are unknowables as well.

---------End Quote---------

Welcome to the ‘magic Universe’ :)
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:41:05

It doesn’t ‘invalidate’ 2+2 becoming 4, it just relates it to its proper ‘sphere’ it seems? (SpaceTime). Just like my concept of thingies inside our arrow of time, intermediate to our arrow of time, and those ‘outside’ our arrow of time.. Can I see something ‘symmetric’ here?

If we assume our universe of time again with no geometric order existing except by that possibly found inside times 'density's', if you allow me my play with words, then what spatial coordinates would you expect from it. What did we say about the photon? It was intrinsically timeless and possible to superimpose without
taking any physical place at all. Our ‘real’ universe do have 'time', it's filled with 'time' or at least all possible relations coming out of 'time'. But to have a size it seems to me that there needs to be a boundary outlining and defining, at least the ‘object’ in it. Consider the geometry of all geometry's superimposed, if we could break/make them into quantum super-positions like photons are said to be able to. Doing so would break down everything we call distance or events, that as all ‘distances’ would contain all events, and all events would be superimposed everywhere. In that kind of universe the 'arrow of time' would lose all coherence and order. Somewhere I read that a ‘quantization’ of general relativity will lead to a superposition of all geometry's quantum-wise .
 
What I still haven't touched upon though, is that 'arrow of time' in itself. Is there such a thing and how does it comes to be?  We have what we call entropy, that is as I see it a direct result from our ‘arrow’ but according to entropy all 'energies' will 'level out' as I understands it, in the end becoming unusable for any 'work done'. Does that mean that 'times arrow' will disappear too? Not if it is relating to mass I think. This is worth some thought though, mass change the time expressed with it, as seen from an observer outside, but does that time relation 'tagging down/weakening', if you like, have defined 'edges/jumps' to it or is it more of a smooth transition 'seamlessly watered out' as 'distance' grows to its original 'source'. Also, what is it that ‘ticks/vibrates’ giving us that linear ‘beat’? Let's go back to the first question. Why is there such a thing like the 'arrow of time'. There is one answer that I find quite simple even if somewhat roundabout.

What would the universe look without that arrow? Biological systems needs a certain direction in time and so needs a universe, would any growth from simplicity to complexity be possible without our arrow of time? Would a Big Bang exist? I think not. Could a universe with all events 'super imposed' contain 'life'? So there I present the simplest reason I can think of, we can only exist in such a universe, without that 'arrow' nothing biologically 'fractal' could evolve, and by saying 'fractal' I'm thinking of all processes that grows from something relatively simple to the most complex. So that arrow is a must for any 'growth' and should have existed before the idea of mass. And without it the question would be moot as there would be no one reflecting over it. But what is that arrow? If time would be seen as relations between objects, as well as the objects themselves, How does the 'arrow of time' come into play, isn't that a contradiction of terms? So does 'times arrow' exist? Definitely as long as invariant mass does I think, but in a universe without mass then? That takes us to the idea of a 'perfect vacuum'. Does a perfect vacuum contain mass? How about the hidden energy contained in it, how about all those virtual particles. All of them exist in any 'space' you can define. But down there time becomes very much chains of ‘cause and effect’ without any single ‘time arrow’ pointing in only one direction when expressed inside SpaceTime.  A little like as if the canvas we can ‘see’ (space) only is a ‘cause and effect’ area down at its smallest Planck filled size. The question might also be what is needed to formulate/create a 'space' containing 'distances'. Would it be enough with virtual particles (Hidden energy)? Or does 'space' need invariant mass (restmass) to coagulate, well, it seems so to me? But photons then? They also have energy, but with neither size nor mass related to them. A universe of photons, Can it have an arrow of time? Not as I see it, I don’t expect them to belong even to a ‘cause and effect’ chain in themselves, even though they do it as observed from us. Does a photon vibrate? Nah, wouldn’t that violate its intrinsical timelessness and sizelessness?  But if it was somewhat like a ‘hole in space’, could space vibrate around that hole? I see no reason why it couldn’t, space is filled with energy, isn’t it? Wouldn’t it want to ‘close’ it? As it would be a ‘break’ in its ‘equilibrium’?

Let me speculate some more about time and space. What would be the necessity for 'time'? Matter? Space seems to be a direct effect of matter though. As some see it time is expressed through what we call 'clocks'. There are a lot of definitions for what a 'clock' is, something that measure events, which presents a 'coherence' holding a time-like ‘direction/arrow’ for the observer. The coherence here would be our 'arrow of time' macroscopically and if broken down further our binding ‘event-chains’ in Quantum Mechanics. We know that this times arrow seems to break down at Quantum mechanical 'distances' and that 'time' there becomes something more similar to connected events but without any specific 'arrow pointing in only one ‘direction’. The main point that I would like to lift forward here is that the ‘events’ seen in QM still have a 'coherence' to them, which means that they still makes sense to us, and so, even without that defined arrow of 'time', still are able to create a 'logical' chain of cause and effect for us observing. So isn’t 'cause and effect' a better description for that than 'times arrow'?

Time with that arrow we experience is an expression belonging to our macroscopic universe, not any 'universal truth' but 'cause and effect'  seems to belong to both QM and SpaceTime. If time needs to be 'measured' to exist, or expressed otherwise, if time needs a 'clock' to proof itself. What then would you see as its smallest common nominator? Matter, nah, matter is a clock but a macroscopic one, suitable only for our known arrow. Energy then? Can we use energy as a measure of time. To me, I think so, as long as we give up on the macroscopic arrow and possibly QM:s ‘double arrow’ too. Can a clock exist without a ‘arrow of time’? That’s the question. Turn it around. What gives it ‘two results’ in QM? And what makes those virtual particles create themselves out of nothing spontaneously?

Virtual particles is a very nice description of 'energy'. They 'work' both ways as they do have an observable effect at our macroscopic SpaceTime somehow mediating ‘work done’ by their existence to and following our 'arrow of time', at the same time as they as a 'cause' exist outside of any such  ‘arrow/event/description' and also loses nothing themselves in the process. So seen like this we have something, 'virtual' that without expending any 'work done' in itself, as its total effect/effort/expression is null, still influences and change the outcome of observable events inside our own arrow of time (SpaceTime). Another name for describing something suddenly changing its behavior and properties is 'emergence', somewhat alike water turning into ice and so begetting new properties.

There is one thing that I want to ‘press on a little more before we move on again. When I say that I think that ‘energy’ is the smallest common nominator I don’t mean that it will have a ‘clock’ as we are used to describe them. ‘clocks’ as we see them macroscopically have the arrow of time guiding them and at a QM level ‘cause and effect’, with which I  mean a ‘to us understandable chain of events’, guiding even without that ‘one single arrow’. That on the other hand don’t invalidate the concept of ‘clocks’. It just questions if a ‘clock’ or ‘chains of events’ is a most correct description. Perhaps there are a more hidden mechanism working to create both those ‘realities’ acting as a ‘counting’ too, but not in any easily recognizable way to us. Can we have a ‘beat’ not measuring? Without distances nothing ‘ticks’, yet we will get processes out of that ‘nothing’ unfolding in SpaceTime?

And that takes me back to that smallest common nominator, energy. Could 'energy' be a ‘smallest’ expression of time? If that would be true then the question whether 'time' consists of 'events' stringed together or a seamless 'flow' steering only one way disappears. And that’s a relief to me :) Time might then better be described as a kind of 'field' existing and permeating all, and then 'time' in itself have no need for an 'arrow' to exist, it will be us that 'needs' it. Is it mass that creates space? And Mass is a clock, so what are the smallest ‘clocks’ we know of? Particles right? Or is it waves? Can we say that the wave in itself can be a clock? Is clocks a relation, I mean if particles would be seen as some smallest ‘clock’ can we use the ‘vibration’ from an electron as a time counter? But then the electron is not the answer is it, its what we call its ‘vibration’ that is the time measuring, and those seems even ‘smaller’ than the electron? But they need the relation to mass to materialize as a ‘clock’. This vibration? Can it be there without restmass involved? But any ‘clock’ we use seem to be a combination of a restmass and waves?

All systems seems to order themselves from the simple to the complex. That’s one rule I believe to be. Also that the 'jumps/bifurcations' a system makes won't be recognized by our measuring as the transitions taking place are outside of our macroscopic 'arrow of time'. And there is where that fractal behaviour we observe seems to fit, ah, to me that is.

The Wheeler-Feynman model, called the "absorber theory of radiation," makes electromagnetism a two-way street as far as the time dimension is concerned. They based their time-symmetric theory on the assumption that every light wave emitted by an atom must be absorbed by another atom and that these two events, light emission plus light absorption, should be considered as a single inseparable process. In it they see ‘time’ as going backward from the sink (your eye), which is cases allowed by both Dirac's equation and Maxwell's wave equation for light, as well as it goes forward in time from the source (sun). As a result any light observed will need both factors to exist (Source and sink)
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:41:53

----Quote---

Like Dirac's equation, Maxwell's wave equation for light has two solutions, the so-called "retarded solution" that describes a wave traveling forward in time and the "advanced solution" that describes a light wave traveling backward in time. Both of these waves travel at the same speed-the speed of light in vacuum-- but in opposite temporal directions. The retarded wave travels in the normal direction -- from past to future -- while the advanced wave goes the other way -- from the future into the past...


--- And how Radiation occurs according to The Wheeler-Feynman model.

First atom A emits, without recoiling (no self-interaction), a half-sized (retarded) wave that travels forward in time at a speed of 186,000 mps to the absorber atom B. Atom B recoils as it takes up this light's momentum. Then, stimulated by its recoil motion, atom B emits a half-sized (advanced) wave that travels backward in time at a speed of 186,000 mps to atom A. Atom A recoils as it takes up this advanced wave's momentum.

The timing of the emission and absorption events guarantees that at any moment the half-sized advanced wave sent back in time from the absorber always finds itself at the same position in space as the half-sized retarded wave sent forward in time from the emitter. Thus the two waves fuse together to form a single full-sized wave which appears to have been sent from the emitter and received by the absorber.

Because of this exact superposition of advanced and retarded waves, the Wheeler-Feynman model produces the same apparent wave motion as conventional radiation theory. The two theories give the same result but propose radically different models of what is actually happening. Conventional radiation theory is a simple matter of cause and effect. Wheeler-Feynman theory involves a handshaking procedure much like data exchanged between two computers in which a data transfer initiated by one computer is not completed until the exchange has been acknowledged by a message sent back from the second computer.

...in order for light to be emitted it must be connected to some future absorber by a two-way retarded-advanced wave handshake process. Because of the need for the presence of absorbers, the absorber theory predicts that if there are none in a particular direction in space, then light will refuse to shine in that particular direction!


------End Quote—

That we haven’t ever observed any ‘advanced waves’ seems easily explained by the fact that both sink and source, according to this theory, need to be ‘present’ for any light to occur. That idea seems similar to mine though I suggest time to be ‘all’ there is and so not restricted in any spatial or ‘time (size) induced’ direction. As I see it that ‘source’ and your ‘sink’ and what happens between them is just another expression of time relations, with no distance involved in fact. ( And as we all know, there needs at least two ‘something’ for any relation to work  :) The main thing here is not the universe itself but the ‘beholding’ of it. Without anything ‘observing’ there will be no interactions. We need to work from the idea of ‘observing’ in itself to make sense of SpaceTime. To do that we need to decide what makes an ‘observer’ There seems to be a difference between ‘virtual particles/energy’ and what we deem ‘ordinary light/energy’ but if we question ‘times arrow’ I believe we will find them to be the same. And the difference between them being that ‘arrow of time’ taking us from ‘A’ to ‘B’ macroscopically. Which takes us to the strange effect of ‘distance’ or ‘dimensions’. Both have one ting in common, they need ‘size’ to exist. When the size is to small the arrow becomes indeterminable although existing (QM). When we go further down to what creates virtual particles we pass the Planck length and there ‘size’ as well as any ‘arrows’ indeterminate or not, cease to exist. There I believe you will find the dimension less ‘field’ that allows ‘size/distance’ to exist.

But even if you accept this we still need to understand Consciousness, ‘Observers ‘and Size. (Distance)
If I suggested that what governs SpaceTime to be a combination of the ‘distances’, of the observation and time itself I still haven’t touched what it is questioning it. And that would be very stupid of me as without the ‘observer’ nothing can exist. There will be no experiment made, ever, that can have a defined outcome if no one is there to ‘observe’ it, no matter how you see it. Consciousness seems to be a prerequisite for anything to happen too. You might laugh at that and insist that things work even as we sleep, or are in a coma,  and the planets will move, but it’s still a truth. Without a beholder there will be nothing to behold. It seems though that what we do with SpaceTime that differs it from all other non thinking/living ‘detectors/observers’ is that we actively manipulate it. Furthermore, according to my view ‘intelligence/consciousness ’ is required to exist at some state, all other things just being the ground laid out for it as the ‘simple’ unfolds into the ‘complex’. But the objection is still valid, the question then becomes to define what a ‘observer’ can be. Should we split consciousness from ‘Observers’? To me that seems reasonable. That as if the SpaceTime created from our ‘arrow of time’ is a matter of ‘size’ then all things over a certain size (Planck size? ) will be ‘observers’ and ‘sources and sinks’ simultaneously, perhaps communicating through those ‘virtual particles/photons’. So where should we place Consciousness as we know it then?  As a matter of ‘size’ too perhaps? Or maybe the word should be ‘complexity’ or ‘Emergence’. As water becomes ice (Emergence) and change its properties so also we may be the direct result of ‘time acting upon itself. .

Here under you will find my approach to the question of ‘right living’, ‘reality’ and climate. As for if I’m right or not I can’t be sure, even though when it comes to the question of climate I’m afraid I just might be, as for my ‘philosophy’? Well, I prefer it before the so called ‘behaviouristic approach’ to life, in where you by painting your factory’s walls in some new color will beget a better ‘working effort’ short time. In a behaviouristic ‘approach to reality’ we are all ‘Pavlov’s dogs’, salivating as that bell rings, and the only thing to hope for in such a society is that you are ‘led’ by hopefully enlightened ‘leaders. That ideology of out-view also include those ‘leading’ naturally, even though they may manipulate you through its dogmas. (Sometimes those folk’s seems to miss that? :) . To me that idea more seems to signify all self-expressed ‘Elite’s’ need to simplify those ‘under’ them as being somehow less, so to place themselves ‘above’, if you get my drift. Another statement of ‘humanity’ to me. Not that it won’t work though, we humans contain a multitude, all to often contradictorily in nature, and, when all is said and done, it’s you (and me) accepting this behaviouristic approach that makes it so.

Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:43:50

-------- And now some late coming words from my moral sponsor, the Conscience. ---------


We may be intelligent but we’re not ‘wise’. If  we would, would we then have all those small arms wars, 'global warming' and plastic wastes, presumably the size of one to two Texas, gathered by streams and winds into a heap drifting in the oceans, dissolving into molecules, poisoning the marine life and thereby us? Anybody noticed that impact on, ah, Saturn? Jupiter was it? Any which way, making a hole the size of an Earth on whatever planet it was, and in our own ‘backyard’ too. Seems to me like someone gave us a warning shoot right over our bow there. Better thy ways human, or else. I saw that there was a new book on the market putting the ‘Gaia idea’ against a new one called ‘the Medea.’ The idea there seems to be that ‘Gaia’ should be seen as nurturing and healing, that she always will do her best for us, no matter our moral and ethical incompetence. ‘Medea’ on the other hand is the princess of Colchis who insanely killed her own offspring. And as the author seems to state, a better representation for what we are. Well, I don’t know. My idea of ‘Gaia’ is more neutral, she do her best to create a living sphere for all life, but once there, they’re on their own. Quite simple, but I can see how he got ‘Medea’ .

Take a look yourself and see what you find. It’s quite healthy to do so now and then.  Behind our ‘social surfaces’ the predator still lurks and he trusts no one, and its his! Everything is, by conquest or social manipulation, and he is the best ‘liar’ there is, as he’s lying to himself, yeah that’s you! Supporting your ‘righteousness’ and pushing your egos ‘beliefs’ as truths. Seen that way we do smell a little. :) But that’s how we is. Bio-mass, fighting our way up. And perhaps, that’s the way we’re going to expire too? Bio-mass, cells dividing until they take up the whole substrate and then die. Myself, I’ve never enjoyed those ‘social ‘surfaces’’ we present for ourselves and others. And as I see it we have a obligation towards the rest of the life on this planet, mostly because we’re the ones killing it. So either you grow, and that’s up to you, no one else. Or you stay an little predator, proud over your tiny conquests in life, pompous over your skills in social engineering and manipulation, trusting that promises is deeds and to take action is to say and vote the ‘right thing’. And before all, I’m not fond of ‘politics’. That’s one of the saddest statements of humanity, that we can’t manage our life’s without them, We need ‘surfaces’ hiding all intents, even to ourselves. That’s what your politician stands to service you with, the excuses and half-truths the ‘social surfaces’ craves, to let us glide against each other as friction less as possible, just like those economists and fortunetellers, protecting our ego’s right to greed and consume. Don’t tell me I’m making it up. Take a look around on child-soldiering, prostitution, slavery, mass-rapes, ethnical cleansing, ‘Kyoto treaties’, the way industries can run over any rights, any war you ‘like’, and any ‘peace’ you remember. By now I think, we all need to grow up… Fast.

I’m hoping you can.
Ghoulish? Yep, that‘s me :)
 
If anyone want to drag the ideas of politics or 'ideals' into it we are on very unstable ground. The only thing I would like to put to notice there is that we seem to have two choices. One is expecting morality, ethics and all other 'ideas' of humanity to be just another expression of 'cause and effect' without any 'right or wrong' prevalent to it, more than the biological survival of the 'strongest prevalent' amount/group(s) of bio-mass acting. If you see it so concentration camps becomes just another statement of 'humanity' not involving any concepts of 'right and wrong'.. On the other hand, If you followed my reasoning before, there might be a 'hidden truth' to life where the concept of 'ethics' and 'right and wrong' do exist as something inherently true at a more complex plane. As the universe seems to come from ‘simplicity’ to an ever-growing complexity with us as its ‘loftiest peak’ intelligence-wise. And what does that definition make of you behaviorists supporting only the ‘bio-mass’ concept?  I would like to see myself and you as an expression of that later definition but I can't be sure, and neither can you. Still, the world becomes what you make of it, doesn't it. You, as our diversified  'books of wisdom' like to express it, have choices to make, all of them circling around what you deem as your 'free will'. Seen so it may not matter which of those concepts you believe true, as long as you make your choices 'wisely'. Although I will freely admit to finding it rather a bore if life was proofed to be just another concept of 'bio-mass reproducing'. I’m not sure where dreams end and life starts but without them life becomes boring indeed. So, seen this way, that may be what 'living' is all about? Creating that 'moral ground' from where we can uplift our newfangled concepts of Ethics, 'Right and Wrong' into SpaceTime as 'realities' guiding our growth. Who knows, I certainly don’t. Looking at it that way I wonder though.

Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:44:45
As far as I understand there have been an ever rising spiral of civilian non-combatant’s dying, in all wars since the second world war, including Americas. But you will have difficulties confirming this, as no war waging nation would like to admit to it. It’s very bad ‘publicity’ indeed in this day and time. Remember Genghis Kahn? I believe he would have found it counterproductive to hide any deaths, he liked to leave pyramids of skulls from his enemies heads , not bothering to sort them into ‘farmers’ artisans’ ‘warriors’,  just to remind his foes about the realities of warring with him.. To day we want it both ways, don’t we. Ruthlessly ‘scare the sh1t’ out of our opponent, but hide the true numbers of civilians killed, so not to seem ‘uncivilized’. But you can only die one time, as long as you’re not taken prisoner of course, under which conditions you find yourself totally defenseless. And that I see as a truth to any army, barbaric or civilized. So if I may, ‘killing by proxy’ involving no men (long distance weaponry, guided missiles etc.) is no guarantee of victory, as long as your foe is ready to die physically for his point of view. To him your new ideas of ‘unmanned wars’ might just be a proof of a cowardliness and yes, unmanliness, waiting to be manipulated, as you then seem to miss that ‘moral commitment’ they see as ‘inherent’ in their own cause. That modern warfare may hide or move the civilian deaths under, or to, other ‘attributes/labels’ is no proof otherwise either. Then again, if you’re ruthless enough, a nuke or two is a simple way to try to solve any ‘discussion’ or war. And that’s the real threat held behind the back, ain’t it. But it opens ‘Pandora’s box’ and in there we find all sorts of biological, chemical as well as nuclear weapons waiting. We don’t really need any Hell in any hereafter, we seem to do just as good without it.

What we offer each other today is not only death, but total oblivion of any human society, be it ever so primitive. So to my reckoning there is nothing especially fantastic about our lives today that differs them from more primitive times. Cruelty, ignorance and avarice is still there, just hidden under its new glove of ‘civilization’. But to lift forward any older ‘civilization’ as being a ‘nobler thing’ seems even more incompetent to me. In medieval times the idea of European fun might be to throw a cat into the fire to watch it burn alive, In ancient Rome the slaughters of slaves called gladiators, thousands of them with the ‘games’ going on continuously for a hundred days leaving new corpses every day, littered all over the arena. As well as constant wars of course. We as a species is to be pitied more than glorified to me, and the way we treat life is under all critique. We’ve been acting as predatory animals until we almost have extinguished all life there is, except those we have a use for, our shoes, clothes and food, although recently we seem to be trying for them too? No, I’m not meaning that you need to become a vegetarian to change, we’re meat-eaters too. And if vegetarianism was the ‘meaning of life’ why would there be lions, and mosquitoes? :)

Humankind’s inherent aggressiveness and greed was ‘acceptable’ as long as the world could accommodate it by sheer size and possibility of exploitation, but lately we seem to have run out of room. Ideas I’ve seen on the net lifting forward the Arctic’s loss of its ice-sheet and its consequent ruining of krill, plankton, its marine-life, polar-bears etc as a new opportunity for ‘progress’ must be one of the dumbest things I’ve read. As well as it is killing off the first order of life we ‘stand on’. Ever wondered what krill and plankton are good for? " Krill numbers may have dropped by as much as 80% since the 1970's - so today's stocks are a mere 1/5th of what they were only 30 years ago "  Ever heard about the concept of ‘food-chains’? Goggle and be educated.  At times I’m stupefied that we made it this far, but then again, that world was ‘bigger’ to us, and we didn’t have this new kind of  biological and nuclear ‘mass destruction’ in our hands either.

With global warming fast becoming a reality all nations will have to prove their ‘moral mettle’ soon enough, as the number of ‘uninhabitable’ areas grows , especially in countries already renown for their poverty. We already see the European Community closing their door to such refugees fleeing from Africa. And America is strengthening their borders. But I promise you that it will become worse, as well as more degrading, for all sides . And I consider most wars to be fought over ‘resources’. ‘Ethnic cleansing’ or the ‘Evilness’ of the opponent becoming the ‘label of choice’ at times, but I still say that most wars will be started over resources, not ideas, even though religion have played a major role in most. The type of warring we see between Islamic and Christian interests is nowadays so hopelessly intermixed politically as well as geographically that as for trying to give them a ‘unity label’ becomes quite difficult. But when wars becomes to numerous to keep straight in your head religious labels still work. So then all of the Islamic interests can talk about the Jihad, not caring for if they fight Russians or Americans.

But the opposite definition is still not true for us, when we look at Caucasus and Chechenia for example we see it as a specific Russian problem, of their own creation too. And when we look at Iraq we see a ‘American first/Western then’ problem, and for who’s to ‘blame’ there?  (He was one ugly customer that Saddam Hussein, he nerve-gassed a whole village just because they were Kurd’s, didn’t he?)  But it’s still a powderkeg waiting to ‘blow’ over there, years after the ‘real’ war is supposed to have ended. Why? For me it’s a question of resources. Oil, land, mineral, why else would we be there, although it seems as we are giving up somewhat, the logistics of ‘keeping Iraq western minded’ is just to difficult, as well as expensive.. Islamic ‘Jihad warriors’ though I expect to see it differently, as a overall ‘Christian/Western’ oppressive religious problem, even though they’re very well aware of the importance of land and resources (Agrarian societies). But by labeling it ‘religious’ it becomes the same everywhere with ‘them against us’ with their ‘true religion’ as the banner, and them being the ‘liberators’ naturally. But perhaps some Countries are ‘planning ahead’ in certain ways. ‘Realpolitik’. “USA Russia and Nato should consider joining their ‘rocket shield’ defenses immediately, considering ‘mutual problems’” said the Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmusen recently.  Against what? Aliens? The Jihadic movements? China? And so comes ‘unequal democracies’ once more together. Anybody remembering the upstart to WW2? Or are we all weaned of history books those days?  If we take away the layer of politics and religion most of the problems will be one of resources, and human rights. And we all know how Russia looks at ‘human rights’ today, don’t we?
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:45:56
As for the ‘Jihadic’ movement? I doubt they even believe there to be any such notion as ‘human rights’. All ‘agrarian’ societies have, through history, primarily been involved in the principles of ‘owning’, from land to people, and that western newfangled notion of some ‘objective’ right for all, based on everyones equal worth as human beings? What? “Typical westerners”.. Then again. Looking at it, do we really trust in those ideas ourselves? We put those ideals aside so easily when playing our ‘real politics’’. So I guess we won’t ‘gear down’ to adapt to the Climates demands then? Instead ‘gear up’ for a war perhaps? Hoping that this will magically ‘solve’ CO2, Methane, overpopulation, and a untold number of other problems destroying our living-sphere? And in a war no one will have time to see any pollution’s effects, right. And industries can ‘walk’ wherever they please without problems, exploiting oceanic gas-fields, the Arctic, everywhere in perpetuity while ‘doing their best’ for our ‘war-effort’. And after it? If we survive I mean. Rebuilding? Well, we had to defend our ‘ideals’, didn’t we? And what problems we face then will seem smaller than that ‘war’ was, won’t they? And what the industries already done will then just be another shortsighted ‘fact’, won’t it? Even if those ‘facts’ lead us to..? But won’t a war open ‘Pandora’s Box’?  Well, that’s the chance we took if so, right? So this is were our notions of ‘owning’, greed, politics and religion will lead us. And hey, forget about any ‘human rights’ when it start. Those notions are like industries poorly geographically placed. In case of  a economic decline the very first to go up in smoke. Now you might get the idea here that I’m some kind of flower-whipping hippie praying for peace? No, not that I mind hippies though. To me fighting is acceptable, as when you’re attacked by that bully, or for a nation when attacked by an aggressor. That’s only self-defense and quite proper too. As long as we act as we do, that is, we all need a defense. But to act the aggressor, and to plan like a bully or aggressor hiding that long stick behind your back, that’s gotta end, this planet is just to small. We will need other solutions for our ‘visions of power’. Define better ideas of what makes a man a man than his ability to kill off all living. If you talk with truly tough guys, as we all have been known to do on occasions, what strikes me is not their ability to inflict harm. To be a really ‘tough guy’ it’s not enough to stop caring for the consequences, that’s in fact something most of us can learn, depending on circumstances. The real trick is when you realize how hard it will become for you to live honorably, once you learnt where your uncompromising nature takes you, and how you solve it. So you might think you’re a ‘hardass’ but until you’ve been where I’m talking about, you still got some way to go. And there is in fact a ‘way of the warrior’ but it is more spiritual than physical, it’s more about commitment to a goal or dream than to beat the living daylight out of all you meet. So, maybe war is in our ‘genes’? I say we still need to find a better outlet than what we have today.

 So ‘labels’ unify where logic can’t?

It’s only Human, isn’t it? How about your own television, a known pacifier as well as a ‘unifier’.. And before that, your radio.. Or your work (and mates)? Doesn’t that ‘unify’ too? And why does advertising work so well? And in a slightly more ‘primitive’ agrarian surrounding, what’s better than ‘religion’? We use it too, look at Bosnia and Serbia for a recent example? So what, really? What, do you think will happen if Earth’s resources shrinks drastically? “- But isn’t that what we have our politicians for?” You might ask yourself slightly cynical, “To take those really bad tasting decisions away, and hide them amongst all other decisions I don’t want to be ‘bothered’ with.” “ I mean, we are a Democracy, okay, a representative Democracy but still a ‘Democracy’, let the ‘chosen ones’ take care of that..”  Like here in Sweden me reading how the police now seems allowed to  ‘DNA brand’ shoplifters, you know taking saliva test of them to be able to track them if they later on do other crimes. It’s true, any crime able to, in a ‘worst case scenario’, lead to a prison sentence seems to give the Swedish state that ‘right’ now? So lets get those kids, as we all know shop lifting is a true ‘gate’ opening to all other criminality, just like stealing those apples from your neighbor’s backyard was in earlier days. Only  joking. To me it seems to give all Swedish police work a big fat ‘incompetence stamp’ as they apparently need this kind of ‘branding’ to find out ‘who did what’. “Yep, we just need to wait until the crime is done. Then my friend, then, we’ll ‘track those bastards down.”. Kind’a make me feel all warm and fuzzy, protected like. . But then again. My kind of mentality and protests seems all comes down to “if you’re protesting then, you gotta be ‘one of them’ “. Which is a good even if somewhat roundabout argument used under a lot of circumstances, having had both Stalin and Hitler as ‘avid supporter’s’.

Think about a society populated by people marked out from birth by those kind of ‘standards’, then ask yourself if you can find a surer, more subtle way of conserving any states power/ideology. And hiding this kind of ‘DNA-management’ under a stamp of ‘democracy’ is a very clever way of eating the cookie as you keeps it, ah, where it ‘belongs’. But every nation gets the ‘management’ they prefer, don’t they. I mean, how many years have India’s ‘caste mentality’ survived? Shouldn’t they love it? Well, those ‘on top’ might, but the others? Goggle and be educated. And then you can ask yourself what you think would have happened to any form of ‘resistance’ if this type of tracking techniques were found under a war, combined with a ‘national citizens data register’ naturally. . My guess is that any resistance mounted would need to see the war push pass most moral limits, perhaps with resistance becoming as strong a urge as for those inside that WW2 ghetto of Warsaw, having no choice left but ‘revolt /and/ die’. The psychological inertia built into the realization of you and your kin’s vulnerability is a monumental steppingstone, knowing that you would be traced by rudimental scrapes of skin, blood or a dropped piece of hair left. Of course it would work best in modern societies where we already have it all ‘organized’. Like Sweden?  So what do this kind of systems do to your right of free speech you think? Like free thinking, speech, and all your ‘democratic rights’ in peacetime? Nothing, you say? ..If you just behave, right?  Like they just are there for ‘show’, just another brand-label maybe? “ Be the first to be really free, now with seventy percent more ‘spruce’ to it.” Do you know how many that died, believing and fighting for those kind of rights to exist? But you’re borne to it, so you don’t need to know, right. It’s easier remembering the one that hurt you than the one that did you a good turn. Only normal, but says a lot about human nature. When someone cares for you, you take it for granted “because you deserve it” right,  but if they do you harm? Let them beware.. If you ask me you would be better off with those that do you good instead, and learn from that. But that would make you think independently and actively, wouldn’t it? For evil to succeed it’s perfectly sufficient with you turning your head away, easy and safely passive.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:46:38
And that’s where I usually give up. If you’re of that, ah, bovine, temperament maybe it’s your birthright after all? But then, on the fifty first testicle, didn’t we outlaw slavery? On the other tentacle, is sheer stupidity really entitled to liberty? Well yes, it seems to, doesn’t it? Ever read “The  Master and Margarita” by Mikhail Bulgakov ? It’s a cool book, when I read it that first time I had no idea that it was supposed to be ‘controversial’ but, even so, there seems to be a ‘hidden’ message in it. When it first came out in Russia, by the monthly magazine ‘Moskva’ 1966 its 150,000  copies sold out within hours. Not because it was a fantastic tale in itself, still rated among the best I’ve read. Just because nobody believed that anyone would be allowed to write anything like that in Russia. Yeah, Bulgakow was dead by then, he had spent the years from 1928 to his death 1940 writing and rewriting it, even burning it once as he was so scared by what Stalin might do. It’s a story about magic, freedom, social ‘surfaces’ and the state. To me as a western reader it presents me with a cool and lovely tale, extremely easy to read although not ‘revolutionary’ in any sense, just extremely imaginative. But to that Russian buying the ‘Moskva’, twenty-six years after his death it still was ‘Revolutionary’. I warmly recommend it to anyone capable to read more than the newspaper. Read it and try to understand why it was revolutionary. Then ask yourself if you would like to live in a society where a book like that would be ‘burned’.

Not only the Swedish police are ‘incompetence declaring’ themselves by the way? There seems to be a lot of ‘democratic’ police forces hailing this technique as being the ‘new way of future police work’, not all of them finding the need to ‘brand’ shop lifters as ‘hardened criminals’ though. For a unsavory comparison, the Nazis ‘branded’ those enforced to prostitution with a big ‘H’ in the forehead, in their camps. Now it seems we have a more sophisticated method for getting the exact same result, ‘branded individuals’. And this time a skin transplant won’t clear it for you. That said I can agree to this kind of DNA-technique being useable for those we find to commit the worst kinds of crimes, like serial killing, grave assault/ rapes/ murders and robbery’s, and those really ugly crimes involving children. That meaning those unable to trust in whichever society they exist in, but then it should be done after the fact, not before, searching those evidence at the crime-scene. And using that DNA to test against those suspected. And not ‘keeping’ the irrelevant DNA begotten under such procedures. The police have to use their brains like the rest of us, and, as I expect, do have them when allowed to create the right kind of competence and structure. In Sweden we’ve had our individual ‘birth numbers’ following us a long time. And to good results too, when used as statistics. Our population statistics is a treasure for all wanting to se how substances, food, pollution etc influence health and/or age over large populations. But there is an abyss greater than Hell between those ‘birth-numbers’ and this new ‘genetic branding’ of individuals. We’ve had a slightly moronic right wing coalition for some time now. You know, the kind with - Deep -Leader -Visions-Of –Honor-and-Prosperity - And –No- Ugly Income Tax-. (Although not that good at defining for whom those tax-reductions really are meant). Not that our opposite number, ‘The Socialdemocrats’, have had that much clearer vision lately. But the real reason for such laws to pass must lie deeper than that I think. A moral Inertia perhaps? People believing that freedom is a thing of the genes, or, of the past? “-You know, with the right genes everything is possible.” says the optimist, “Premature dementia too?” asks he…

(Drugs in the water system you say?  Hmmm, ah, no. . . well, thinking of it again? .  – you’re sure? )

There are still some statements that seems truer than others. Like ‘The only thing needed for evil to reign is for a good man to look away’ and that other. ‘Any society ready to give up a little liberty to earn some security will deserve neither, and loose both.’ Isn’t that what we all are doing today? Exchanging those rights for ‘security’? We are the only one paying more than lip-service to those ideals, well, at least we used too.  “Not only is life a bitch, now she’s dropping puppies too.” Kind of to the point I think. And please, don’t see this last as a sexist remark. It would sound downright silly if I changed ‘bitch’ to ‘male dog’ and ‘she’ to ‘he’. I’m afraid it would lose all kind of, ah, ‘moral coherence?

If you don’t agree, consider the McCarthy era in the fifties. How many was it that refused to name others as ‘communist sympathizers’ there? One? Ten? A hundred? The question you might ask yourself is under what circumstances you will want to stand by your choices, or non-choices, to yourself and to your kids and kin. Do you really want to be in that position? Explaining how you found it best to do nothing? And if you find this ‘self questioning’ a moot idea then I will feel free to suspect that you’ve joined what Stalin used to see as ‘useable dupes’. Similar to those believing that ‘communism’ and ‘Stalinism’, or for that case the whole era of Soviet rule, stood for the exact same ‘ideals’.  Or that only ‘pure capitalism and the free market’ can lead to a ‘free society’? ‘Democracy’ on the other hand I find a good start, but as we can see by that DNA-example, no real guarantee of anything. It all comes down your complacency with yourself, your ‘social stature’ and what you define as ‘freedom’?  Your ‘Freedom of greed’ or ‘Freedom of speech’? ‘Freedom of greed’ may be a subset of ‘Freedom of Speech’, but I doubt that the opposite is true.  To that you can add those ‘weapons’ drifting through countries and hands I never wanted or expected to see them in. Heard about that Russian boat bordered in Swedish waters by masked men, presenting themselves as ‘police’?  Wonder why and what that was about? Nuclear, biological, chemical? What made it that important to stop? Or was it a hijack? Only rockets. . right?

And my discussion won’t consider what psychological and moral lasting effects this kind of ‘reclusive strategy’ relative third world countries will have on us residing on the ‘sunny side’, ah, not that good choice, ‘industrial side’ then? Also, to put the shoe on the right foot, it was after all us ‘rich’ countries that is the major ‘delinquents’ creating the pollution we see today, not that we knew before. Today former ‘third world’ countries like China, India, Asia, Africa, South America,, Muslim countries etc, are doing their very best (read worst) to come up to, or even surpass our pollution levels. Like told last year, in China building a coal-driven power plant every nine days. Can you hear a clock ticking somewhere? And South Africa? 95 % coal powered, and India. You think those countries will accept to dismantle their energy production so not to dirty the environment more than we already did? Well, I guess the devil have massive laughing fits reading that..
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:49:06
I’m also tired of those hugely ‘brained’ economic thinkers, so incredibly far from reality. Our firmest sages, and high priests of the ‘economy’. I think we’re just like the climate, unpredictable, ever heard that butterfly’s wings flap? You did recently when your ‘economy’ took a dive.  And believing that you can ‘scheme’ against nature, pipes to the seas and pipes in to the land and factories, taking up CO2, burying it down deep in earth ‘sinks’? A little like we dream to do with our radioactive wastes, but now at your every corner. ‘Idiot proof’ you say? Idiotic I say. A whole Earth of burying? To much Jules Verne as a youngster perhaps? And what billions of billions this will cost I don’t know, I saw a number nearing ten million million dollars as a estimate on what it had cost just to buffer the economy this time (BBC) at our recent recession, most of it from us taxpayers (State) guaranteeing the institutions continuos  ‘profit’. And recent economic ‘statements’ I’ve seen seem to compare the economy to some disease, ‘stable for now’? I could write a book on how banks ‘secure’ themselves using each other to present you new ‘securities’ blindfolding the public, but I guess most of you know it already. It’s just another example of ‘faith’ and the ‘the Emperors new clothes’ (H. C. Andersen). But I know that you are looking at it all the wrong way here. It’s not about money anymore, it’s a ‘turnabout’ for all countries. And some industries will die, and good riddance to them says I, and new ones will come. It’s a whole world of change for the better.

Want another example of how your ‘economy’ will be saved today? Ever heard about Australia? Yeah, down under mate. Well they’ve just had their warmest winter ever, not even one mm of rain for the first eight months this year 2009. Outside Australia (ocean) there are natural Gas deposits waiting for the picking. To transport this gas you either need pipelines or you will need to freeze it to around -161 C. The project ‘Gorgon’, sat in motion by Chevron, plans do to do just that with Exxon and Shell jumping on the train. So now you have super tankers on the seas with ‘super-cooled, super-concentrated natural gas’ (That’s what happens when it gets frozen. The density of a gas goes really up, way way up when it becomes a liquid..) . It is a disaster scenario waiting to happen. The leaks only need to be miniscule for the gas to start leak. But if we do it at sea, no one will notice, and Australians don’t care, right mate? That gas won’t hurt you? If anything happens it will go straight up, won’t it, warmed by the air, disappearing like? Remember those oilfields burning? Congratulations. As well as that probably is the better scenario than allowing the methane getting loose without it burning itself into CO2. Now, if you had a grain of common sense left in what’s commonly called our most important muscle, ah, above the navel that is. You might ask yourself. Why don’t they take it from North Carolina?

“All the energy America needs for the next 100 years lies under the sea off the coast of South Carolina.”
Just one problem: Digging it out might cause a global climate disaster.”

---Quote—-

Methane is the principal component of natural gas, and massive amounts of it are trapped in reservoirs beneath the sea floor and under a layer of the ice-like substance. The scale of the resource is spectacular. By some estimates, methane hydrates contain more energy content than all other known fossil fuels combined.
Two small areas located roughly 200 miles off the coast of Charleston, S.C., contain enough methane to meet the country's gas needs for more than a century. And this is only one of at least two dozen similar reservoirs discovered in U.S. coastal waters since the early 1970s.

The paradox is that while gas can be extracted from methane hydrates, doing so poses potentially catastrophic risks. Methane hydrates are frozen water molecules that trap methane gas molecules in a crystalline, lattice-like structure known as a hydrate. Unlike normal ice, hydrate ice literally burns — light a match and it goes up in flames. As temperatures rise or pressure rates fall, the hydrate disintegrates and the water releases the gas. A substantial amount of evidence suggests that weakening the lattice-like structure of gas hydrates has triggered underwater landslides on the continental margin. In other words, the extraction process, if done improperly, could cause sudden disruptions on the ocean floor, reducing ocean pressure rates and releasing methane gas from hydrates.

A mass release of methane into the sea and atmosphere could have catastrophic consequences on the pace of climate change. More than 50 million years ago, undersea landslides resulted in the release of methane gas from methane hydrate, which contributed to global warming that lasted tens of thousands of years. "Methane hydrate was a key cause of the global warming that led to one of the largest extinctions in the earth's history," Ryo Matsumoto, a professor at the University of Tokyo who has spent 20 years researching the subject, told Bloomberg in December.

---End of quote---

So why don’t Chevron pooh it in its own ‘backyard’? As well as Exxon and Shell. To ‘difficult’? Or not so ‘popular’ perhaps? It’s easier in the oceans outside Australia, is it? More ‘private’ like? We already found methane running wild in the Arctic, and frankly, it scares the sh1t out of me. But let’s assume we’ll keep walking this path.. Short Time Survival.. As your kids grow old, and then their kids possibly too. (around one hundred years.. Btw: You Aussies are hoping for that sweet Sheila and some noisy kids too, right, well most of us do :) By then the writing on the wall will become all too clear, and your time all too late. Australia will then be one of the numerous places people migrates from to survive. So, to me there are no ‘compromises’ available. The estimates of sold cars for 2009 seems to be around fifty million new cars. And the amount of new CO2 we will get then? Don’t know, neither do I know how many of the old cars that went to the dump? twenty percent perhaps? Seven? Less? A lot of them that should have gone there here in Europe seems to have been sold by unscrupulous car dealers to East-Europe, and other places.  So if I seem to hear that voice… “Earth-mother tired, wants you to repent… NOW!” would that be understandable? Yep, I’m rather, ah, frustrated?  There has never before been anything done by humans that have changed the whole ecosystem in such a short time (Around some 200-250 years), except our pollution. And at that, all that could happily joined forces in spewing it out, and still do. So now we expect us to reverse the same in? What, fifty? A hundred years,? By more worthless ‘Kyoto treaties’ or? At the same time keeping all our industries viable and our consuming, that meaning.. Economy, the same, or bigger? Hoping that we are in time? Like building CO2-leading pipelines everywhere?.. Hey, now I know where they got that idea from, them absolute geniuses, oh yes :) Watching that ‘screen saver’ on their computer of course, you know the one with pipelines getting drawn all the time. And all of those loudmouths guaranteeing you, the consumer, ‘Your God-Given Right To Consume’.. Come on. If you find my views strange, what do you then find those dreamers to be? Aliens?

“WE Have Come To Save You” Ah, that explains it..
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:50:26
" China’s problem has become the world’s problem. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides spewed by China’s coal-fired power plants fall as acid rain on Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo. Much of the particulate pollution over Los Angeles originates in China, according to the Journal of Geophysical Research. " And according  to Greenpeace "China's reliance on cheap coal to fuel its economy cost a hidden $248 billion last year (2007) through damage to the environment, strain on the health care system and manipulation of the commodity's price." And please understand that this study doesn't concern itself with the hidden costs pertaining the environmental impacts (climate changes) here. And it doesn’t help my mood much reading what those mighty brains of economical thinkers see. China ‘helping’ the world economy to stabilize. Although, we didn’t ‘plan’ this global warming, we just did what we thought we had to do to create better ‘living standards’, right? Well, greed and guns might have helped show us the fastest ‘ways’ but it did ‘uplift’ our standard of living . And so acts China today. In fact they seem to be walking in our exact footsteps, don’t they. And we like to tell China as well as India that this is a ‘bad bad’ thing, don’t we :) 

But do they thank us I ask?  Do they? Those rapscallious, ah, rascals?

They too feel the pressure and expectations mounting from their teeming masses I guess, everyone want that fridge, and that car, and that new telly, and mobile, and.. Their ‘leaders’ don’t really have a choice I think, especially in China with its closed hierarchic society and wide spread corruption, its either that or more and more civil insurrections to come. I have more hope for India there in fact, at least they have a democracy working for them. But we ‘smart western people’ make real sure to lock up all energy saving technology in strong patents don’t we, cheap efficient technology and biological, genetic ‘innovations’. Doing gene research but not even caring for stopping malaria as there is no ‘real market’ for it. Instead we look for the genes for overweight, don’t we. As being the real ‘threat to society’ :) And in America they can ‘patent’ your genes too, so stop thinking they are yours just because you’re born with them, better cough up that ‘rental money’ or . . “We’ll have your lungs, boy.” I mean, how else can we ever come out ‘on top’? Giving them patents away, what a preposterous thought. “You want to lead us to ruin?” “Nay, from the edge.” Said he.

In all scenarios made people will starve as the warming gets worse and the ‘deserts’ picks up their pace. Lands will stop producing, and when enough people starve and starts to migrate then that ‘former similarity of outlook’ shared with us might go unheeded by those surviving. Imagine ‘Palestinian’ refugee camps inhabited by the tens of millions instead. I’m thinking that those folks might not remember us too fondly. Instead I fear that they might, just might, blame it as originating from..  You know, like wanting to.. Get even? Especially as we already have started to close them out from our lands, Countries, life’s, trade treaty’s etc, ‘protecting’ ourselves and our trades, in the process creating an even worse situation for them . Ever read the old testament? It’s in the first half of the Christian bible and I tend to think that it describes that primeval human ‘motivation’ quite well. How did it go? ‘An eye for an eye’. I understand why we don’t want to face this problem though. It’s both impersonal, meaning difficult to relate to and just too friggin’ big. It’s the whole planet that’s gone haywire if you think the same as me. And the way some papers suggest you to give ‘new years eves’ promises’ of starting to ‘sort garbage’ to limit global warming? Ah, those, excuse my wording here folks, jackasses makes it even worse to realize the seriousness of our situation as it now seems to come out to planning your wardrobe better with natural fibers, buy a newer car, recycle more, etc, etc. And then everything will become well. . Sure, and Santa is waiting at the North-pole.. Having a vodka on the rocks with his reindeers.  No, he can’t be, can he?. . I mean, the ice, won’t it be gone? .

“Hell, can’t he take it straight then, like a real man?” 
Soon we’ll know for sure.

Is Santa is Finnish or not?
Will he ‘straighten it out’, or will he migrate south?
Will he then introduce polar bears there? Or only reindeers?
And what are the legal limits for vodka drinking when driving reindeer carriages, air-wise?
For Santa & Rudolph? (the red nosed reindeer, a seriously bad sign that nose.)
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:51:19
Some scattered proofs for global warming ‘really’ taking place.

1. According to 3,146 scientists in a recent U.S. survey  a "vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

2. According to a study "by the U.S. Geological Survey and involving the University of Colorado at Boulder and Oregon State University as well as other research institutes indicates tree deaths in the West's old-growth forests have more than doubled in recent decades, likely from regional warming and related drought conditions. And according to another study the “forests in the pacific northwest are dying twice as fast as they were 17 years ago”

But we still have our tropical rainforest's, don't we. Here is some good guess work about the importance of them. "Tropical forest trees are absorbing about 18 percent of the CO2 added to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels, substantially buffering the rate of climate change." But on the other hand. "If deforestation continues at current rates, scientists estimate nearly 80 to 90 percent of tropical rainforest ecosystems will be destroyed by the year 2020. This destruction is the main force driving a species extinction rate unmatched in 65 million years."  And as all other things those numbers is leaning to the optimistic side.

And.. " Pollution filled brown clouds may be causing as much warming as greenhouse gasses over southern Asia and threatening the water supply of Ganga, the Yangtze, and Indus with major adverse impact on the areas the rivers serve, researchers say. In a study supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), researchers found that the clouds of aerosol particle are contributing to the potentially devastating effects of retreating Himalayan glaciers. "The rapid melting of these glaciers, the third-largest ice mass on the planet, if it becomes widespread and continues for several more decades, will have unprecedented downstream effects on Southern and Eastern Asia," the study concludes.

"This is a big topic of conversation in India. Much of the water supply of north and central India is from major rivers fed by glaciers in the Himalayas and the supply would be adversely impacted if the retreat of glacier continues," the author of the study David Winker of the Nasa Langley Research Center in Virginia said. The hope lies in reducing this pollution, which, combined with the heating effect of greenhouse gases, is enough to account for the retreat of Himalayan glaciers observed in the past half century, with serious implications for such famed rivers as the Ganga, Yangtze and Indus, the chief water supply for billions of people in India, China and other South Asian countries, the study notes." As well as Greenland, and the Arctic losing ice at a ever increasing pace. Btw: Antarctica have started too. It’s measurable now and that, my friend, that’s a very bad sign for us all. You do know that waves in the ocean moves faster now? Due to the accumulated heat from the CO2 warming the oceans. And that hurricanes is worse, all storms will be, everywhere. The weather will become very unpredictable as the atmosphere constantly is pushed up to new energy (heat) levels, snow where you don’t expect it, extremely rainy summers in other places with clouds lowering the average temperature, drought and famish in others. And it won’t be to the better, no matter what tropical fantasies you might have. Those clouds won’t stop any global warming, and the desert will finally migrate to your place too, but then again. I don’t expect us to be there to see it.

( And no, it’s not ‘solar warming’ even though the sun cycles /spots do have a effect..
It would be real strange if the sun didn’t have a effect, wouldn’t you agree.
I mean, wherever did you think ‘summer’ came from? )
 
And finally, a look at the real ‘killer of life’.
Methane. 

"Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System where temperatures are low and water ice is common. Significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth. "

----------Quote--------

“We had a hectic finishing of the sampling programme yesterday and this past night," said Dr Gustafsson from the Russian research ship Jacob Smirnitskyi. "An extensive area of intense methane release was found. At earlier sites we had found elevated levels of dissolved methane. Yesterday, for the first time, we documented a field where the release was so intense that the methane did not have time to dissolve into the seawater but was rising as methane bubbles to the sea surface. These 'methane chimneys' were documented on echo sounder and with seismic [instruments]." At some locations, methane concentrations reached 100 times background levels. These anomalies have been seen in the East Siberian Sea and the Laptev Sea, covering several tens of thousands of square kilometers, amounting to millions of tons of methane, said Dr Gustafsson. "This may be of the same magnitude as presently estimated from the global ocean," he said. "Nobody knows how many more such areas exist on the extensive East Siberian continental shelves."

------End of quote--

You see, as we ‘speak’ the methane in the Siberian tundra and various other arctic cold water deposits is already being released in our atmosphere, yep, we’re there measuring it. This ‘methane bomb’ is primed and its fuse is smoking. So the new question becomes twofold. How big are those deposits, ‘big enough’ that they in their turn will warm up the other oceans deeper methane deposits too? And If so, how can we stop it? Methane have already been observed released in deep waters. One off the coast of Norway, one off the coast of North Carolina, and probably elsewhere too. And remember that methane producing bacterias exist in the Perma frost on land too. As well as hydrates under the ground. Hydrates will be created by the combination of a low temperature (around 0 C) and pressure, depending on the pressure surrounding it can remain stable at up to 18 C. So take away the pressure and it will rise but not as oil do.

Remember that the 'permeability' of a gas is higher than that of water (water’s denser). It will find 'ways' out everywhere, land as sea. In fact, estimates are that more than 10% of the world’s hydrates are located on-shore in arctic permafrost; and a sizable — although not quantified — amount are in relatively shallow arctic seas. These are susceptible to melting from warming. And as we know, the polar regions are warming faster and will get hotter than the global average. So a sizable amount of the methane trapped in hydrates is vulnerable to release by warming.

---Quote---Arctic Methane TimeBomb ready to go off---

Details:

Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 60-70 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a twenty-year
period (or 25 times over a hundred-year period). Human-caused methane emissions are currently
contributing some 20-30% of the observed global warming effects. These include: Energy,
Landfills, Ruminants (Livestock), Waste treatment, and Biomass burning.

However, there are two additional sources of methane that are just now bubbling to the surface.
One source is the methane hydrates (also called clathrates) that have been frozen since the last ice
age in the permafrost lands of Russia, Alaska and Canada, but are now being released as the
permafrost melts. In addition, the methane hydrates, which have been long stored in the cold Arctic
Ocean seabed, are now being released as the ocean temperature rises.

Estimates of the land based hydrates estimates range from 0.8 to 1 gigaton, for the sea-based
hydrates in the Arctic total 1.5 gigatons of carbon, Recent research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tons of methane being released, apparently through perforations in the seabed permafrost, with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times normal. Most of the thawing is believed to be due to the greatly increased volumes of meltwater being discharged from the Siberian rivers flowing north. Current Arctic methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5 Megatons  (500 000 tons) per year, but now it appears to be increasing rapidly. Shakhova et al (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 gigatons of Carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks.

They conclude that "release of up to 50 gigatons (fifty thousand millions ton) of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve, which is equivalent in greenhouse effect to a doubling in the current level of CO2.

----------End Quote…..By Jim Stewart, PhD, October 6, 2008,-----

Add to that a possible ‘convection-cycle’, up and down in the atmosphere of at least fifty years (An optimistic ‘best guess’).That means that what ever we ‘push up’ today is ‘earmarked’ to come down and ‘help us breath’ for at least the next fifty years. So even if all stopped today we probably wouldn’t see any reclining effects for something like thirty years (my guess only) and, we’re not even sure how long this cycle can be, some people speaks about a hundred years for CO2 in the atmosphere. There is also the fact that as our ‘heat-sinks’ like oceans and land get saturated (filled up) with CO2 its ‘residence time’ in the atmosphere will increase, to even become infinite if our heat-sinks turn to sources, letting of their accumulated CO2 as the warming get worse. Did you get that? We would be as doomed even if we tried that insane scheme of drawing CO2 pipe-lines into Earth to hide our wastes? Am I getting through here? What it states is that we must stop the CO2 sources, not try to bury them after producing it. I’m sure that you and me both wonder what that sub/arctic methane might do the clathrates frozen under the rest of our ‘ever warming’ oceans? When our mean (average) temperature jumps up due to arctic and tundra methane. To Antarctica and to our already fragile marine life, plankton, krill, reefs, and in fact to.. You.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:52:20
And the oceans is one of our primary ‘sinks’ of heat created by that CO2 and methane pollution. But now they’re starting to get ‘satiated’ (filled up) The oceans near Antarctica are thought to have one of the healthiest appetites for greenhouse gases. Their surface waters can guzzle around 15 percent of all the carbon dioxide produced by people, which comes mostly from industry and automobile emissions. The new study found the oceans are mopping up only about 10 percent of carbon- oxide, requiring projections for future levels of greenhouse gases to be bumped up accordingly. " (from 2007) And what do you think will happen as the ice disappears from Greenland and the Arctic, leaving bare land to act as heat-sinks, not reflecting the heat away from Earth anymore.

And then we have Antarctica. It have started to loose ice too “Researchers used satellites to plot changes in the Earth's gravity in the Antarctic during the period 2002-2005. Writing in the journal Science, they conclude that the continent is losing 152 cubic km of ice each year, with most loss in the west”.  And a  study conducted by scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder, uses a technique which has not been tried before: measuring gravity over Antarctica. “ When they fly over regions where there is lots of material below, such as mountain ranges, or where crustal rocks are more dense, they will register an increase in the Earth's gravity - tiny, but measurable.” (from 2006)

---Quote---

"Their orbits have a very large inclination, of 89 degrees in fact, so you get very good coverage over the Antarctic," said Isabella Velicogna, one of the Colorado team. "We see the entire ice sheet and measure the mass change of the entire ice sheet; then we look at the east and west separately," she told the BBC News website. Overall, Dr Velicogna's group found an annual decrease in ice sheet mass of 152 cubic km. There is a clear loss in the west, whereas the mass of the East Antarctic sheet appears to be constant. This loss of ice equates to an annual rise in the global average sea level of 0.4mm; by contrast, the total rise, due mainly to thermal expansion of seawater, is estimated at about 1.8mm per year. "With increasing temperatures you get increased precipitation, so what may happen is that ice in the interior grows and then at the coast you have mass loss. So what we found is that for the continent as a whole, the balance between the two is negative." The Colorado team plans to continue observations and analysis of Grace data until the mission ends, probably in 2009.

---------End of quote---

Now I will expect you to use that muscle between your ears.
West Antarctica was it? Loosing the most ice???

Read this excerpt from an old study (1997). One of the most ‘uncomfortable’ I know of.
In fact, as I have the link at hand why not read it all. It’s nicely written and easy to understand.
(Sea Level, Ice, and Greenhouses' a FAQ by Robert Grumbine.)
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/sea.level.faq.html

--------Quote------------

That West Antarctica can collapse much faster than Greenland relies on another oddity of the West Antarctic geometry. Most of the ice sheet base rests well below sea level (500 - 1000 meters below). The important oddity is that as you move further inward, the land is further below sea level. So, consider a point near the grounding line (the point on land where the ice shelf meets the ice sheet). Ice flows from the grounded part into the floating part. The rate of flow increases as the slope (elevation difference) between the two sections increases. Extra mass loss in the ice shelf means that the shelf becomes thinner (and lower) so more ice flows in from the ice sheet. This makes the ice sheet just a little thinner. _But_ at the grounding line, the ice sheet had just enough mass to displace sufficient water to reach the sea floor. Without that mass, what used to be ice sheet begins to float. Since the sea floor slopes down inland of the grounding line, the area of ice sheet that turns into ice shelf increases rapidly. More ice shelf means more chance for ice to be melted by the ocean.

The collapse mechanism has a mirror-image advance mechanism. Should there be net accumulation, the ice sheet/shelf can ground out to the continental shelf edge. Go back to near the grounding point. This time add some excess mass to the ice sheet/shelf. This thickens the system to ground ice shelf. The grounded ice shelf takes area away from the ocean ablation zone, which makes the mass balance even more in favor of accumulation. So the advance can also be a self- accelerating process. "

-------------End of quote---------------

Nope, there’s no Gym around, teaching you how to beat the sh1t out of it either. But you can try of course.
And you can forget any mean global “two degree C. raise of temperature” at the end of our century. I would start counting on, five. And believing that you, due to any degree in a school of whatever sort, are better adapted to ‘understand’ this problem will only leave you delusional. There is no one able to see what waits for us. Earth is like a ‘stable system’ balancing on a edge today. We are pushing her over that edge. When she goes, she will in time find a new ‘balance’. But that balance won’t be ours..

Some pollution (CO2) statistics today (2009)
(G77 consists of 130 developing countries.)

China 6 103 metric tons spread per 1339 ..million inhabitants
USA  5 752 metric tons spread per 307 ….million inhabitants
G77   4 569 metric tons  spread per 2464 ..million inhabitants
EEC  3 914 metric tons  spread per 492 …million inhabitants
India  1 510 metric tons spread per 1166 ..million inhabitants
Canada 545 metric tons spread per 34 …..million inhabitants.
Mexico  436 metric tons spread per 111 ..million inhabitants
Brazil   436 metric tons spread per 199 ...million inhabitants
Australia 372 metric tons spread per 21 ..million 0000 inhabitants
Japan 127 metric tons spread per 127 ….million inhabitants

Okay, but who consumes the highest percentage fossil fuels/year then? (CO2)

China 93 %
India 92 %
Mexico 92 %
USA  85 %
Australia 82%
Japan 82 %
Canada 66%
Brazil  60 %
EEC 58 %

(and South Africa of course, a 95% coal driven economy.)
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:53:11
As for Eastern Europe? I don’t really know. But as we can see USA, Australia and Canada comes out on top in this list if you count per inhabitant. And Japan and the G77 countries seems to be the countries that spreads the least CO2 per inhabitant. China who wasn’t expected to pass USA pollution-wise for at least ten years is recently racing to the top followed by India that expect to triple its pollution to 2031. But it’s not a race anymore, it’s a countdown to your extinction. And as I see it, if you won’t face it then you’re the one killing your offspring, shouldn’t that mean ‘something’ for you? Killing your kids? But if so? If we don’t care even for that? Maybe it’s all for the good then, maybe we should leave place for a species that will treat Earth right. You don’t really need to build a spaceship to find that inhabitable planet to survive on. You’re already on it, the biggest and best spaceship you ever will travel in. But it seems as we can’t even learn how to flush its toilets? By the way? Which countries do you expect to take the first ‘hit’ from this pollution? My uneducated guess, first the G77 countries (we already can see it there).  And then shortly thereafter Australia, India, Pakistan ( near laying countries) and parts of China. Then us.

Another thing, thinking of it. Most people tend to ‘associate themselves’ with what they’re paid too, be that for good or bad. That makes most of ‘the papers’ exclamations rather dubious to me, as they are owned by interests who might not enjoy to much exposure of this problem. As all ‘Owners’ want their ‘portfolios’ to be arranged to order, in secure investments making them ‘money’, it’s so sickeningly human. And it may make the same papers present a slightly colored ‘truth’, also not wanting to ‘scare the public’ of course. Also the ‘Owners’ might feel that urgent need to arrange new secure ‘portfolios’ first, adapted to the ‘changing’ situation, before it’s to ‘late’... And to that we also can add the ‘politics’ of it, coloring what’s in reality is a problem containing no politics at all. If you’re drowning you don’t care for your lifeguards political views, do you? But in global warming here there seems to be an awful deal of political exposure. I’m not sure our changing climate will care for that though?
 
The problem we can do something about directly is CO2. And by that also delaying methane releases, and in the best scenario, stop it from happening. And as that old human adage say, ‘let’s do it to them before they do it to us.’

If it was my choice I would tell you to put your car away, but now.
And to stop all coal-based activities, industries etc, but now.
And stop using chemical fertilizers, but now.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:53:55

In fact there are a lot of things humanity could do, even today, that we won’t.
Because that would ‘hurt’ our ‘God-given right to be greedy and progress’
(couldn’t help myself:)

We seem as kids, stymied by short-time egotism. And just like unruly kids we refuse to accept when ‘Mother’ have had enough. The worst as well as most ironic thing though, to me that is, is what we seem prepared to die for. A symbol, not a resource, just a symbol we find convenient.

‘Money’.

Money is sacred, if it will ‘cost’ then nobody wants it. If it means that some industries will suffer then it’s wrong. If it mean that my paycheck/stocks will go down :) I don’t want it. And if it mean I won’t have a job? No way… On the other tentacle, it do represent something ‘real’. Earth’s natural resources. Fertile soil, wild life, oil, minerals, the rainforests, marine life, drinkable water, diverse fragile ecology’s etc. And all of this is disappearing, every day, every minute of your life.

You are getting robbed.
And you’re the one robbing your kids.

Protecting ‘money’ we kill its foundations. Finding out ‘real resources’ is disappearing we go into a ‘feeding frenzy’. Grabbing what resources there be left, exploiting to protect, what else, our sacred ‘economy’…
And your holy right to over-consume of course. The eleventhy-elevetnh amendment to all ‘constitutions’ on Earth today, be they dictatorships or ‘Democratic’.

Trusting any ‘free market’ seems sheer stupidity in this case.  And I’m not that sure about the government(s) and the UN, EEC either. We could use ‘one man/one voice- democracy’ here, not the ‘representative’ kind. No friggin ‘Superheroes’ that tells me what to think, or who tells me that ‘this is what you meant by voting me in’. Nope, that’s not what I meant. Why not try common sense for a change. As we could, using the internet as our platform voting. So that’s a hope, that we use the net as it could be used. But we seem to restrict it instead. It’s dangerous, isn’t it? Just as China treats it, policing its use to keep all the ‘right thoughts’ lined up. But in the ‘Western democracies’  it’s the ‘industry’s’ that keeps on pushing for it.

“- Leave such a ‘resource’ in the hands of the public! What a waste.”
“- Regulate it I say, think of our innocent kids. And remember, our profits is your profit (Big sincere smile).”

And with the governments one tiny step behind?
Let me see, ‘representative Democracy’, was it?
So now I’m an ‘errand boy’ for the industry, am I?

And from their point of view I guess the Internet is ‘dangerous’. How will any Emperor ever be expected to keep ‘any new clothes’ on with so many ‘peeping toms’ out there? All screaming that he’s naked. And what kind of ‘government’ would it be if a common man could ‘rule’ directly on national, or international, decisions?

“Hell, they can’t even knit their shoelaces. . .”

Nope. We need good laws protecting the individual. We need a working bureaucracy, populated by intelligent beings that cares for those rights. And we need to make sure that nobody sits to long at any nexus of power. We need the law, the ideas of freedom, but all the ‘stuffing’ building it today? We can make without that. As long as we all have the same vote.. Instead of a assembly of politicians we could have a system where you had to do certain ‘governmental jury duties’ over a year or two of your life. A citizens duty if you like. And yes, you would need to be updated on the issues in question so a lot would hang on those doing research and presenting it to you, that’s where the bureaucracy would come in and their integrity would be tested, and your internet too. And you would be paid, not like a football-star but a decent wage for your work. Same as politics work today too, well, except for the wages perhaps.  And no, we could make a system where you have several groups working on the issues, and then use only some (representative:) part of the voters, randomly chosen. That should minimize the probability of ‘pressures’ by ‘interested parties’. What we wouldn’t have in such a system would be all those ‘secret handshakes/deals’ between ‘powerbrokers’ and all that money ‘greasing the wheels’. Most of the questions is about common sense anyway as I see it, and you would learn a lot doing it. And I guess my view here is a nightmare to all collecting ‘power’, of any kind, be it ‘democratic’ or totalitarian. I’ve been hoping for people to see the possibilities for quite some time now? We have Secure cryptography (open and closed ‘keys’) and that combined with ‘one vote - one man’ and the Internet?  It’s actually simple, if we would use it. Yes, you would need a computer, a decent web-camera and some software. And if you didn’t have it I guess the state could offer you one as a job-perk. It’s all solvable, and you know what. I think it would be democratic too. And on big issues we would need a larger representation of voters, on some all would be required to vote. That’s what real freedom is, giving you the possibility to make a difference, not your ‘representative’. It’s strange how fast ‘elite’s’ incompetence-declare all others. If you have a vote, it should be yours.

“Hell, he can’t even knit his shoelaces. . .”

“Wha’da’ya’mean, …Could too?”
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:54:49
And then what? If we still didn’t care even after such a ‘vote’?  Well, we’ve made our decision ‘democratic’ for real, at least. And noticed too I presume. Blaming ignorance or the governments unwillingness to face the ‘truth’ shouldn’t be a excuse anymore, by anyone, be it industries or you. “Hey, nobody told me..” Some real ‘disturbed ones’ may even expect that the ‘rich side’ of the world just have to ‘hunker down and wait it out’. I don’t expect that to work, even though the poor countries will be the ones taking the first hits. If the methane gets loose under our oceans we’re all ‘dead meat’. I’m not joking this time, I guarantee that humans will be gone from this planet if that happens. A lot of people studying geology and Earth’s history says it too. At the Permian-Triassic extinction event . (Around 280 to 230 million years ago) and at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (63-40 millions years ago), the beginning of what life we know today, this scenario seems to have happened twice already.

Or turn it the other way around. Our vote there said ‘Stop’. Some countries rulers says ‘No’. Well, then we’ll be at each others throats just that tiny bit faster,. Nice slogan btw. ‘Say no, save the species.’ And the ‘opposite’ ‘Say no to save the Species’ You better choose your sign now :) That last one is for you doubters, you can get it both ways there, depending on how you read it.

At the Permian-Triassic extinction around 96 percent of all sea life and 70 percent of Earth’s land animals died, To be gone , never, ever, coming back, and furthermore, it is also the only known mass extinction of insects. 57% of all families and around 83% of all related gene groups/materials were killed. And we’re still paying our dues for that one in a poorer Earth, reduced genetic materials etc, although it happened a quarter of a billion years ago. And they had an abundance of life to spend, we don’t, due to our exploitation of natural resources. So, what do you prefer? Go down stating ‘my car is my castle’ or learn how to treat Earth in a sustainable manner? That meaning that we in some ways will have to back up our so called ‘progress’ when it comes to the more environmental damaging processes. Even live on ‘rations’ for a time until we’ve given Earth some chance to restore our ‘larder’. And perhaps stop ‘making’ more people than our Earth can feed. One human, one kid. Non negotiable. For some ten, twenty generations at least, that should help too. As Ban Ki-Moon (UN general secretary) expressed it at a speech in Geneva recently (freely translated from a Swedish source). ‘With one foot on the accelerator we are making our way to the abyss’. Kind of catchy, don’t you think. But hey, ain’t that guy boring? He’s certainly not very charismatic as that brilliant Norwegian diplomat, ever so graciously, informed us.

“ Well lady, I don’t give a flying sh* about that.
I do care about if he’s right though. You should too, thinking about it.” 

Then again. What was it that’s making Norway so rich in this day and time?
Brains or Oil? Go figure…
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:55:35

But acting as I expect we will, with ‘short-time solutions’ sending what ‘relief help’ we’re ready to afford and then righteously ask ourselves ‘what more could we do?’ It will soon enough become like planning for how to ‘defend’ yourself from ‘suicide-bombers’. Quite difficult and leaving an extremely bad taste in your mouth, ethically as well as morally. Festung (that’s Bulwark for you:) Europe and Festung America, and you my friend as ‘Super/wo/man’ proudly defending our western civilization. Ask any ‘normal’ Israeli how (s)he fell about the restrictions forced upon them, and then try asking those not belonging, it’s a ugly unhappy situation for all involved. On the other tentacle, I’m sure that there already are ‘think-tanks’ looking at this, as well as how to best present the Arctic catastrophe as something ‘good for you, the ‘consumer’ And Santa too. “Yes Santa, the South-pole is soo roomy, you will like it there. Don’t you worry about your vodka, there’s still ice.” .. Did I hear someone call us myopic? ..

Of course, there is also that really good chance that it will lead to all out wars between nations as everyone’s living room shrinks. Can I blame those ‘poor nations’ taking to arms? They don’t have a choice, do they? Except to stay where they are, and lie down to die.. Perhaps they will ‘fight it out’ with each other before coming to us.. Don't rightly know there? If we’re ruthless enough, it may very well be us that keeps ‘feeding’ them with cheap arms, or even give them away to ‘simplify’ the ‘cleansing’ of mass migrations between poor countries. And to stop that further ‘polluting’ by those finding themselves without other means to keep warm and feed. You know, turning that blind eye to our armament industries. Don’t you give me that innocent look buster, we already do it, only depending on what ‘values’ we believe in for the moment. It’s just another tiny step for us. It even has its own name.. ‘Realpolitik ‘ (or ‘cannon boat politics’)

Still, if there is enough able and willing to make that stand for ethics and those newfangled ideas of ours, like ‘moral values’ and ‘sharing’, there might be some slight chance for us all, and if not? Well, good riddance to it all. Earth’s time-count is definitely not ours, she can ‘wait’ fifty thousand years, or a million, before starting anew, creating that concept of ‘intelligence’, preferably incorporating the concept of ‘wisdom’ too that time. And you know what, to her you’re not really that ‘unique’, and she don’t care for your nationality either, furthermore, she has a sharp sense of humor. Don’t you too find that somewhat embarrassing? The way she gets rid of us I mean. Death by ‘farting’? It’s kind of hilarious, fitting perhaps considering over-consuming, but hilarious in a slightly sick way.. And while you’re out there ‘consuming’, do try to remember what ‘economy’ really stands for, rich as poor. Some clothes, somewhere to sleep, food for today, and food for tomorrow. It’s really that simple, it’s only us forgetting it, repeatedly. And seen so, how much do you need?


.. Ah well, my views, --- Enough of Doomsday Prophesies.—


 And. Yes, I do have the sources for all citations I’ve done. Most of the links I’ve stated in ‘Global health’. Or if you look at what I wrote earlier on this site. As I said I’m ‘out of net’ for the moment so it’s a real hassle linking you. And the sources are ‘reputable ones’, by all ‘standards’. I’m too aware of the ‘paid debunking’ done on the Internet to risk my sources to be ‘only green ones’ That’s, if I may add, a real pain in the posterior with you American debunkers.  Everything seems to turn into ‘politics’ for you.

“And then Sir, he came back out from that Black Hole Sir, holding the blueprints for a perpetual machine!”
“So? be more pertinent to the real issues involved here Sir. Was he, or was he not I ask, a Liberal?” 

Politics may be a good thing at times, but some things, like survival, is not, really, a ‘political’ issue.
As Death and his scythe doesn’t, really, care for your political views.

( “No I say, go away, I’m a voting Democrat, go find you one of them Liberal’s.” :)



----------------------End of Conscience, well, sort of----------------

Btw: I reckon he’s Finnish..
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:56:48
My idea of 'time' is that everything is 'time' and that all we can observe is what happens after those 'transitions' expressing themselves as 'events' or 'causes and effects'. As the transitions takes place in themselves without any observers 'arrow of time' existing for the transitions, they can't be defined as other than 'indeterminate/nonexistent' to that observer. And that's what HUP seems to say to me. And it sounds quite weird to me too :) But, hey. What about one dimensional strings ? Maybe those are the mathematical foundations of what I think of as being ‘energy/time’? As for proving that all is 'time' I'm not sure on what type of experiments could show it, as all we can do is anchored through our 'arrow of time'. The only way I can think of, is observing what we can and draw conclusions through that deduced as 'missing'. In one way you might say that we, and the universe, is an expression of 'ideas' more than any secluded 'reality' that comes to be through that macroscopic arrow of time. On the other hand, what will it make of the concept of 'development' and 'free will' etc. if those assumptions were correct? 

To me they would stand as we always assumed them to be, realities of our world rather than 'ideas without form'. That goes back to my view stating that there is constant 'jumps' outside of our arrow of time creating what we observe. We exist –inside-> that arrow, and the observations we make as well as the arrow itself is the only thing 'valid' for our existence. That there might be other and wider explanations to us existing won’t change a thing about that. We are somewhat like goldfishes in a bowl. It doesn't matter that there are other stuff outside that bowl, they doesn't change the bowl. If it is so entanglements might just be a cause of something working behind that 'arrow' hiding its true process for us. Even at a quantum mechanical level without that timely arrow we still observe chains of events, those we can understand as they relate to our world of reason, and those that won't. A Feynman-diagram is still a worldly description making sense to us as you can see the chain creating that 'final effect' no matter which way you read it, and no matter what effect you choose to see as being the last.

Entanglement consists of the property of spin or polarization of two particles being connected, due to them consisting as one originally, but split by the use of a so called ‘beamsplitter’ f ex, a prism or a mirror reflecting half of the light falling in on it simultaneously allowing half to pass through, splitting the light .
And spin refers to the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle and the direction of its velocity. If the spin is aligned with the velocity it’s seen as having "positive helicity." If the spin is anti-parallel (oppositely directed) to the particles velocity (speed and direction) the particle will have a "negative helicity." If used on photons we instead talk about its polarization as all light is polarized, that’s why your sunglasses is ‘polarized’. To stop approximately half of the sunlight if I remember right. You can test it by having two polarized glasses rotating against each other. At some point of rotation no light will be able to pass through.

---Quote----------

The spin of a particle is quantized, so when we make a measurement at any specific angle we get only one of the two results UP or DOWN. This was shown by the famous Stern/Gerlach experiment, in which a beam of particles (atoms of silver) was passed through an oriented magnetic field, and it was found that the beam split into two beams, one deflected UP (relative to the direction of the magnetic field) and the other deflected DOWN, with about half of the particles in each. This behavior implies that the state-vector for spin has just two components, vUP and vDOWN, for any given direction v. These components are weighted and the sum of the squares of the weights equals 1. (The overall state-vector for the particle can be decomposed into the product of a non-spin vector times the spin vector.) The observable "spin" then corresponds to three operators that are proportional to the Pauli spin matrices:

Photons too have quantum spin (they are spin-1 particles), but since photons travel at the speed c, the "spin axis" of a photon is always parallel to its direction of motion, pointing either forward or backward. These two states correspond to left-handed and right-handed photons. Whenever a photon is absorbed by an object, an angular momentum of either +h/2p or -h/2p is imparted to the object. Each photon "in transit" may be considered to possess, in addition to its phase, a certain propensity to exhibit each of the two possible states of spin when it interacts with an object, and a beam of light can be characterized by the spin propensities (polarization) and phase relations of its constituent photons. Polarization behaves in a way that is formally very similar to the spin of massive particles. In a sense, the Schrodinger wave of a photon corresponds to the electro-magnetic wave of light, and this wave is governed by Maxwell's equations, which tell us that the electric and magnetic fields oscillate transversely in the plane normal to the direction of motion (and perpendicular to each other).

It may be worth noting that light polarization and photon spin, although intimately related, are not precisely synonymous. The photon's spin axis is always parallel to the direction of travel, whereas the polarization axis of a wave of light is perpendicular to the direction of travel. It happens that the polarization affects the behavior of photons in a formally similar way to the effect of spin on the behavior of massive particles. Polarization itself is often not regarded as a quantum phenomenon, and it takes on quantum behavior only because light is quantized into photons.

--------End of quote-------------
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:57:39
There are other more ‘obscure’ ideas of how to create a ‘split’, but the ‘idea’ hovering behind it all I believe to be as described here. That as that as soon as you measure the spin/polarization of one of those ‘split’ particles the other particle will ‘fall out’ to begetting the opposite spin/polarization. How can it know this ‘twins’ choice? What really bugs people is the proofs showing this phenomena happening ‘instantly’, no matter how far apart they are. In other words, ‘distance’ becomes a meaningless factor having no relevance to the phenomena. As we know that light have a ‘barrier’ for its ‘speed’ this phenomena questions the concept of SpaceTimes arrow. There are few things known to be ‘instant’. One I know of is the supposed ‘instant’ acceleration of photons which in fact is a statement saying that there is no ‘acceleration’ at all. The other I know of is entanglement, and a third I presume to be quantum tunneling, although there I’m not sure. To me entanglement and the photons ‘instant’ acceleration is two signs pointing the same way. They both question or ideas of ‘distance’ and their combination ‘dimensions’ creating SpaceTime’. But there is another interesting question to my eyes, If I consider a light wave (photon) and an entanglement as needing to be containing ‘information’ to be said to be part of our arrow of time? What do that make to the part of a light beam going ‘FTL’? And to that ‘distant’ part of the entanglement that only will ‘fall out’ under our observation of the near entanglement. They are there even without our observation as being ‘real phenomena’ inside SpaceTime. Or is SpaceTime some blend of ‘information’ and ‘non-information’? Remember that I defined SpaceTime as the part where you have that definition of ‘work being done’ for this question. Do SpaceTime then contain both? Can it have parts of it that in fact doesn’t fall under ‘cause and effect’ and not are doing any ‘work’ under our arrow of time, but exist observable to us never the less? Why?

It is after all our 'arrow of time' that creates what we experience as 'distance'. And keeps it true even in QM, no matter your choice of  reading that 'time-line' (beginning and end). Take the veil of cause and effect away from your eyes and what have you left. Disjointed 'processes' superimposed on each other without beginning and end? And that is what’s on that ‘dimension less’ level hiding behind space. Everything’s there and we achieving what’s called our free will, freedom of choices, constantly constructing our ‘future’ through them. And I don’t expect us to proof it other than ‘negatively’ by observing what’s ‘not’ there in our experiments. I have always considered gravity to be a ‘field’ of sorts but not the other ‘forces’ we had, but now I’m starting to wonder as all ‘propagating’, if seen like I do here, becomes..? That as it consist of something outside observable ‘time’ like a thinly woven gauze covering all ‘distances’ made to vibrate with what ‘propagation’ we observe inside our ‘arrow of time being those ‘waves/gravitons etc’.’ In fact already existing at all points even though not ‘there’ for us until we somehow ‘disturb’ it. And so it may be with all propagation of force if so. Being all there and at all ‘times’ but without ‘distances/sizes’ being involved.  And as for how it utter itself to involve/create ‘distance’ and a resemblance of order?

Yep, that one freaks me out too..
The only thing coming to mind is those processes that seems to go from the simple to the complex.

And to create a ‘linear process acting from ‘A’ to ‘B’’ from such ideas I think you first need to decide that time can’t have a arrow, although we observe it otherwise in our ‘closed case?’. It’s possibly possible :) to define mathematically, either if you see it as a more ‘complex’ process falling out into a simplified reaction to create ‘distance’ and ‘propagate tracks’ in SpaceTime, or if you see it as a inherently simple ‘timeless’ process, acting increasingly more complex until it resolve itself inside our ‘arrow’ as something to us comprehended as ‘moving’. As all ‘growth’ I know of seems to make that statement, but then again, that’s like my view of a photons choosing the  ‘straightest/shortest line’ ‘traversing’ SpaceTime, isn’t it? It’s all a matter of interpretation. And thinking of all small movements I do in my daily life it boggles my mind how something without ‘distance’ can coordinate it all into such a seamless experience for me. But I can’t see a ‘simpler’ explanation, for now that is :) And whatever your idea is, it will have to consider all of mine ‘congestion’s’ too. Like mass, time, consciousness, distance (dimensions), ‘living’ and ‘dead’ things,  virtual photons etc. And then relate it in a comprehensible way to you moving in your daily life experiencing ‘reality’. As it otherwise won’t be a TOE (theory of everything) to me. As for how to see the Universe, if thinking like this, I would call this the ‘real dimensions’ existing. Not our 3D + times arrow  (distances) but the idea of something existing without ‘distances’ at all unfolding into our ‘dimensions’, and more? I also think that the border from where all ‘distances’ evolves lies somewhere around Planck size for us, or perhaps ‘particle size’ is the right word? So to travel faster than light you just have to accept that at one level you already are ‘everywhere’, the same as everything else existing in SpaceTime. And one question then will be how to define what it is that creates the ‘sub-set’s’(?)’ of SpaceTime. If we found out what creates distance perhaps we could find some way to manipulate it. Probably not to ‘teleport’ humans or even , ah, cats? Well, perhaps Schroedinger’s then, but no more I say.

. . .Maybe ‘information’?

And if that is right, there ‘already’  ..is..  ‘messages’ waiting for us there.
We just need to learn how to read them, as for who’s sending them?
You? God? The ‘future’?

That loses its definition if so, doesn’t it.
And if everything will be ‘there’ when/if we succeeds in communicating, maybe we won’t succeed, ever.
Or maybe there will be some ‘rule’ disallowing us to read it all.

To sum it up, If distance is gone so is dimensions. without it time cease its arrows.
Then a photon takes up a whole universe and what you surmise to be life will be, just your divine madness :)
And ‘time’ will always be ‘now’. . .

(Don’t confuse that ‘now’ with the one some see to exist in SpaceTime though.
SpaceTime to me can’t have a ‘observable’ ‘now’ . Instead it have what’s called its ‘time cone’, like a flashlights light-cone, turned backwards from your future, growing bigger through its ‘history’. But its not you holding that flash-light, you’re always inside that light-cone and the ‘time’ you realize the ‘moment’ it’s already your ‘history’. The nearest we can come to a ‘now’ is the idea of it, never the significance of observing it. We do have a ‘future’ waiting, as well as our ‘history’ unfolding behind us but no consciousness can hold the ‘now’. We’re just not built for it, nothing ‘biological’ is :)

( Maybe one could see photons as champions of ‘now’, as they always are ‘there’? :)

We have another thing. Our ‘expectation/planning’ for the future, that always ‘push the envelope’ of SpaceTime.  Molding it into our ‘likeness’, if you like. But, what we can’t ever observe, does it really exist? We tend to build Science on the idea of ‘observable and repeatable’ don’t we? So what if its not ‘observable’ even though you find it to be ‘repeatable’ Like that abstraction, the ‘future’, always coming at you, but never the same.  Coming until your ‘best of, date’ expires.

And my final question.
If ‘times arrow’, according to my thoughts, don’t really exist?
What is it that makes it not so.

How, and why?
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yoron on 20/09/2009 17:58:34
Ah..
If you’re looking for something more ‘sane’.
There is also ..That Idea.. that possibly is.. The ..Answer.. To it all..
Might it, I mean, could it possibly be

..42..?
I've seen it presented in several works of great scientific value.
Defiantly better than mine :) Yes my friend, I've seen it proved..
Have a look at this.

- - - - - -

Pick a number between ten and a thousand.
Don't tell me what it is.

[Thinks... 575]

Add the digits together.
[5+7+5 = 17]

Add them again.
[8]

Add 3.
[11]

Subtract this from the original number.
[575-11 = 564]

Add the digits together.
[15]

Find the remainder left when you divide by nine.
(15 modulo 9 equals 6)
[6]

Square it.
[6*6 = 36]

Add 6.
[42]

"And the number in your head is ... 42?"

----------

Now, you don't have to agree to anything of this.
Well, except 42 that is.

Let me prove it otherwise..
4/2*2= that's right.. 4Too, and correctly expressed in mathematical notation.. 42
Voila.

In fact, I'm not that sure of what I’ve written either. Some of it I really hope to be wrong, but I doubt it is. Then again, I find myself being of two minds almost daylily. Does that make me a flaming schizophrenic? Nope, just twice as good, bad? ..Ah, whatever.. As that actor going politician said. “There will be time’ or was it “I’ll be back”?

We’ll see.

Ps: I do like comments, and if you keep them concise it will help.
And no, “Buthead” won’t cut it with me.

And as I have a extremely bad internet connectivity.
And as it take me ‘quite some time’ to see what you wrote.
And as it takes me even longer to deliver that reply you then so rightly deserve.
(“U2”) 

So, don’t count on me answering in time :)
Cheers.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: Mr. Scientist on 21/09/2009 02:42:33
Yoron

Information cannot be lost. Stephen Hawking finally retracted his statement on the information paradox, saying that black holes in fact tunnel the energy back into our own space and time.

Google it. I'm sure you will find plenty on the subject.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 25/09/2009 18:01:27
Well, it all depends on how you see it I guess? To my eyes we have two kinds of communication in SpaceTime. One where we 'interact' inside SpaceTime, the other one is what I deem to be 'one-way' only. And a black hole or a entanglement is both nice descriptions of that last idea :)

As the 'communication' Stephen Hawking refers to is a 'happening' outside or at the edge of the EV (event horizon) I still see it as a interaction with space more than with a Black Hole itself. It's a local effect not a 'far' effect if you see my drift? A singularity will not allow (two way) communication. If it does it will no longer be a singularity. To me it seems that one have to differ between what I see as 'sources' of a disturbance of 'equilibrium' and what acts on it. We both agree on that it is the Black Hole creating it though, but if you look at it as a 'rift' in SpaceTime having a one-way --> communication then that Black Hole will still be a 'singularity' and what we deem as 'communicating' should be searched for inside SpaceTime. So I'll keep to this, for now :)
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 25/09/2009 18:24:40
Okay :)

Here is some more material. As usual I can’t give you the direct link but it’s from a pdf with the caption “All Matter Instantaneously Senses All Other Matter in the Universe”. And no author(s) in it which sort of P*es me off :) Again.. Because it’s just that kind of ‘essay’ that I love to read, well written and argumentative with interesting thought experiments.. So I’m condensing most of it and afterwards comes my questions and ideas. And no, I’m still without any internet which makes it quite hard to ‘argue’ comprehensible with you. So It’s still just an ‘essay’ I’m afraid. And as I said in the beginning, thoughts, not certainties. Yes, I will include my view on Global warming there too, even though it to me seem all to ‘true’, as well as late. (((Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read them though :) At the very least it will give you some ‘direction’ in life ::)) Getting miffed and all. . Just follow that yellow brick road.

Let us continue with taking a historical look at ‘action over a distance’. Aristotle as well as later Galileo didn’t think that this phenomena could exist (Far action), and Galileo was very disappointed at Kepler who, due to his interest in magnetism, thought otherwise. “But among all the great men who have philosophized about this remarkable effect (the attraction between celestial masses), I am more astonished at Kepler than any other. Despite his open and acute mind, and though he had at his fingertips the motions attributed to the earth, he has nevertheless lent his ear and his assent to the moon’s dominium over the waters (tides) and to occult properties, and such puerilities.” With Einstein as another disciple of Aristotle. His EPR experiment tried to refute the idea, but as we read, it opened for ‘entanglements’ instead.


But this question is still not decided. Take a look at this experiment.

---Quote----

We have two horseshoe magnets sticking to the vertical sides of a copper plate. The magnets are held up, against the pull of gravity, by their attraction to each other and friction on the copper plate. If we wish to explain the attraction with modern physics, we have to call upon quantum electrodynamics (QED). One of the originators of QED, Richard Feynman [1.4], claimed it explains everything except gravitation and nuclear forces. Hence it ought to cover the attraction of two magnets. In QED, forces between particles of matter are mediated by the collision of photons with electrons and the accompanying momentum transfer. So streams of photons must leave each of the two magnets of figure 1.2, spontaneously and forever, and then pass through a copper plate, finally colliding with electrons at the surface and deep inside the opposite horseshoe magnets. A simple collision between two particles produces repulsion, therefore in order to generate attraction between the magnets, the photons must navigate around the magnets, turn and strike them in the back.

(The ‘horseshoes’ are placed against each other N-S  and S-N with a thin copperplate between them and the ‘QED photon trajectory’ will then leave one horseshoe, somehow travel outside the opposite horseshoe to turn and strike it from its back to create the needed attraction between them.)


 

This mechanism is so ludicrous that it will not be found discussed in textbooks. Nor will most professors mention it to a class of students.”

-------End of quote---

Now, think of that ‘Newtonian apple’ falling towards the center of Earth’s gravity. How did it know where that Earths-center was? Could it feel all those atoms creating Earth and from there locate the ‘center’? According to Newton it seems it should? On the other hand, in a ‘Einstenian’ universe the Aristotle’s principle stating that ‘matter can not act where it is not’ will still be true. The path that apple takes to the ground will be due to its geodesic path in a curved SpaceTime following the Newtonian forces of gravitation and inertia, also called ‘Einstein’s theory of local action’. So, looking at it this way we find two ‘visions of reality’ colliding. In the Newtonian universe the ‘spooky attraction of particles’ exists. In our ‘Einstenian’ it won’t. ‘Far action’ or ‘Local action’? Which one is ‘real’?

To my eyes both are correct. As I see it, if we have a distance-less background to all phenomena we can observe, then you will find Newton’s idea correct, but as we also inside our ‘arrow of time’ have the curved SpaceTime as described by Einstein then he too is correct and the apple will follow the effects he describes, and both do place the apple at the center of that mass. The main difference as I see it being that Newton’s idea of a unchanging ‘inelastic’ speed of light being wrong inside SpaceTime. That he never considered the possibility that light both could have a ‘true speed’ at the same time that it would be observed to keep to that speed no matter the relative motion of frames measuring it is nothing particularly strange, to make that sort of ‘jump’ without any pointers to build it on? So what some people like to see as a ‘statement’ of certainty from Newton is more a case of ‘missing information’ to me. And if we have a SpaceTime where both far and local action exist then the differences seems more to relate to ideas we haven’t defined yet, for example how entanglement is supposed to work no matter its distance? Although I’m not sure how to test that statement about entanglements ‘limitless distances’ experimentally, I have assumed it to be true in my essay, and so I will find ‘far action’ to be true for our apple, and the idea of it and Earth’s Atoms ‘interacting’ or as I say ‘observe’ each other. On the other hand Einstein’s concept of curved space and how mass /time /motion /distance interacts is also true and have a clearer definition inside SpaceTime than our Newtonian description which even though being ‘non-local’ to its nature still is found to be ‘most true locally’, as on Earth, if you see my drift.

To me both ideas seems closely related to my idea of ‘observers’ with Newton defining them as being without ‘distance’ as they communicate/interact directly and Einstein defining them as needing to follow SpaceTime geodesics, but in both cases we find them needing to exist inside our ‘SpaceTime’ to interact, then again you will have phenomena like entanglement that can ‘communicate’ over great distances instantly but without  being able to transmit what we call ‘information’. So my ‘observers’ needs then also to be defined by the information they interchange, and that’s why a Black Hole shouldn’t be a part of those ‘observers’ to me. If you somehow could prove that the ‘information’ coming from the possible hawking radiation wasn’t a product of interactions with ‘virtual particles’ inside SpaceTime, that is, outside or on the ‘edge’ of that EV, and instead becoming from the inside of that EV, now that would imply some sort of ‘two way communication’. But as long as it’s only a result created inside SpaceTime, no matter what you see as the ‘instigator’ (Black Hole:) then that Black Hole will be closed to me containing a ‘one way arrow’ only. SpaceTime thrives on interactions, defined as two way communications here. As soon as you find a ‘one way’ you will find some sort of ‘singularity’ waiting there. The way to ‘communicate’ with those will not go through applying and receiving ‘information’ as that only seems correct inside SpaceTime. You will have to look at the way they ‘builds/emerges’ instead and then read the information holistically as a pattern, not as ‘information’ having a interactivity with SpaceTime, and probably also keep it out from any known ‘cause and effect chain’ that we might relate them to? Also the ideas seem to relate to ‘magnitudes’ or ‘fractal behavior’ to me. Einstein described SpaceTime, Newton described Earth and the solar-system, doing so both went out from what they knew and made huge ‘imaginative jumps’ that they then backed up with experiments and mathematics. So when it comes to SpaceTime and its ‘elasticity’ time-wise I think Einstein is correct, and the’ absolute time underlying the space-time continuum’ that Newton trusted to I believe to be wrong. But when it comes to the way he saw everything ‘communicating’ inside SpaceTime I believe that to be true, with those exceptions defined as ‘singularities’ that just as the photon is a integrated part of SpaceTime but still seems to be ‘outside’ of it . And if we want to talk about really ‘far action’ behavior I believe we see it clearest at a Quantum mechanical level where we notice such phenomena as ‘black body radiation’ with its unexplainable ‘jumps’ creating the need for particle like ‘photons’ to explain it, as well as the ‘infinities of information’ needed for describing QM correctly and tunneling, entanglement, etc.

As for using Entanglement to send and receive information inside SpaceTime? I don’t think so, I’ve seen really weird statements from IBM amongst others suggesting that you might use entanglements to ‘teleport’ information, or other things.

----Quote-------

In brief, they found a way to scan out part of the information from an object A, which one wishes to teleport, while causing the remaining, unscanned, part of the information to pass, via the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect, into another object C which has never been in contact with A. Later, by applying to C a treatment depending on the scanned-out information, it is possible to maneuver C into exactly the same state as A was in before it was scanned. A itself is no longer in that state, having been thoroughly disrupted by the scanning, so what has been achieved is teleportation, not replication.

---end of quote-------

I ‘know’ we entangle light. You know that ethereal thing without mass, size or ‘localization’ except when ‘impacting’. That we do through its polarization as mentioned above. But be awake when reading this please “  Photons too have quantum spin (they are spin-1 particles), but since photons travel at the speed c, the "spin axis" of a photon is always parallel to its direction of motion, pointing either forward or backward. These two states correspond to left-handed and right-handed photons. .  Each photon "in transit" may be considered to possess, in addition to its phase, a certain propensity to exhibit each of the two possible states of spin when it interacts with an object, and a beam of light can be characterized by the spin propensities (polarization) and phase relations of its constituent photons.” But when it comes to particles of ‘restmass’ we only talk about its ‘spin’ as I understands it.. Spin is a intrinsic property of a particle “described using a family of objects known as spinors. There are subtle differences between the behavior of spinors and vectors under coordinate rotations. Rotating a spin-1/2 particle by 360 degrees does not bring it back to the same quantum state, but to the state with the opposite quantum phase; this is detectable, in principle, with interference experiments. To return the particle to its exact original state, one needs a 720 degree rotation”. Why is that? Why do you need a double rotation to bring it back to its ‘original state’?  there must be something defining it even at that level for us to be able to draw that conclusion. But the ‘geometry’ seems not as ours. And if you have a different geometry, and if that geometry is defined by the way your ‘arrow(s:) of time’ defines you, would you then say that we have more or less ‘distances’ being involved in it? Remember that ‘space ball’ I played with who had its axis of ‘distances’ going out everywhere infinitely? Would that be enough to explain this? Does it ‘translate’ up into more ‘dimensions’ than my ‘space ball’ or can you translate it ‘down’ to fewer ‘dimensions’ or ‘distances’ and get this result? Like if I keep ‘width’ and ‘length’ and look at what that would do with a ball, but then again is that a correct description? When we speak of dimensions we deem SpaceTime spatially as being of three ‘dimensions’, right? From that I can imagine/create this ‘space ball ‘which have an infinite amount of different axis’s to it creating ‘distances’, if I now take away one of them ‘dimensions’ what happens to my ‘space ball’? I’m left with a two-dimensional figure with a suddenly extremely limited amount of ‘distances’ to it, even if possible to define as ‘limitless’ too they still would belong to a ‘smaller infinity’, wouldn’t you agree?
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 25/09/2009 18:26:53
But what more am I doing when I do like this? That’s right, I’m acting as if the ‘arrow of time’ still is there, same as in our three-dimensional SpaceTime and with the same ‘rules’ defining it. If I had a two-dimensional circle/space ball but no ‘arrow of time’ would that change its properties? Sure would, without the arrow you can’t expect any ‘distance’ to exist. And if the arrow instead would point ‘both ways’ as it seems to do in QM? Would you then have a object that is there but not there at the same ‘time’ fluctuating sort of? And furthermore, if I would treat the idea of ‘time’ as I do distances and say that it also in itself have an infinite amount of axis’s time-wise ‘originally’, then limited by it’s possible ‘emergence(s)’  why wouldn’t that ‘time’ if ‘down sized’ then act differently as we change the ‘dimensions’, or as I like to see it, ‘distances’. The difference between what I call ‘distances’ and ‘dimensions seems to me to be that our three ‘distances’ is the smallest ‘dimensionality’ I need to create a infinite amount of axis’s from every point of ‘origin’ in SpaceTime, creating that ‘space/distances’ within our arrow of time. So if you now lay one more ‘distance’  to those ‘three’ you trust in? If you laid it into my ‘space ball’ I wouldn’t expect it to be noticed at all, the various ‘distances’ going out from that ‘point’ are already limitless. But If you treat it as solely ‘dimensions’ instead, defined as three (+ time)? Well, then I guess you will need to step out of SpaceTime spatially? And there I feel stymied, I have great trouble imagining that universe. And also it seems to imply that if I was correct in my thought experiment about ‘space balls’ you can’t have what you call a ‘two-dimensionality’ in SpaceTime, as that then would invalidate it. But a universe of ‘ space balls’ :) combined with ‘time balls’ I would expect to be able to produce almost any combination of effects that we observe, yep, as a guess of course, nothing more.  And of course, you can call me a ‘odd ball’ if you like :)

Anyway, let’s go back to IBM and their ‘teleportation’ scheme above. Let us say I create two ‘particles’ from one through a beamsplitter. Now I want you tell which one is the ‘original’ object? Can you? The spin of those two will fall out to the opposite of each other as soon as I observe one of them, but I can’t tell you which ‘spin’ it will have before observing it. To teleport something I assume that you mean that it will be an exact replica, and that a entanglement is not. A entanglement is a mirrored representation of something you only will have the knowledge of as you observe it. Assuming that they are ‘identical’ even if mirrored you still haven’t transferred any known information. The statement above is very doubtful to me, that you can ‘scan out part of the information from an object A’. What exactly do they mean by that? Does it mean that you would be able to know the spin of any particle sent through that beamsplitter, just by observing the ‘original’ before sending it? And if that were true you would also have some way to know which one was the original ‘particle’  as that will be the one with the ‘known’ spin. Clearly strange? And what are the information ‘scanned out’ from the original? Its ‘spin’ perhaps? and that you then apply to C, now defining C to be as A was before? Well, maybe I could call that a ‘exact replica’ but I can’t break ‘the speed of information’ inside SpaceTime with it, as I will need to apply that ‘information’ on C manually. So it’s not a teleportation, to me it seems a manipulation inside ‘the speed of light in a vacuum’ a.k.a. inside our SpaceTime creating two ‘identical’ particles from one through an inter mediator. Entanglements are to me ‘one-way’ communications, therefore similar to singularities and not able to ‘interact’ inside SpaceTime, that means sharing a two-way communication inside it.  ‘Teleportations’ obeying ‘c’ is what you have when you send your text to several locations ‘simultaneously’ if so, as long as you then destroy your 'original' in the process? They will be the exact same, containing the same ‘information’ to you no matter where you read them, but to me teleportation should be ‘instantly’ just like that entanglement seems to be. But the real problem is to define what ‘information’ is here. As we saw ‘entanglements’ does not contain any applicable information for you when just watching one end of it, as you can’t know the spin before observing it. That you know that the opposite spin falls out for the mirrored twin as soon as you observed it does not tell you what spin your particle will have before? If you could find a way to know that first spin without observing it, then you would have a way to send superluminal information, with the addendum that you still would need a way to inform your counterpart on Sirius what ‘spin’ you defined as being ‘informative’, but that you could decide together as before he left Earth. The point being here that as far as I understand you’ll never know a spin or polarization without observing it first. If you would be able to do so then you also would be able to instantly ‘know it all’ as neither time nor distance would be a hindrance for ‘information’ inside SpaceTime any longer. Can you see what I mean?

If we go back to the idea of  what renormalization is. When you look at those ‘infinities’ describing our electron another way to see it might be to say that you have a infinite amount of statements defining the same thing, all true but never ending. To me it implies that what we have done as a first step, using renormalizability, limiting the outcomes, is not wrong, just as neither Newton or Einstein is wrong. But to me it’s still a ‘limiting case’ wherein we try to circle in ‘reality’ from a quantum mechanical point of view, just as Newton did from a more macroscopic point of view, and then Einstein. The real question to me will be if we can use mathematics to describe what I believe to be that ‘distance-less point of origin’ unfolding into us. I hope we can but I’m not sure. Is there a possibility of defining something without times arrow(s) constantly mirroring/expressing QM and SpaceTime. How do you explain times arrow ‘emerging’? That it is a ‘flow’ for us may be explainable as it come from something without ‘distances’, and you can’t divide null, can you? On the other hand it might be a slightly flawed null, if we look to CP-violations? The question then might become if you can have something without size but unsymmetrical? Or maybe something that won’t be able to find a equilibrium without our SpaceTime? The time and space like direction(s) it expresses through its ‘emergence(s)’ may be more complicated to define, even though we can see its relation to invariant mass/space inside our macroscopic universe.

And if ‘energy’ as I suspect is a ‘local SpaceTime definition’ expressing itself through time as disturbances of equilibrium’s then that too may be what I call ‘time without arrows’ emerging due to symmetry breakings. And that seems to imply that ‘time’ and ‘clocks’ is not the same. SpacetTime is to me like that fountain coming from a single size-less ‘spot’ unfolding itself into clocks and mass, space and distances. So, what do you think? Do you remember that I was asking about what inertia was? Well I said that I believed it to be bound to invariant mass, didn’t I and momentum to be something not bound to anything at all, well sort of. Could momentum be seen as an expression of the geometry of SpaceTime in a Einstenian universe? Like the heights and troughs of space with momentum becoming in our straining of the same by acceleration, although in the fact of a later ‘uniform motion’ it will be integrated in SpaceTime as it no longer ‘strains’? And the consequences of that only will be seen as it once more apply a strain by for example by colliding with ‘something’ or otherwise disturb SpaceTime ‘equilibrium’. But inertia then?

-----Quote---------

It can be generalised as a force which counteracts any acceleration of an object with respect to the frame that Mach described, in which the bodies of the distant universe are observed to be at rest. This instantaneous force appears to be related to the mass of the object and its acceleration with respect to the Machian frame. An interaction between an observed object on earth and one in the distant universe must be a non-local interaction. The stars in our galaxy are far enough away from us that however fast they are moving, they form a virtually fixed background upon which we measure the motion of our much closer planetary companions. In the same way the relative motion between the galaxies other than our own also can be considered a fixed background relative to which we can measure acceleration. Further, since the laws of
inertia appear to be the same for all directions of motion, then we can assume that the parts of the universe that significantly contribute to the inertia force are distributed uniformly in all directions. This is called an isotropic distribution.

The most familiar manifestation of the force of inertia is the linear resistance to acceleration. This is the force that appears whenever an object is subjected to an applied force either by contact or by gravity, electrostatics or electromagnetism. The inertia force precisely opposes the applied force in such a manner as to allow a finite and predictable acceleration. It is the reason that all objects fall toward the earth with the same acceleration regardless of their mass. If this force did not exist, then any applied force would produce an infinite acceleration and the universe would have collapsed long ago due to the force of gravity. If however, a force is applied to an object which is already moving perpendicular to the direction of the applied force, then the inertial opposition becomes known as a centrifugal force. This is the force that stretches and sometimes breaks a string used to swing a weight around our head. It is also the force that pushes a race car off a high speed corner and most importantly prevents the earth from falling into the sun. Possibly due to the fact that the inertia forces are so uniform and also that a search for their source implies the currently unfashionable non-local interaction principle, they have been treated differently from the other forces in modern physics textbooks and are often only described as “pseudo-forces”.. .

If indeed, objects are directly pushed and pulled by all of the bodies in the universe, then a perfect demonstration of these forces is the space compass, better known as a gyroscope. Once the axis of a flywheel is aligned to point from one fixed galaxy to another and is held in gimballed bearings which are secured to a space capsule, it will point in this direction forever, whatever maneuvers the space ship will perform, so long as the gyroscope is kept rotating and no electric, magnetic, or contact forces can apply a torque to the axis of rotation. The atoms simply feel where the fixed stars are and are pushed and pulled by them. It is not the inertial or gravitational interaction with the nearby stars that stabilizes the gyroscope alignment. It has to be other isotropically distributed matter arranged in an unchanging way with
respect to our galaxy. Every time we become aware that we are accelerating, it is because the distant universe noticed it and has pushed us.

-------End of quote---------

Newton describes inertia in Newton's First Law of Motion as: "An object that is not subject to any outside forces moves at a constant velocity, covering equal distances in equal times along a straight-line path." Or ‘stays’ if not ‘moving’. Inertia is ‘disguised’ by friction on Earth, which is why Aristotle believed that objects moved only as long a force was being applied to them. So is ‘Inertia’ ‘instantaneous’ or is it the result of a gravitational ‘field’ interacting with invariant mass? A.k.a. ‘far action’ as it will react at every point in SpaceTime, making me look at it as ‘space’ observing ‘space’. Do you remember that I spoke about ‘tunneling’ before as one of those ‘possibly instantaneous thingies’.

---Quote—

 Chiao's group at Berkeley, Dr. Aephraim M. Steinberg at the University of Toronto and others are investigating the strange properties of tunneling, which was one of the subjects explored last month by scientists attending the Nobel Symposium on quantum physics in Sweden.

"We find," Chiao said, "that a barrier placed in the path of a tunneling particle does not slow it down. In fact, we detect particles on the other side of the barrier that have made the trip in less time than it would take the particle to traverse an equal distance without a barrier -- in other words, the tunneling speed apparently greatly exceeds the speed of light. Moreover, if you increase the thickness of the barrier the tunneling speed increases, as high as you please.

"This is another great mystery of quantum mechanics."

---End of quote---

Well, doesn’t that point to ‘instantaneous displacement’?
As we see it ‘go up in ‘speed’’ with thickness?
Or/and non-locality?

Never mind no matter :) if what I read above is correct then Inertia seems much as I thought, something specifically bound to invariant mass, versus that ‘momentum’ that then have no such demands ‘resting’ on it. The Newtonian universe makes sense to me, as well as the Einsteinian, although Einstein’s SpaceTime is the one I trust to describe it best macroscopically. The problem with our understanding seems our need to relate what we know to how we observe our SpaceTime working with our ‘forces’ acting. Which I presume to make our observations slightly flawed as they rest on what I expect to be ‘partial truths’. That won’t hinder that there may be one ‘truth’ existing outside our ‘arrow of time’ containing all the ‘truths’ we observe inside it, but to manipulate that ‘truth’ as we do with our ‘forces’, well, I doubt it as that ‘reality’ will not be ours. And just as it is with ‘flows’ and ‘events’ both can be seen as ‘truths’ from an observers perspective, depending on his choice of observation, although in the case f flow versus events I still lean to a ‘flow’ myself being what ‘time’ really is. Not that I expect it to ‘flow’ behind that veil. To me ‘time’ is more like that ‘monolith’ we all are immersed in, and from where SpaceTime becomes as a ‘partial truth’, even though being the only one directly observable for us. So if you think as me it may be time for us to stop looking at SpaceTime as a solely ‘mechanical’ being working by/on the ‘forces’ we deem to exist. So why not start to look on how objects ‘emerge’ and what ‘laws’ we might deduct from that. Well, that’s my view, as crazy as it might be. And I prefer it as it allows for both ‘theories’, with a few exceptions, as Newton’s ‘inelastic’ time won’t ‘do’ inside SpaceTime. As well as it, to me that is, makes sense of us emerging as ‘intelligent beings’, creating ideas and concepts as ‘Ethics’ and ‘morals, right and wrongs’, as that then could be seen as the next step in a unfolding ‘information space’ where we at the end might find ‘problems’ with defining what’s ‘really real’, and which is where we rightly belong as conceptual tinkers. Us and our ‘forces’ will then be something relating to, and inside, SpaceTime, but for what will be waiting ‘behind/outside it’? That should be really interesting to see. Hope I haven’t made to big an ass out of myself here, as I said it’s thoughts, and possibly hypothesizes, created from my needs to get a slightly less headache, not any holy grail. Anyhow, I hope I made my views clear enough to get a grip? As for finding a ‘nexus’ to waves in this case? I don’t know, I don’t think so though, not if we look at those properties of light as ‘emerging’. On the other tentacle, it do makes ‘photons’ seem questionable too :)

Another thing that’s interesting to me is the question when ‘time’ might get this arrow. As I said before I expect it to involve what we call Planck-distances.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 25/09/2009 18:27:43
--Quote---

On the scale of the Planck length, it's possible that the structure of spacetime becomes quite different from the four-dimensional manifold we know and love. Spacetime itself becomes a foam (according to Wheeler) or a bucket of dust (according to Wheeler) or a bubbling sea of virtual black holes (according to Hawking) or a weave of knots or tangles (according to Ashtekar, Rovelli, and Smolin). In short, it's weird, but beyond that nobody really knows. To be more precise, the Planck length is the length scale at which quantum mechanics, gravity and relativity all interact very strongly. Thus it depends on hbar, c, and Newton's gravitational constant G. …

----End of quote--

So you might loosely say that is a definition of where our SpaceTime ends :)
But there are other ways to search for times shortest ‘arrow’ too.


---Quote----

“The only fundamental theory that picks out a preferred direction of time is the second law of thermodynamics, which asserts that the entropy of the Universe increases as time flows toward the future. This provides an orientation, or arrow of time, and it is generally believed that all other time symmetries, such as our sense that future and past are different, are a direct consequence of this thermodynamic arrow.”

In their study, Feng and Crooks have developed a method to accurately measure “time asymmetry” (which refers to our intuitive concept of time, that the past differs from the future, in contrast with time symmetry, where there is no distinction between past and future). They began by investigating the increase in energy dissipation, or entropy, in various arrangements. Feng and Crooks wanted their new measurement method to explain how time can move forward even at points when entropy is decreasing. To do this, they analyzed the folding and unfolding of a single RNA molecule attached to two tiny beads. By controlling the distance between one bead and an adjacent optical laser trap, the scientists could stretch and compress the RNA molecule. Initially, the RNA starts in thermal equilibrium, but, as it’s alternately stretched and compressed, the total entropy of the RNA and the surrounding bath increases on average. “We use an ensemble, or large number, of RNA trajectories to measure the time asymmetry,” Feng explained to PhysOrg.com. “Using work measurements for both forward and reverse experiments, we simply plug these measurements into an expression for A, or time asymmetry, in the paper. Assuming we know the free energy change, this gives the square of the length of time's arrow.”

--End of quote---

What I think they are doing is treating entropy as a measure of when times arrow becomes fuzzy, like we see in QM.

--Quote---

“We use an ensemble, or large number, of RNA trajectories to measure the time asymmetry,” Feng explained to PhysOrg.com. “Using work measurements for both forward and reverse experiments, we simply plug these measurements into an expression for A, or time asymmetry, in the paper. Assuming we know the free energy change, this gives the square of the length of time's arrow.” To measure time asymmetry in this arrangement, an observer watching the RNA’s trajectory of unfolding and folding should be able to tell if the trajectory was generated by stretching or compressing. The scientists quantify this observation in terms of the “Jensen-Shannon divergence,” a probability which gives a “0” if stretching and compressing are identical, a “1” if they are distinguishable at every moment, and some fraction of one if they overlap occasionally. This probability, Feng and Crooks explain, can more accurately describe time asymmetry than a simple measurement of average entropy, since the average entropy is sensitive to unusual events. For example, if the RNA becomes tangled, it resists being unfolded when the beads expand. Because the tangled RNA is pulled apart very slowly, the process is essentially time-symmetric. The scientists show that a model of this process has large average dissipation, or entropy increase, but small time asymmetry, as one intuitively expects due to the slow pulling.

-------End of quote---Feng, Edward H. and Crooks, Gavin E. “Length of Time’s Arrow.” Physical Review
Letters 101, 090602 (2008).


It’s strangely interesting to me. It hasn’t anything to do with whether time is a flow or events though. To me it seems as a statistical approach to measuring when we first can see a ‘distinctive’ arrow emerge from ‘nothing’. Also they wanted to see how time can move ‘forward’ when you see entropy decrease, as it seem to be able to do in very small systems momentarily. Macroscopically though, entropy constantly is seen to increase as ‘times arrow’ moves SpaceTime into the ‘future’. So to see it as a smallest ‘times arrow’ might be true, as defined inside SpaceTime. But it won’t be a ‘shortest time segment’ we will see, only its arrow taking shape.


As a environmental sidekick :)

Here’s how I understand how Earth’s ‘radiation’ works discussing H2O and CO2. (And I’m not discussing ‘convection cycles’ now.)

Think of Earth as a ‘black body’, I absolutely refuse to go into the mathematics of it :) but just as that black body Earth radiates. The heat Earth frees from the sun’s warming and its own inherent heat goes up in the atmosphere as infrared radiation, to eventually disappear in space.  That infrared radiation will be taken up by all molecules (air) between space and Earth, with them radiating it back again in all directions, down as well as up and sideways. The higher in the atmosphere you come the less density there will be, that means fewer molecules to take up that radiation. So what happens when we add ‘man made’ CO2 (carbon dioxide)? Well the concentration/addition of molecules will get our atmosphere to become denser or thicker if you like, that in its turn will push that releasing ‘edge/surface’ where that heat finally leave our atmosphere upwards to even colder layers, higher up. As those is colder they do not radiate heat as well as those layers that already is becoming ‘satiated’ by heat. And the whole time we have a constant creation of more manmade CO2 joining the atmosphere that we are ‘creating / transforming’ into CO2 from the Earth’s hidden/buried ‘sinks’ in form of coal and oil and natural gas (methane) . You’re with me so far?  Each ‘layer’ of air in our atmosphere will reach ever new equilibrium’s of warmth as the heat and molecules radiates / get freed from Earth, that as molecules in each layer also warm each other as they radiate.

As this is happening Earth will slowly become a place where the radiation from those molecules, reflected in all directions, will cause the Earth to start conserving this energy by building up ‘heat’ in the air layers as the heat gets more and more ‘trapped’ by our new molecules. - And - - This ‘imbalance’ creating evermore warmer layers will keep on, until the highest level of our atmosphere is so ‘warmed up’ that it reflects as much heat in space as the planet is receiving from the sun and ..Us. - That as it is only in that highest layer Earth can regulate its temperature through radiating out in space -. Did you know that before we started our industrial era we were actually in a slowly cooling period on Earth? As for water-vapor it is well known that the higher up you come the ‘dryer’ the air will be, that means that most of the water-vapor falls out as rain further down. As the Co2 and H2O molecules drifts upward their mode of absorption changes. At a sea level the absorption is concentrated into discrete spikes with narrow gaps between the spikes and ‘shallow’ valleys. The ‘spikes’ we’re talking about is light (heat) absorbed in very specific wavelengths shown as dark lines in a spectrum. When the molecules are at the higher layers this absorption will change as the air-pressure goes down. Then their ‘spikes’ becomes much more defined and closer together (more heat absorbed per molecule) And CO2 won’t fall out as water vapor does (H2O-humidity-rain) at those lower altitudes, instead it will stay mixed no matter the height even though it will ‘thin out’ the higher we come just as our atmosphere. That’s why climate scientists talk about amount of heat conserved in different molecules and of global warming potential (GWP).

“Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 60-70 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a twenty-year period (or 25 times over a hundred-year period). “ And that’s why methane is a ‘killer of life’ even in small quantities. Also you should know that CO2 when taken up by the oceans create acidity in them, creating a marine environment where our fishes, reefs, etc starts to die. And as I wrote earlier, they are already becoming saturated. "A study published in the journal Science revealed that since 1981, the Southern Ocean has been taking up less carbon dioxide - five to 30 per cent less per decade - than researchers had predicted previously. At the same time carbon dioxide emissions rose by 40 per cent, the study found. The reason for the slowdown is more winds over the Southern Ocean since 1958, caused by human-produced greenhouse gases and ozone depletion. " http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1926488.htm

“Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise. . Changes in precipitation and evaporation over the oceans are suggested by freshening of mid and high latitude waters together with increased salinity in low latitude waters. Mid-latitude westerly winds have strengthened in both hemispheres since the 1960s. More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. Increased drying linked with higher temperatures and decreased precipitation have contributed to changes in drought. Changes in sea surface temperatures (SST), wind patterns, and decreased snowpack and snow cover have also been linked to droughts. "

And now I will quote myself from 2007 in ‘global health’  “Now I'll make a wild guess ::)) In five to ten years we will start to see a accelerating release of Methane into the Atmosphere, and the linear thinking of how the climate works will break down (again :) Earth ain't linear. Earth is a dynamic nonlinear system, and even if mostly stable , we are throwing a big monkey wrench into its cyclic gears. When a nonlinear system change 'state' it can do so very quickly.”


---Quote—

Ice cores provide evidence for variation in greenhouse gas concentrations over the past 800,000 years. Both CO2 and CH4 vary between glacial and interglacial phases, and concentrations of these gases correlate strongly with temperature. Before the ice core record, direct measurements do not exist. .

Measurements from Antarctic ice cores show that just before industrial emissions started, atmospheric CO2 levels were about 280 parts per million by volume. From the same ice cores it appears that CO2 concentrations stayed between 260 and 280 ppm (Parts per million) during the preceding 10,000 years. However, because of the way air is trapped in ice and the time period represented in each ice sample analyzed, these figures are long term averages not annual levels. . .

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the concentrations of many of the greenhouse gases have increased. The concentration of CO2 has increased by about 100 ppm (i.e., from 280 ppm to 380 ppm).

The first 50 ppm increase took place in about 200 years, from the start of the Industrial Revolution to around 1973.

The next 50 ppm increase took place in about 33 years, from 1973 to 2006.

--End of quote--

If I look at the worlds coal consumption 2008 of 3 300 million ton, then 2 000 million ton was consumed by Asia. And you know what, we are coming out from our recession now says our ‘economists’. So now we can start all over again. The steel production is up as from August 2009 to 106.5 millions ton according to ‘World Steel’. And China have in ten years gone from 124 millions tons, to now over 500 millions ton steel yearly. And its coal consumption have raised from 1998, 652 million tons to over 1400 millions tons last year according to the oil company BP energy-statistics. And sixty eight  percent of the worlds electric power is generated by fossil fuels today, mostly coal and ‘natural gas’ (methane).

Now? - Anybody want to guess how long it will take for the next 50 Parts Per Million (PPM)?

---Quote—Lisa Moore, Ph.D., scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense.--

Here's a table showing a selection of greenhouse gases, their global warming potential (GWP), and their lifetimes:

Greenhouse Gas . . . . . . . .  .Lifetime years . . (100-Year GWP)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) . . …. . . . hundreds .. .. . .1
Methane (CH4) . . . . . . …. . . .. . . 1 . . .  . . . .25
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) . . . . . . . . . .114 . . . . . . .298
Hydrofluorocarbon-23 (CHF3) . . . .264 . . . .. . .14,800
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) . . . . ..3,200.  . . . .22,800
PFC-14 (CF4) . . . . . . . .. . . . . .50,000 . . . . .7,390

Notice that the carbon dioxide lifetime is "hundreds of years", rather than a specific number. The IPCC ‘Third Assessment Report’ defines a gas's lifetime as the amount of the gas in the atmosphere divided by the rate at which it is removed from the atmosphere. That sounds simple enough, except that not all gases are removed by just one (or mainly one) process. Ironically, the gas that accounts for the greatest proportion of global warming, carbon dioxide (CO2), is the hardest to pin down. When CO2 is released into the atmosphere, about three-quarters of it dissolves into the ocean over a few decades (- Acidity -). The rest is neutralized by a variety of longer-term geological processes, which can take thousands of years.

From IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:  About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.

From U.S Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reports: (CO2) Atmospheric lifetime: 50-200 years. No single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes.

From RealClimate: “My model indicates that about 7% of carbon released today will still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years. I calculate a mean lifetime, from the sum of all the processes, of about 30,000 years. That's a deceptive number, because it is so strongly influenced by the immense longevity of that long tail. If one is forced to simplify reality into a single number for popular discussion, several hundred years is a sensible number to choose, because it tells three-quarters of the story, and the part of the story which applies to our own lifetimes.” ("How long will global warming last?")

For other gases, a meaningful lifetime is easier to calculate because one process dominates their removal from the atmosphere:

    * Methane is mostly scrubbed from the atmosphere by hydroxyl radicals (a chemical reaction).
    * Nitrous oxide is destroyed by photolytic reactions (chemical reactions involving photons or light) in the stratosphere.

As you can see from the chart, some gases have extraordinarily long lifetimes. Because emission rates are vastly higher than removal rates, greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere and will affect climate for generations to come.

----End of Quote----

So yeah,
high time we create something better than this.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 28/09/2009 18:45:31
As a thought experiment in ‘teleportation’ . Assume that you will be ‘teleported’ somewhere as an exact ‘copy’ of your ‘original’. To me it doesn’t really have an importance if there will be two of you inside SpaceTime, not in this experiment. Will the new you and your original have the same thoughts? No way, you will have two different ‘realties’ surrounding you and so your experiences/thoughts will differ. So? Can there be a ‘exact copy’? Of dead matter, yes. But of living? But if you then become ‘entangled’ in the process? How will that show itself? opposite spins? How about thoughts?

Let us discuss the idea of virtual particles and our idea of restmass some more. Let us first look at those ‘virtual ones’. In a way they do not exist, they are a metaphorical ambiguous descriptions of something that somehow ‘craves to exist’, as we see results inside SpaceTime that have no other known explanations, as far as I understand. One interesting example of virtual particles and energy is the how the presence of Casimir plates can affect the fluctuations, so that the ‘negative energy’ density between extremely close plates when compared to the ‘positive energy’ outside the plates leads to a measurable effect. We have a definition of energy as coming from ‘zero’ energy and rising inside spaceTime, but this ‘negative energy’ mentioned, what is that? “To understand how energy can be negative, set aside the classical interpretation of empty space, which is a vacuum with zero energy density. Instead, think of the vacuum as having only an average energy density of zero, in deference to the statistical fluctuations quantum mechanics says underlie fields. Given those vacuum fluctuations, zero energy is no longer the lowest energy state possible. Why? Because in order to average out to nothing, sometimes the vacuum must have tiny amounts of positive, and other times tiny amounts of  negative, energy. “

And “ the Casimir effect has been posited as a force produced solely by activity in the vacuum. The Casimir force is also very powerful at small distances. Besides being independent of temperature, it is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance between the plates! Therefore, as the plates are brought closer, the virtual particles outside the plates increasingly overpower the decreasing quantity of virtual particles appearing between the plates with an exponentially increasing force.”  This leads to some speculation about the possibility of get ‘free energy’ through it.  “ Physicist Robert Forward, working at the Hughes Research Laboratory at the time, published a paper in 1984 with a clever thought experiment that demonstrated the conceptual possibility of extracting such vacuum energy from the zero-point field using the Casimir Force but with a slight twist: using electrically charged plates. Charging the plates will not affect the Casimir force, but doing that will provide a way to derive energy from the force which is pushing the plates together. If the two plates are given the same polarity charge, they will electrostatically repel each other. Adjust the charge so that the electrostatic repulsion and the Casimir attraction almost precisely balance, but always let the former be slightly smaller than the latter. In this way the Casimir force will slowly push the plates together, thus doing work against the electrostatic force and thereby adding energy to the electric field between the plates. This build-up of energy is at the expense of the zero-point field. Since the zero-point field is enormous, this energy is never missed. It just flows back almost instantaneously. It is like taking a bucket of water from the ocean. Forward’s "vacuum fluctuations battery" will not provide useful energy because to make the energy extraction happen a second time, you have to pull the plates apart, and that takes at least as much energy (because of frictional losses, actually slightly more) as the original gain. So as conceived, the experiment has no practical use. But its conceptual importance is clear. It demonstrates that in principle there are ways of extracting energy from the vacuum. What is missing is the engineering to do so. “

So that is a very optimistic statement. Then again, as I see it as another ‘reality’ outside our arrow of time I personally don’t believe it, as it then would violate ‘emergence’ and allow ‘a two way information’ to flow between something outside our ‘arrow of time’ and SpaceTime. There is support for my view in the experiments done by Noah Graham and Ken Olum ‘trying to optimize the possibility of ‘negative energy’’. Apparently there seems to be a ‘hidden principle’ now named as  AENC  (Averaged Null Energy Condition)  hindering this. And that is as it should be in ‘my universe’ :)

---Quote----from “Charting the river of time” by Ken Olum ---

The ANEC (Averaged Null Energy Condition)  essentially says that, though you can borrow a little negative energy on your route through space-time, you wind up paying it back with the positive type. Exotic phenomena are unlikely because they require some form of energy with a density that violates the ANEC “they require that the total energy density be negative when we add up all the contributions over the complete path of the light ray,” as Olum describes it. Which is to say, a little trading in the energy margins is fine, but the end result will still be positive—or at least not negative enough, for long enough, over a large enough region to make any difference.. ..

Along with Noah Graham, a Junior Faculty Fellow at Middlebury College, Olum has already shown that the ANEC still obtains between Casimir plates, even if you put holes in the plates so a photon can pass through in the most negative energy-friendly direction. “What we found was the striking result that the region near the hole always contributed enough positive energy to overwhelm the ANEC violation,” said Graham. “This result could be a coincidence of this particular system, but it certainly suggests there is a deeper principle
at work.” With Fewster and Pfenning, Olum showed that there is such a principle at work in flat space, a finding confirmed by his work with Graham. If it applies to more complex systems as well, that principle
may be the barrier to time travel. “No collection of Casimir-type systems in flat space can violate the ANEC,” Olum said. “This we succeeded in showing. So the next thing to do is to try this for interacting fields, and curved space.” Olum is skeptical of any exotic outcomes, however. There is no free negative energy lunch in the special case and, he suspects, there isn’t going to be one in the general case. “I have tried to construct these exotic things before, using what seemed to be promising ideas, and I have not been able to construct them. So I think that it’s impossible. And I have good reasons to think that it’s impossible,” he said. “Without constructing the proof, though,” he added, “one can’t be certain.”

----End of quote--------------

Restmass then? Well let’s consider that Electron once more. “ For example, all electrons are identical, a situation for which there is no macroscopic parallel. To say that two electrons are present at a given moment may therefore be indistinguishable from saying that the same electron is present in two locations. Further, an electron moving backward in time would from one perspective be equivalent to a positron moving forward (Feynman diagrams). Indeed, decades ago, such considerations motivated the theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler to wonder whether all electrons may in fact be the same particle, hopping endlessly about in space and time. Resolving temporal paradoxes at the quantum level may thus turn out only to be a matter of choosing a suitable frame of reference.”

So what is not possible macroscopically becomes possible at a quantum mechanic scale? But can we ‘transfer it’ to the macroscopic scale? In ‘my universe’ I expect that to be impossible. Why? Well, if it was possible we should already have ‘time-travel’, also it would violate my idea of ‘one-way’ and ‘two-way’ communication as I see ‘virtual particles’ as being as much a ‘singularity’ as our ‘Black Holes’, the difference here being that ‘virtual particles’ arrow is directed towards SpaceTime versus a Black Holes arrow being directed from SpaceTime, towards its own ‘singularity’. There are more things to say about this but let us jump to my next question first. What would you call the ‘origin’ of mass? Let’s start with how we once thought of it

---Quote—Frank Wilczek- -The origin of mass--

The concept of mass is one of the first things we discuss in my freshman mechanics class. Classical mechanics is, literally, unthinkable without it. Newton’s second law of motion says that the acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. So a body without mass wouldn’t know how to move, because you’d be dividing by zero. Also, in Newton’s law of gravity, the mass of an object governs the strength of the force it exerts. One cannot build up an object that gravitates, out of material that does not, so you can’t get rid of mass without getting rid of gravity. Finally, the most basic feature of mass in classical mechanics is that it is conserved. For example, when you bring together two bodies, the total mass is just the sum of the individual masses. This assumption is so deeply ingrained that it was not even explicitly formulated as a law. (Though I teach it as Newton’s Zeroth Law.) Altogether, in the Newtonian framework it is difficult to imagine what would constitute an “origin of mass,’’ or even what this phrase could possibly mean. In that framework mass just is what it is a primary concept. Later developments in physics make the concept of mass seem less irreducible. Einstein’s famous equation of special relativity theory, written in that way, betrays the prejudice that we should express energy in terms of mass. But we can write the same equation in the alternative form . When expressed in this form, it suggests the possibility of explaining mass in terms of energy. Einstein was aware of this possibility from the beginning. Indeed, his original 1905 paper is entitled, “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on Its Energy Content?”

---End of quote---

If I remember right I have already discussed the ideas describing Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and its ‘offspring’ Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD) somewhere on this site. --- http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19886.0 ---.

--Diverse Quotes—

“The full description of the electromagnetic force between elementary particles was formulated by Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Richard Feynman  and Julian Schwinger in independent works in the 1940's. They formulated Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED). This is a theory that takes full account of quantum physics and special relativity (which is the underlying symmetry of Maxwell's Equations). It is very elegantly formulated by so-called Feynman diagrams, where the elementary particles exchange photons as was described above and where each diagram constitutes a certain mathematical expression that can be obtained from some basic rules for the propagation of virtual particles and from the interaction vertices. The simplest diagram for the interaction between two electrons is electrons interaction. This diagram in fact leads to Coulomb's law.

Feynman now instructs us that we can combine any line for a propagating electron (or when it travels backwards, the positron) and any line for a propagating photon tied together with the vertex where an electron line emits a photon to make up new diagrams. Every other diagram differing from the one above constitutes quantum corrections to the basic force. It was through the work of the three scientists above that it was shown that every such diagram can be made to make sense to give finite answers. It is said that QED is renormalisable. The strength of the force as in Coulomb's law is governed by the magnitude of the vertex which is the electric charge e in QED and for the diagram above it is proportional to the square of e and is the Fine Structure Constant = 1/137. Since this is a small number it makes sense to write the amplitude in a series of terms with higher and higher powers of since that factor will be smaller and smaller for ever increasing complexity of the diagram. The higher order terms are higher quantum corrections and the perturbation expansion that we have defined will have smaller and smaller terms as we go to higher quantum corrections.”

“The strong Nuclear force is explained by Quantum ChromoDynamics, or the colour interaction. The colour interaction, QCD, is such that there are three colour charges, red, green, and blue, and a proper interaction only occurs between all three when they are together.(There are no actual inherent colours and in fact they are always changing, its just that the sum of three results in neutrality)

Even more interesting, however, is that the colour force gets stronger with distance. If one were to try and extend particles interacting through QCD, he or she would find that the force between said particles would increase to infinity. This poses a problem for those scientists who want to observe quarks, which interact through a colour charge. The quarks cannot actually be separated. The solution to this is to observe the quarks when they are very close together. Thus the force between them shall be weak. Using this principle, scientists were able to rattle protons and neutrons to observe their constituent quarks.”

“At this most primitive level QCD is a lot like QED, but bigger. The diagrams look similar, and the rules for evaluating them are similar, but there are more kinds of sticks and hubs. More precisely, while there is just one kind of charge in QED —namely, electric charge— QCD has three different kinds of charge. They are called colors, for no good reason. We could label them red, white, and blue; or alternatively, if we want to make drawing easier, and to avoid the colors of the French flag, we can use red, green, and blue. Every quark has one unit of one of the color charges. In addition, quarks come in different “flavors.” The only ones that play a role in ordinary matter are two flavors called u and d, for up and down.

(Of course, quark “flavors” have nothing to do with how anything tastes. And, these names for u and d don’t imply that there’s any real connection between flavors and directions. Don’t blame me; when I get the chance, I give particles dignified scientific-sounding names like axion and anyon.)

There are u quarks with a unit of red charge, d quarks with a unit of green charge, and so forth, for six different possibilities altogether. And instead of one photon that responds to electric charge, QCD has eight color gluons that can either respond to different color charges or change one into another. So there is quite a large variety of sticks, and there are also many different kinds of hubs that connect them. It seems like things could get terribly complicated and messy. And so they would, were it not for the overwhelming symmetry of the theory. If you interchange red with blue everywhere, for example, you must still get the same rules. The more complete symmetry allows you to mix the colors continuously, forming blends, and the rules must come out the same for blends as for pure colors. I won’t be able to do justice to the mathematics here, of  course. But the final result is noteworthy, and easy to convey: there is one and only one way to assign rules to all the possible hubs so that the theory comes out fully symmetric. Intricate it may be, but messy it is not!

-----End of quotes---

As for why their exact ‘colors’ was chosen? If I remember right it had to do with the way they ‘neutralized’ each other color-wise just as our color charts do?

http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXVII3/quark.html

----Quote-----

These aren’t real colors visible to the eye, of course, but they do exhibit a similar bit of behavior—one blue, one green, and one red quark add up to be colorless, just as equal parts of blue, green, and red light add up to white light. All observable particles—your protons, neutrons, pions, kaons, and what have you—are color-neutral. And just as all particles, including quarks, have antiparticles, colors have anticolors: antiblue (yellow), antigreen (magenta), and antired (cyan). A bound pair of a color and its anticolor is also color-neutral. To make things really interesting, every gluon carries two units of color charge—a color and a (generally different) anticolor—and when quarks trade gluons, they usually change color as well. By analogy with quantum electrodynamics, which explains electromagnetism on a quantum level, Gell-Mann christened this Trading Spaces nightmare quantum chromodynamics, or QCD.

-------------------End of quote-----

So what does those theories say about mass? Do they explain the phenomena? They give us good and detailed theories for how the interactions seems to work, but, do they give me an understanding for what matter is? Nah, not really. So, what is matter? That invariant mass we see all around us, living and dead. I see it as an ‘emergence’ through distances, like disturbances in a field that due to ‘laws’ getting created by their emerging/appearance draws them together, ‘coagulates’ them inside SpaceTime. But here a really infuriating problem exists. If I have something without ‘distances’ creating this ‘disturbance’, well that’s one thing, but when we ‘move’? How the he* does that ‘work’? And to up that problem further, why not also add those of us with ‘a free will’ choosing our direction in SpaceTime ‘independently’? Could I look at it as a ‘law’ from the simple to the complex perhaps? Could I also look at is if what we see as ‘forces needed’ is only applicable in SpaceTime? I mean, it would simplify my headache enormously if I could assume that when certain preconditions is fulfilled outside what we know, then a so called ‘emergence’ take place, creating a ‘SpaceTime’ with its own rules. Then SpaceTime even if directly connected to this ‘distance-less’ reality will have a life of it’s own, not needed to coordinate what we see as ‘motion’ to its ‘parent reality’. Can you see how I think here? Like if what we see if seen from that original point of view only is an ‘illusion’.  Inside SpaceTime it’s not, naturally, just as the ‘distances’ created by a Black Hole will be all to real if you were there. But it would simplify life for me, as I otherwise would have to expect that, if I’m right, all motion inside SpaceTime will be directly ‘interacting’ and coordinated with/to a ‘dimension less point’. And that, that would really make my headache jump up and down in excitement and destroy all ‘one and two way-communication’. So yes, I think what we see as ‘asymmetric freedom’ inside SpaceTime only is valid inside it, even if bound to ‘distance-less-ness’. So maybe we are everywhere? If seen through Alice’s mirror. But as we can’t traverse to that side we won’t know.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 28/09/2009 18:58:09
So let’s go back to what I see as the differences between ‘distances’ and ‘dimensions’. We live in three ‘dimensions’. When we pick up a object (book) we can directly confirm that it has a length, a width and a height, right? Well I presume that this is how we decided on what a ‘dimension’ was. But is that the same as my assuming those ‘space balls’ :) And possibly ‘time balls’? It seems to me that working from ‘dimensions’ you always will be able to add/create new ones, and each one will take ‘SpaceTime’ through a ‘geometric twist’ creating an invisible ‘distance’ of its own that we then will have to add to those we see as our ‘reality’. My idea of it doesn’t concern itself with ‘unseen dimensions’ at all, well, at least I think so :). Even though we have a dimension/distance less ‘mirror’ to us, what we have inside SpaceTime will be the only ‘distances’ possible. If you have a ‘point pushing against a point ad infinitum’ creating us, all of them acting as if they had a ‘sphere-like’ force with its axis’s directed everywhere as observed by us, how would you add a ‘dimension’ to that? And why would you need too? And that idea of ‘time’ as originally being the same as ‘distances’? ( I kind’a like it :) It has a symmetry to me. Those time-axis’s all exist at that ‘empty plane’ as a ‘possibility’ but when emerging in SpaceTime they ‘combine/fall out to’/emerge(?) into finally one ‘arrow of time’ for us.  And take notice that ‘things’ seem to ‘simplify/focus’ themselves for us as they ‘grow’, isn’t that strange? As the effects ‘add up’ macroscopically they somehow becomes ‘less’. That I use the word ‘dimension’  to describe what’s without it? Well, I don’t have a better word. ‘Distance-less’? So what we would be then is a ‘closed bubble’ directed and constructed through ‘emergence’ with what we call motion and acceleration, as well as our ‘forces’, as something specific to SpaceTime.

And the ‘red thread’ running through it all? Something opening into a interactive two-way communication, ever growing into ‘complexity’ and self-awareness. We won’t get away from ‘Singularities’ in my universe, they are part of it, the ultimate one-way ‘strains’ on SpaceTime, and neither will we get away from those ‘infinities’, they too are a part of what SpaceTime is. Strange, when I started writing I didn’t know it would end like this? I thought I had my own view of it, and as I wrote in the beginning I primarily started to write it for me, not you. Sometimes it truly feel like I’m two persons :) One ‘normal’. Here as always slightly bored, not caring overmuch about what we do to ourselves, the other one only showing its face as I write?  And that one do seem to care? So, maybe I created this universe just to ‘rant’ about ‘Global Warming’ then?  (never mind no matter, take it as you please :) No, not really, but I’m pleased it ‘fit in’ so nicely. And I hope you found it possible to make some sense of it. As for if dimensions exist? Probably, according to the mathematics we use they do, right? And that book you read do have a width, length and height, so maybe I’m bicycling in the blue younder here? But maybe we see them slightly ‘wrong’? Due to the way we once thought to define them from SpaceTime? I don’t really know. Your choice. But if I was right (goofy space balls:) then the question might be, what is it that limit those ‘distances’ to three (and times arrow) for us macroscopically? My guess would be that this is the ideal solution to ‘life’, biological life needs a one way arrow to live in, as well as all other logical processes we constructed. Consider living in a universe like the one we see at a QM level seen through that Feynman diagram. I can’t see how one would make sense of it biologically? Where you might wander through your birth as you grow old, probably loosing yourself in the process as that seems to be best analogue to what we see happening in one of those diagrams (Further, an electron moving backward in time would from one perspective be equivalent to a positron moving forward.) I just can’t see anything biological or electrical prosper in such a universe. And if time do have two ‘arrows’ at a QM level, would you then say that this ‘time’ now contains ‘another dimension’? You would have to, wouldn’t you? (The other choice seems to be immersed in my ‘monolith’). So then ‘time’ to you would need to have a ‘height’? As well as a ‘width’? And you think I’m…?

If you on the other tentacle consider my description, then time to its nature have no arrow at all, or if you like, have all possible arrows there is, but in a equilibrium as they take each other out at that ‘lowest state’ of existence. Then it has to be something similar to a symmetry breaking creating ‘two way’ and ‘one way arrows’, and that seems to fit in with those CP-violations too. So what can create that asymmetry? If I consider that explosion taking place in the engine, then what created the ‘force’ as well as the asymmetry was ‘density’, the engines wall. If we assume that this ‘first state of no-time’ if isolated would consist of all ‘energy there is’, then, could that ‘energy’ be seen as ’pushing’?. Not if I defined it as a size-less point of origin, then it would not have anything to ‘push’ against, right? So what other ways can something without size express itself through? I don’t know, if I could understand how that photon (and virtual particles) can exist and deliver its energy inside SpaceTime, while still being size-less, time-less and mass-less intrinsically perhaps I would get an inkling as how that works. But I think it to be so anyway, and either we have some sort of ‘symbiotic’ system where both states is needed to exist, which then would make it a symmetric solution as we look at it as a ‘whole’ system, even if possibly to us ‘asymmetric’ as we only observe one side of it. Or we have a asymmetric system for real, which then craves a symmetry break, which then seems to crave a ‘times arrow’ preexisting for it to have happened? I mean, how can you say that something have ‘happened’ without allowing that ‘one way arrow’ to play a role? We could also have a ‘breathing system’ cycling through both sides of course, but I don’t think so. What we se as cycling is from our side of the mirror and that follow an ‘arrow of time’. So, it may be so that what I call ‘no way’, ‘two way’ and ‘one way arrows’ is ‘emergent’ properties defining a symmetry, uneven as seen from our side, but symmetric when studied as a whole. That’s what I think for now, at least. But if so, how is it balanced on that other side? Then there should be some opposite ‘principle’ creating a asymmetry if observed on that side too I presume? And there’s another question involved here, can you have a asymmetric balance that falls out to a symmetry when involving a larger ‘system’? Look at Earth climate system and then on the weather at different geographical locations, I think it’s perfectly possible myself, especially when not being able to ‘see’ the whole symmetry.

So I believe ‘time’ to be a emergent property. I believe that we have a ‘symmetry’ of sorts as a ‘whole’ in SpaceTime even though when observed from our arrow expressing itself as a asymmetry. I think I can understand my idea of ‘distances (arrows)’ and ‘times arrows’ and how that might relate to SpaceTime. I’m not sure how it fits in with ‘dimensions’, though it to me seems to crave three ‘dimensions and a ‘one way arrow’ to create SpaceTime, then again, two ‘dimensions’ with a ‘one way arrow’ might work too? What we see at a QM level seems to be the opposite though? A two way arrow of ‘time’ but still ‘three dimensions’. If you like you might consider both examples as a ‘emergence’ to our three dimensional reality. But I still think that for any electrochemical biological systems to emerge we will need what we find here, 3D ‘space-balls’ creating distances inside a ‘one-way arrow’. And if that is correct your ‘two-dimensionality’ won’t exist inside SpaceTime as I expect those ‘goofy 3D space-balls’ to originate from ‘size-less points’ (a.k.a. Plank-size probably?).  Also you have to remember that if you really consider some QM phenomena as ‘two-dimensional system’, then what you observe should also be able to ‘disappear’ from certain angles of observation. And if you don’t get what I mean by that you need to reread this essay, however confused it may be. And as long as that ‘2D system won’t disappear’ I will have great problems to accept that definition as valid. And if it did? Well, then you would have a true experimental proof defining dimensionality, wouldn’t you, making my ‘proposal’ highly dubious.

But as long as it doesn’t your proposed ‘two-dimensionality’ seems to me just another ‘limiting case’  made up for the needs of a experiment. Equilibrium seems also to be something describing SpaceTime with what we call ‘forces’ being the disturbance/straining of the same. Now you might want to point to electrons and particles and say ‘but they ‘disappear’, don’t they?’ I don’t think so, to me they’re not ‘there’ at all. What we observe is the ‘disturbances’ creating matter, and they will be ‘flickering’ even if homogeneous when observed to take up a certain spatial place coherently in time. And that’s a real mystery to me, how they do it, and what allows us ‘biological systems’ to constantly break the laws governing motion inside SpaceTime by our locomotion and use of ‘free will’. To allow for that I use the idea of ‘information / fractal behavior’ and the idea that all goes to a ‘higher information density’ (from simple to complex). And that you will find a ‘asymmetric freedom’ to SpaceTime allowed by its ‘emerging’ from that ‘distance-less’ definition. And if you look at ‘information density’ too as a sort of ‘emergence’ then they will create new ‘immaterial properties’ in SpaceTime as they emerge. It may be that this kind of ‘immaterial emergence’ have effects we can not evaluate directly in time, but we all know the ‘force/impact’ of immaterial ideas, don’t we? As for what consists of ‘simple’ or ‘complex’? I’m not sure on that one, what we see defines our views, right? So we have a definition and expectation of what we call ‘simple’ as compared to ‘complex’ but when you look at it as ‘emergence’ then there might not be any such thing. There might just be ‘whole processes’ that will be lifted forward for us to know/observe when we are ‘ready for it’, like us being those ‘fire-flies’ lightening up inside that monolith of ‘time’. As seen from inside our ‘SpaceTime’ though, our definitions have a validity and we will find processes to walk from the ‘simple to the complex’ as judged by us inside our arrow of time, at least that’s my expectation. Even though you might find QM to behave differently ‘momentarily’ it will still obey our arrow of time, and if it stops doing so? Well :) Ops, we’re gone..

( There is one thing more, highly hypothetical that I would like to add. I like to think of ‘photons’ as ‘holes’ in SpaceTime, have you noticed that? If you do that and then consider my proposition of ‘emergence’ as ‘whole processes’ when considered outside our ‘arrow of time’ combined with my view that ‘distances/time/mass/momentum/forces etc’ all is properties only valid inside that arrow/SpaceTime. Then maybe photons really are ‘holes’ inside SpaceTime. Fluctuations of ‘energy’ created as needed by those ‘laws’ we see govern inside SpaceTime but not ‘there’ at all. Like if we all was a homogeneous emerging ‘information field’ where each photons ‘emergence’ inside it would be some sort of rift in that field created by SpaceTime’s needs/laws expressed through its arrow. And then the ‘forces’ we use would be SpaceTime’s need to close those ‘rifts’. Crazy, ain’t it :)

--------------

And now for some environment again :)

Now, when it comes to the ‘economy’ of it. What we need to do is to change our priorities when it comes to infrastructure, we need to dismantle our coal driven power-plants. To keep them and try to ‘clean up’ the smoke will leave us with the option of ‘CO2 pipes everywhere’ which to me is no option? And if you let your common sense lead you it’s no option to you either, that can only be a extremely short-time solution. As for using batteries to our cars? Seems that we are building up to new problems there with the residuals that will be left to dispose of when those batteries are ‘dead’. Don’t fool yourself, it’s not a easy problem and it will ‘cost’ you personally, as well as the industry to solve. I prefer if we could make water our fuel, that would be the best solution from a longtime perspective. What would happen to our ‘economy’ and hierarchy’s of power if we could? Ever wondered about that? You should, as it is now people tend to think that ‘economy’ is like some wild beast, best left to those few that ‘lead us’. But the truth is that it is us all that is the economy, and without us neither ‘money’ nor ‘economy’ exists. You have two choices here. Keep on to the beaten path, nuclear power, batteries, centralizing power of all kinds, all those things that will create future waste problems for your kids, but, will keep your centralized economy intact, clearly defined and hierarchical, or you could start build for something that to me is a better long time solution. Nope, not ‘communism’. I’ve never felt comfortable with the ideals there, we need some ‘living space’, all of us do, we’re no ants. But neither am I pleased with the notion of unequal living standards, war, starvation and ignorance, and that is what our ‘free markets’ seems to offer instead. What they like to call a ‘fierce competition’, but what we all know to be secret ‘power deals’ and money greasing the ‘representative politics and dictatorships’. So I’m not impressed with that either. The real question may be if you’re ready to take responsibility for your own actions? If you are then there might be a hope for us. And if you are, you will realize that we need to share our resources trying to make the best we can of this situation. But it will get better, that sharing will grow as Earth’s resources ‘recharge’ themselves and in a hundred years we will be on a better path.

Ask yourself, why would we ever need a Concorde to fly in? We could use modern equivalents to a Zeppelin instead to make that same journey, so much cheaper and environmental for us and the ‘economy’. I mean it, do ask yourself why? Time pressures? Come on, you have the internet, set up a video conference instead. That’s comparatively ‘instantaneous’ looking at the hassle with flying and arriving and setting it all up. Where’s the need for it? ‘Personal contacts’, ‘power-deals’, your ‘importance’ as a small predator rubbing hide against your ‘peers’? Is that it? Give that up and become a human being instead, try to look past that short nose of yours to what might come. We need an end to ignorance and greed, we need live-able solutions, clean water and air. And that won’t come through any ‘revolution’ I’ve heard of, it can only come through education and self-questioning. Why not try to wake up? ‘Honor and prosperity’ is not birth-marked for only a few, it’s meant for all, and we have it in reach using Earth’s resources wisely. There’s new research showing that domestic violence lowers your kids ‘intelligence’, strange isn’t it? Why should it? A good whack now and then to teach him or her the ‘reality’s’ of life, that’s only ‘educational’ isn’t it? Builds character, doesn’t it? One reason for it could be that this kid will be so occupied with ‘surviving’ that (s)he won’t have the time, or dare, to build an interest for other things, also it creates a vicious circle in that they too might find ‘brute force’ a quicker solution to the ‘problem’ than using their mind, as that’s what we taught them, not forgetting those other kids that will ‘hide’ forever more, believing their slightest mistakes punishable. It seems a terrible waste of minds and honor to me, wasting their minds, and your honor. So, is that what we are like? Kids, too occupied with ‘survival’ to see what we do to ourselves? Or too occupied with what our ‘economy’ will bring perhaps :)

And if you feel that the Earth nowadays is to small? Simple, one kid a family for the next ten generations, if you count on twenty years between every ‘generation’ then that will give Earth a breathing space of two hundred years, and our ‘over-population’ will shrink dramatically, without any war or genocide’s involved, just use those ‘preventives’. And it will make that kid coming loved as (s)he might be the only one you will have. We can solve all problems just using common sense, if we want to. But it depends on you reading me, and your ‘maturity’ as a human being. I won’t solve it for you, you will, if so. But to make it possible we need ‘education’, all of us do, and that’s where we have the internet. After the wheel I believe the internet to be the most important ‘technology’ available today :) if we allow it to breath freely. Flood it with education, make sure that it is there with footnotes and sources available. Stop locking it in, there might be someone in Liberia that could be our next Einstein reading you on it. So, we have those ‘sick people’ using it too, I know we do, but that’s the price we pay for ‘unlocking information’. Someone will always use it shortsightedly or/and wrong. But they are ‘track able’ if we pool our information, furthermore, my view is that we need a ‘crime’ before we can talk about ‘justice’. I’m expecting you reading me to consist of enough ‘real human beings’ for it all to fall out to good solution, but then again? Maybe you don’t agree? Only you then? And your ‘peers’ perhaps? Harder measures you say, trust no one, and, ah I see, you’re no ‘personal Jesus’? Well, then I presume we others will have to ‘make do’ without you for the time being. The rest of you reading I do hope to see my point.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: Mr. Scientist on 30/09/2009 19:55:17
Only a reserved universe would not permit the singular regions of spacetime predicted by general relativity. :)
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 03/10/2009 17:29:52
Sorry, that one you will have expand on?
What is your definition of a 'reserved universe'?
If we are we talking about a 'closed' SpaceTime?
If so I agree, but I can't see how it invalidates my thoughts?
If you see it as a 'emergence' then they will all create new 'properties'.

Or do you mean that SpaceTime is open?
If so that won't invalidate it either.
To see my idea you still have to look at SpaceTime as something 'emerging' with its own rules. Those rules will be 'real' for us, and clearly defined (ah, macroscopically that is :). As for if SpaceTime is 'open or closed' that is still (to my eyes) a limited case. If there would be a 'original region' without 'distances' creating what we deem as such, then the question if SpaceTime is open or closed loses its context as your only definition will be according to a 'limited set' of rules inside SpaceTime. As Distances don't really exist If my idea would be correct. But I would still look at distances as something finite, at least from that other 'outside' view, but as for how it will express itself inside?


That is if it was that you meant?
There may be something I missed here?

(Singularities is a direct result of Einsteins theory's and do seem to exist.
Although a lot of people didn't expect it to be so.
And they are as far as I know no 'mirages'.)
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 03/10/2009 22:42:02
Can't hold this from you.

And this.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2009-02-25-warming_N.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/21/eco.warmingantarctic/index.html


State of the Climate Global Analysis August 2009
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=8&submitted=Get+Report

And if you did read those.

Then check out this guy.

( I would call him optimistic :)
But then again, that's me not you.
And he's right in his conclusion.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 08/10/2009 23:12:58
And here is the 'Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States' by the USGCRP Scientific Assessments 2009 . It's optimistic and I like it, even though I expect it to be a closer shave than what we expect now.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/download-the-report

"In the United States, the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990 mandates that every four years an assessment of the impacts of global change in the U.S. be conducted by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Responding to this mandate, the USGCRP carried out during the late 1990s the first National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change in the United States. Between 2004 and 2009, the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which incorporated the USGCRP, produced a series of 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products(SAPs)."
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 16/10/2009 15:58:18
When a heavenly object or a rocket moves in a uniform motion does it have a different 'energy level' depending on its ‘speed’?
If you see it as such, why won’t we notice it as radiation from those 'excited atoms’ creating its invariant mass?

And how does ‘Momentum’ relate to 'Energy'?
As energy is nowhere to be found here.
But then again, so is our momentum?
As well as ‘Inertia’.

They will only become ‘present’ when manipulating the objects equilibrium. That in the case of our object meaning impact or observation/comparison against another frame of reference. So are any of them definable without that ‘Impact/frame of reference’? (Inertia craves a change of velocity which also is a manipulation relative another ‘frame of reference’, namely SpaceTime itself, even though we don’t need to observe that ‘frame’ to observe the consequences) The other two though seems to crave more direct comparisons with other ‘frames’?

How do we define the ‘energy’ of a particle? By impacting it first perhaps, measuring and then counting on various particles speed, velocity and mass? And then generalize it. Do you see that as the same as proving what ‘energy’ is, or do you see it as a ‘tool’ for describing and defining a idealized concept?

And do Plank-time ‘flickers’?

Think of three Plank lengths as a ‘distance’, then take a plank of two Planck lengths and push it over those three. At some time this plank will be ‘displaced’ between those three Planck lengths not covering it in even ‘spaces’ (as I tend to see it).  Looking at this, even if Planck sizes is a truly ‘objective measurement’ inside ‘SpaceTime there, according to my thinking, there still must be a ‘flow’ when considering our plank traveling ‘past them’. But then again, you could argue that this example only will be true as long 'time' is a ’flow’.

If you somehow succeeded in proving that 'time' is created out of ’events’ (f ex. ’Planck time sized’) then this plank should be forced to  ‘flicker’ between those frames, won’t you agree? Never to exist in it’s movements/jumps between those ‘Planck sized’ frames making up SpaceTime. But, if that was the case, where would ‘reality’ be. Only inside those ‘still pictures’ of ‘Planck time sized size’? Wouldn’t you too constantly ‘flicker’ then? As well as your thoughts, movements etc, ad infinitum.

And what would then bind those ‘still frames’ together?
Time perhaps?

Again, you mean?
Then it can’t be the same type of ‘time’ we are defining inside those slices as outside can it?
I will argue that you are comparing oranges and apples.

If we define time as something belonging to Plank size (Planck time), those also defining all other Plank measurements (as they all hinge together). Then what we deem ‘time’ will always be situated inside those still frames and never be found ‘outside’ those ‘frames’. Think about it and you will see my point. And I believe it will fall out the same way no matter your definition of ‘times size.’

So what do you then expect binding them?
A ‘force’ or ‘field’ of some kind perhaps?
But?

My definition says that all ‘forces’ are created from measurements made in ‘time’, using its ‘arrow’.
And as I just argued that ‘time’ won’t be outside those still frames?
Can you prove it otherwise?

Then that 'field' becomes more and more inviting, right :)
But won't you need an arrow of time present for a field.
And what would it consist of?

Can one see SpaceTime as somehow ‘floating' in a sea of bigger, ah,  ‘glue'  that then produces some undefiably quality of ‘lesser times’ useable for getting situated inside those Planck sized SpaceTime frames only? And creating what we call SpaceTime? Now, that  'field of glue' is your new obstacle as that too will need to be explained as containing some kind of direction or casuality chain to create and order the 'framework' for SpaceTime. And that field holding SpaceTime together will then either consist of my 'flow', or if you think 'events', will need to be 'glued' together in its turn. Ad infinitum.

That is, if you think 'events/frames'.
Don’t make sense to me.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 16/10/2009 16:00:14
For me it seems easier to see the ‘background’ as a ‘emergent quality’ creating our arrow of time. And 'time' as something being a flow not divided in 'frames' or 'events'.Then our arrow could be seen as something emerging, created out of SpaceTimes macroscpic demands. There is still that question of ‘energy’ though, and ‘momentum’, and if they are the same? It all comes down to what you define a ‘force’ to be. Also if you think it can be one thing inside SpaceTime and another ‘outside’ that ‘arrow’. Force to me seems a ‘strain’ placed on a equilibriment creating momentary changes. By us defined as ‘energy’ resuting in 'work done' manifesting as we manipulate SpaceTime, or its 'equilibrium' otherwise gets disturbed.

So, you tell me?

Another thing :)

Do you remember me asking about the definition of a circle?
Like consisting of an innumerable  amount of straight lines subtly angled against each other or as something ‘truly bent’. And said that SpaceTime will differ depending on your view?

I se the ‘straightest line’ as the one following ‘SpaceTimes geodesics.
Consider the ‘path’ of any ‘particle’ or ‘photon’.

I see that path as the straightest possible, energy as well as distance wise. That as ‘energy’ is ‘distance’ to me. You will always need ‘energy’ to get your ‘distance’, no matter how your definition of its ‘length’ might differ by applying 'force'. And if you accept this, what will it make of those ‘straight lines’ we trust to construct f ex. a room with? Are they ‘straight’ or ‘crooked’ when defined as I do? And as earth comes closer to the sun? Will they then ‘deform’ even more?

I mean, if you try to imagine SpaceTime that way what would you expect to see? You could make a simulation where you create a ‘particle path’ as we normally see it. Bending to ‘masses’ like our sun.

Then color the space around that path an even grey.
Why? Well it's my thought up ‘tension measurement’ :)

 And as I say that the shortest path is the one without ‘forces’ acting on Space as seen from that ‘particle’ (think uniformly coasting rocket instead if you like) then the ‘tension’ surrounding its ‘path’ will be the lowest. So an even grey color please.

Have you done it?
Good.

Now ‘stretch/deform’ that line so that it from our ‘point of view’ becomes what we would deem a ‘straight line’. What do you think would happen to that ‘even grey color space’ surrounding it? I say that to make that path fit what we call a ‘straight line’ we would apply a tension on space itself deforming it changing that color. Why, well to get that 'straight line' in reality would either need us to apply an force (acceleration) or 'twist' space to force that line. Acceleration seems the easier path here btw :) And that is what we do when applying ‘force’ by f ex our acceleration. I think it is possible to see that as a 'twisting' of space, highly localized from our point of view inside SpaceTime. And I also think that if there was some way to catch/define that phenomena in a simulation it would present us with a truer image of SpaceTime than what we observe with our eyes as that is what space really looks like ‘energy’ wise.

And if you 'quirk' to that :)

I see that simulation, as when your path-line got ‘stretched straight’ and if rightly done, as showing you different ‘gradient pressures/shades of grey’, in fact questioning the idea of space as something intrinsically ‘empty’. Like if what we call 'empty space' in reality could be a kind of equilibrium, With space always using the least common denominator energy-wise. As those 'natural' paths are the ‘energy thriftiest’ they also becomes the ‘time and distance thriftiest’. ‘Distance’ can be exchanged for mass, time, energy, velocity, speed and acceleration, but it will always cost you some manipulation and ’energy’ to ‘decrease distances’. And that’s why space to me will be a ‘equilibrium’ no matter where you look, near a black hole or in ‘outer deep space’, can you see my point here?

And it makes another thing 'stick out' if you look at it this way. As you can’t say that space is ‘empty’ when looking at it my way. If it was we shouldn't have those geodesics. So to prove it empty you will have to fall back on ‘gravitons’ to ‘prop’ SpaceTime up. With ‘gravitons’ you can keep a ‘empty space’ but then also, as I see it, question Einstein’s idea of ‘geodesics’ as well as maybe even questioning the idea of relativity. As you then might want to propose that there now can be a ‘objective’ ‘eigen’-(intrinsically true)-distance existing, as gravitons now is the 'ping pong balls of force' bouncing around, expressing itself as ‘gravitation’ inside a ‘empty space’. Then you will find two concepts instead of one, gravitons and space, and I don't hold to that idea. I believe the idea of space 'wrapping itself around mass' to be the correct one and that gravity and space are the same undividable property expressing itself differently through different 'densities'. SpaceTimes natural ‘shape’ defined by what I see as its ‘’least action’ relative its ‘energy levels’ and not 'dividable' as a singular force. Why?

1. It fits the observations.
2. And it seems a 'simplest explanation'.

(well, for me, for now:)

I like those two criteria and think they provide a 'best answer' inside SpaceTime, at least as related to my current level of knowledge. That there always is more to know? Lovely, ain't it. That our definitions might be wrong if we could observe what's outside too? Well, it won't invalidate it's 'truth' inside SpaceTime. Can you see what I mean here? That what is important for us from a 'practical point of view' is what happens inside where we exists. So the use and definitions we have 'inside' will work there, even if 'flawed' as a whole.  And when I extrapolate what I understand into my weird view then that is a result of me wanting to keep those two concepts as good as I can. And accepting the conclusions doesn't make me 'understand' the concepts created any better than you :) But we are already accepting a lot of strange behaviors without needing my views to be counted in. In fact most of you doing physics build your work on them. Black holes, entanglements, discrete black body radiation, photons and waves, momentum, matter and 'mass', tunneling etc. Zebras and horses, they are all black in the night :)

When it comes to mathematics the 'truth' is slightly different I think. Mathematics as we use it seems to build on a idea that math can be intrinsically true. 1+1+=2, and damn you if you say anything else, well, at least without any valid axiomatic proof (archetype). With one you might get away with it though, and better still if it becomes a theorem :)  So math is a glorious science in that it seems able to describe/adapt to all 'realities', ours as well as those we haven't even observed existing. String theory seems to me a try to make that 'jump' from only 'validating' what we already observe to actually create something totally new that might create test and provable postulates, by new observations engineered from those postulates. And so it rests on that first assumption that math have a 'universal truth' too it. I'm still not sure what string-theory is, some say it craves gravitons? But I'm guessing that a gifted mathematician could do without those and still keep the concept valid mathematically? But the real question to our mathematics, at least to me, is whether it is able to describe by causality, as that is what all logic seems to come down to, something that has no 'causality chains' at all?

We do our thinking from our arrow of time, and it is what builds all logic we use, so how do we 'break out' from that. Now you might want to tell me that it won't be necessary as there must be a 'causality' even with ideas like mine. Maybe you are right, but, you could be wrong too. If you're right its no big deal for science (Well, relatively seen:), but if you're wrong you will spend an eternity proving a false concept. So it is a little like considering Global Warming. Assume that I'm wrong but that we still do the 'right thing' as I see it, stopping CO2:s manmade sources? Now, where is the harm done I ask? Okay, a worldwide recession as we change course, but the result will be worth it to me, as we will use what's called 'environmental and renewable forces' (discounting nuclear energy for now, as we still haven't found a solution for the waste disposal) Then consider if I'm right? Well, then we might save a species, namely ours, as well as a whole planets ecology,  fauna and flora. But if turned around, with us doing nothing? Well. if I'm wrong we will still have to change our power-sources sooner or later to 'renewable' ones, and if I'm right we will all be dead soon enough. So for me, using simple logic, the problem seems solvable no matter if you're a 'denier'  'doubter' or 'believer' and no matter any 'absolute truth' about Global Warming.

So to me gravitation is no ‘force’. Neither am I expecting ‘photons’ to be a ‘force’
They are ‘emergence’s’ following SpaceTimes geodesics according to a principle that I, for want of names, like to see as  ‘least action’ for now, at least as observed from our inside. To me it seems as we have a equilibrium with my ‘distance less points’ expressing itself as a ‘asymmetry’ inside SpaceTime, but, if judging by what I think here most probably a equalized ‘symmetry’ if we could observe both sides simultaneously.

And photons would probably be a phenomena binding our ‘reality’ together, with ‘virtual photons’ being the exact same but closer to, or in, that ‘distance less’ reality that is our ‘mirror image’ (As in 'Alice’s mirror’ that is, not your toilet mirror:). And with all ‘forces’ we manipulate/apply inside SpaceTimes arrow becoming ‘causality chains’ creating ‘emergent reactions’, or if you like, creating a ‘disturbance of equilibrium’ inside SpaceTime.

So what would ‘forces’ in themselves be defined as, if so?
Well, they seems all ‘equilibrium’s’ to me when untouched, it’s when we break their ‘symmetry’ we apply/create what we call ‘force’ and get what we define as our humanly created ‘work done’. And as a ‘objective distance’ existing in itself must be an illusion as I see it, even though existing inside SpaceTime, then neither can any ‘objective time’ be true. 

But there is one 'time' that always will seem the same to you, no matter what kind of frame you are in, your own time experience. And that is a universal 'truth', and to me, explains why those muon's will support both ideas. Inside the muon its ‘time’ will be the 'same as always', therefore supporting the ‘length contraction’ but outside it we can observe its ‘time contraction’. Also this seems like another indirect similarity with both 'momentum' and 'energy' as we look to the 'energy levels' in our accelerating, or coasting, rockets atoms. They do not jiggle more, although we know that there must be a higher 'energy level' and 'momentum' to it as I understands it. The only thing making those atoms want to 'jiggle', as far as I know, will be resistance/density and deep space is comparatively 'empty', right:)

And what you see as ‘motion’, for example when radioactive material ‘frees energy’ in form of radiation, will then be a 'equilibrium' to me and the only ‘forces’ existing will be those ‘short timed’ manipulations we do, and even them in a greater perspective only SpaceTimes search for restoring its equilibrium. SpaceTime can also produce those ‘manipulations’ spontaneously (stars colliding f ex or exploding) so perhaps there is no real ‘forces’ at all, but they will all ‘strain’ SpaceTime when happening and so create what we see as ‘forces/events’.

That principle of ‘least action’ combined with ‘energy levels’ a.k.a. what I suspect to be ‘time’ seems to me to be what creates us. And the way it does it is through ‘emergence/fractal behavior’. And it’s possible to consider it a ‘information density’ too,. Possibly defined as something optimal at our macroscopic size as a black hole seems to take itself out of that ‘information interaction-flow.’

Although ‘emergence’ is not ‘work done’ but maybe ‘fractal behavior’ can be seen like it?
After all, it may be what creates our ‘arrow of time’? Nah, both definitions (emergence/fractal behavior’) should be seen as the same I think. As all ‘work done’ only is a definition by us, as observed inside SpaceTime. But ‘fractal behavior’ seems to me as a better description of it as soon as we passes that ‘dimension less point’. And ‘Emergence’ then being the way it just seems to ‘pop up’ begetting new ‘properties’

To see how I think about it you need to consider that.

Density is an ‘emergence’ of ‘condensed/coagulated’ energy as I see it.
And ‘energy’ is the thing we manipulate by what we deem as ‘forces’.
And the results of those manipulations we deem ‘work done’.

Furthermore. ‘Time’ and ‘Times arrow (s)’ is to me two different things.
Time is the ‘holy grail’, and the ‘arrow (s)’ its ‘emergence’s’
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 16/10/2009 16:00:31

And ‘dimensions’ may be a stranger concept than what I thought.
Or simpler, as I define them as size less slightly goofy 3D-space balls emerging ‘as is’.
Not as one or two dimensional objects somehow ‘joining forces’ with other ‘dimensions’ .

And why I think so?

Remember how I discussed how to name something 2D you should also, if incorporating such an object in SpaceTime, be able to see it ‘disappear’ from certain angels of observation. That is a true statement and easy to understand. And a one-dimensional object existing inside SpaceTime won’t exist at all as far as we 3D ‘objects’ are concerned. That as it can only have what we deem as one property. F ex length (but no width, and no height to it.)

So whenever someone claims something to be a ‘2D system’ of invariant mass (restmass/proper mass) you might ask if they have observed those ‘disappearing qualities' to that experiment. If they haven’t they’re wrong. Nope, I don't see that as negotiable, it's just plain wrong. And what they have will still be a 3D object (system) that they, by some quirk of experimental need or want, define as a 2D system to explain its properties.

It is somewhat irritating to me to see a whole formalism built on what I presume to be a archetype. In this case that the fact that we observe three properties (and time) to SpaceTime somehow is seen as guaranteeing that you can pick them apart. I don't see SpaceTime pointing in that direction and I have yet to see the experiment proving that it is possible to have a one and two-dimensional system inside SpaceTime. Shouldn't we have something more than just archetypes by now? There should be some possible experiment to do with invariant mass/restmass proving the concept. I don't see my thoughts invalidate Einstein's SpaceTime though? It seems as acceptable when having 3D 'emerging' from Planck-size as when using the idea of picking them apart. I'm guessing that the thing making us think that this was the way dimensions 'worked' was that you could observe as you thinned out a material it becoming thinner and thinner, in the end being very hard to observe any thickness to it. But that is not the way I see Quantum mechanical processes. To me all invariant mass will be 3D as soon as it 'emerged' as such. But if you have a experiment proving that other concept I would be very interested.

Would that mean that those ‘dimensions’ then is ‘inseparable’? Don’t know, but possibly so inside SpaceTime, I would guess it to be so. Does it mean that we won't, ever, create a ‘true’ 2D object. I think so, as if you really succeeded in doing it you would then be able to argue the idea of ‘dimensions’ as something we can use as some sort of ‘Lego slices’ building it into different models. 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, 10009918D, ad infinitum ~

Although understand that my idea doesn’t disavow the ‘concept’ of dimensions, It just gives us a way to understand why we won’t see them inside SpaceTime. They are not ‘hidden’ inside SpaceTime as I see it. They can’t be here at all. Which won’t inviolate a 2D, or if you like, 1D ‘SpaceTime’ ‘emerging' but won’t, as I see it, ever allow us to observe them as they will be their own ‘bubbles’ if so, having unique ‘emergent properties’ of their own. I would love for someone to prove that they can have a 2D object of invariant mass inside SpaceTime. If someone did so it would be a proof that my idea of what ‘dimensions’ might be is totally, utterly, wrong. But as long as I haven’t seen this concept proved experimentally I will go on believing that what we call ‘2D’ systems is ‘generalizations’ .

When it comes to holographic reproductions we are not discussing 'invariant mass' any more. And as some do, to draw the conclusion that light and mass is the exact same I doubt. They are not, light in itself may seem to have 'boundaries' when observed as 'photons' but it will still be light, not matter. Matter have a higher complexity it seems to me. And my concept of ‘time’ then? Well, if ‘time’ can be my ‘monolith’, (Yes proprietor, a ‘slab’ of time please:) then I do expect it to have an unevenness to it, if looking solely on my known ‘half’ of ‘reality’ (SpaceTime). And that 'unbalance' then creating us through  ‘emergence' with our 3D and ‘arrow of time’. And as I said before, it seems to suit those CP-violations. But seen together (3D and my '0D') I still expect it to be a symmetry defining it. As for how many ‘possibilities’ of different 'SpaceTime'-dimensions it may be able to 'emerge' I won’t even dare to guess.

So in my world you still have 'dimensions' but not like 'building-blocks' that 'glues' together. The only thing I’m reasonably sure of here is that you won’t ever, never, prove my suggested experiment of how to define your concept of ‘dimensions’ curled up inside ‘dimensions’, inside SpaceTime. That is, by using what you deem a ‘2D system’ of 'restmass' and then observe it from different angles, watching it disappear from some. And that experimental proof should be fairly simple to devise if you really had a ‘true’ 2D system within your reach. (So I expect my goofy space and time-balls to survive for some ‘time’ yet:)

Another proof for it comes from our insight that according to the theory of relativity there can be no ‘true distances’. Not objectively seen, not as any 'gold-standard'. And without any objective ‘distance’ possible where will  ‘width, length and height’ be? And how will one further divide them into ‘three’ singular properties, and then use those as a proof for further ‘pieces of dimensions’? (Well sort of, Lego-wise)?

But space itself then, does that have a dimension? Well, inside our 'closed bubble', space is just like 3D to me, meaning that it has a depth, width and length as all other things inside SpaceTime. In itself we 'create' space by reducing the 'mass/particles' from any closed system and the 'amount of space' is then defined by the systems size as observed from the outside and its 'emptiness'. So is there a 'perfect vacuum'? Probably, but as such not involved in any dimensionality at all. That we observe the 'emptiness' and also 'creates' it doesn't tell us a thing about what it is. Sometimes I think of SpaceTime like a field, it's such a nice concept. And just like any field it gets its 'distances' by its, ah, 'intercourse' :) with our times arrow. Those 'distances' are not absolute concepts but a interaction with mass, velocity, speed, and time (and energy itself as expressed through those concepts naturally). And it all comes from 'nowhere' according to me. So what we have is just different densities, vacuum seeming the 'thinnest' most immaterial one, well that and 'photons' then. But all created from the same concept with invariant mass and black holes at the other side. And if mass creates space then there should be some rule for how much space it creates as we otherwise would have a cosmos consisting of one big clump of mass (Black hole?) with space around it. As I said it's no holy grail :)

Another thing I'm wondering over is the conservation laws and invariant mass. If I have a gas that's excited (heated) we will still know its invariant mass if I'm getting it right (in a closed system). Just how do we know that? Considering that my impression is that uniform motion of any given system can't be isolated and defined? Even though we may have a number for that mass as weighting it inside our frame in a non-excited condition how do we guarantee that our frames motion won't play a role in our measurements. I suppose you could say that our frame and the gas is in a equilibrium and therefore will have a general non-changing relation that still would be the same if we moved our frame from earth to the moon, but if we moved to our closest neutron star then having another uniform motion? We could know it relative our original system but we can't say at what uniform velocity our 'original' really are at. Am I right here? Consider having a planet system moving very fast, half the speed of light as observed from our original 'inertial frame'. Assume it's like our solar-system. What would the sunlight be like as it 'hit' its own earth, would it change in any way. As the whole 'solar-system' is having the same uniform speed here? Would there for example be a length and time contraction in the direction of its motion noticeable from inside that frame (solar-system)? It would wouldn't it? Not only for observers outside the system but also for those inside. Am I right there? I think I am, and therefore. Could one use that as a measure of uniform motion? And therefore guarantee a invariant mass unchanging properties no matter what frame you measure from? So would light without contraction in any direction guarantee a 'absolute rest'?


Yep, as I see it, that is, for now.
And now they're coming to get me again.
Sorry, gotta hide under that table. Hey, come join me :)

Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 22/10/2009 20:52:32
So I've gotten myself involved in magnetism.

The mainstream explanation seems to be 'magnetic domains' where the 'spin' of electrons are what creates a magnets magnetic orientation and force. And I expect you to get as big a headache from this as from all the rest together :)

1. Now what the heck is a magnetic domain?
2. And what was that electrons spin?
3. And do electrons really, really orbit?

4. And this 'force' they are acting with is mediated by?
A . Photons? - - B. Glue? - - C. Your mama? - - D. Not your mama at all?

Let's start with Spin. (2) and (3) the orbital of a electron

So what is this property. I'm guessing most of you love that word as it sounds as it mean something 'real'. Even those of you knowing better treat it so. In reality it is a mathematical definition describing a property first seen in the emission spectrum of alkali metals. Now, there is a word called 'angular momentum'  that we already mentioned here, alike the force of a carrousel in motion 'forcing' you out from its center.

Let us start with assuming that electrons do orbit the atoms :)
Then they will be 'objects' even though we can't pinpoint them (HUP)
Why not then assume that those electrons also 'spin' as they orbit?

Well.

---Quote--

" Ralph Kronig, one of Landé's assistants, suggested in early 1925 that it was produced by the self-rotation of the electron. When Pauli heard about the idea, he criticized it severely, noting that the electron's hypothetical surface would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order for it to rotate quickly enough to produce the necessary angular momentum. This would violate the theory of relativity."

--End of quote--

Didn't work out that one, so?

Well. Ok so they can't be what we deem 'physical', like really turning that 'electron ball' around and around, right. But how about defining it as something 'intrinsical' to that 'electron', you know like those photons being 'intrinsically' massless, sizeless and yet filled with 'energy'.

Why not?
(exchange 'intrinsical' for 'magical' if you like, in those definitions intrinsical really is magical:)

---Quote------

Elementary particles, such as the photon, the electron, and the various quarks are particles that cannot be divided into smaller units. Theoretical and experimental studies have shown that the spin possessed by these particles cannot be explained by postulating that they are made up of even smaller particles rotating about a common center of mass (see classical electron radius); as far as can be determined, these elementary particles are true point particles. The spin that they carry is a truly intrinsic physical property, akin to a particle's electric charge and mass.

---End of quote-------

This is a true problem with all use of mathematics :)

You can define a problem, narrow the solutions and in the end find something that makes 'sense' mathematically without really making it explainable at all. A little like you needing to know a puzzles picture but only can lay it out in a dark room. You may succeed in putting the puzzle together, but as you try to get a feel for the 'whole' image there is still something missing isn't there? Light.

Our definition of spin as such is then mathematical, not relating to anything alike a real 'angular momentum'. Can you follow how I see it? I mean, you can't both expect it to 'spin' FTL (faster than light) and be 'real' can you?

As for how it is explained mathematically I still have to find out?
It should be explainable as a property not violating lights speed in a vacuum though.
Perhaps hinging on HUP?

But The Real Problem Is That It Works :)

Yep, it does. So now you have to choose. Either electrons are real 'orbiting' particles spinning FTL to create that spin. OR. They still 'orbit' but instead of 'spinning' they now have some Gods send secret intrinsic property not needed to be defined but able to produce a 'angular momentum' faster than light.

Or as I see it, they neither 'orbit' or 'spin'.
How about the electrons  'orbitals' then?

Well.

This definition I found elegant.

---Quote----

A true electron orbit is not nearly so simple as a circle or ellipse.
According to quantum physics, there is no set motion.  We can talk about an
average radius of an orbit.  We can talk about the angular momentum and
energy of an orbit.  We can talk about how much of the orbit is in the
horizontal plane.  In reality, the electron's orbit is not any specific
motion.  It bounces all over the place.  Higher energy electrons have a
greater average radius.  Different electrons have different angular
momentums.  Exact path cannot be determined.

Dr. Ken Mellendorf
Physics Instructor
Illinois Central College

---End of quote---

 OR if you prefer this.

---Quote---

"An atomic orbital is a mathematical function that describes the wave-like behavior of either one electron or a pair of electrons, in an atom. This function can be used to calculate the probability of finding any electron of an atom in any specific region around the atom's nucleus."

And..

"Because of the difference from classical mechanical orbits, the term "orbit" for electrons in atoms, has been replaced with the term orbital—a term first coined by chemist Robert Mulliken in 1932.  Atomic orbitals are typically described as “hydrogen-like” (meaning one-electron) wave functions over space, categorized by n, l, and m quantum numbers, which correspond with the pair of electrons' energy, angular momentum, and an angular momentum direction, respectively"

--End of quote---

And this.

----Quote---

The atomic orbital concept is therefore a key concept for visualizing the excitation process associated to a given transition. For example, one can say for a given transition that it corresponds to the excitation of an electron from an occupied orbital to a given unoccupied orbital.

Nevertheless one has to keep in mind that electrons are fermions ruled by Pauli exclusion principle and cannot be distinguished from the other electrons in the atom. Moreover, it sometimes happens that the configuration interaction expansion converges very slowly and that one cannot speak about simple one-determinantal wave function at all. This is the case when electron correlation is large.

Fundamentally, an atomic orbital is a one-electron wavefunction, even though most electrons do not exist in one-electron atoms, and so the one-electron view is an approximation. When thinking about orbitals, we are often given an orbital vision which (even if it is not spelled out) is heavily influenced by this Hartree–Fock approximation, which is one way to reduce the complexities of molecular orbital theory.

--End of Quote--


I see a lot of people telling me that Electrons orbit….
They Do Not.

Just as 'spin' is not our macroscopic 'angular momentum'

So what the heck has this to do with magnetism?
Well, let us first conclude two things, as I see it.

We do not know how 'spin' come to be other than mathematically.
Electrons does not 'orbit' no matter what 'photographs' you've been looking on.

If a magnet works with a 'force' that can attract or 'repulse'. And if the mainstream explanation is that there is 'magnetic domains' where the spin of the electrons are what creates a magnets magnetic orientation and 'force'. Then, have they really explained anything at all?

Well, particles also have what's called a "magnetic dipole moment, just like a rotating electrically charged body in classical electrodynamics.  But as I said, those comparisons only 'works' at a 'surface-level'. (do you still hinge my reasoning?:)

But this 'magnetic dipole movement' is also experimentally proofed by f ex. "by the deflection of particles by inhomogeneous magnetic fields in a Stern-Gerlach experiment, or by measuring the magnetic fields generated by the particles themselves." And "The electron, being a charged elementary particle, possesses a nonzero magnetic moment." Meaning that it is 'magnetic'.

---Quote--

In ordinary materials, the magnetic dipole moments of individual atoms produce magnetic fields that cancel one another, because each dipole points in a random direction. Ferromagnetic materials below their Curie temperature, however, exhibit magnetic domains in which the atomic dipole moments are locally aligned, producing a macroscopic, non-zero magnetic field from the domain. These are the ordinary "magnets" with which we are all familiar.

---End of quote---

So now you know the answer to my nmbr (1. Now what the heck is a magnetic domain?)
A magnetic domain is an arbitrarily defined area in which you expect to find 'atomic dipole moments' that concur (points) to the same direction..

But they have to be creating a 'force field', don't they?
And that 'magnetic force field' in a permanent magnet is then consisting of?
Photons perhaps?

So at last we land at nmbr 4. The 'force' (field)
Yes, Yoda is here..

---Quote--

"Question -   Do permanent magnets "exchange" photons? What would the
wavelength of such a continuous wave photon be?"

And…

"What happens between two continuous permanent magnets, essentially a DC
(direct current). The force between two permanent magnets is caused by the
electronic properties of the material, so photons must be involved with
the magnetic attraction between the two masses?"

--End of quote---

If we assume that they are waves what are the wavelength?
As for if they have a 'force' or a 'magnetic field' :)

As long as they don't attract or repulse I would see it as a ''magnetic field'
But as soon they 'touch/influence' they do create a 'force' to me.
And get 'work done'.

It's one of the more , ah, 'strange' arguments I've seen. To only define magnetism as a 'force' when 'outside influences' (like me moving them together) is seen. That makes it sound as magnetism never is a 'force' which to my eye's seem incorrect.

Defined as that what will ever be a 'force'?
So if I move something, say an arm, I would need something moving me first then, to say that I used 'force'? Or should I 'split' myself up in my 'muscles' first and then say. A moves B moves C moves D. moves my arm. ..Yayy, it worked.

Reminds me of 'events' and that 'glue' needed to glue the events together.. Ad infinitum.  As all forces then will crave something preexisting which then makes them a 'perpetual mobile' without beginning.  And furthermore it seems to wreak havoc to the idea of ever defining a 'system', as if I'm not definable as a 'system', what is?

So?

As I see them 'forces', the question of how they come to be is secondary for defining them, the primary one is that they get 'work done' as observed by the 'observer'.

But then again, my idea is that there is no 'forces' at all, but as I view it rather different than most, I here try to see it from the mainstream idea of 'forces'. But doing so, it then seems that it should be 'work done' that defines them? And not if A needs to be seen, before B can create its 'work done'.. Or do you disagree? On what grounds?

And to answer this Question you seem to need quantum electrodynamics and relativistic quantum
Mechanics :)

--------

Which takes me back to those 'permanent horse shoes' mentioned earlier in the essay.
There is a lot of BS when it comes to magnetism, but I would really like to see someone explain them.

And I mean that seriously. I've showed that example at least at four sites treating physics, as they themselves see it, 'seriously' but none of them have done anything more than tell me that it is explainable but, alas, somehow forgetting to show me how?

That's one of the sorriest thing I know off, especially if you believe yourself to 'know'.
If you say something is explainable you should be able to explain it, wouldn't you agree?
Otherwise I will only conclude that you didn't understood what you were talking about.

(And that's why I really, really like this site. It's one of the most open non-doctrinaire sites I know off.
People take care of each other instead of shooting each other down, and the mild irony some ideas meets with is refreshing to me. It's a thin line to balance of course, without letting it fall into some truly weird ideas (like mine?:) But it have worked this far, without making people ashamed of the fact that they like to think. So Big Kudos to the Guys and Gals driving it, and us using it:)


---------


And I would prefer people to stop promising me that electrons do 'orbit'. 
(as it gives me a headache:)  Then again, if you can prove it?

And for spin to be our macroscopic  'angular momentum' you need to make those 'electron balls' rotate faster than light.

As for photons being that 'force', maybe, should be, shouldn't it?
'Virtual photons' ? then, right?

---Quote--

"permanent" magnets are made of materials such as iron or cobalt or nickel which have several electrons (in the outer shells) which are un-paired with other electrons.  Electrons are particles which must carry some "spin", either "up" or "down".  This is just a convenient way to refer to how they behave, it is not as if they are "really" spinning charges, at some level its just a convenience.

These unpaired spins exhibit a magnetic moment, its like a small current loop inside the material. 
They must attract others in similar materials, I would think via photons. This is all under quantum
mechanics, and magnetic materials.  To fully understand "spin", you need relativistic quantum
mechanics, which can be either a complex subject, or at least a mention in more simple books.

-----End of quote---


So what is the wavelength of a photon then?
And, can there be one?

----Quote--

A photons wavelength is measured as a distance along a line through the center of the helix in one revolution around the helical trajectory. A flat projection side view of a helix looks like a sine wave.

Low frequency photons (such as radio waves) are often described in terms of wavelength (units in meters), while high frequency photons (such as gamma particles) are often described in terms of particle mass energy (units in electron volts). As you increase the energy by increasing the frequency, you wind up with photons of more measurable mass. At the high frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum are high energy photons known as gamma rays, which are streams of gamma particles. Beta particles are free electrons or positrons. Alpha particles are the nucleus of helium atoms.

---End of quote---

Now one might expect that as all photons should have the same speed shouldn't they also have the same momentum? But then we come to their intrinsic (gotta love that word:) energy content. They may 'no-mass' the same but if they are of different energy shouldn't that influence their momentum?

So what I will argue is that what we see as the 'energy' of that light quanta (photon) should have a relation to its momentum.  And a higher energy should normally mean a shorter wavelength, right? But as our 'photons' have no size they are extremely hard to localize, and as waves they are unable to be defined as 'spatially localized objects', which suddenly seems to say the opposite?

And another thing. What makes, in this case, those 'virtual photons' follow (exist) only at the flux lines of our permanent magnet? If there is no 'force' to them? (flux lines is what you see when you put 'iron grinds' on a surface and then puts a magnet under that surface creating those visible magnetic 'tracks' on its upper side.)

That's it folks.

(I'm usually expecting to see things clearer as I write about them, but when it comes to permanent magnetism I(t) just plain freaks out:)
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 22/10/2009 23:54:56

---And-Environmental ah, chitchat-?-

Want another crazy idea. How about stopping all those Patents, just give a five years worldwide 'advance' for the one/those coming up with it.

Wondering what would happen? Well, if everyone could use a good idea, say in five years, then I would expect the 'market economy' to soon become a 'true free market economy' where goods would have to fight so much harder to be sold. And the money created from such sudden openings for all other company's could be in a form that you could tax. That tax you could use to make sure that all industries would follow the best guidelines for producing and creating environmental products. But you're right, it would wreak havoc with the power structures and force countries to cooperate, as the cheapest producers fast would become advanced.

A little like we've seen a lot of south Asian countries walk from third world to modern. In a way one of the smartest ways there is to lift a country from poverty, better than what UN have succeeded with. Look at China f ex. and the way they forced foreign industries to educate their labor, as they made demands that a percentage of the workers in all levels of those companies should be Chinese. As well as getting those companies cheaply, or even for free, when the foreign industries went to the next cheap third world country. But that hinges on that undeveloped country 'making its own plans' first.

You see, if those countries all got the chance to compete on a more even basis, then the 'rich world' would become more equalized with the other countries. But, as it is, we also know that if there is no true laws and honest bureaucracy's regulating the 'free market', our 'predatory instincts' and greed sometimes create catastrophes in coming for those countries, as they themselves often are without any bureaucratic structure, or, if they have one, all to often corrupted without having any long time planning.

That is a big problem with this idea. If we could use that 'entrepreneurship' that profits creates, with good laws and bureaucracy's regulating them and at the same time making sure that the environment gets seen too first then we might all lift ourselves.

Corruption. or as some see it . 'baksheesh' have a long tradition in a lot of countries, not only Asian, Indian, Russian, etc. There they are a part of the normal way of making deals. And, by the way, how about Italy where some Italian professor said that a third(?) of the country's income came from deals never seen or taxed by its government. Or the old ways of leaving 'tributes'.

We all have a problem with those 'old ways'. And no matter which country you live in you will see its ugly head rear up now and then. The simple name for it is greed and power, and as those two properties cooperate they create shortcuts for the unscrupulous and ever more greedy, also creating environmental and financial catastrophes for those countries allowing it. Like a country all geared up to produce, bananas? Talk about idiocy, but guess what. It was 'our' demand, or if you like 'suggestion', made from people living in the industrialized west, greedy for that profit.

So, country's can work splendidly with 'baksheesh' involved. Humans have a long history of that, and you might even consider it an expression of that American 'free enterprise' giving locals that possibility to influence their destiny. Also it is a old and structured way where those receiving later have to pay off what 'help' they got getting to their 'influencing positions'. So as a system it brings with its own inbuilt logic and hierarchy, not unlike a political party and the way some gets picked for 'stardom' and then are expected to 'pay back'. India is a stable, as I see it, example of democracy, even if having all the vices of any democratic state. And I've found people there extremely likeable and friendly, but, it is also a living example of the idea of 'baksheesh' working. Still, somehow all seems to consider it a way of life.

So either we work with it, or we work without it. The problem being that nothing can be done from the 'outside' without an incredible amount of 'baksheesh' involved. The realization of what needs to be done to stop global warming needs to come from 'inside' all countries involved, to work. Not being pushed on them as a fact and then offering 'baksheesh' to butter the wheels. That will only send the wrong signal.

So do I have any hopes for sanity here? Not really.
People still see it in terms of power structures and negotiable.
But it's not negotiable. If I'm correct I'm afraid you will find it unavoidable.

I will probably soon stop to write about the environment, just to lay back and watch that tragicomedy play itself out. So I have kids too, don't I want to take responsibility? For what?  People denying reality? I would prefer this whole situation not to exist. But it does and, as far as I can see, those saying they do take responsibility and 'acts', just creates new jokes like new 'Kyoto treaties'. I'm much to perceptive to swallow those as a solution, and so I guess the majority of you living are too. And if that is what is seen as 'responsible acting'? Well, I'll just take my seat and watch the show. My expectation is that we may at most may have fifty to a hundred years to react, maybe? But the longer we wait the more 'ill' I expect our Earth to become, and the longer it will take to 'restore' it.

Playing with concepts you could think of each of those years we have as logarithmically expanding. A little like 'costing our Earth for each year..' - - Year one=1 .Year two=2 .year three=4 .Year four=8 Year five=16 .Year six=32 Year seven=64 Year eight=128 .Year nine=256 .Year ten=512. And then 1024. 2048. 4096. 8192. 16384. 32738 ~ raising for each year to come. And somewhere on that road we will pass a 'invisible line' tipping our world into a new 'stabile phase' and then we won't be able to change it..

That's no scientific evaluation, just my way to 'push through' what each year of inactivity might cost us, in terms of our environments time scale of restoring itself to our 'standard', if we ever take action that is. And we are going to be forced to do it at some time. And yeah, I may very well be exaggerating terribly here, but we are somewhat like the owners of a once fine house that we refuse to 'renovate', as we can't agree on whom that should do what. While also well knowing that none of our free market 'theories' can hold in a 'closed system' where our 'growth potential' will have a finite end waiting. And, in case you missed it, the world is becoming truly 'small' today.

One of the Countries I'm becoming disappointed in is Australia. I've always liked you Aussies views on life, and found you very personally likeable. But seeing how you allow foreign companies to create a environmental catastrophe near you (Methane) makes me wonder. You do have a working bureaucracy and I would expect you to have made a risk-analysis, so I can only presume that you don't care? After all, you can't blame your choices on being a poor third world country, or totally corrupted like Russia, can you?

As for your mining industries? And the way they support's Chinas pollution? Well, that's more or less a deal where all countries want to get in on it, as short time planning and greed always seems to win over sanity. But due to the way both Russia and now you Aussies, with the help of diverse oil companies, are planning on wrecking those frozen layers of Methane, our clock to disaster have started to tick a lot faster than before. And if you don't get what I mean you should read up on what I wrote earlier in this essay about, specifically, Methane.

Then again, we Swedes seems no smarter. Especially if we allow that Russian gas (Methane) pipe to be drawn under out territorial waters. We already have some of the most oxygen poor waters there is and the marine life is quickly dying out. But, as our government now is one promising 'Prosperity for all, and Me first' and also that 'free, free market' I have no great hopes . So I won't expect any sanity there soon. And as I think the Russians, most of eastern Europe in fact, today is unable to understand the concept of 'sanity' as long as it collides with greed and 'realpolitik', then? Well, it's just that I had hopes of a little more sanity from you Aussies. Ah well, never mind no matter, right :)

So is our oceans warming up?
Yes.

But as water contain layers upon layers of sweet and salt water not mixed, as every submariner worth his salt know, as well as 'streams' working under the surface in different directions, at different depths and of different temperature, and salinity, it is very hard to create that 'simple overview'. But we know that waves moves faster today and that can only have to do with that they have accumulated more heat. We have also seen frozen methane 'creep forever deeper' to be found, that last means that methane over the depth it now resides on have 'disappeared', guess where :)

So you get a lot of conflicting data as you probe our oceans
For example…

---Quote----

Most scientific opinion agrees that between 1961 and 2003 ocean temperature has increased by 0.1 degree Celsius from the surface to a depth of 700 metres. This temperature increase is based upon many millions of historical measurements. It seems therefore that the oceans are gradually warming but that it's not conclusive, it is persuasive.

---And then.

In June 2008 a team of US and Australian researchers published their ocean observation is Nature. Their observations were such that they concluded that the IPCC work on ocean heat was wrong – the IPCC had, in the views of the researchers based on their data underestimated the rate of ocean warming by 50% for the last forty years of the 20th Century.

It is also important to understand that the oceans act as a heat buffer. They store 90% of the heat in the earth’s climate system and release some of it and suck other heat in.

The US and Australian researchers used expendable probes which measured the upper 700 metres of some of the ocean; they then related these measurements with the known effect of the thermal expansion of water. You may remember that water has its maximum density at 3.98 degrees Celsius; below this temperature it expands as it forms into ice and above this temperature it expands as it warms.

-----End of quote--

(So you can take only those probe results you like, if you like :)

But it won't do you any good. Your bath water is heating up.
And your fishes are migrating, or dying.
So is the reefs.

And acidity will kill.

---Quote---

On Earth, we have an important geophysical modulator of CO2 concentrations. Too much carbon dioxide causes acid rain that dissolves calcium through the weathering of igneous bedrock. Calcium-rich water can flow into the oceans where it is used by organisms to build calcium carbonate skeletons. When they die, skeletal material settles and accumulates on the ocean floor. Because of plate tectonics, the ocean floor moves outwards from ocean ridges to be consumed by the Earth’s mantle at subduction zones. Calcium Carbonate also moves along, is subducted into the mantle, releases carbon dioxide in magma, and may be released through volcanoes.

----End of quote---

But, as the CO2 gets absorbed by our oceans they too becomes acidic dissolving those 'calcium carbonate skeletons' like reefs. That will kill your reefs and your fish very effectively. So what we failed to do with our over-exploitation of the seas we will conclude with our global warming. And for you Japanese over-exploiting your, as well as our, seas this will mean a true disaster. A cultural disaster and an end to a lifestyle. You are after all an Island, and a heavily populated one too.

There are two , or three, big problems.
Heat, Acidity, and Less Salinity as more sweet water (Ice) gets blended in the oceans.
All of them creating environments the fish can't survive.

And, of course, us creating new underwater landslides from that frozen methane as we try to get it up to use as fuel. Then again, nobody will write about that. There may be only some local workers noticing it as it bubbles up on the surface. But those bubbles contains Methane that are at least sixty times more heat-conserving per molecule than our CO2.

And some concluding facts taken from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(National Climatic Data Center.) NOOA.

"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature during June-August 2009 was the third warmest on record, behind 1998 and 2005. During the season, warmer-than-average temperatures engulfed much of the planet's surface, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across most of the northern contiguous U.S., the southern oceans, northern Atlantic Ocean, and parts of Canada, southeastern South America, and central and eastern Asia. The seasonal temperature for the worldwide ocean surface ranked as the warmest on record—0.58°C (1.04°F) above the 20th century average.

The combined global land and ocean surface temperatures for August 2009 ranked as the second warmest August on record since records began in 1880. The combined global land and ocean temperature anomaly was 0.62°C (1.12°F), falling only 0.05°C (0.09°F) short of tying the record set in 1998.

Sea surface temperatures (SST) during August 2009 were warmer than average across much of the world's oceans, with cooler-than-average conditions across the higher-latitude southern oceans and the northern parts of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

The August 2009 worldwide ocean SST ranked as the warmest on record for a third consecutive month—0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F). This broke the previous August record set in 1998, 2003, and 2005.

Australia as a whole experienced 44 percent below-average (12th lowest based on 110 years of record keeping) rainfall during August 2009.

New Zealand experienced anomalously warm conditions during August 2009, resulting in the warmest August since national records began 155 years ago. "

And in Britain and Sweden it rained and the cloudcover was there, a lot.

"The areas with the wettest anomalies during boreal summer (June-August) included the British Isles, northeastern contiguous U.S., southern Brazil, and parts of eastern Asia and Europe."

And India?
Drought.

----End-


Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 04/11/2009 18:03:34

First of all, I'm posting very infrequently. It all depends on my access.
So everything from a week between, to a month ~  :)

Yeah, it P* es me off too. It's difficult to argue when my answers against the arguments against mine etc can get from a week to a month,old before I can respond. That's why most of my ideas or arguments nowadays seems to land here :) instead of where one might think they should be.

So if we argues and you don't get any counter argument, I probably put it here as I saw it all to late. The posts (arguing) flows like a stream, not caring for whether I have access or not.


Ah…and Dimensions?

Sorry, been thinking about what we call dimensions again. Now, what the heck is that for kind of hobby for a grown man? Don't know? Can any of you answer me why you are so fascinated with physics? Does it solve your debt problem, help the starving?

Never mind no matter :)

I suddenly saw a glaring flaw in my thoughts about those dimensionless points, or maybe not? It's all about definitions. I've used them as something created everywhere right? Thinking them to come from Planck scale. But now I would like to see them as being just , ah, one.

Why, well I was considering the idea of '3D + time' and wondered what kind of problematic's that concept would create if we considered a 'static' universe with only one 'moving point of invariant mass' in it. As I did it I suddenly saw a glaring fault with mine idea too. That is if I would assume 'space' to 'become' out of a lot of 'geometric locations' created simultaneously from that 'dimensionless point'

But I also stated that if we have a 'dimensionless point' creating what I call 'many points' in SpaceTime then those points is an illusion from that dimensionless point of view. So how the heck do I get it both ways?

Well? Simply by assuming that we might look at it as a light cone. Where our 'dimension less point then would be the 'source' and our macroscopic reality the 'focus' of it. And 'singularities would then be the 'holes' in our reality's (light cones) tapestry.

Anyway, to keep the concept as clean as possible one dimensionless point is all that is needed. As that 'unfolds' you have your '3D+time'. It makes 'one room', not many and it is self-containable in that motto that what happens in its 'emergence' is inside some kind of border but still connected to that origin. As for if SpaceTime is open or closed I don't think it matter if we consider the way 'space' seems to be 'grown' from matter'. If it does then there will always be 'room' for more 'space', right. 

If I look at our 'ordinary' idea of dimensions. There you will find from 'zero' too ' ~ ' dimensions. If you now only consider one '3D matter point' moving in such a SpaceTime, and you let all other matter be static, unmoving for this question. How do you explain those three properties (width, length and height) to be able to crisscross themselves at all points there is inside SpaceTime and simultaneously allow for what we see as that 3D objects motion? As it is created by those same properties?

To me that seems as extremely complicated happenings, at all times needing to be able to define that moving point in our three singular 'properties' (width, length and height) meeting creating the focus that defines that moving 3D object in space.

And we can easily up that complexity by allowing for thinking self propelling objects (like us humans) moving independently to  'celestial mechanisms and laws'.

Think about it and tell me how it is done?

In my SpaceTime :) we should have one dimension-less point that grows, how? I can't say but I know that there seems to be a 'focus' of emergence creating a very clear and easily defined SpaceTime macroscopically with the more 'unfocused'' endpoints laying on both sides of the scale, in QM and in what we deem as 'Singularities'.

I'm not sure if our definitions for growth is correct either. If my suggestion would make sense and we have two poles of 'fuzzy size', one that is with us everywhere (QM) and the other situated at specific points inside SpaceTime (Black holes) and then with us being somewhere in between those poles.

And what we have inside 'my SpaceTime' will then be densities, instead of needed to be formulated as uncountable '3D-points of focus' by those singular properties of width, length and height. And always needed to be redefined as they 'move'. As my idea of SpaceTime then already will be a whole "3D- experience'. Strange huh?

And so string theory's search for one dimensional strings will be a definition from inside SpaceTime, with my dimension less point being a definition of an 'out side' or, perhaps, more like an opposite principle that needs to exist to balance up what we see inside here. As if we find asymmetries to SpaceTime we will need something else. If SpaceTime is a symmetry in itself? Then I don't know. It seems to me that we still will need to search for an 'origin'.

Also? Even if you assume a cyclic SpaceTime 'breathing in and out,' won't you still need to consider where and how it came to be? And? Who created the creator of the creator of the creator of the . .

To break free from such questions you will need to question 'time'.
I think I've done that in those 'time less/full dimension less points'

There time is an unbroken whole and what we see as 'time's arrow' is an illusion. It's the emergence of that arrow that makes us. And yes, in my universe time will be a flow, not 'events'. We live in the illusion created by our 'arrow', but we are 'real', as matter, as everything macroscopical. but there is still that last mystery. Consciousness.  Why is that, and to what purpose.

The purpose might be for the universe to see itself possibly, weird ain't I :)
Or it could be some 'law' of 'complexity' going from 'fuzzy ness' to 'clearness' with us as its 'macroscopic focus' and from where we create our 'imaginary concepts' like 'ethics' and 'right and wrong', Suitable for us.

Which would make us possible endpoints of complexity inside SpaceTime. But instead of singularities one way arrow, we will open into a 'information space' of never ending complexity, well, if we survive ourselves that is?

Nice huh :)

Now I just need to pick my tombstone and take a nap.
Wake me when it's finished.

--------- ------

Another thought about 'forces' .

We know that by using a beamsplitter (or some analogue of it) we can create particles of connected but opposite spins.
Let us assume that we do so creating two 'connected' particles. We then dip 'one of them' in a electromagnetic field.

And here's a question: If that influences the spin of that particle, will the other particle also change its spin?

The first answer is naturally that we won't ever know, as any observation (we make) will force the correlation to fall out into one defined state (spin). That is, we cant do the observation two times, one to determine the spin before entering the EM and then one after to see if it has changed again.

And the 'opposite' answer might then be that due to its intrinsic properties (magic:) this spin will only fall out when observed by consciousness, yep that's us 'living' entities. Which then will make it impossible to disturb by any 'interaction' except ours.

Or a second answer could be to question what constitute an 'observer'.

---Argument one--

I'm arguing that everything that have an two-way interaction constitutes an 'observer'. 
So in my view that should mean either that if the spin is changed for one particle (Due to that EM-field) then the spin is already 'known' even though still indeterminate for us, and therefore 'locked' into its final state before our observation ever come to be.

Or that this entanglement does not constitute a true two-way communication (any 2-way interaction that makes what I deem as 'observers')

The last argument could be reasonable if we look on it from my ideas of 'distances'. If they don' 'exist' it won't exist any cause and effect relating to what we assume to be two particles inside SpaceTime, as they will be one single relation with what I might define as a 'no way' communication between them as they are already one, information wise.

And in that case the spin will be changed and its opposite particle will be changed too, but as there is only one 'interaction' possible here, the one between the electromagnetic field and that particle,  and due to that relation only will consist of a 'one-way interaction' (as I argue for the moment. Meaning the field influencing the particles spin). Then there have been no 'observing' taking place until we do it.
So does that make sense? Nah. Don't think so.

---Argument two--

One conclusion one might draw from this thought above is that what I see as interactions is more than just manipulations? Which is weird if we assume that this first particle due to its immersion in that magnetic field also will influence the field back. Which it should, right? You know, 'action and reaction'.

So this should then be a true 'two-way' interaction ,which then should constitute my prerequisites for an 'observer', which then would make the entanglement fall out in its 'final state' before us observing.

So there. But how to test it?

To be able to see the final outcome of an entanglement you will need absolute control over both particles paths right. You will also need to know exactly what interference's there is on their respective paths. But if entanglements falls out by a magnetic field how will you know, even with those prerequisites fulfilled, that it haven't fallen out before us observing?

The only way to know that is to have an absolute control over your experiment and also use two fields. The first on Particle -A- creating that first entangled spin change, and then one more EM-field  on -A- (the same particle) to see if your final observations now will give you two particles with the same spin, or two with the opposite spins. But you will need to be able to know both particles to see this.

If they still are opposite you can conclude that either does not EM fields influence the spins or that they do, but without this 'interaction' constituting what I call 'observers' and therefore keeping their observational 'virginity' relative true 'observations'.

But if the spins observed by you now are the same then the EM field will constitute what I call  a 'observer' and so define (fall out) the final state of that entanglement before any observation by us.

Another point, if the last definition would be true, is that 'forces' becomes questionable.
Why else would that other particle be able to change its spin, just because its twin meet a field?


-----Relative mass- Momentum---Energy-- and how I see it.

First a quick look at definitions.

Intrinsic (Belonging to a thing by its very nature)
Inherent (Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic)

They may seem much the same but f ex. The 'mass-less-ness' of a photon is a 'intrinsic property', not a inherent. As 'spin' is too.

To me, as to you possibly, that definition may seem slightly 'overkill', but in physics it states a essential difference. So if you want to be taken seriously when discussing physics: Hinge to that.
(and yes, to me 'intrinsic' have one 'property' more, at times. Namely.. Magic :)

-- And now for that other look at 'energy' through the eyes of momentum --


Momentum is frame specific, that means that it will express itself differently depending on from where you measure. A lovely expression of that is "Newton's apple in Einstein's elevator, a frame of reference. In it the apple has no velocity or momentum; outside, it does."

Ya'dig?

It's simple, 'momentum' is not there, neither is any new 'energy' if you measure it inside your frame. The so called 'rest energy' which is a result of a mathematical definition of invariant mass as expressed as energy do exist though. And as 'invariant' clearly state, will stay the same, no matter from were you measure it, a neutron star or the moon.

But neither any new extra 'energy', nor any extra  new 'momentum' exists inside your frame, no matter your relative 'speed', other than as a relation with another frame of measurement.

And that new 'energy' or 'momentum will differ depending from where you view it from (frame of reference, like the moon or mars, or your 'runaway rocket')

And so the only 'true' intrinsic (yep, it's a kind of magic:) energy will be our 'invariant/proper/rest' energy. And momentum then? Is there anything 'intrinsic' about that? Not that I can see.

And 'relativistic mass' then? That I prefer to call momentum. Why do people want it to be the same as 'invariant mass'. I think it goes back to how we used to see the 'forces'. It's very simple to see that 'speed kills' for example. And we learn very quickly that it hurts more, the faster we move.

Therefore it might seem, intuitively, more correct to look at 'relative mass/ momentum' as something belonging to the object that moves than to a relation between 'frames of reference' expressing itself at the moment of 'impact' for example. But it's not.

In 'my universe' I'm not sure there exist any 'forces' at all :)
Even though we all know that a speeding car have a 'greater force'.

So what is then 'momentum' and 'relative mass'. Well, to my eyes it is a relation between frames, and only expressed when measured against one, just as that 'new' energy created. If relative mass and momentum is defined against motion and I state that we can't set a 'exact speed' in our universe other than arbitrarily defining it relative another frame.

They won't exist in internal measurements, we will only notice them as we compare relative 'frames'  outside our own. Then how do they express themselves and 'keep count' of my frame relative all other? ( And don't laugh at that question. It's a pretty goddamned good one I think :)

If I have a object -A- that I put in motion relative me and then ask the Very Small  Person (VSP) traveling on it if there seems to be any 'extra energy' or 'relative mass', as measured from inside his frame, to the things existing on that object -A- he will say no.. Oh yes, he will..

When measured inside his own frame there will be no extra energy or relative mass measured, in any object of invariant mass inside that own frame as I understands it.

But then we have that experiment where they finally measured the speed of light, remember that one (Ether). Where one of the 'legs of travel' (paths) was 'shorter'? Well, that's an invalid comparison I think.

It's light we're speaking about here. That strange ethereal 'substance' we still don't understand. And light is always limited to 'c', remember? So as light find itself emanating from a 'moving object'  it will adapt, through length contraction and time dilation as that is the only expression allowed by SpaceTime.

But a shorter path? Doesn't that mean more energy to that light then? And that 'energy'? Isn't that a result of our object -A- motions relative mass / momentum?  In a way it is, isn't it? As it has a direct relation to our motion, but it is still not 'bound' to any specific place.

It's an expression relative our frame of reference you see, and when light does so it already have placed (defined) itself as another 'frame' relative ours. Can you see how I think here?

If that relative mass/energy/momentum really belonged to invariant mass on -A- then all 'vibrating properties' inside the atoms of -A- would 'accelerate'.

I think that light might be seen as a delimiter/definer of motion, but also that neither momentum nor relative mass exist as belonging to any object.

And that they to me seem more like 'stress tensions' in SpaceTime created by motion.

If you didn't get it read it again please. It is simple. 'Invariant mass' relative its energy is a known invariant intrinsic constant that belongs to matter even when all other influences like speed or gravity is subtracted. All other types of new energy, momentum, relative mass, is what I call 'relations' between frames of references and so not 'belonging' to invariant mass.


--That's it
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 12/11/2009 17:41:44
-------Environment--------

I'm going to look in the Water again:)

--Quote---

The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by .10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m.

Consistent with the Third Assessment Report (TAR), global ocean heat content (0– 3,000 m) has increased during the same period, equivalent to absorbing energy at a rate of 0.21 ± 0.04 W m–2 globally averaged over the Earth’s surface.

Two-thirds of this energy is absorbed between the surface and a depth of 700 m.

-----------------End of Quote----IPPC----Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level--


---Quote--

It is very likely that the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379 ppm) and CH4 (1,774 ppb) exceed by far the natural range of the last 650 kyr (650 000 years).

Ice core data indicate that CO2 varied within a range of 180 to 300 ppm and CH4 within 320 to 790 ppb over this period.

Over the same period, Antarctic temperature and CO2 concentrations covary (varies in a corresponding way),  indicating a close relationship between climate and the carbon cycle.

-----------------End of Quote----IPPC----Palaeoclimate


The oceans is an important regulator of CO2 and heat. It can contain a thousand times more heat in it than the atmosphere. For us that means that the oceans already have a heat warming effect and as it gets warmed up, just as a radiator, will give up more heat. So have we exhausted its heat containing effects yet. No, it can take more, but there is problems with this description. One is that the water layers nearest the surface will be the water to first maximize its heat effects, and also, as I see it, the water to first give up its excess of CO2 . The deeper waters will also get filled with CO2 up to their maximum, but on a slower rate than the surface layers as I see it.

The only thing hastening this will be storms mixing the layers, and deep circulation's, but those last are driven by cold. What this seems to mean to me, is that we will see surface water start getting off their overabundance of CO2 quicker than the ocean on its 'whole' will do. That is, some of the saturated (CO2 filled) water will move down, slowly saturating the lover levels, due to streams convection's storms etc. But, at the same time as it also will also release excess CO2 in the air, creating an worse atmospheric situation, accelerating the process.

In our oceans we have a blend of salt and sweet water.  As I stated earlier they exist in different strata on different depths in different concentrations. For fish and marine life in general to survive there are some things they need. The correct salinity, oxygen and acidity. (Yeah, some nutrients works too:)

If we look at oxygen then that is 'blended down' in the waters in different ways. Normally through convection streams and the ocean breathing up in the atmosphere and getting back rain. That oxygen doesn't account for oxygenating the deeper layers of the oceans though. There we have hurricanes that will wisp up the water from the deep to the shallow mixing them and "the polar regions are where deep water formation (sinking of cold, salty water) occurs; this drives the Deep Circulation and also oxygenates the deep ocean. Warmer water hold less dissolved gases (the classic example is to shake up a can of warm cola and a can of cold cola, and open both at the same time – try it!); that includes both O2 and CO2. If a warming deep ocean starts releasing CO2…"

But the polar regions is shrinking. When they do so the colder denser sweet water (ice) from them will sink to the bottom blending out the saltwater and 'short time' build up the oxygenation of the oceans, what that will have for effect on the oceans acidity? Well, I guess it will slow it down momentarily, making it look as if this Global Warming ain't that bad.

But as more and more ice disappears, the warmer Arctic (and Antarctica) will become. And as less and less sunlight is reflected by the ice and snow our 'heat accumulating chain' gets worse. It creates an forever accelerating chain of ice loss and will also break up the ice-layers in west Antarctica. And as the ice disappears this 'Deep Circulation stream' will die too, and with it the oxygenation of deep waters. Other streams may change too, but they will still exist. But the deep circulation streams builds on there being a frozen north and south pole and without the cold it will disappear. And the seas will change salinity.

(On the other hand, I guess us to be pretty much extinct before that happens, if that's any comfort:) 

Different fishes keeps to different depths, most of them live quite near the surface where the sun creates the best 'living conditions' for them. When the ocean gets warmed up it expands getting 'bigger' overall, as well as it's loses its ability to contain and 'retain' green house gases like CO2 as shown by the coca cola example. So the warmer it gets the less amount of CO2 will be bound to it, and the more CO2 you will find in the air you breath. That CO2 will also add to the sum of molecules in the atmosphere and its total warmth, making our air dirtier, as well as pushing (expanding) the utmost layer of air even further out creating a larger 'ball' of air able to now retain even more heat, driving this to some level were it will accelerate into something else, or stabilize, but on a unlivable level for us.

So what about this acidity problem.
Well, do you remember that description of how Calcium walked down the oceans?

---Quote---

On Earth, we have an important geophysical modulator of CO2 concentrations. Too much carbon dioxide causes acid rain that dissolves calcium through the weathering of igneous bedrock. Calcium-rich water can flow into the oceans where it is used by organisms to build calcium carbonate skeletons. When they die, skeletal material settles and accumulates on the ocean floor. Because of plate tectonics, the ocean floor moves outwards from ocean ridges to be consumed by the Earth’s mantle at subduction zones. Calcium Carbonate also moves along, is subducted into the mantle, releases carbon dioxide in magma, and may be released through volcanoes.

----End of quote--

Take that and combine it with this.

------

The observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2; see Chapter 2) and the observed changes in the physical properties of the ocean reported in this chapter can affect marine biogeochemical cycles (here mainly carbon, oxygen, and nutrients). The increase in atmospheric CO2 causes additional CO2 to dissolve in the ocean.

Changes in temperature and salinity affect the solubility and chemical equilibration of gases.
Changes in circulation affect the supply of carbon and nutrients from below, the ventilation of oxygen-depleted waters and the downward penetration of anthropogenic carbon.

The combined physical and biogeochemical changes also affect biological activity, with further  consequences for the biogeochemical cycles. The increase in surface ocean CO2 has consequences for the chemical equilibrium of the ocean.

As CO2 increases, surface waters become more acidic and the concentration of carbonate ions decreases. This change in chemical equilibrium causes a reduction of the capacity of the ocean to take up additional CO2.

However, the response of marine organisms to ocean acidification is poorly known and could cause further changes in the marine carbon cycle with consequences that are difficult to estimate

----IPPC----------Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level----

And here we once again see the unwillingness to draw any conclusions by IPPC. The 'deniers' love to see IPPC as the advocates of a 'doomsday scenario' but as you can see by my example they are quite conservative and refuses to draw any conclusions here.

So let me guess. The oceans are dying, the acidity is hitting just those layers with the most CO2. That's the layers with the most of the fish we eat, from Zero to Seven hundred meters (0-700 m or around 0 / 23 000 feet) That's also our first food chain dying. Add to that cold waters disappearance, as the West Antarctica surface layers start gliding breaking up into free floating ice bergs, with the Arctic and Greenland already melting. That means that the primary food for fish, namely krill and plankton disappears too. And it's not happening tomorrow, as far as I know it's starting to happen just now, outside your window :)

So?

But the worst problem I believe us to have is the fact that Earth isn't a linear system. Most of our math, construction's etc, have until recently built on the idea of linearity. A linear system is one where cause and effect is clearly distinguishable, without doubts. When the concept of nonlinearly gets discussed its mostly in the form of finding 'cut outs' and useful 'tricks' for minimizing their uncertainties. Nonlinear, well known, systems is weather and climate, we are still defining 'cutoffs' for the climate models we use today, and they are becoming more and more complex as we try to define those 'cutoffs'. 

As for 'climate' which is a much wider perspective than your local 'weather', looking over a greater amount of years and areas, we all would have liked to see it as a linear system, but it's not. It's a nonlinear system with certain 'stabilized eras and areas' where it seems to behave much the same, but even in them (depending on your perspective in years) showing strange and very quick 'flips' in temperature not attributable to any simple linear mechanism.

Most of the 'GW-deniers' still seem to live in the pre-Einsteinian era where everything seemed to be 'linear'. You know, where Jules Verne and others gave us unlimited definitions for how we by gigantic projects could do pretty much anything. That's what we today like to refer to as 'Geoengineering' it seems.

Stupendous ideas by the same type of inflatable 'innovators' that believe in the forever existing free market and unlimited 'growth'. Most of us, I hope, realize that those later ideas only is possible if we somehow can find that other Earth, like we Europeans once found America, to further exploit when our old Earth becomes uninhabitable, ad infinitum.

A nonlinear system is also defined by 'tipping's'. Those come to exist when a system stops changing and stabilizes into a new configuration. That's what our Earth had until recently, a 'stable phase' with a slight cooling. We are forcing a new tipping now. And when that 'tipping' happens you can forget us being able to change it. For us to create it took us most of two hundred and sixty, to finally? Three hundred and fifty (possibly) years, with all of us producing as much CO2 as we could, and happily can, economically.

And to clean that concentration out of our air and seas?  I'm not even sure we could 'force' it back. It may well be that we will need to surpass what we had before in CO2 reductions,  into an 'ice-age' if that now is possible, before we will get that next 'tipping'? Not that I expect us able to do it. And the problem is that we have a lot of effects everywhere due to the warming, and we can't really say in which way they might accelerate each other.

To make it clearer, IPPC  have constantly been too optimistic in their predictions of 'global mean temperature' etc. That means, they have constantly been forced to revise them upward, never downward. So instead of playing Jules Verne I think we should concentrate on our CO2-sources.
And stop them.

The way the industrialized world are looking on the 'undeveloped' world and the way both waits for the other to start is just plain stupid. But you have to admit to it making a good excuse for not doing anything. Still, all countries needs to start, right now. That means that India and China won't get their planned raise of living standards. But it also means that, if they do it right, their ice and glaciers and major streams still might exist in fifty years. From a short time scenario they could have their higher living standard if they just don't care, but the longtime results of such a decision will be creating deserts in their own (and others) countries.

So, what can us westerners do? We can do what we should do anyway, stop our own emissions. That will give the signal that we are serious, not only bullshitting. If they still think that kind of 'living-standards' we used to have is the answer to God, the Universe and Everything? I don't think they do. Both China and India have a long and very advanced cultural tradition and both have other definitions for happiness, if they are allowed.

The problem is that we have 'force-feed' most of the world through books, papers, radio, television and Hollywood that this should be our new brave world. And if we just hadn't created that Global warming and if our Earth just had those unlimited resources to feed our economic growth with? Why, then it would work too, right :)

To me the most worthwhile tool that we have today is the Internet.
And that's our newest treasure worldwide.
Not oil, not nuclear power. Methane etc.

Internet.

Information, knowledge.
Communicating.

So there's a huge amount of unknown environmental effects accumulating, possibly combining into 'forcing's' we can't predict yet, creating an accelerating chain of events that will leave us more and more behind the environmental changes we meet.

Long before the whole ocean is warmed up (saturated) we will be fighting for our breaths, and those that still live in the - Older Newtonian Linear World - will then be seen to spend - Enormous Amount Of Money - and - Man-Hour's- in - Complex Gargantuan Projects - with - Cool Acronym's - and even - Cooler World Saviors - and all of it in your own telly. (Die Hard - The final cut),  not solving a sh* (But making both you and me impressed by their single-mindedness:)

'Money' expect things to be linear :)
'Powers that is' wants it to be linear too:)
Even people doing physics like thing's to be linear :)

Cause and effect in a clear chain without any doubts, right.
It ain't. Never was, never will be.

Linearity is a definition made in time. As a limited case you can always find linearity, as you look over smaller or bigger 'trends', but the truth is that SpaceTime is a nonlinear system.

That's also the way we try to define our TOE:s, from our perspective of linearity.
I expect that perspective to fail.

-------Environmental Stop--Ah, End I mean--
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 12/11/2009 17:42:30

And Dimensions again.

Thinking of my 'non-dimensional points' and if there should be one or more defining SpaceTime?
There should be one '3d-effect' inside SpaceTime it seems to me. Otherwise it becomes horribly complex to define any '3D-object' moving, colliding, melting, joining etc.

We have a '3D' Space consisting of 'nothing', and that we can't deny, right. But then it seems as this 'first 3D effect' creating a whole SpaceTime still needs to explain what 'matter' is? As 'densities' may describe it but in reality tells us nothing. Nor explains the movements we observe. But if distances is an illusion, should not movement be one too?

And if neither movement nor distance exist in 'reality'? How do we get to what we perceive?
How about our 'arrow of time'? As that is the thing needed for it all.

So what the heck is this 'arrow of time' and what creates it? Matter? Does matter create an arrow? Well, yeah I think so, or possibly that they create each other, undividable so to speak. It seems as if our arrow and SpaceTimes matter is intimately connected. And 'times arrow' and 'matter' creates 'space'. But matter is a '3D' object? So how can it come to be, doesn't we need the arrow before the object?

Don't know? What we do seem to need for this to be correct is an 'emergence' creating it. Especially if it is as I suspect, that times arrow and mass is a symbiosis. And that brings us back to 'time' itself and what that might be. Remember that I differ between 'time' and 'the arrow(s) of time' here.

We can say one thing about 'time' if so. It does not involve clocks. When we describe it as such, we do it inside SpaceTime where the concept is perfectly valid. But when searching for 'origins' we shouldn't involve clocks. Why?

It has a very simple reason to me, namely, the question of what came first, 'the egg or the hen'. If your linear thinking creates a linear solution you still won't pass that one. Thinking time to contain 'time traveling' won't solve a origin either. And why it doesn't I'll leave to you to reason out. Yes, I'm perfectly certain you can :)

So?

Time cant be the 'arrow' we see. And if it isn't, then time is something more, or less if you like :)
But when you stop defining it as 'time' and instead search for something else defining 'one ''original '' ''force''''' .

Well then, to me, it seems that you are adding to the complexity, as what you're searching for then have no anchor in what we see. Time is what creates all linearity we have, and it does it through its arrow. Without that arrow no definitions exist. 

It seems as both our linearity and ourselves only is existing macroscopically, ever thought about that? As a macroscopic 'system' you too is well defined geometrically, communicating, thinking, living and dying. But when looked on as constituents you disappear to become something different.

Furthermore, is there a linearity to QM? Or to Black holes?
All 'linearity' I ever expect to be found, will be as defined macroscopically, and only as 'limited cases'.

PS: Remember my clever government now leading the EEC in their environmental considerations, and that Russian methane pipe under Swedish economic waters? Seems we found it a good solution after all, we ratified the proposition. Now we just need to bore after oil and natural gas (methane) in those seas too. Then we've done what we could to follow the 'world leaders' in 'progress'. Well, the fish is more or less gone anyway, so?

So, don't you dare say we won't shoulder our responsibility.
In fact, Monty Python. Throw yourself in the wall, here comes Sweeden ::))
 
----------------------

Which brings me to consciousness and 'religions'.
A subject not easily abridged :)

If I tell you that my mind will die when I die, will you accept that?
Or do you see it as there is something keeping it intact even at that point?

I personally expect my 'mind' to disappear then.
In Tibetan Buddhism there is the idea of 'bardo'
One book described it as:

--Quote-----------

The word "bardo" is commonly used to denote the intermediate state between death and rebirth, but in reality bardos are occurring continuously throughout both life and death, and are junctures when the possibility of liberation, or enlightenment, is heightened. The bardos are particularly powerful opportunities for liberation because there are, the teachings show us, certain moments that are much more powerful than others and much more charged with potential, when whatever you do has a crucial and far-reaching effect. I think of a bardo as being like a moment when you step toward the edge of a precipice; such a moment, for example, is when a master introduces a disciple to the essential, original, and innermost nature of his or her mind. The greatest and most charged of these moments, however, is the moment of death

-----------End of quote-------

No, I don't know what a 'bardo' really is or how to recognize such a one. But I do expect that if there is a 'time without arrow' existing outside our SpaceTime, and if we all belong as much in that as we do here, then we all are 'immortal' in some sense of the word.

But I do not expect it to be a chain of rebirths of a 'singular' or 'multiple' personality slowly evolving into enlightenment or 'Buddha hood'. But I expect that we all are connected, and that we all come from the same origin. And I believe that the research Tibetan Buddhism have given the art of dying is invaluable. I know there is a Christian counterpart to it, but it's not as systematically developed as far as I know. But if you have any knowledge of it being different feel free to tell me.

The problem with us is the way we deem narrowness of mind to become a 'path' of  'right thinking'. And our never-ending ability of lying to ourselves, making us believe that this creates truths. It closes our sight from the small things that makes life worth living, as friends, family etc. ( And of course, in my eyes, single malt :)

The same author also had this thought.

---------Quote---
 
What the masters must suspect is that there is a danger that people who have no strong belief in a life after this one will create a society fixated on short-term results, without much thought for the consequences of their actions. Could this be the major reason why we have created a brutal world like the one in which we are now living, a world with little real compassion?

---------End of Quote--------The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying by Sogyal  Rinpoche


For myself I will clearly state that I do not expect myself, as I am now with that personality, memories etc. to exist after death. Although I'm inclined to expect some part of what I presume to be 'me' to still 'exist', it will not be 'me' anymore, and I won't expect it to follow any times arrow either. ''Me' is a construct shaped by and in our 'times arrow', obeying its laws. But never the less I do care about the world we might leave to those coming.

As for other religions ideas of us getting placed either in a heaven or a hell I doubt them. If you're seeking for a hell, why not go to some small arms war and join the civilian's (no gun mind you), or volunteer for the slave trade, or .. So no.

Which doesn't mean that people of any 'true faith' should be seen as misguided, there are a lot of good honest people that trust in their faith, acting in a very moral and humane way, holding to concepts of ethics even when leading to their death. And truer than that you can't be.

But let's go back to Buddhism for a moment.

According to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, you will actively have to 'fight' mentally to reach 'enlightenment' while you dies. 'Enlightenment' which I then presume to represent an analogy of my idea of us all being connected in that other 'time less state'.

If so? Why should it be that way?

If we all come from something without time, distances and motion. Why would we need to 'fight' to return as we die? What would it do to my concept of 'emergence' if it is was true?

Then that 'emergence' take on a new and stronger shape.

And life becomes more of a 'craving' for our universe than we might expect. Both Buddhism and my thoughts seems to agree in that there is possible a state of enlightenment on Earth though. For some that state could be when we 'do unto others as we wish them to do unto us', as I believe the bible to see it. But how about those of us wanting, no, craving to be humiliated and punished to find their life 'worthwhile'? Do they fit under this idea?

So that statement doesn't seem to cover all, only that part of us living, reasonably happy or unhappy, without craving to receive hurts. The Buddhist view starts to make more sense then, viewing life as an 'illusion', with our common goal being the freeing of ourselves from 'samsara' a.k.a.  'the wheel of life' with their rebirths.

But then they also point out that 'life' is well worth living and not meant to be thrown away.

---Quote----

As Tibet's famous poet saint, Milarepa, said:
"My religion is to live—and die—without regret."

--End of quote-----

And that truly is a lofty goal, hard to reach, but also dependant on what you yourself represent as you say it.

Without me meaning any offense to Milarepa, I know we have mass murderers saying, and meaning, much the same? Mostly they seem to have parts of their frontal cortex (lobe?) damaged, (according to brain scans). The part(s) relating to emotions and the possibility of empathizing with others, but that doesn't mean that they are lying when saying and believing so. As one stated.

"I'm a mass murderer, I just enjoy killing."
So, no regrets, smiling, sincere and very proper looking as he said it. No different in appearance from your friendly stockbroker. But he wouldn't mind having you for his next victim.

So the idea I have of a greater 'information space' and of us being the ones opening SpaceTime up to the concepts of 'ethics' and 'right and wrong' might be closer to 'reality' than what you expect. As those concepts might create a 'enlightenment' for us all when followed through. And that's one crazy idea, ain't it :)

It seems to me that we are creating those concepts as we evolve , lifting ourselves by our hair. Look at how the ways of having 'fun' by mayhem and cruelty have changed through the centuries to see it. And maybe that is one reason why we then would find it so hard to become 'enlightened' as we die. As that would constitute us voluntarily 'signing off' without finishing our 'Universal goal'. Can you see how I think here? Yep, another weird idea :)

Gautama said:

"This existence of ours is as transient as autumn clouds.
To watch the birth and death of beings is like looking at the movements of a dance.
A lifetime is like a flash of lightning in the sky,
Brushing by, like a torrent down a steep mountain."

For myself I always felt closest to the idea of Tao.

Tao doesn't differ between living and dying, it's all the same, just different :)
And Tao takes a clear pleasure in life's simple things.

But in the end they all speak about the same.
SpaceTime and what's beyond.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: Vern on 13/11/2009 02:33:52
Your title is correct; it is much too long to read. [:)]

Just a scan through tells me that there are way too many ideas in the postings. I can't compose a reasonable reply without consuming as much carbon as you did in your posting. [:)]

But about global warming; that is about money; it is a scheme to redistribute the wealth from those that have it to those who would like to have it. It will have absolutely no affect upon the atmosphere, except maybe to pollute it more from the jet engines of those who are in line to get the money.

Crises should never go to waste, as our politicians repeatedly say, they should be milked for all the resources the populace will provide.   
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 22/11/2009 16:17:10
Sorry Vern.

Don't agree. There's to many signs telling us that it's happening worldwide. But you're quite correct to state that it's far to long :)

As for redistribution of money?

Money is what you get from resources, they may be intellectual or related to material resources. When you look at it that way you will find a lot of countries having 'resources' Not only our western society.

And we all need a little redistribution I think. But global warming doesn't care for your money. If you look to what I wrote before/above you will see that I find the idea of 'bribes/ baksheesh' being useless.

In that we both stand on the same side.

But it doesn't matter. As I said, Earth doesn't care about you and me arguing. And the signs are already outside your window.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: Vern on 22/11/2009 22:47:16
Quote from: yor_on
Don't agree. There's to many signs telling us that it's happening worldwide. But you're quite correct to state that it's far to long :)
I see no signs; only corrupt people spouting false crises so that they can gather up the wealth of the world. I remember when the crises was global cooling. Up until about ten years ago now it is global warming. There's been no warming in the past ten years, that is why they now call it global climate change.

The potential cash flow is too great to let a cooling spell spoil it.

 [;D]
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 23/11/2009 03:39:12
Vern, As I wrote, we are of two minds on this. To believe it or not?

Well, you and me just have to wait some years, and see what's happening. People see what they want to see, and depending on where you live Global warming will express itself differently, so even when Australia becomes more or less inhabitable there will still be spots and people wanting to see it as something not connected to Global warming.

If you look at what I've written about in my essay you will find that my sources is picked with care, just not to open up for cheap arguing about whether you can trust them. They are from reputable sources and they are 'scientific' that is grounded on what climate research states today. That also means that they try to be conservative in their outlook. Me? well I extrapolate their results into what I believe to be the reality. But if you look you will see that I clearly state what is my views. That is, if you have read it?
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: Vern on 23/11/2009 11:22:47
You wrote a lot of stuff [:)] I scanned through it. I got high grades in my speed reading courses; I think I understand most of what you wrote.

We all selectively choose sources of information that fit our own thinking. Maybe you and I have chosen different sources as climate change indicators. But I see no indication of a warming trend from the sources I respect. In fact we currently enjoy a relatively calm period of climate change activity.

Al Gore has already pocketed over $700,000,000 for himself from this farce. Now we see powerful unions like SEIU trying to cash in. They would like to swell the ranks of new organizations world wide. We are in great danger from these thugs.

Edit: Make that seven hundred million; I corrected it.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: Ethos on 23/11/2009 15:40:27
You wrote a lot of stuff [:)] I scanned through it. I got high grades in my speed reading courses; I think I understand most of what you wrote.

We all selectively choose sources of information that fit our own thinking. Maybe you and I have chosen different sources as climate change indicators. But I see no indication of a warming trend from the sources I respect. In fact we currently enjoy a relatively calm period of climate change activity.

Al Gore has already pocketed over $700,000 for himself from this farce. Now we see powerful unions like SEIU trying to cash in. They would like to swell the ranks of new organizations world wide. We are in great danger from these thugs.

Absolutely Vern:

The Global warming is being produced from the hot air expelled forth from the lungs of people like Al Gore.

It's the agenda that the Globalists will use in their attempt to usher in world government. The goal is not climate control, the goal is total control of every human being on this planet.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: Vern on 23/11/2009 17:22:48
I am glad you can see through their plot. Yes; it is the globalization movement. It is designed to destroy the current system of governments so that they can replace them with a global government. From what I have seen of Obama policy they want that global government to be a communist dictatorship.

Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: Ethos on 23/11/2009 18:28:13
I am glad you can see through their plot. Yes; it is the globalization movement. It is designed to destroy the current system of governments so that they can replace them with a global government. From what I have seen of Obama policy they want that global government to be a communist dictatorship.


Thank you for the comment Vern, I value your thoughts also.

The current propaganda is very appealing; "World govenment will abolish the need for war."

While this may have some truth to it, let's examine one of the reasons we fight wars in the first place. 

War is one of the means by which a dictator can be removed. If we surrender our national sovereignty over to a gobal government, we give up the right to resist if a despot takes power. As long as the USA maintains it's national sovereignty, we have recourse. If we surrender to a centralized authority, all options are gone. We will be forced to accept what ever comes down the pike and if it resembles something like what we fought against in the last war, we'll have no ability to resist.

War is terrible but there is something much worse!

It's called dictatorship under the control of a despot. Remember the past, it's a roadmap to the future!!!!!!!!

...................Ethos
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 29/11/2009 17:22:43
There is a sort of 'dictatorship' if you like to our Earth. It is less in what we humans want to dispute about than it is in Earth's own inevitable processes. The question now is if it is us that have disturbed them or not.
And that one I believe to be answered already. The next question is if we can stop it. And there I'm quite cynical, and actually in accord with a lot of your views relative the viability of the proposed actions as the Copenhagen deals etc.

Most honest people believing that there is a general Global Warming happening due to human interference I would expect to agree.

That on the other hand has nothing to do with Global Warming itself.
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: Vern on 29/11/2009 17:45:19
Have you heard about the latest scandle (http://www.climatechangefraud.com/). They are cooking the books.

Quote from: the link
You haven’t heard it from America’s mainstream media yet – even Fox News hasn’t covered it – but the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John P. Holdren, is a key player in the Climategate e-mails flap, which is shaping up as the biggest scandal in the history of modern science.

Holdren is an intractable global warming activist with no time for climate change skepticism. In a New York Times article, he contended that such questioning “has delayed – and continues to delay – the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge.”
Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 29/11/2009 18:50:58
Vern If you want to discuss or argue about global warming please take it somewhere else. I know what I think and those kind of sites won't change it. If you find fault in my sources here then tell me. But I didn't write my 'essay' to argue Global Warming :) Even if it may look so for some.

Title: Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 17/12/2009 20:51:45
Well. As I’m already sort of ‘weird certified’ due to my essay here I thought I would take it up a level more. I like to say that what we see at a QM level is due to ‘emergences’ right, and that from there to our macroscopic reality there will be yet another ‘jumps’ or emergences defining our  ‘arrow of time’.

I also suggest that what we call ‘dimensions’ might be a little different that our mainstream definitions, not that I have any tests for that, except suggesting a way of experimentally proving the existence of the mainstream theory of ‘dimensions’, that is, how to prove the existence of a ‘two dimensional’ system inside SpaceTime, which would put all my ideas to a rest when it comes to dimensionality.

Let’s talk about the electron for a moment. I say it’s an emergence right. So what does that mean? Geometrically we might not define the exact location of any electron but we can still see the perturbations of it. So whatever it is it does have a distinct placement geometrically, would you agree to that?

Now, let us assume :) that what we call an electron is something very ‘fast’, as seen inside SpaceTime, creating a figure inside spacetime.

How could it do that?

One idea here is whether you could see it as a one or two dimensionally plane, rotating itself into what we define as three dimensionality.

Now, you need to see the difference between my idea and ‘dimensions’ in general. There is no ‘Lego’ to it. You can’t really play with the concept of ‘dimensions as ‘planes’ that we can connect, or are ‘interconnected’.

What creates ‘dimensionality’  is the ‘times arrow’, and what we have is ‘emergences’.
There are some constants we hold true inside SpaceTime. One is the speed of light, which keeps our universe in shape.
If everything comes down to ‘c’ in a vacuum then what is creating the electron should have a relation to that too.
So our electron should be ruled by ’c’ inside SpaceTime, and an electron is definitely ‘inside’ SpaceTime.

So?

Can light ‘paint’ an electron?
How?

And why would there be any consistent ‘cavity’ for it to ‘paint’ in?
One idea is to see it as a light quanta bounded to a certain ‘form’ ‘moving’ as we see it, creating the properties we call an electron. But why would it be ‘bounded’ to a certain form?

Let us take a plane, now, if you want to see it as’ one or two dimensional’ is not that important for the moment, we’ll just call it a transparent ‘plane’ existing by itself. Let that plane be ‘undefined’ as for size, and let us then start to rotate/twist it. The rotation is through all axles we can imagine, creating our 3D ‘ball’, but still transparent.

If we now placed a red point of reference on that transparent plane, as defined by some coordinate system. What will we see as the transparent ‘plane’ starts to rotate?  And geometrically ‘twists’ simultaneously in all ‘directions’, up to the speed of light.

Well, that might become an ‘electron’ to me, and lifted up to a macroscopic scale, perhaps  also matter. And also create the apparent ‘motion’ of that same point of reference that we, ‘in reality’, know to be stationary.

And to that you might add that what I call its ‘rotations/twisting’ to me is our ‘arrow of time’.

Well, to me ‘times arrow’ is what moves it, rotating/twisting it, creating us. ‘Times arrow’ is what defines law from chaos, and with ‘times arrow’ defining a direction macroscopically we will have a ‘filter’ defining our reality.

For that to make some twisted sense we might need to look closer on how many transitions that ‘arrow’ might take before it becomes macroscopically clear. In a QM environment Feynman’s diagram describes a time going several ways, simultaneously. But still with some sort of ‘directionality’ to it, which is one reason I prefer to refer  QM:s ‘arrow of time’ as ‘whole processes’ and ‘emergences’, instead of it going ‘two ways’

At that plane ‘times arrow’ is yet undefined even though existing, all we can talk about there is the ‘particles’ probabilities giving us a most probable direction. And as we come into a macroscopic perspective we have (nowadays) gone from Newton’s certainty of celestial unchanging ‘laws’ to admitting that there exists a possibility of probability steering us even here.

The ‘plane’ I play with here is not bound to any specific point in space. In a way it can, from our perspective, be seen as existing at all points independently of each other, like an unlimited amount of ‘planes’ all rotating.

And the rotations is created by what in the end becomes our ‘arrow of time’. So what I’m suggesting is that there is a concept of ‘time’ that could be seen as ‘the holy grail’, unmoving, in which all is resting. And that the ‘arrow of time’ is what gives it a direction and emergences, materializing SpaceTime, creating our ‘reality’.

In a way it’s a perpetual motion machine as what we see as forces and all other manifestations then comes out of a ‘nothing’, created through an ‘emergence’ without any real substance when seen from that other ‘original’ point of view.

In this way you can’t split dimensions, not without taking away our arrow, And that suits my ideas of ‘motion’ and relativity :)

But that doesn’t mean that the electron and matter behaves the same. Times arrow at a QM level behaves differently from our macroscopic reality begetting different ‘properties’.

There seems to be natural constants defining SpaceTime. Planck defined some of them, Maxwell and Einstein others and of course all other mathematicians and theoretical physicists exploring, like those recurring ‘magic numbers’ you can find in chaos mathematics.

Those are our ‘walls’ defining SpaceTime, and what creates and protects our manifestations. So now you might ask yourself if there are one or many electrons. Well, the questions is to my eyes wrongly defined. If what we have on one ‘original plane’ is without numbers, then what we see inside SpaceTime is also ‘nothing’.

The concept of numbers and mathematics is the tool by which we explore the ramifications of where we are, they can tell us a lot of that, maybe all. But when it comes to how to define an ‘origin’ we might find trouble using the same mathematics.

The emergences and the way those natural constants come into play will only define our ‘walls’, no matter how we refine them. We will need a tool for explaining what ‘emergences’ is too, and why we seem to go from simplicity to complexity, ending in our consciousness.

As for why an ‘electron’ as seen from inside SpaceTime would be defined as ‘existing’ only inside one (loosely) defined location seems to go back to our concepts of geometry. And as we know SpaceTimes geometry is a very ‘pliant’ definition, changing with motion, acceleration and mass, creating different definitions depending on your frame of reference I have no problem accepting that most of what we believe as being true just is definitions of frames of reference.

And if it is so, then an electron might only be a geometric, yet undefined (3D) figure, created through times arrow emerging, bound by the natural constants it creates (properties) as it emerge.

What this concept do to a ‘four dimensional’ reality, well, with times arrow we could be seen to live there already. And a five dimensional, and up  ~ .  If times arrow is what is defining out three dimensional then what is needed for a five dimensional would be?

Wish I knew. As it is I suspect that it might exist, but also that it, just as our SpaceTime, will be a ‘whole’ experience, not applicable to ‘splitting’ into simpler interconnected ‘planes’ as we seem to do today. 

But I’m just guessing.

So what other conclusions might I draw? Well, there are a lot of people that want to see the photon as carrying a mass (restmass), however small. We know that photons are the ‘carriers of exchange’ of invariant mass to energy as well as the opposite, energy to invariant mass. So it might seem as a reasonable approach to attribute some sort of restmass to a photon.

For myself I have always preferred the concept of momentum, and as momentum only attributable to a system when it interacts. Can you see how I think here? That momentum are belonging to both photons and invariant mass as a ‘hidden’ variable that we can’t define without knowing the ‘relative’ speed and mass. Therefore only expressive of redefining our interpretation of a ‘system’ and it’s various parts as it interacts, just like our photon does. Pure ‘invariant mass’ or restmass/proper mass on the other hand is what will be invariant intrinsically in a object, no matter its weight and speed (frame of reference).

Do you see the difference?
But it is still true that light ‘transfers’ mass.

---Quote---

Let me explain how an atom could be created. You may already have heard of
Einsteins famous equation:

E=m*c^2

This means that energy is equivalent to mass and vice versa. This means if
you have enough energy, you can create something with mass, like a
particle. The more energy you have, the heavier the particle can be.       

A common example of this equation in effect is a process called Pair
Production. In this process, a gamma-ray (remember, that is a high energy
particle of light) becomes an electron and an anti-electron (a positron).
The positron is the same as an electron in every way except it has a
positive charge, not a negative charge like the electron. A positron is
what is known as a piece of anti-matter.  This process starts out with
energy (the photon, which has no mass) and becomes two things with mass,
the electron and positron.

The opposite effect is called Pair Annihilation. The positron and electron
collide and produce at least 2 photons. Mass becomes energy.

From this you can see that if we could get enough energy we could produce
any particle we wished. However, to produce a whole proton, we would need
to have a photon with an energy over 1800 times larger than needed for the
pair production. The heavier the particle you produce the more energy you
need.

It's difficult to explain how much energy this is, but it is actually a     
very large amount. If we think of the energy of the light coming from a
normal lamp bulb as being 1 unit of energy. The energy needed for pair
production, to produce an electron and a positron, is about 1 million
(1000,000) units of energy (you would need one billion normal light
photons to produce just one pair production photon.) So to produce a
proton and anti-proton you'd need about 1 billion (1000,000,000) units of
energy.

And controlling such high energy photons is difficult too. So you can see
that producing even just a hydrogen atom would take a lot of work. Much
more work than just getting it from somewhere on the Earth, like from the
atmosphere.

----End of quote-----


Anyway, to me light is light without any restmass, which also simplifies my understanding of lights ability to travel at ‘c’ in a vacuum at the same time it intrinsically still is ‘timeless’. And what we see at its ability of transference or transformation (momentum) is a relation created at its interaction and therefore what I call an ‘emergence’.

To me all ‘forces’ and results of ‘forces’ is types of ‘emergences’.

That we have mathematical definitions from Maxwell to Planck to Einstein defining the relations between mass and light doesn’t change this.

But how can a light quanta (electron) be ‘enclosed’ inside a arbitrary part of ‘space’, macroscopically seen, to create that ‘geometric figure’ giving us a ‘electron’? Well, according to my idea it can’t, it’s an ‘illusion’. It’s ‘standing’ on a plane but ‘times arrow’ rotates that plane, creating our 3D experience. As for the discussion of how ‘many thingies’ there is, to me that question becomes meaningless under a QM level.

So, according to the tome of me, distance and motion doesn’t exist at all :)

What we have is a ‘plane’ of time that is turbulent (rotating), at last emerging into a macroscopic ‘one-way arrow of time’ that, as it does so, also creates our three dimensional SpaceTime with its macroscopic properties. And that mean that SpaceTime is a beautiful concept, totally true and undividable.

Also it makes me see gravity not as a ‘force’ but as a property belonging to SpaceTime, being instantaneous in that motto that it is ‘always there’ in every point of our SpaceTime being the expression of SpaceTime wrapping itself due to the emergences of matter. Inertia is also an expression of that ‘instantaneous force of gravity’ taking its toll at a course change.

If gravity moved at the speed of light only, without existing as a ‘field’ most orbits would fail as all heavenly bodies exerts a gravitational influence on each other, and as the ‘time delays’ imposed by ‘c’ on those ‘gravitons’ then would destroy the conservation of angular momentum balancing all orbits against each other. That means that the ‘gravitational attraction’ traveling at ‘c’ would be ‘behind’ time-wise where those other planets, suns etc would be in ‘reality’ when that ‘gravitational attraction’ reached its goal, increasing the conservation of angular momentum until the orbits would fail.

On the other hand, there is a possibility that if we took away, let’s say, our sun ‘instantly’ that the gravitational ‘balance/field’ would take ‘c’ to readapt itself, like eight minutes before telling our earth that the sun was gone, like if it was some sort of net existing, and the removal of our sun then would propagate at ‘c’, as some ‘ripple’ in that same gravitational net.

But it becomes strange in that we then should have some sort of ‘glue’ that then would represent the ‘field of gravity’, keeping the orbits ‘balance account’ straight against each other at all times.

At the same time, if gravity was propagating at ‘c’, it still wouldn’t become influenced by gravity’s propagation (gravitons?). Like two opposite laws working against each other? Then we seem to need some ‘law’ defining the way this ‘glue’ works and how it can counterbalance the propagation at ‘c’, keeping the conservation of angular momentum intact. And as I don’t know of any such law?

It’s easier for me accepting that gravity indeed is the topology of SpaceTime and as such as ‘instantaneous’ just as a topology of matter, like our earth, exists without any ‘propagation’ involved.  And it explains ‘inertia’ being a ‘instantaneous property‘ too. And yes, to me it becomes just another expression of ‘emergence’, if so.

Another good example is a black hole, if you consider that the EV (Event Horizon) hermetically excludes all ‘propagation’ of forces, why would it have a ‘gravitational field’?
As long as we accept that all ‘forces’ are limited by ‘c’?

There is some ways to look at it, one is that gravity (gravitons?) doesn’t need to consider the EV and so somehow is excluded from SpaceTimes limitations while still ‘propagating at ‘c’’.  Another would be to say that the ‘gravitational field’ somehow was defined prior to the collapse into a Black Hole (BH) and since then stayed the same, or growing depending on your views.

The first one is very strange if we define a black hole as a ‘singularity’ excluding all propagation, including gravitons. The second is also very strange in that those ‘gravitons’ emanating should need to come from ‘somewhere’ if it is a force. And remember that the BH is not ‘there’ anymore, the EV excludes it.

The third I can see is to define SpaceTime as a ‘dynamic’ ever existing topology, ‘updating/adapting’ itself instantly as ‘emergences’ happens, like if matter accumulates, breaking down into a BH. And then all BH will be a ’breaks’ or ‘holes’ in SpaceTimes topology, and as such becoming infinitely deep gravitational wells.

So?

Am I perfectly certified now, or have I missed somewhere :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 12/01/2010 19:12:46
Just putting in a shorty about the break in and stealth of mails and documents purporting to Climate Scientists, used by 'deniers' to prove the 'conspiracy' of them.

I found this excellent blog by a guy called Snapple, presenting it in a most interesting way. If you like spies and stuff, enjoy.

The Legend of Pine Ridge (http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/12/tomsk-hackers-and-russias-fsb-part-ii.html)


Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 11/03/2010 14:24:52
The Russians are laying an underwater methane pipe ('Nord Stream') to avoid having to go through Ukraine and Poland..

Now what the f* have that to do with me?

--Quote---

"The research published in the journal Science shows the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic shelf, which was thought to be a barrier sealing methane, is perforated. Scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences say more methane will be released if the permafrost is further destabilised. CSIRO spokesman Pep Canadell says the study identifies a possibly overlooked source of methane in the atmosphere. "Maybe before we were wrongly attributing it to cows or rice paddies or whatever, all the major sources of methane we have. And now when we measure fluctuations in the atmospheric methane concentration we can more properly attribute where these sources are coming from."

He says the study provides, for the first time, an estimate of the contribution of the Arctic to overall methane emissions. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic are the highest in 400,000 years.

---End of Quote--From 2010-

And take a look here too. (http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html)

"It is estimated that more than 60 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities (IPCC, 2007:a). Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires."
==

Why build it?
Well a good deal of it is Power politics.

It frees Russia that now will have two political 'persuasion tools'. One (very expensive) pipeline under water to western Europe free from other states, and the old one,  going through Eastern Europe. With those separated they now will have access to two separate instruments for 'negotiating' with other states and those not 'adapting'. It would have been so much cheaper to build it overland, and safer too, as it would have been so much easier to inspect the pipeline for possible damage over the years..


"The EU is also estimated to import 70% - 80 % of its energy supplies by 2030 as the North Sea gas supplies are diminishing; over 60 % of natural gas imports are expected to come from Russia. 10 % of the total EU gas demand would be covered by the 'Nord Stream'. Natural gas will remain the fuel of preference for the EU because of its greener properties. The first line to be opened in the 2011. When finished, it will be the longest sub-sea pipeline in the world."

And as we agreed (Nordic Countries) to them doing so, our great politicians once more show their abysmal ignorance.

1. Those winters we see now will soon be gone.
2. Where they now have frozen ground, they will then have bogs.
3. Russia is already pouring money into how to solve that problem.
4. When taking up the 'natural gas' aka methane under our oceans they leap a great risk of getting the frozen deposits to start releasing that methane.

" A substantial amount of evidence suggests that weakening the lattice-like structure of gas hydrates has triggered underwater landslides on the continental margin. In other words, the extraction process, if done improperly, could cause sudden disruptions on the ocean floor, reducing ocean pressure rates and releasing methane gas from hydrates."

And how the he** can we know when it's done 'properly'? :) Give me a break please, it's no oil reservoir we're speaking of here, no gelatinous thick viscous black fluid, ever so slowly dripping of your hand folks, it's a gas... Yeah, like, ah, lighter than air.. Ever heard about things lighter than air?

(No, not aeroplanes. Ah well. Google is your 'friend':)

So Putin will get a new 'stranglehold' on us Westerners, at the same time as he will directly control the gas going to Ukraine and Poland, being able to close of deliveries there without losing the 'real' profit from the rest of Europe. Well, not really the Nordic countries as we mostly are self sufficient, but on the rest of Europe, right. And the **, ah,  good folks of the EEC is ever so pleased to adapt themselves to this. We don't want people to freeze do we, could be bad for the elections :)

Anyone seen this type of scenarios before?

==


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fd%2Fd7%2FMajor_russian_gas_pipelines_to_europe.png&hash=abb878f209393e9f27b26a54bab54c2c)

===

So where do they get the gas from? If we look at the map we can see two primary fields used for now. The Shtokman fields (http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/shtokman/) and the Yamal fields (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamal_project)

"The Shtokman gas condensate deposit lies in the Barents Sea, in the north of Russia. The timing of the project is intended to coincide with an increase in demand for LNG, principally from the US market and the search for operational partners focuses on the need for external expertise in LNG transport and deep water / long distance gas production. The development cost has been estimated at $10bn to $25bn. The field will be commercial for 50 years, with stable production accounting for half of the time.

The Shtokman field was discovered in 1988 to the east of Murmansk. It lies 555km from land, in 350m of water. The field covers an area of 1,400m² and lies inside the arctic. It is subject to icebergs of up to 1 million tons drifting at up to 0.25m/s, and 1.2m drift ice moving at up to 1m/s." And "On the Yamal Peninsula and its adjacent offshore areas have been discovered 11 gas fields and 15 oil, gas and condensate fields. They consists of 16 trillion cubic meters (tcm) of explored and provisionally evaluated gas reserves and nearly 22 tcm of in-place and forecast gas reserves. Condensate reserves are estimated to consists of 230.7 million tonnes and oil reserves to consists of 291.8 million tonnes. The largest gas fields, for which Gazprom owns the licenses, are Bovanenkovo, Kharasavey, Novoportovo, Kruzenshtern, Severo-Tambey, Zapadno-Tambey, Tasiy and Malygin fields."

===

And as we all know Russian are well renowned for their environmental considerations. Do this look like a clusterfu** operation to anyone else than me? And western Europe supports it??
==

Here are some photos of what happened in 19th of March, 2007 in the Siberian city of Noviy Urengoy. The gas pipeline was 5 feet in diameter and exploded. They were not released publicly, as far as I know. Those photos and the information was made by private citizens.

==

7 miles away..

.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fenglishrussia.com%2Fimages%2Fgas_tube_blow%2F2.jpg&hash=926ac96d6f02a3ace71fe3b90e7ee4c2)

===

A thousand feet flame..

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fenglishrussia.com%2Fimages%2Fgas_tube_blow%2F5.jpg&hash=7fe14276972065a36df21a043f142662)

==

The city, in the middle of the night..

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fenglishrussia.com%2Fimages%2Fgas_tube_blow%2F6.jpg&hash=098e5247a1dafc9c7ddfdc1fef01f213)

.

( And, in the middle of the Siberian winter, it started to rain :)
===

Those Siberian pipelines are old (over twenty years) , laid on a frozen tundra that soon will become bogs, anyone want to guess what happens with foundations built on frozen ground when they transform into bogs? The new pipelines laid on the sea bottom (North Streams) on the other hand? Well, if they leak or not, we won't know, will we? Unless our western countries have a constant observation over those waters measuring methane releases, and who will pay for that? My guess is that Gazprom will accept a certain leakage, as long as nobody 'complains'.

And now we have two scenarios that both can go so very wrong, brought to you by the help of your and mine politicians, all to butter the relations comes voting time, and the intra relations between energy-hungry Countries. With the help of highly commercial and geopolitical interests, not giving a sh* for any environmental concerns or Global Warming, but very interested in Geopolitical power and profit.

To that you can add that the Chinese are on the market too. They will be buing a lot of gas from the Russians, very soon. Then the competition for that 'green energy' as some seem to see it???
Will get really tough...

Stupid you say?
Oh yeah, but soo very human..

==

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.offshore-technology.com%2Ffeatures%2Ffeature_images%2Ffeature1800%2F2-map-of-the-arctic.jpg&hash=5eeb2f8f8c97df7bf3fef2a825a4bcb2)


===

Take a look here for some more info on Russian Permafrost, and its cost.. (http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/03/thawing-permafrost-is-costing-russian.html) 

And for those of you who really want to understand what all this means in form of Geopolitics and $$$. Why not take a look here. A new Klondike? (http://www.offshore-technology.com/features/feature1800/)
===

And as I forgot to link it..
Read closely, and ponder.. (http://integral.virishi.net/what_difference_would_nord_stream_mean_european_energy_supply) 

And how much of that methane leaks out, in pipelines already existing?

The IEA (International Energy Association) made a study 2006. (http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2006/russiangas2006.pdf)  In it they observe that " In 2004 Russia emitted an estimated 298 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent of GHG from its natural gas transmission and distribution systems, and through gas flaring, about 15% of the country’s total GHG emissions. In 2004,just under 70 bcm, equivalent to just over one third of Russian exports, either leaked in the form of methane (CH4) from various components along Russian transmission and distribution pipelines in normal operations, was used as fuel gas in the transmission process, or was flared by oil companies.

Although over half of this volume was used by compressors along the gas transmission system, significant efficiency improvements are still feasible in this area, in light of comparable systems in other countries. The transmission sector accounted for about 60% of total GHG emissions while the gas distribution network accounted for over a quarter. Gas flaring emissions by oil companies accounted for 14% of total according to official data. CH4 emissions accounted for about 60% of total GHG emissions and were due to leaks from pipelines and compressors during normal operations, maintenance, repairs, and accidents."  From page 18..  'Optimising Russian Natural Gas.PDF' ..

And in a report from the Wuppertal Institute for environment/Max Planck institute for Chemistry (2005) they state that approximately  "Just under 31% of greenhouse gas are due to the release of CH4." when it comes to the transmission of the same from Russia to Germany..

Look at page 30-31 in Greeenhouse Gas Emissions From the Russian Natural Gas Export Pipeline System (http://www.apat.gov.it/site/_files/Greenhouse_Gas.pdf)   

So what conclusions can we draw here?

1. We don't know what's going to happen with the emissions we already see of methane.
2. We don't know what the climate will do to the frozen tundras, transforming them into bogs
3. We are giving Putin a free hand Geopolitically in his goals of controlling a growing part of our Western Energy deliveries, as well as ah, 'persuading?' his new and older neighbors to 'behave'.
4. We are in fact open a Pandoras Box as we disturb the offshore fields.
5. And we will have a growing part of methane emissions world wide, both natural and man made due to our new pipelines (Nord stream, 'South Stream' etc.)Those underwater more or less 'invincible' to us..
6. And we are opening for a real 'war on resources' when it comes to the Arctic.

And what's better than a war when making people forget their problems?
In such a climate there won't be any environmental considerations..

And?

Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 22/03/2010 02:20:17
And here you can download SIPRI:s report. China prepares for an ice-free Arctic. March 2010. (http://books.sipri.org/files/insight/SIPRIInsight1002.pdf)   

And if you don't know what SIPRI is? It's "an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public. SIPRI is named as one of the world's leading think tanks in Foreign Policy magazine's "Think Tank Index"."

And, wha'da'ya'now :) A little something about China, and the Arctic...
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: devonsan21 on 18/06/2010 03:26:32
Yeah you are right. It was too long to read but it was interesting. Owen is telling the persona's story of the death of a comrade as a balance. That is the reason why the rhetorical questions force the reader to answer the questions on the futility of death in warfare.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: jessyto27 on 22/07/2010 07:48:19
Yeah you are right, it is too long to read. But that essay gives me a message. I can feel the emotion of the author with his desperation after the experience of death on the battlefield which leads him to question the sense of life as well as sense of creation in general.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 16/09/2010 17:32:47
Now this was weird?
Same guy possibly.

and a poet to boot huh :)
=

Looking at the posts I lean to it being the same one, trolling or teasing?
But I agree, too long to read :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: Geezer on 17/09/2010 04:30:22
A certain robotic feel, don't you think?

I think we can do something about that. Would you like the posts evaporate? 
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 17/09/2010 10:52:18
Didn't think of that one Geezer.
But yeah, like some program generating words :)

Weird stuff huh.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: imatfaal on 17/09/2010 12:39:29
Bet it's a bot.  First sentence or two are seeded from part of thread title that says it is a long post. the final ones are internet grabs on an essay on wilfred owen's futility (also from thread title).

Seems quite 'intelligent'  I presume no adverts were deleted.  I must admit if I were to test some form of turing machine-like bot that can add to a discussion, I might try to contribute to forums and see what sort of feedback I get. 
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: Geezer on 18/09/2010 06:03:06
That's a good idea. See how few words it takes to trigger it. I'm sure it will spawn a new ID.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 28/09/2010 21:33:24
Ok, this is a summary of some posts I've written elsewhere.

First A Q about chaos-theory and entanglements (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34029.msg323295#msg323295) That one leads to Quantum Electro Dynamics & Quantum-Chromodynamic QED/QCD. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34033.msg324316#msg324316)

After you read those you have somewhat of a foundation for understanding the rest.. I'm not saying that I accept all it says, or for that sake string theory as it is, but that have to do with my understanding of it, for the moment being, and that may change with time :) Lastly I would be glad if you read My view. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=31777.msg324251#msg324251)

In short I see it as if we have two big structures. The first one is Space and that's made out of three properties, length, height and width. Those three are 'properties' not singular dimensions. There is a difference there.  Then we have 'Time'  and 'Times arrow' where 'Times arrow' will be the way 'SpaceTime' wrinkles. If you look at SpaceTime as I do, as a block of Jello, distance and time redefined by each frame then I think I'm correct? And the way I think of it is as if SpaceTime could be seen as one 'whole' surface wrinkling/bending upon itself, with the geometries of that forming both the arrow(s) depending on frame of reference, and matter. And matter creates and 'bend/wrinkles' even more space and time.

Looking at it that way makes for a very 'Aristotelean universe', as you then may define all you see as being uniquely adapted to your 'invariant personal frame'. But at least it's a 'point of stability' in a ever-changing SpaceTime.  :) But it all falls back to how to define those 'frames of reference' and where their limits are, if there are? In fact I would like to see the universe this way, as I think that is a key to understanding it. But those 'frames of reference' makes it a joke. We define frames macroscopically and they work, and I, I don't understand how they do it? As I as easily can change my perception to a 'smaller' level, and using particles mass and velocities/speeds inside my body find new and different 'time dilations'. Still, and as far as I understands it, If time always will be 'invariant', giving me the same heartbeats per minute by my wristwatch from my 'frame of reference' then that it is. And that 'invariant arrow of time' will then define all other 'relations' versus me.

The radiation you receive looking up will adapt itself to your 'frame' uniquely. The reason it does so is the way SpaceTime wrinkles and bends. That idea of two mirrors and a light-corn 'bouncing' in between describes time dilation as a effect of the distance created by the mirror-pairs motion, forcing the light-corn to take a longer path between the two mirrors. You can use it to describe all 'time dilation' as an effect of space's 'geometries'. Distance, as used here, is time too, and that's one reason why I differ the idea of 'time' and 'times arrow'.

So what is this 'surface' of mine, if it now would exist?

Well to get to that we might look at the gluon/quark interface, in Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED), those seem to sort of replace, or at least complement, our ideas of 'virtual photons'. First of all we might look at the State of Matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter). In it you can find references to the states we discuss here. To me it's also a question of 'sizes', like a fractal behavior of space and I also expect that what we have macroscopically is an expression of what exist at those most 'fundamental sizes'. There have to be a 'likeness', at least as I suspect. The LHC found some surprising results earlier this year when they created proton-proton collisions.

"In the new experiment, the CMS team took data on the charged particles produced in hundreds of thousands of collisions. The team observed the angles the particles’ paths took with respect to each other, and calculated something called a “correlation function” to determine how intimately the particles are linked after they separate. The plot of the data ends up looking like a topographical map of a mountain surrounded by lowlands and a long ridge behind it. In the most basic case the data looked exactly like the physicists expected it to. But in cases where at least 110 charged particles were produced, the team saw a funny ridge-like structure extending away from the mountain peak.

That ridge essentially means that particles in some pairs are flying away from each other at close to the speed of light along one axis, but are oriented along the same angle in the other axis. It’s as if two particles somehow talked to each other when they were produced, the physicists said. This phenomenon has never been seen before in proton-proton collisions, though it resembles something seen at RHIC (the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) at Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. That effect was interpreted to be from the creation of hot dense matter shortly after the collisions." Journal of High Energy Physics. (http://cms.web.cern.ch/cms/News/2010/QCD-10-002/QCD-10-002.pdf)

So, what do we see there?

Well,I have problems with the idea of 'string theory' but that comes from the proposed one-dimensionality it seem to build on. In my imaginary 'surface' I like to think that what we call 3D already are there being present, as 'properties'. You need to understand that I look at it as properties, and as such just as 'real' as the photons 'masslessness' should be :) That is, very real but in form of 'ethereal structures'. So i would like to see the definitions of what makes a 3D + time in reality only as 'two' definitions, one containing the three properties we call length, width and height. The other containing two, 'time' and 'times arrow' with the arrow being the way that surface treat us.

It solves two problems for me, the question about what the 'interfaces' should be seen as with strings and forces, also it allow time to be a 'whole surface', where what we call the 'times arrow' becoming the expression time gets as it gets 'wrinkled'. And I like that :) It's real easy to see that distance in some way also is a definition of 'time'.

First we should look at an experiment done in Finland. It's from 1996 and is very interesting. Take a look here Liquid Universe 1 (http://discovermagazine.com/1996/nov/liquiduniverse925) and after reading that read this from 2004 Liquid Universe 2 (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-10/ns-lu101304.php) Then read this The String Net Liquid Theory (http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-String-Net-Liquid-Theory-About-Matter-and-Universe-039-s-Composition-49517.shtml)

When it comes to the way string theory expect several more 'dimensions' to our SpaceTime I think I'm fine with that, as long as they are defined as 'properties' not as 'singular 'dimensions' glued together in different ways. That one never made any sense to me as it introduces all kind of pitfalls in form of 'gluing' and 'interfaces' meeting etc etc..

As for my expected 'fractality' :)
That's just the 'simplest' way nature seems to treat 'growth' or 'simplicity to complexity' and I see no reason why it shouldn't do the same here. As well as chaos theory is the first serious try to treat SpaceTime non-linearly. And that's the way it works, just as our Earth, and your heart. Oh yes, the absolute '3D' we see, that I expect to grow out of a fractal behavior, so in a way we are all fractals.

It's not perfect, but I like it :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 29/09/2010 14:29:42
So what could SpaceTimes expansion be if looked from that perspective?

To me it has to do with 'times arrow'. If I assume that I can roll out that surface and from there both get a 'true distance' as well as a 'ultimate time' (not arrow, this is all about basics) then that surface is our home. Wrinkle it up and let the 'arrow' start and you will have a 3D universe in which what we deem as the 3D will be an expression from a fractal growth. So, on that surface I say that the 'properties' of what we call dimensions already rest, and I would assume them to have a different 'time' (or arrow possibly) than what we can see. There the arrow, if so, comes and goes with the combinations of 'relative mass/mass/momentum' created by the geometries wrinkling, and as they only will 'order themselves' to some rules mostly they will just 'fizz'. The surface I speak of is not 'one-dimensional', if you think that way you're still stuck in the 'ordinary SpaceTime', if I may say so :)

To me expansion could be a 'surface' that in some manner doesn't bound/wrinkle as hard as the geometries does where matter exist, finding nothing to create a arrow from, just fizzing. And as expansion comes out of 'nowhere' but instantly becomes a 3D expression in its growing in a sphere-like manner,bubbles on/in/around bubbles on bubbles ad infinitum, It describes my idea of 'dimensions' as intrinsic 'properties' perfectly. But then again, what about the space created by matter? We say that as matter, like a black hole, becomes the space 'expands'. But then again, I'm unsure if that is the right way to look at it. From you and your 'invariant time' assuming that you are in-falling and hold together :) neither your time nor your 'distances' will grow. What grows is the 'complementary distances' SpaceTime offers us when you compare your frame to another. So yes, space grows, and no, 'your space' grows not.

That is, assume you're falling towards the Event-horizon, you have another object also falling, so close to you that you started almost in the same 'frame of reference'. As you keep falling in you will find that the distance between yourself and that object grows the higher the gravity becomes as SpaceTime bends and wrinkle. And that's true, as far as I understands it, but is this the same as the 'expansion'? If it is we seem to assume that space can do two oposite things at the same time? Expand but only in space as ordinary matter have their 'forces' and gravity stopping that expansion around heavenly bodies/solarsystems/galaxies as well as 'expanding space' due to just gravity created by SpaceTime bending to invariant mass and motion aka 'relativistic mass/momentum'. Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 29/09/2010 23:38:08
I'm afraid that I didn't express the above too well.

My main point is that gravity dilate (expands) space.
You have an observer A and an observer B

Then you get yourself a 'gravity well' like a neutron star. A strong one. B goes into it, A stays 'outside' the gravitation. When they meet again they compare clocks. B:s clock will say 10 m. A:s clock will say 11 m. The time dilation seen can also be transformed into a Lorentz contraction, and is..

To A all things inside the gravity well will contract as he looks, they will be smaller. But to B the opposite will be true. From inside that neutronstar space will expand as well as all objects in it, so to him A will become proportionally larger. This effect holds true for all things you can think of as I understands it. A have an electric charge which he sends in to B telling him before what he measured, he then measures it again when it arrived at B, and finds it reduced.. Now we let B measure it, and he will find it to be the correct charge for what A told him before sending it to him. What A says the charge to have now B will find incorrect. He then sends it back to A and measure it after it arrives. He now finds the charge to be stronger than than it was when at rest with him.

As far as I understand this is true. And from that fact comes my argument that Space as seen from the inside of a gravity well will be larger. It won't change your 'invariant time though, but your relations, as to all other frames of reference will change. So to B space have grown. And from the inside of a black hole it could be light years, or greater, depending on how close you are to the singularity's center.

Then you take the statement that 'Space expands'.

It does so only when outside of the forces keeping matter 'together'. It also seems to avoid 'gravitation' as we don't see it inside Galaxies but only outside them, as I understands it. So now we have the oposite effects that I was speaking about, acting simultaneously at SpaceTime. Possibly one might see the lack of 'expansion' inside galaxies as some relativistic effect created by the fact that we are like A, watching it from the outside of the Galaxies 'gravity wells', maybe? But we should notice it in our own frame if it was so, unless we all 'expanded', in which case there would be no 'expansion' to notice :)

So my 'surface' would somehow have to adjust for both of those effects to make sense, as any other idea trying to describe SpaceTime would too, naturally. If I now assume that this surface is a perfect supra conducting 'fluid' having no resistance, why would it build it? That seems to be the question that needs to be answered for space to 'grow'. Somehow it would have to arrange itself so that it constantly built a pressure 'pushing' space apart creating more '3D points' concentrically in all directions, somewhat like fountains inside fountains.

Hope I made the/my ideas a little clearer here.



Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 02/12/2010 13:10:34
It’s been some while since I wrote anything in my ‘essay’. So I guess it’s high time :)Most of the stuff you see here being speculation, like my thoughts on straight and curved lines. I do think I have a general direction in it though. And if you find me making conceptual ‘jumps’? Keep your cool, I better warn you that this is an ongoing project, changing as I see fit, so don’t throw a fit :) And yes, I do have views. Oh, do I have views. . . Ahem.

Let’s start with a question. In what manner do we consider something ‘objective’? Take a scientist making an experiment, to make the result reasonable he needs to make it ‘repeatable’ under similar conditions, doesn’t he. So what are those conditions generally speaking? For this question I will define one important condition as either sorting under ‘acceleration’ or ‘uniform motion’? Not that we normally need to take that into consideration on Earth as the whole planet is approximately in the same ‘frame of reference’ ‘accelerating’ steadily (uniformly) at one G :) through space.

Yes I know, it’s not true, if we were accelerating uniformly at one G we should be all dead a long time ago from the hard radiation, but the equivalence is there as you can say that anything falling towards Earth accelerates at one G, and then swap reference frame with Earth saying that it instead is the Earth accelerating toward the object (apple) at the same pace. Maybe I should correct it slightly and say that Earth is ‘uniformly moving’ through SpaceTime, having a proper mass equivalent of one ‘gravity’ about. In fact it’s the premise for the equivalence principle. That a uniform acceleration at one G is equivalent to one G at Earth. That’s also why we needed a theorem defining ‘fixed stars’ very far away as possible ‘fix points’ for deciding who is moving relative whom. It helps us agree :) And the idea is naturally a ‘black box scenario, meaning that you wouldn’t be able to measure ‘anything’ coming from the outside, except the weight you will feel in your compartment.

When it comes to acceleration we have two subtypes as I see it. ‘Uniform acceleration’ meaning a constant G-force, and ‘non uniform acceleration’. ‘Uniform motion’ on the other hand is any uniform motion, coasting through SpaceTime, like a rocket dancing along the geodesics with its ‘engines off’.

Why did I add ‘geodesics’ there?

A geodesic is an idea of a shortest ‘distance’ between two points. In Einstein’s SpaceTime space is ‘convoluted/bent’ through mass and diverse ‘motions’, the ‘motion’ creating what’s either called ‘momentum’ (photons) or ‘relative mass’, those days mostly when involving matter.

Okay, If you now imagine an enclosed tube (rocket) ‘travelling’ you can get a ‘uniform motion’ different ways. One is by letting the tube coast, following the dips and heights of SpaceTimes geodesics, without accelerating, where you might defining your speed by comparing the tubes motion relative Earth. Or, you can by putting a spin to it, but leaving the tube ‘at rest’ relative Earth, get yet another type of ‘uniform motion’. Both cases introduce a ‘uniform motion’, but only in the case of the tube following SpaceTimes geodesics will you feel ‘weightless’.

What differs, as I see it, is the fact that our tube, ‘spinning’ around its length axel no longer follows any SpaceTime geodesic. You might say that its ‘uniform motion’ is ‘enclosed/ restricted’ in the matters rotation. So, are both ‘uniform motions’ then? I think they are? And doing it this way I seem to have created ‘gravity’. So what energy did I spend doing it? Well, in both cases, travelling following SpaceTimes geodesics and ‘standing still’ spinning I had to spend some, accelerating the ‘motion’. But after stopping both just keeps on ‘moving’, ignoring other gravitational ‘forces’ that may have an impact. Imagine yourself inside that tube, its diameter so large that the floor too you would seem as a ‘flat’ one. Does that mean that gravity implies some sort of ‘confinement’? I don’t know, but it’s an interesting thought. According to what I understand proper mass (matter) is what creates gravity and ‘bends the fabric of space’, that and ‘motion/momentum’.

Although, don’t we also say that space itself is ‘expanding’ in an accelerating manner? What should the frame-dragging be, created by matter evenly placed in a ‘still space’, as compared to the same space ‘rotating’ and ‘expanding’? Weird question :) Still, there could be a possibility of studying how celestial objects move relative each other and from that, possibly, also see what kind of frame-dragging SpaceTime as a whole have? Maybe using something similar to ‘Gravity Probe B’?

“Gravity Probe B (GP-B) is a NASA physics mission to experimentally investigate Einstein’s 1916 general theory of relativity—his theory of gravity. GP-B uses four spherical gyroscopes and a telescope, housed in a satellite orbiting 642 km (400 mi) above the Earth, to measure, with unprecedented accuracy, two extraordinary effects predicted by the general theory of relativity: 1) the geodetic effect—the amount by which the Earth warps the local spacetime in which it resides; and 2) the frame-dragging effect—the amount by which the rotating Earth drags its local spacetime around with it. GP-B tests these two effects by precisely measuring the precession (displacement) angles of the spin axes of the four gyros over the course of a year and comparing these experimental results with predictions from Einstein’s theory.

I better take up Inertia too. Inertia is a gravitational ‘resistance’ coming immediately at a course change for example. Einstein said that both light and gravity ‘propagated’ at the speed of light, as I understands it exactly with the same ‘properties’ as light shows us too. He also said that gravity is like a very malleable web adapting to mass and motion, bending space. Ever thrown a pebble in a pond watching the rings spread? That’s your course change in space, and the rings moving out from the centre are your ‘gravity waves propagating’. Now think of those rings, turning the image around, rotate it in your mind, in all directions possible simultaneously, and you will get a feel for how those ‘waves’ move away from your centre. Then think of a spider web, how does the spider know it has caught a prey? That’s right, through the ‘vibrations’ travelling in the ‘fabric’ of its net, but it’s not really the web ‘moving’, is it? The ‘vibrations’ acts like invincible springs ‘pushing’ against each other ‘propagating’ the vibration. That’s what gravity is in space, our ‘three dimensional web’.  And that’s also why ‘inertia’ becomes ‘instantaneous gravity’ for you, if being at the centre of that course change.

Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 02/12/2010 13:12:58
But that wasn’t what I was discussing. I was talking about what it might be that makes an ‘objective experiment’ in our eyes, and lifted up ‘repeatability under ‘similar/the ‘same’ circumstances as a primary. Then I loosely split those ‘circumstances’ into two general categories, acceleration and uniform motion.

Why?

Well, according to the theory of relativity there is only one ‘frame of reference’ that always will be the same for you, no matter where you are or what you are doing, your own. If you would measure a yard with your yardstick, it won’t matter if you do it being still in space or accelerating away near light speed.

As that’s the frame we all use when making ‘experiments’, no, not the accelerating one. Earth I was thinking of now, we should be glad for that. That all frames I ever will be in is equivalent to the frames you will be in, when redoing my experiment. You lend the rope you measured on Earth to your friend, he jumps into his rocket, speeds up and measure it with a his yardstick. Sure, he agrees to the same length.

But is that an ‘objective frame of reference’?

Consider that with differing ‘masses, speeds and velocities’ we would expect both time and length contraction when comparing. It’s only when comparing ‘frames of reference’ we can show them differing, but still? I think I easily could make an argument that the ‘real objectivity’ only exist in the act of comparisons, as we now know about SpaceTime’s plasticity. But if I did, what would happen to all those ‘objective experiments’?

Where would that ‘objectivity’ exist if I choose that answer? In a ‘mind-space’ it seems to me? Which brings me to a constant called Feigenbaum’s constant, it’s such a weird constant. Most of us those days know that we live in a non-linear world and universe. The Feigenbaum constant is a very interesting example to me, describing a mathematical ‘story’ encompassing all other indeterminate mathematical ‘stories’ in SpaceTime. A linear pattern unceasingly recurring amidst all that ‘probability’. You can find it recurring in the pattern of clouds, stock brokers charts, in most anything where we try to keep a ‘history’ of , with the ‘events’ making them up all being randomly occurring? That blows my mind away.

Think of it this way, we seems to live in a world of ‘randomness’ characterized by such phenomena as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle at a quantum level, ‘free will’ and ‘’blind chance’ macroscopically, and then suddenly there pops up a linear principle stating that out of all this random noise we will see a linear pattern? Yes, you’re right. I think both phenomena, macroscopically and at a Quantum level are related, our ‘free will’ existing as an expression of the same, or similar, principle as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, expressed through ‘emergences’. With both ideas introducing an ‘uncertainty’ to what a ‘position’ really is, as I see it.

“Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which explains the virtual particle phenomenon, is most commonly stated as follows: It is impossible to exactly and simultaneously measure both the momentum and position of a particle. There is always an uncertainty in momentum and an uncertainty in position. More importantly, these two uncertainties cannot be reduced to zero together. One consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that the energy and duration of a particle are also characterized by complementary uncertainties. There is always, at every point in space and time, even in a perfect vacuum, an uncertainty in energy and an uncertainty in duration, and these two complementary uncertainties cannot be reduced to zero simultaneously. The meaning of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that "something" can arise from "nothing" if the "something" returns to the "nothing" after a very short time — an interval — too short in which to be observed.”

“Many people would have considered it a flaw that there are no states of definite position and momentum. Heisenberg was trying to show that this was not a bug, but a feature--- a deep, surprising aspect of the universe. In order to do this, he could not just use the mathematical formalism, because it was the mathematical formalism itself that he was trying to justify.”

Just so you get my view right. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle does not state that with an ‘idealized instrument’ your observation would cover both a momentum and a position. As I understands it, it states just the opposite. Under no circumstances will you, ever, be able to cover both ‘momentum’ and ‘position’, or in this case ‘energy’ and ‘interval/duration’ of that ‘virtual particle’. End of discussion. This is to my eyes another clear proof of what we call matter, space and ‘particles’ as being something different than what we expect it ‘normally’.



Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 02/12/2010 13:24:48
Now you might want to argue that a ‘virtual particle’ could have a measurable ‘duration’ inside Planck time, even though its potential energy then becomes unmeasurable. Enlighten me, how can something existing inside Plank Time, influencing ‘ordinary matter’ in measurable way, have no value for its ‘potential energy’? Also, please show me such a measurement made, in where you measured a ‘duration’ of something having no defined ‘energy’?

As for my use of ‘linearity’ and ‘non-linearity’. Linearity I see as a single outcome of an equation, or general question, observation, one and one becoming two for example. And linear is also like a ‘straight’ line, ending in one place. Non-linearity is then where your ‘answer’ becomes a multitude, ending in all sorts of places, indefinable without the use of mental, mathematical, ‘crutches’ of some kind. That’s when you’re ‘forced’ to decide the ‘answer’ according to the ‘history of outcomes’ formerly observed (probability), using what’s called a ‘best guess’. Normally this way of solutions is described in physics as ‘renormalizations’, using ‘cut offs’ as the metaphysical scalpel, narrowing a solution into linearity. Such a definition gives an ‘answer’ useable for most practical circumstances, although having no singular logical ‘true answer’, except under your mathematical constrictions.  And when it comes to speed contra velocity a speed is a distance measured in time without a defined direction, e.g. like light bouncing between mirrors. Velocity will then be distance measured in time keeping to the same direction (vector). As always it’s about how you narrow down and define a ‘system’, a single ‘light bounce’ between two mirrors will give you a velocity, two bounces added makes it a ‘speed’.

So why did I put those two concepts together? Feigenbaum’s constant and ‘objectivity’? Well, to me it seems as if there is two ‘realities’ coexisting for us. One in where we live practically, killing of our Earth, experimenting, travelling, using a ‘clock’, trusting it and our ‘distances’ to be the same today as tomorrow. The other ‘reality’ I’m talking about being more of a ‘mind-space’, created out of the relations we can observe comparing ‘realities’. Knowing those ‘relations’ we find a clearer image of what SpaceTime is, with one restriction. We won’t ever be able to experience it ‘first hand’.

Now, what is this SpaceTime? Is it made out of building blocks? And how big could they be? We have Plank size as the border limiting our observations. Anything under Plank size makes no sense to us, as all ‘physics’ breaks down at that border. So whatever we have it have to be at Planck size to become measurable for us. Not that we can measure at that level yet, but there are some interesting ideas for how to use black holes, as well as photons having ‘travelled’ very far distances, as ‘magnifying glasses’.  The first idea considers measuring the radiation from a black hole. As the light ‘bounce’ back from the event horizon it will climb a steeper slope the closer it was to the event horizon, and it will lose energy relative us observing it from outside the gravity well, and so become red-shifted, of a ‘greater’ wavelength. At the event horizon of a black hole all scales breaks down, and even the Planck scale will be revealed there, as only a ‘singularity’ can exists beyond the Event Horizon, meaning that we can’t get any ‘information’ from what’s behind it. But as light waves at the event horizon ‘bounce’ and climbs up towards us they get ‘magnified’ in their red shift, just possibly making us able to read its information about the Planck scale. The second builds on how photons will get treated by the ‘roominess’ of SpaceTime, depending on if SpaceTime consist of ‘discrete events’ or not. Neither of them has been made ‘practical’ yet, as far as I know, but they are really cool ideas.

I’ve been arguing for a ‘flow’, and not ‘events’ in SpaceTime, and I still do so. The ‘arrow of time’ is what we use to observe. We split that ‘arrow’ into even parts using ‘clocks’, and by that we measure. The fastest clock I know us to have is radiation, and when we talk about that we have the duality principle telling us that light can be seen both as a wave and as ‘singular’ photons. So take your pick :) I suspect that there are a lot of historical reasons, as well as the way Earth treats us that makes us expect ‘reality’ be ‘events’. Reminding me of an axiom, or ‘archetype’ as I call it. Nature have seemed as a very ‘linear’ thing to us for a long time.

One way to see it is to take a look at what limit our observations, Plank Size. I said that it’s a limit to our measuring, that means that we can’t speak of anything smaller, not even theoretically. “Physicists sometimes humorously refer to Planck units as "God's units", as Planck units are free of arbitrary anthropocentricity. Unlike the meter and second, which exist as fundamental units in the SI system for historical reasons, the Planck length and Planck time are conceptually linked at a fundamental physical level.” So maybe it all becomes a word-game in the end. But to me there is an important difference between what we find the ‘limit’ for us measuring and what ‘exists’. Assume that strings, loops, or similar are a correct description of the ‘shapes’ making out our SpaceTime. Also assume that they at the Planck level forms the ‘building-blocks’ creating our ‘room’. Where do they come from? To assume that they just ‘exist’ by some ‘divine accident’ makes no sense, if you’re not religious of course.

But if you think of the ‘thingies’ we observe under our ‘arrow of time’ as being ‘relations’ instead of as ‘objects’ you get another and better question. How can something being a flow express itself as matter, space and light? Through the way it relates to itself I believe. If you imagine a fluid you can have pressure zones and pressure ridges in it, it’s not in any ‘uniform motion’ even though the waves roll one way, there is always turbulence to it. Imagine points in SpaceTime experiencing that pressure, and then stop thinking of them as ‘points’. They are the ‘objects’ and ‘thingies’ we measure. And calling them ‘relations’ is the correct expression too if you look at Einstein’s SpaceTime. There are no ‘forces’ except in the limited sense of something happening inside an ‘arrow of time’ creating an observable outcome from the relations ‘surrounding it’. Quite simple I think? And thinking of SpaceTime’s ‘thingies’ like that you find what I call a ‘flow’, as well as your ‘discrete building blocks’. The thing differing them if they are under or over Planck size. If over Plank size we can measure them and so become ‘discrete events/objects’. Under, never.

Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 02/12/2010 13:32:25
And now we are back at my first question, and the way I split it into two ‘realities’, naming one the ‘mind-space’. To me this ‘fluid’ exist at that same ‘level’ as I think ‘Feigenbaum’s constant’ does, and is to my eyes maybe the ultimate resting place for that ‘mind-space reality’. We have other borders too of course. One is how lights speed in a vacuum will be the same, no matter from where you send it out. You can be on a speeding star-ship, or on Mars, or have observers at both places while releasing that ‘photon stream’. All will report the same velocity. It’s a border. The way your distance shrink with speed/velocity? It’s a border.  Plank measurements? It’s a border. And they all define and keep together one little thing, us.

Let us look at a circle. Like a round ring drawn on paper. So, what is it? Would you agree to it being possible to describe as an ‘infinite’ amount of extremely short straight lines, slightly angled relative each other, forming that ‘ring’?  Can I turn it around then? Saying that a straight line is an infinite amount of, extremely short, curved lines? In a way you can, it’s all a question of magnification, like you standing on Earth, assuming it ‘flat’. But where I would have to magnify that circle up to infinity to see that it become made out of ‘straight lines’ I would have to decrease it enormously to make my bent lines into straight, Earth is not good enough for that really as we all will see that it’s bent just by looking from a height or a ships mast sticking up at the horizon, coming towards us on the ocean. So, do both exist, or is there only one of them existing, and if so, which one? If there only was one, then that would tell us something about our ‘focus’, wouldn’t it? So they become opposites.

And then we have ‘rings’ in themselves, you might want to define them as objects on their own, with bent and straight lines of their own. If you do we will now have three ‘axiomatic shapes’, or ‘archetypes’ to play with. If SpaceTime is a ‘construction’, which I truly believe, consisting of some sort of ‘shapes’ that create us in their further relations, which of those shapes do you prefer? The first, two, or all three? It all goes back to how you expect everything to ‘start’. In my ‘mind-space’ they have no ‘shapes’, only the relations can have that. A shape is created out of ‘distance’ and ‘distance’ comes to exist at ‘Planck size’, not before.

So what is this ‘distance’? SpaceTime gets defined by its ‘arrow of time’. Motion is a ‘distance’ measured in ‘time’. Both of those properties are ‘plastic’ with SpaceTime becoming like a block of Jello that, depending on ‘speed, velocity and mass’. will add or subtract ‘size/distance’ and ‘time’. Plasticity is the right word here.

I differ between ‘time’ and ‘times arrow’. ‘Time’ is an unformed ‘something’ without an ‘arrow’ pointing, existing everywhere in SpaceTime as a property. The ‘arrow of time’ is when you have a temporal direction. That arrow might also be read as going both ways at a quantum level, then making it more of a unformed block of ‘time’ to me having a timely ‘distance’ in the mind-space. The ‘arrow of time’ will have the same ‘duration’ for you in every ‘frame of reference’ you measure, although when comparing your ‘duration’ to what others measure their observations might differ from yours.

Furthermore, to me ‘distances’ changing reminds me more of  ‘magnifying or receding effects’ perceiving SpaceTime. You can get an analogue to it looking at a Mandelbaum fractal on your computer. As you ‘magnify’ the fractal it comes back the same, in ‘distance’ you have travelled millions of ‘times’ magnifying it but it still present you with the same ‘image’. That’s more how I expect a ‘distance’ to be than how we describe and perceive it normally. Hurt your brain? No surprise, mine hurts too :)

That’s also why I call it the ‘mind-space’, because it’s only when comparing and looking at how abstract relations change we observe those things. And it has nothing to do with us being in a ‘twentyeleventh dimensionality’ where only three, and times arrow, is visible to us halfblind bas**s :) It’s not about dimensions, well maybe they have something to do with it too, but I’m guessing it’s also about the restrictions laid upon us, evolution to blame. If we accept ‘Occam's Razor’, namely ” the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred. ” The way we perceive and handle information is constantly revised by evolution. The way we observe and experience things today is probably the most efficient way nature has to offer for our human needs. I suspect it’s not as much us missing a dimension or two as our brains not being wired that way, and so that it has to do with human limitations. I might be wrong though, it happens :)

I like to think that SpaceTime in all its ‘points’ have a ‘property’ of three-dimensionality instead. I’m using ‘points’ here not as isolated ‘events’ but as a description of the whole ‘area’ of SpaceTime. And I differ that from the idea of SpaceTime consisting of three singular dimensions that, crisscrossed somehow, creates our three properties of length, width and height. Treat it as ‘properties’ instead, existing in all points of SpaceTime, and everything becomes simpler, no interfaces needed, and no ‘gluing together’ of those interfaces. It’s about the canvas you draw your painting on. Assuming there are singular, lose, dimensions you automatically assume a background on where they ‘play’. My way the background becomes the ‘points’ themselves. Also it has an importance to how I look at ‘distance’.

What is an area? An enclosure containing distances? And a cube? The same from a 3D perspective? If distances are mutable depending on velocity, mass, speed, what will a ‘cube’ look like inside that ‘mind-space’ we have made? Like an area?

 But why do we see a three-dimensionality if it would be that way? I’m not sure on that one, I'm guessing it's partly ‘hard wired’ to some degree, but as for what more? There are actually theorems that I believe supports my twist on 'reality' here. Check up the ‘Beckenstein border’ for that one. It’s about the amount of ‘information’ possible to retrieve from the surroundings, for example, of a speeding star-ship. The information retrieved has to be less than a forth of the visible area expressed in Plank lengths. So what happens if you ask more ‘questions’ measuring, than there are answers in that ‘area’ well, either the area ‘grows’ or some of the answers that was there before disappear/change.

What’s surprising about the theorem is that it only discusses an ‘area’. It doesn’t matter if you treat it as a cube filled with ‘states’’, like molecules bouncing inside a jar. You can make that jar as ‘deep’ as you like as I understands it. As long as the area facing you is the same, the ‘information amount’ will be the same, meaning that the jar contain no more information depending on depth. Thinking three dimensionally we can see that that can’t be right, right :) The bigger the jar the more molecules bouncing and interfering with each other, and the more ‘states’ there should be. But the theorem is a valid one, even if weird. And it fits right in, explaining both black holes information-loss and ‘Unruh radiation’. It’s the kind of energy associated with ‘Rindler observers’ moving very near light, observing so called ‘virtual energy’ become ‘real’. The idea builds on Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, telling you that you can’t measure both the electric and magnetic field of an electromagnetic field with absolute accuracy. When measuring one, finding it at zero, the other field will still have a possibility up to ‘limitless energy’. And that’s where the ‘Unhru energy’ comes from, your acceleration acting as your ‘engine of detection’. Another question here might be how great that, for you measurable, energy might become? Greater than the energy you expended in accelerating that rocket? Don’t seems reasonable, does it? Think about it :) And that’s what the theorem explains, amongst other thing methinks :)

But to us the idea of an area deciding the information seems slightly whacky, doesn’t it? Information, as entropy, is the sum of all possible states of a ‘system’, like that jar becomes in our experiment, or if in a binary system the sum will be its ‘bits’. But to say that this sum won’t change depending on the depth of our jar? You will have to take this one on faith for now, but it’s true, and maybe, just maybe it’s applicable to why distances change with speed, velocity and mass?

Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 02/12/2010 17:27:04
Looked on the net and found this PDF discussing 'Gravity, Black Holes, and the Very Early Universe'. It also gives a nice description of Bekenstein's idea at 'page 95'. Gravity, Black Holes, and the Very Early Universe. (http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/pls/portallive/docs/1/21783696.PDF) For those of you wanting a shorter presentation, you can take a look at Bekenstein bound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound)

Let’s put some distance on distance for a while and look at light instead.

Tell me, does light really need ‘distance’? According to the theory of relativity I don’t think it does as it’s ‘time-less’ intrinsically, as well as ‘mass-less’. And if it has no intrinsic ‘clock’ ticking, where do it find the ‘distance’ to ‘propagate’ in? How can it be ’ time-less’ and still inside our distances? Our photon should have severe difficulties noticing SpaceTime as there is no 3D-distance involved from its perspective. The weirdest thing is that it hasn’t, every time you look yourself in the mirror you se your face, no matter your spaceships ‘velocity’ :) And, if mass-less, would it in a universe of light exist any ‘times arrow? Where, if so, does it get its clock from? There would still be a  ‘momentum’ able to ‘push’ on’ matter’ of course, by some seen as a ‘equivalence’ to mass, but let’s get one thing straight. I don’t see how you think a photon ‘mass less’ particle if you assume it to have a mass? And as I asked, a clock too? Also considering that all particles of ‘rest mass’ needs to be under that ideal ‘speed of light’ we’ve formerly assumed with the photon if so.

The idea of ‘momentum’ is close to how I think of a ‘force’, especially when considering that photons in mainstream physics are expected to be ‘mass-less’. To me a ‘force’ is similar to the concept of ‘energy’. Photons, also called ‘point particles’ as we expect them to take no ‘place’ in SpaceTime are able to be super-imposed upon each other in infinity.  Now, if we want to see a photon as having ‘proper mass’ like matter, or ‘rest mass’ as it’s called when discussing single particles, how the he** can it be super-imposed? Shouldn’t that mean that ‘proper mass’ could be super-imposed too? And if you don’t think so, why, what’s your reason for saying it can’t? I’ve never heard that one proven experimentally? In fact, the ‘Pauli exclusion principle’ strictly forbids it “No two electrons or protons or neutrons in a given system can be in states characterized by the same set of quantum numbers” meaning that all particles made of ‘rest mass’ need its own unique place in any ‘space’ to be considered matter. So assuming that a photon have a rest mass you would also need to disallow the Pauli exclusion principle, proving it wrong.

And to me it makes the difference between matter and light very muddy indeed if I would treat photons as having a ‘rest mass’. You can look at it this way. If a photon has a ‘rest mass’ it should obey the laws of matter accelerated to the speed of (mass-less) light, or as close to that ideal as it can come, right? And if so, shouldn’t that photon see the universe die before ever finishing any interaction? I’m now arguing that a photon in its ‘interaction’ could be seen as needing a ‘clock’. You might consider it getting ‘synchronized’ to the same ‘frame of reference’ as what it’s ‘interacting’ with. Also, how can an object of rest-mass be without ‘acceleration’? But being at that ‘ideal speed’ shouldn’t the photon/matters ‘intrinsic clock’ be of a too short interval for it to have an interaction? Or is the transition from ‘rest-mass photon’ to ‘energy’ instantaneous? How can that be? And if it can, what does that do to the idea of measurable ‘events’? Are photons an exception from the idea of ‘events’? Assuming a ‘times flow’ makes more sense if so. As you otherwise would need to define the smallest amount of an ‘event’ as ‘instantaneous’ which to my ignorant eyes brings it into a flow ‘instantly’?  A simple way of relating the strange effects a photon with rest mass should have is to consider the idea of them getting superimposed. If all photons would become superimposed upon each other, they then should have an ‘infinite’ gravity, still without taking any ‘place’? What would the geodesics end in? Also considering that they should feel an added ‘attraction’ which should make it possible for them to form their own ‘black holes’ possibly?

The ‘equivalence’ we state between matter and light seems all to talk about that strange transformation of ‘energy’ to me, yet not stating them to be ‘the exact same’. So, can matter be light? Well yes, if transformed it can be. And light can then become matter? Well yes, under very high energies you might create a few ‘particles’ that we consider having a ‘rest mass’. But there is nowhere, in any experiments I know, anyone having created even the smallest piece of ‘lasting real matter’ like a stick or a rock from light, except as, quickly disappearing, ‘particles’. And as far as I know, not even the strongest sun can create anything more than singular ‘particles’ containing rest mass. So, no, as I see it there needs to be something more for light to transform into a real ‘lasting’ piece of matter. If I got the Big Bang correct there had to be a moment of ‘light’ transforming into particles of rest-mass, but then we’re also talking about a SpaceTime that was very ‘confined/compacted’, as I understands it?

The interesting thing, if you look at it like me, is not the opposites represented by light versus matter, more what join them together. And that to me seems to be that they both can ‘push’ on things, like a bowling ball does, or like a ‘light sail’ may be ‘pushed’ by the rays of the sun. When we discuss the property ‘pushing’ in matter we call it ‘kinetic energy’, and when we speak of photons it’s called ‘momentum’, well, as I understands it. There is also the expression ‘relative mass’, but that’s not used as much for light as it is for matter ‘speeding away’. Kinetic energy, momentum, relative mass all have a common nominator though, if you’re seeing light as ‘propagating’. They all have a direction/vector in which they move, defined by the source, and they can all be defined as having a speed, meaning that they in some manner use a ‘clock’, as speed only exist as the relation between a ‘distance’ and a ‘clock’. But wasn’t a photon intrinsically time-less? Where does it get that ‘clock’ from? From me, watching an interaction? That one seems a true mystery. You might use it as a proof of light propagating though, stating that the suns rays ‘pushes’ the light-sail in a certain ‘direction’, proving the rays to come from a common source as you trace the direction backwards, and so also have a propagation, the rays ‘moving’ from the sun to the sail.

You could if you like see the universe as a ‘holographic’ one, if you by that mean something not quantified as being ‘discrete events’. Binary we have those ‘bits’ of information, they could also be seen as ‘discrete events’ creating us. Not to me though, my universe I expect to be analogue, not ‘bits’, which makes a ‘holographic universe’ slightly more plausible to me as I imagine such an idea to build on waves. But, don't we find a lot of ‘discrete events’ macroscopically? You being one, and me being another, everything keeping its 'borders/shapes' constantly in 'times arrow'. So somewhere the ‘relations’ I expect to create us ‘coagulate’ into ‘states’ and ‘discrete events’ where each one are perceived as being unique. How it does that is the real mystery, in chaos theory those kinds of ‘emanations’ are named ‘emergences’, meaning that you have something with certain properties that through a transition suddenly begets new and amazing ones, like water becoming ice. You can’t lift a ‘liter’ of water with two fingers, but you can easily do it after it becomes ice.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 02/12/2010 17:50:35
I wrote "Knowing those ‘relations’ we find a clearer image of what SpaceTime is, with one restriction. We won’t ever be able to experience it ‘first hand’." Why I think so comes from the way Lorens contraction and Time dilation seems to work. You probably know of it already, but if you didn’t? Take a look at how muon’s is explained. Somehow they hit our Earth, although they clearly are too short-lived to reach the ground. The reason that they still can do so is explained through ‘time dilation’ and ‘Lorentz contraction’.

But there’s a shifty little idea hiding in the explanation. About ‘frames of reference’ too, no less. You see, from the muon’s point of view there can’t be any time dilation. So, what the muon measures is the ‘complimentary’ Lorenz contraction instead, informing him that the distance he measure is short enough. So, if you was the muon ‘falling’ you would find your time to be ‘as always’, instead finding your distance ‘shortened’, making it possible for you to reach Earth in that short instant of existence. But, the same does not hold true for a simultaneous observer on Earth looking at you. The distance and time measured by him uses Earths ¨’frame of reference’, being ‘still’ relative the muon. Meaning that instead of observing a Lorentz contraction he will find the muon experiencing a ‘time dilation’, its time slowing down, while the distance he measures is unchanged between the muon and Earth. And no, you can’t just turn it around and say that it’s the muon being at rest versus Earth rushing towards it. You can use the idea of very distant stars, becoming a kind of ‘still border’ to us, to see what moved relative what, showing the ‘perpetrator’.

Kind’a weird, any way. To me it states that we never will be able to observe both phenomena simultaneously. Depending on the ‘frame of reference’ chosen, your own or someone else’s, you can only confirm one of two things, a time dilation or a Lorenz contraction. Thinking of it, it does make some sense :) How would the universe look if I could experience a ‘time dilation’ first hand? And what should I measure it against? My wristwatch? But that ‘clock’ is on the same rocket as me, isn’t it? But, if I use someone else’s ‘clock’ then, outside my ‘frame of reference’, like one on Earth? Well, then I’m ‘importing’ someone else’s ‘frame of reference’ and when comparing I will find Earths clock to ‘go wrong’ if compared to mine.

So, tell me, which ‘clock’ should I believe in? 

Another thing, remember my discussion about Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and those macroscopic ‘positions’ grounded in what we call ‘distance’? Saying that Einstein and Heisenberg in some weird way seem ‘complementary’ in their descriptions of reality? Well, it seems as if ‘Lorentz contraction’ and ‘time dilation’ also is complementary in some way here, doesn’t it?

Let’s get slightly original. How about saying that ‘times arrow’ only has one ‘speed’? The one measured by me, inside my own ‘frame of reference’? Just as you also will only have one ‘speed’ to your clock. And that this one will be as true when measuring QM as in our macroscopic reality no matter where those ‘arrows’ might point. That we might find those ‘arrows’ differ when comparing between different ‘frames of reference’ doesn’t invalidate the concept. At the same time as it makes a universe of no general ‘objective time’ we will still find one unchanging ‘arrow of time’. And what ever frame you compare yours to will, if you succeed to place yourself in it, beget the same ‘time’ as you have. The one I always measure unchanging in my frame, as you in yours. That ‘arrow of time’ is truly objective in that your decomposing or ‘entropy’ if you like, to you, always will take the same time, no matter where you are, on a speeding rocket or on Earth. There are people differing between ‘times arrow’ and ‘entropy’, stating that entropy is more valid as a description of causality than any ‘arrow of time’ can be. And it’s easy to see how they think if you look at what we discussed here. Entropy can be seen as all possible states you can get a knowledge of, in any ‘system’ defined, like all possible molecules states inside a gas for example, also defining the gas ‘energy’. Binary you can look at it as ‘information’, giving you one answer per ‘bit’.

But for myself I only agree to disagree :) To me the idea of a ‘arrow of time’ contains and covers all forms of entropy. You will always need a ‘clock’ to define your entropy changing.  There is no way I know of making a measurement without a ‘clock’ being involved? So even though entropy might give us a generalized concept, seemingly without ‘clocks’, it still has to be sorted under ‘the arrow of time’ to me. You could look at entropy as introducing a observer from outside our SpaceTime, somehow able to watch without being ‘involved’ in our SpaceTime, but as it introduces the idea of an ‘outside observer defining ‘reality’ it’s kind of dubious to me. And it also create a need of something existing outside our SpaceTime,  and that’s not proven in any way. Most of the laws we have seems to work on the assumption that SpaceTime is ‘self sufficient’ neither gaining nor losing any ‘energy’ but just transforming it from useable energy to unuseable. If that’s correct, and it makes for a very interesting idea then SpaceTime “manage perfectly by itself thank you” :)That’s the other way, to see our universe as a self contained ‘system’ in where all entropy observed is the result of relations between the observer, the observed, and the ‘clock’ aka ‘the arrow of time’. Also I’m not sure how I should look at the idea of entropy, as an all encompassing phenomena or as singular ‘properties’ unique to each case (frame) it acts on, and in? Most correct seems to look at it as relations, with each one being uniquely its own? Looking at ‘times arrow’ my way I believe I can use it as a ‘ideal description’, ‘ideal’ in a similar manner to how Feigenbaum’s constant might be considered a ‘ideal function’, not ‘materiel’ but still valid and ‘real’ mathematically, describing a measurable function of SpaceTime.

 Now, if we just could isolate those ‘transitions/states’, treating them like some ideal ‘events’ maybe? Objective isolated happenings with clear boundaries, then entropy might stand on its own, as well as the idea of times ‘events’ as opposed to times ‘flow’? But to me there still is needed some sort of glue to bind those ‘still frames/events’ into the causality chain we see. And as there are no isolated ‘frames’ to entropy, as far as I know, I expect it to be as everything else. Constantly transforming and flowing into new configurations seamlessly, and by doing it refusing to become your ‘Kodak camera’.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 03/12/2010 11:59:50
I wrote "Kinetic energy, momentum, relative mass all have a common nominator though, if you’re seeing light as ‘propagating’. They all have a direction/vector in which they move, defined by the source, and they can all be defined as having a speed, meaning that they in some manner use a ‘clock’, as speed only exist as the relation between a ‘distance’ and a ‘clock’. But wasn’t a photon intrinsically time-less? Where does it get that ‘clock’ from?"

Well, I have a weird idea there.

If we go back to the pond with you throwing that pebble in it, watching the rings spread on the 'water'. Remember how we 'rotated it' to make those invisible 'spheres' depicting 'waves' spreading everywhere in a 3-D environment, out from a 'center' as we looked at 'gravity waves'?

You can use the same image to see how photons 'exist' inside SpaceTime. The first thing to remember is that a 'photon' only is known to exist in your measurement. We do not take anything for granted now, okay?

The second thing is if that is how photons 'exist' to us, my pond example could be seen as the 'photon' existing in that 'center' of observation according to the observer.

And the pebble?

It's no pebble at all, it's the 'relations' 'forcing' ( ahh, not too good an expression here is it :) the 'photon' into existence. Remember that 'my SpaceTime' is 'relations', possibly also able to be defined as our 'discrete events'. And the 'waves' is our 'information', telling SpaceTime of it's 'existence'.

Well, don't look at me that way, I told you it was weird, didn't I?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 03/12/2010 12:13:24
Sorry, I forgot the conclusion :)

If that is the way it come to be then the 'clock' is ours, or 'SpaceTimes'? Depending on how you define an 'event.

One possibility is that 'events' need an observer to 'exist', now defining those 'observers' as all other 'objects or events' existing in SpaceTime. Which makes the 'clock' SpaceTimes as a whole generally.

Or the 'event' have to be defined by consciousness, which means that everything you see in some manner is 'created' by you, and you by me :)I prefer the first alternative myself. And remember that the 'information sphere' could be seen as an area, simplifying the relations considerably.

The third one, that they could exist without an 'observation' we already excluded in agreeing on defining a photon as existing only in its 'observation'. And yes, I'm including all 'particles' in this description.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 03/12/2010 12:56:30
There is possible to make even weirder assumptions using this analogue of a pond, depicting an 'area', defining the 'information amount' any observer can have. Depending on your 'frame of reference' the information you receive from the pond might also define your SpaceTime. And if we include all 'objects/events' in that generalization then what 'creates' SpaceTime is all those 'observers' observing each other. And SpaceTime as a 'whole' will always have to be just be the amount of information defined by you, or me, or that stone, our 'networking' by light creating the 'real SpaceTime' we know of in our 'mind-space'. That means that we all are somewhat like search lights, lightening up 'reality' but also possibly defining that 'reality' as only existing in our 'shares', simplifying it even more, as information  only 'propagate' at light speed. But entanglements then? They do not contain information until 'observed' right? So?
==

As an example of the way I think you can consider yourself accelerating in a rocket. Only considering your own 'frame of reference', do your 'information pond' grow or shrink as you observe the in-falling light? 'Distances' may shrink for you, but does that mean you are receiving more information?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 05/12/2010 10:57:09
Here's an introduction to The holographic principle. (http://www.teorfys.uu.se/files/Daniel_Domert_holographic.pdf) from Uppsala university in Sweden.
==

Reading it makes me wonder a little, maybe I'm wrong believing the Bekenstein bound to be applicable to a whole SpaceTime? There seems to be some limitations to it?

"Sad to say though, it has its limitations. In Sec.2.1, the conditions Bekenstein specified for the validity of his bound was not stated explicitly. The system under consideration must be of constant, finite size, have limited self-gravity and no matter components with negative energy density can be available. A system which satisfies these conditions will be referred to as a Bekenstein system."

Now I don't know, he goes on to re-validating the 'Holographic principle' with a new twist it seems, rather likable too :)

But I will need to reread it to see what I understand of his thoughts.
===

Remember that I'm questioning distance?

Thats one big question for me, making all those other ideas plausible.
And 'distance' is a 'metric' in physics.

Does General Relativity Require a Metric. (http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9912051v1) I'm not the only one that have wondered about it then :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 15/12/2010 14:27:33
Look I’m not even sure where I’m going with this. I don’t know how it is with you but my understanding is rather slow :) It takes me time to assimilate; At times I don’t even know why I think as I do? But I’m hopeful that I have a master-plan, I just forgot to inform me, it may be that I’m not trustworthy enough? Ah well, miss understood again, and by myself this time!

Ahem.
So read it and have some fun.

I like the weirder ideas better though, you might have noticed? And yes, I do argue for a universe where light doesn’t move :) In my way that is. I started with arguing that distance wasn’t exactly what we thought it to be. And that one I expect Einstein and Lorentz to have proved. To prove me wrong there you will need to show me that those effects are mere illusions, and I sincerely doubt you can. The next step is just the logical one to me, if distance is a ‘variable’ and light get all those weird ‘properties’ in our observations of it. Why do we expect it to move? And now some of you will look for the men in white coats, but hey, I’m just trying to keep it simple :)

So, with the risqué of sounding pompous. If light refuse, absolutely refuse to move in ‘reality’, then why do we think it does? Because it does, naturally, to us it does, heh :)  And there they are, splendidly dressed in white coats and all. That one I will blame on casualty btw, aka our ‘arrow of time’. No, not those friendly men in their white coats, ‘motion’ I meant. It’s a marvellous concept, ‘motion’, it comes from those ‘distances’ and ‘the arrow of time’ when combined. And it creates a ‘room time geometry’ in where everything we observe can exist, as ‘individual’. Ah, maybe I should add that it creates a lot of ‘room time geometries’?

If you look at a ‘frame of reference’ you will find it a slippery thing, gliding through your fingers just when you think you ‘have it’. I don’t honestly know where  ‘frames of reference’, as we observe them, stops? But, as a guess, I expect it to be around that weird ‘Plank level’ myself. And according to me everything you see, or ‘not see’, have its own ‘room time geometry’. As those ‘frames of reference’ all must be different according to their motion and mass, from a QM perspective and ‘up’. I can’t see it any other way at least, and if you can? Please define where a ‘frame of reference’ won’t exist anymore conceptually, also where its ‘borders flickers out’ relative some-thing/one else.  It makes me head hurt, that one.

‘Frames of reference’ freaks me out :)

We have so many formalisms that we accept, transformations and equivalences that we observe, invariance’s, etc. Sometimes I wonder if those also could be set as some sort of ‘constants’, in some mathematical fashion? There are also those saying that you can’t join the idea of ‘discrete events’ with an ‘analogue’ universe. I guess they are right as long as we’re looking at defined ‘levels’ of that ‘existence’ (like defining ‘systems’). There seems to be ‘break points/ transitions’ though, where one emerge before the other. My guess is that it will be the same situation there, as the one in linearity hiding in non-linearity, that in its turn hides in linearity, which hiding in non-linearity hides in .. Ad infinitum. I suspect that if we just change our definitions a little, hopefully, it may start to make sense? Also, I’ve started to use the words ‘room time geometry’´, a lot, recently. It’s no recent fad of physics, but it breaks nicely with what rolls of the tongue all too easily, namely ‘SpaceTime’. And the difference is that whereas ‘SpaceTime’ is conceived as one big block of ‘jello’ for me, our ‘room time geometries’ are all unique. Why it is this way confuses me, but never the less, there you are :) And so am I.

So, if now there would exist a frame ‘unique’ to each one of us? Are we the creators of it? Maybe, at least in the motto of this frame not existing without me being there, it seems complementary to existence? So yes,  it seems likely that my ‘SpaceTime’ will die with me. But don’t we also have our own, and share, a ‘history’? And isn’t we all ‘related’ in that.  Like in my ‘history’ everything, and everyone I’ve meet, and every book I’ve read, every idea, breath I ever taken exist, or not, as you might see it :)  Before our books humanity already had a rich collection of ‘stories’, preserved by mouth. We still have that tradition going in some parts of the world by the way. Places where you learn your story ‘verbatim’, word by word, so to not ‘destroy history’ as you retell it. Bards and storytellers were the people keeping humanities common ‘history’ alive, a long time before any written word. So, we knew of the importance of preserving ‘knowledge’ before we learnt to write. But your history is more than just ‘knowledge’, it is also what defines you, now and here. And here I argue that everything have its own ‘history’, although it is most noticeable for ‘consciousness’, and then when ‘comparing’.

That ‘history’ is what we all build on, no matter your profession. Now tell me, where does it exist? In your mind maybe? I think so, and so our ‘histories’ becomes part of that mysterious ‘mind-space’ that keeps growing for us, and in where we expect all ‘true relations’ to be shown, sooner or later. Those that we never will be able to see in our ‘real life’. But is it the ‘exact same’ history we share? No, not really, every one of us living differs in what we perceive and in the way we assimilate it, even the ‘same information’. But we all like to think ourselves the epithet of truth and objectivity, don’t we :) And that’s probably why we need the concept of ‘objectivity’. But assuming that I’m right, heh, you will never find any ‘objectivity’ in any human actions taken, except possibly inside that ‘mind space’. And as if  that wasn’t enough, to get to ‘impartiality’ I would expect us to need something more, something not colored by subjectivity, emotions, greed and ambitions. We need a formalism excluding our ‘impurities’ so to speak.

And where do you think we can find such a remarkable concept? That’s right, logic. Logic creates its own ‘sandboxes’ to play in, all of its own. When in there you can construct a ‘system’, free from human emotion as long as it creates its own validity, as proven by those few, extremely well-chosen, axioms you flatten me with, that we all accept as being, well, rather axiomatic? Like one and one becoming two for example :) But we’ve gone a far way from that one mathematically. From simple logic like counting one, two, three, and many. Ideas that other animals seems to be able to formulate too according to some studies made, into ideas questioning it, and imaginary numbers, and linearity and non-linearity, and larger and lesser infinities, and negative numbers, and whatnot? And so finally into realms of ‘pure imagination’ where we, from our sandboxes, create valid mathematical proofs for things never, ever, observed in our universe? 

You see, I think our ‘axioms’ have changed slightly. Nowadays we place a he* of a lot more importance in getting them validated by observation (experiments) than in pure Platonic ‘axioms’. And that’s why I think I can argue as I do too, as I think we have observation supporting me :) That we created the idea of mathematics speaks volumes about our perception of ourselves, and our realisation of our own subjectivity. Without such a realisation I doubt we would have cared to construct those mental ‘sandboxes’ where we could test our ‘reality’ and ‘objectivity’. Why, we would be ‘right’, any which way, wouldn’t we? The ‘crown of achievement’ and all that.

So is mathematics the closest we can get to ‘objectivity’ and that ‘mind-space’ reality? Probably, I have difficulties imagining it any other way. Although mathematics is still just a tool, your tool. It’s you defining and probing its limits. But is it a valid definition for ‘reality’ then? Maybe, as it is an offspring from our common ‘mind well/ histories’ it has a strong relation to what we observe. And as it, as a logical system, will validate itself according to parameters we also find experimenting? That we in it also can construct universes we can’t validate, by experiments, is no shortcoming to me, more like a ‘validation’ of its ‘universal generality’. Furthermore, do you believe that ‘patterns’ can keep themselves and their origin ‘intact’ while evolving, changing biologically, DNA, RNA, a seed and a nut?

Then, how about ‘mentally’?
Can a purely ‘mental’ concept keep a pattern intact?
And that is the weirdest question I will have today I think :)

(Eh?  How does it do it? (So I was wrong, two, weirdest questions:))

Also, mathematics seems to find new ways with every generation, creating new avenues of ‘logic’ to explore. It’s the most versatile tool we own when it comes to describe ‘relations’. But is it the ‘truth’? Nope, not as I see ‘truth’. You’re the truth. You and your immediate life is the only truth that exist, my life, as observed by you is no ‘truth’ for you, as long as we don’t interact directly it’s only a part of a ‘history’ known to you, so in that motto we’re all islands. And even when interacting directly, we’re still just ‘relations’. Looked at that way, the only truth known can be your own thoughts, as every other thing will be a ‘relation’, touching it or not. And that’s really ‘blows my mind away’ :) That we all seem to exist, and are able to interact inside one ‘SpaceTime’, observing and touching. Trusting in each others ‘reality’ and our ‘common space’, at the same time as science keeps telling us that this ‘can’t be true’ :)

And if that doesn’t freak you out, you need to widen your horizons, get out and smell the roses etc :) Also it’s a very good argument for us all needing to take a look at ourselves at times, to see where our ‘objectivity’ is taking us today.  Mine is taking me, somewhere? Nowhere?

Ah well. Think about it.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: cat_with_no_eyes on 15/12/2010 14:55:22
What are you doing a pHD?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 15/12/2010 15:25:32
Heh :)

Nope.

Ever heard about the “delayed-choice experiment”?  “In the two-slit experiments, the physicist's choice of apparatus forces the ‘photon/wave’ to choose between going through both slits like a wave or just one slit, like a particle. But what would happen, Wheeler asked, if the researcher could somehow wait until after the light had passed the two slits before deciding how to observe it?”

In the first one it’s your choice of observing, aka equipment, that creates the result, either as a wave interference where photons looks like ‘waves’ or like  ‘particles’ aka ‘bullets. But if you make an experiment where you have something ‘forcing’ the light into becoming one or the other, but without yourself knowing what it will be at the time the light ‘propagates’. Will that make a difference?

“Five years after Wheeler outlined what he called the delayed-choice experiment, it was carried out independently by groups at the University of Maryland and the University of Munich. They aimed a laser beam not at a plate with two slits but at a beam splitter, a mirror coated with just enough silver to reflect half of the photons impinging on it and let the other half pass through. After diverging at the beam splitter the two beams were guided back together by mirrors and fed into a detector.

This initial setup provided no way for the investigators to test whether any individual photon had gone right or left at the beam splitter. Consequently, each photon went both ways splitting into two wavelets that ended up interfering with each other at the detector.

Then the workers installed a customized crystal called a Pockels Cell in the middle of one route. When an electric current was applied to the Pockels Cell, it diffracted photons to an auxiliary detector. Otherwise, photons passed through the cell unhindered. A random signal generator made it possible to turn the cell on or off after the photon had already passed the beam splitter but before it reached the detector as Wheeler had specified.

When the Pockels-cell detector was switched on, the photon would behave like a particle and travel one route or the other, triggering either the auxiliary detector or the primary detector, buy not both at once. If the Pockels-cell detector was off, an interference pattern would appear in the detector at the end of both paths, indicating that the photon bad travelled both routes.”

So what’s weird about that one? Well, at first the light behaves as waves, you can ‘split’ waves as much as you like, and when joining them ‘back’ you will find the ‘interference’. That they behaved as waves is because your equipment allowed them to do so, including yourself not ‘knowing’ the ‘path’ taken. What it shows is that to talk about light having a certain property before measuring is impossible. It’s like ‘room time geometries’, you might define a distance as unchanging but when travelling close to light, the Lorentz contraction observed will prove that distances can and will change. But, at the same time as you will find your own ‘frame of reference’ unchanged? Why, shouldn’t it that too ‘change’? The same as those length relations you observe outside your ‘space ship’?

Why didn’t your own ‘room’ contract as the outside did? And if it did, shouldn’t that have made the ‘distances’ outside keep their relative balance versus you, making it impossible to notice?  Simple, if they did there couldn’t be any Lorentz contraction from your ‘frame of reference’ and by what would you then define your ‘room time geometry’ changing? As you would know it, finding the journey shorter than it was measured on Earth. The alternative to that would be that it didn’t? Which then would invalidate your ‘time dilation’ too, as measured from Earth. There is the third alternative of course, with a bifurcation taking place every time something moves relative something else, giving me an enormous headache.

Anyway, assuming that we indeed will find it possible to measure this ‘contraction’ from our moving ‘frame of reference’, which I will continue to assume :) then there have to be something very special about your own ‘frame of reference’ as it keeps the same ‘properties’ for you, both ‘time’ as well as your own frames ‘distance’ relative what you observe ‘outside’, no matter your velocity or possible mass. Don’t you agree?

To get back to the experiment, it used a laser, right? And lasers ‘shoots’ waves, monochromatic but waves. But you can also say that it ‘shoots’ photons, so would your choice of looking at the beginning make a difference. Nope, not that I know? So in the beginning when we observe it as waves, that’s cool with me.

“When the Pockels-cell detector was switched on, the photon would behave like a particle and travel one route or the other, triggering either the auxiliary detector or the primary detector, buy not both at once. If the Pockels-cell detector was off, an interference pattern would appear in the detector at the end of both paths, indicating that the photon had travelled both routes.”

There are even more advanced experiments existing than this one. Like the one in where you according to the experimenters can wipe out ‘information’ after letting the light wander through a maze ‘transforming’ it from waves to particles. Then to find the ‘wave interference’ of light coming back as you wipe out the ‘quantum information’ it had earlier.

“It has been considered that the general mechanism responsible for the loss of the interference pattern is the uncertainty principle, as no measure can be so delicate not to disturb the system which is measuring. However, in this experiment, the “which-way” information of the particles is found without disturbing their wavefunction. The reason of the interference loss is the quantum information contained in the measuring apparatus, by means of the entanglement correlations between the particles and the path detectors. The experiment shows that if such quantum information is afterwards erased from the system, then the interference reappears (which would be impossible in the case of a perturbation).”

What the experiments says to me is that you as the ‘observer’ didn’t interfere with that first experiment, as the triggering of the Pockels cells were ‘beyond your control’, being a ‘random event’ as far as you were concerned. It also states that each time this Pockels-cell went ‘on’ the wave/photons behaved as a particle. The importance though, to me, is only in your assumption of light propagating inside a ‘arrow of time’. If you do so, assuming that light then will be a wave, (as it have showed itself that way each time before to you), and then randomly turn on this Pockels-cell, why does that turn the light into a particle?

Maybe it’s possible to look at it this way, if we define ‘times arrow’ as something describing ‘changes’. We then arbitrarily define each measurement made by us as ‘events’, or if you like, let a ‘clock’ ticking create a symmetry of equally timed ‘events’ amongst which we measure/pick some as our own observations. Then, according to my definition, what you measure is your ‘reality’. And if you can be a hundred percent certain of an ‘outcome’ you will see it. Nothing strange in that. You see, what all of those clever experiments builds on is the observers arrow of time. When they speak of ‘resurrecting’ the interference, they can only do so inside that arrow, as ‘events’. So to me their logic is strained by ‘time’. The simple truth is that they will have to ‘measure’ before proving it. So I think my idea take care of both of them? Remember that I split ‘reality’ in two. One conceptual where the ‘general rules’ might be seen, the other one being the one we truly can observe, by experimenting. Don’t mix those two.

Why?

If you look at it my way SpaceTime is a ‘game’. Every game builds on rules, if you’re a good gamer you will know/ learn the ‘rules’ and so get ‘your way’ more easily than the person next to you. And assuming that light’s not ‘propagating’ what you have will be more like a ‘mosaic’. Change the ‘mosaic’ according to the rules and you can lock an ‘outcome’. Do it after another ‘locking’ and what you will see is the new configuration. Does this makes the question of a clock ticking (arrow) irrelevant, as everything becomes frozen ‘instants/ configurations’? Not as I know, you will need to show me a way to make an experiment without involving ‘clocks’ before I’ll believe that one, and no, neither of my offerings above is without an arrow. And yes, my view seems to contradict the idea of an ‘arrow’, as well as everything being a ‘flow’. But it’s not at our ‘plateau of observation’ those phenomena takes place. The ‘rules’ we discuss is best thought of as existing at a similar place as my ‘mind-space’ exist, somewhere, just ‘out of reach’ of our observations. In my ‘game’, for light, the rules might state that entangled light are not ‘separated’ by ‘room time geometry’, and if that is the case it’s simple to see why they ‘know’ about what’s happening to their ‘other halfs’ as they (it) in a way are everywhere. Also it seems as all light might be entangled, for example, looking at it as ‘propagating’ it will become ‘monochromatic’ after ‘propagating’ far enough, interacting. And that one doesn’t rule out that the light already was entangled at its ‘source’, as I understands it?

If you assume all light ‘entangled’ in some way, behaving as it does by containing some ‘overall information/ state’ (connected) to all other light in the experiment. Then, when measuring one state you will ‘set’ the rest too.  But to me entanglements seems just another way of describing light as ‘unmoving’, as it builds on an ‘instant’ transfer of ‘states’ between them. Also, as the experiment seems to build on you inferring that there have to be a certain ‘ground state’ of the photon/wave, as defined by your previous measurements? Which is a rather stupid thing to do :) if you look at it my way, I fully expect light to be able to surprise you. It’s not ‘matter’ after all, it’s ‘light’.

An entanglement differs in that it, even though being instantaneous, can’t present any information faster than light speed can bring it. But, didn’t we also find that ‘entanglements’ transfer ‘energy’?  Now, why would it be able to do so? Isn’t energy ‘information’ of a kind too? I’ll be very interested in seeing someone use the idea of instant ‘energy transfer’ as a way of transmitting information faster than light (FTL). Another point worth taking up here is that even if we have a theorem stating that we won’t ever be able to transmit information FTL it then only seem to be true for that first ‘instant’. Imagine two stars communicating, ‘A’ and ‘B’ by entanglements. For that first communication they will need to have a ‘light code’ translated, and that first information ‘A’ only can send at ‘lights speed’ to ‘B’.  But if the idea of ‘energy transfer’ is what I think it is then every transmission after that first, theoretically even if not practically, should be able to take place FTL?

Entanglements also bears a uncanny likeness to the idea of the ‘many paths’ your ‘particles’ takes, or if you like,  their ‘probability’, in that both are sort of ‘instantaneous’ , taking place simultaneously even though we only find one ‘state’ when measuring. But no matter what experiment you do, however clever, there will always be one ‘state’ measured as you measure, not two simultaneously, as far as I understands it? The rest of that kind of discussion is to me at the same place as ‘time dilation’.  Existing on/inside that remarkable ‘mind-space’ where comparisons are made, not ‘reality’, no matter how ‘correct’ it might be. Your ‘reality’ exists in your measurements, not in your comparisons, to me that is. :)

So, if my way of looking at it is right then it still have rules, although what creating the rules we observe seems more to be on a theoretical plane than observable as direct ‘forces’. And I assume that those rules have to be general ones, valid for different ‘SpaceTimes’. To assume otherwise seems to imply some creator custom-making our ‘SpaceTime’? That might also make those rules easier to see, as we won’t need to find a exact match to our universe. We just need to find enough examples predicting similar universes, and from them try to see what joins them. And what joins them will have to be our general rules too. I know, string theory huh :)
Maybe their track is the right one, even if I don't agree in all that I've read about it. Then again, I guess they too have have 'fractions' amongst them arguing differently.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 15/12/2010 15:51:38
Let us continue down that never-ending avenue of cogitation, slow grinding wheels accompanied by my trusty companion, ah, headache :)

You will never prove a time dilation inside your own ‘frame of reference’. It’s a ‘mental space’ in where that happens, as a result of comparing ‘frames of reference’. Never the less it has to be true. Though you will be able to prove a Lorentz contraction inside your own ‘frame’ I believe. That is, if using, and trusting, the ‘history’ you have, you will in ‘real time’ prove to yourself that your distances have ‘contracted’ when moving close to light speed.

‘SpaceTime’ can be split into ‘room time geometries’ aka ‘frames of reference’ and they are what make our ‘SpaceTime’ in where everything existing have its own ‘room time geometry’.

‘Forces’ are our description of certain ‘cause and effects’ that we think us observe inside that ‘room time geometry’. Causality chains created in and from an ‘arrow of time’ never mind its ‘direction’ conceptually.

There is a non-linearity to all of the universe we know, macroscopically as well as at the quantum level. But there is also a strange linearity surrounding and infusing it, as the Feigenbaum constant shows us, both macroscopically and on a quantum level as I understand it.

Now for what’s called ‘scars’ in chaos theory.

“According to Michael Berry, a leading theorist in the study of quantum chaos at the University of Bristol, this issue of linearity is a red herring. "This is one of the biggest misconceptions in the business," he says. His critique rests on the fact that it is possible to recast nonlinear classical equations in a linear form and linear quantum equations in nonlinear form.

 Berry's preferred explanation for the difference between what happens in classical and quantum systems as they edge towards chaos is that quantum uncertainty imposes a fundamental limit on the sharpness of the dynamics. The amount of uncertainty in a quantum system is quantified in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle by a fixed value known as Planck's constant. In classical mechanics, objects can move along infinitely many trajectories," says Berry. This makes it easy to set up complicated dynamics in which an object will never retrace its path-the sort of behaviour that leads to chaos. But in quantum mechanics, Planck's constant blurs out the fine detail, smoothing away the chaos."

This raises some interesting questions. What happens if you scale down a classically chaotic system to atomic size? Do you still get chaos or does quantum regularity suddenly prevail? Or does something entirely new happen? And why is it that macroscopic systems can be chaotic given that everything is ultimately built out of atoms and therefore quantum in nature? These questions have been the subject of intense debate for more than a decade. But now a number of experimental approaches have begun to offer answers. …

Quantum billiards

More recently, signs of quantum suppression of chaos have come from another experimental approach to quantum chaos: quantum billiards. On a conventional rectangular table, it is quite common for a player to pot a ball by bouncing the cue ball off the cushion first- In the hands of a skilled player, such shots are often quite repeatable. But if you were to try the same shot on a rounded, stadium-shaped table, the results are far less predictable : the slightest change in starting position alters the ball's trajectory drastically. So what you get if you play stadium billiards is chaos. In 1992, at Boston's Northeastern University, Srinivas Sridhar and colleagues substituted microwaves for billiard balls and a shallow stadium-shaped copper cavity for the table. Sridhar's team then observed how the microwaves settled down inside the cavity. Although their apparatus is not of atomic proportions (a cavity typically measures several millimetres across) , the experiment exploits a precise mathematical similarity between the wave equations of quantum mechanics and the equations of the electromagnetic waves in this two- dimensional situation. If microwaves behaved like billiard balls , you would not expect to see any regular patterns. The experiments, however, reveal structures known as "scars" that suggest the waves concentrate along particular paths.

But where do these paths come from? One answer is provided by theoretical work carried out back in the 1970s by Martin Gutzwiller of the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights near New York. He produced a key formula that showed how classical chaos might relate to quantum chaos. Basically, this indicates that the quantum regularities are related to a very limited range of classical orbits. These orbits are ones that are periodic in the classical system. If for example , you placed a ball on the stadium table and hit it along exactly the right path, you could get it to retrace its path ,after only a few bounces off the cushions.However, because the system is chaotic, these paths are unstable. You only need a minuscule error and the ball will move off course within a few bounces. So classically you would not expect to see these orbits stand out. But thanks to the uncertainty in quantum mechanics, which "fuzzes" the trajectories of the balls, tiny errors become less significant and the periodic orbits are reinforced in some strange way so that they predominate.

Sridhar's millimetre-sized stadium was a good analogy for quantum behaviour, but would the same effects occur in a truly quantum-sized system? This question was answered recently by Laurence Eaves from the University of Nottingham, and his colleagues at Nottingham and at Tokyo University. Eaves conducted his game of quantum billiards inside an elaborate semiconductor "sandwich" . He used electrons for balls, and for cushions, he used a combination of quantum barriers and magnetic fields. The quantum barriers are formed by the outer layers of the sandwich, which gives the electrons a couple of straight edges to bounce back and forth between. The other edges of the table are created by the restraining effect of the magnetic field, which curves the electron motion in a complicated way. As in Sridhar's stadium cavity, the resulting dynamics ought to be chaotic.

Number Crunching

To do the experiments, Eaves needed ultraintense magnetic fields, so he took his device to the High Magnetic Field Laboratory at University of Tokyo; which is equipped with some of the most powerful sources of pulsed magnetic fields in the world. Meanwhile his colleagues in Nottingham, Paul Wilkinson, Mark Fromhold, Fred Sheard, squared up to a heroic series of calculations, deducing from purely quantum mechanical principles what the results should look like.In a spectacular paper that made the cover of Nature last month, the team produced the first definitive evidence for quantum scarring, and precisely confirmed the quantum mechanical predictions. Sure enough, the current flowing through the device was predominantly carried by electrons moving along certain "scarred" paths. Quantum regularity was lingering in the chaos rather like the fading smile of the Cheshire Cat in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. “

So, now we have a little more evidence for it’s not being non-linearity alone ruling, but rather like a intricate mosaic of both ‘linearity’ and ‘non-linearity’ constituting the ‘laws’ creating ‘SpaceTime’. And with it we’re starting to get an idea of what ‘free will’ might be seen as, something actually able to vary in itself, but still falling prey to statistics and probability theory. And with it our universe becoming weirder than ever :).

Now what would that have to do with my thoughts on light not moving? Well, if the universe is becoming a mosaic, as I see it, then ‘moving parts’ just complicates it. But, we see the universe moving, don’t we? Well, maybe we do? But, if it moves, how do ‘shadows’ correspond to a barrier?

Institut d'Optique reported on the direct observation of Anderson localization of matter-waves in a controlled disorder. “From the quantum theory of conduction, in which electrons are described as matter waves, we can draw a naïve picture based on the idea that electrons with certain momenta can travel freely through the crystal, while others cannot as they diffract from the periodic structure played by the lattice. “

Fifty years ago, Philip Anderson, 1977 Physics Nobel Prize winner, worked out that tiny modifications of the lattice, such as the introduction of impurities or defects, can dramatically modify this behavior : the electron that would move freely inside the solid does not simply diffuse on the defects as expected for classical particles but they can be completely stopped.

On a macroscopic scale, that would be like saying that a few blades of grass scattered haphazardly over a golf course could completely stop a full-speed golf ball in its tracks : this would be a surprising situation, since we all know that small perturbations can only slow the movement of material objects, but can never stop them. In the light of fundamental discoveries made in the 1930s about semi-conductors that led to the invention of the transistor and then to integrated circuits, this phenomenon called 'Anderson Localization' created and is still creating strong interests among physicists.”

Did you notice “electrons are described as matter waves” I must admit that I like that, it’s kind of ‘hard’ imagining a golf ball being superimposed in two places simultaneously, on the other hand, it’s almost as hard imagining a wave being it, so?

“In our experiment, ultra-cold atoms play the role of electrons. They are chilled to a temperature close to absolute zero (-459.67 degrees Fahrenheit) to generate a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC), in which all the atoms can be described as a single wave function. We allowed these BECs to expand from a small starting spot along a single direction imposed by a laser-induced atomic waveguide. To “simulate” the disordered environment, we created a perfectly controlled disorder by shining laser light through finely ground glass onto the expanding atoms — creating then a random distribution of light and dark regions. Without disorder, the atoms propagate freely, but when disorder is present, all atomic movement stop within a fraction of a second. We then observed the atomic density profile. Its exponential form, characteristic of Anderson Localization is the awaited direct proof that random diffusion of matter can hinder the diffusion process.”

Let’s dissect some of the statements first. “In which all the atoms can be described as a single wave function.” Yes they can, but does a statement turn them into waves? Naah, the ‘matter’ still exists, doesn’t it? Even if ‘modified’ it hasn’t turned into ‘waves’? More like some ‘super atom’ it seems? So yes, and no. But the results are weird, and bring us to the question of what a ‘momentum’ is? He wrote “On a macroscopic scale, that would be like saying that a few blades of grass scattered haphazardly over a golf course could completely stop a full-speed golf ball in its tracks : this would be a surprising situation, since we all know that small perturbations can only slow the movement of material objects, but can never stop them.” And here we have those ‘impurities’ created by light and shadows, acting to stop that ‘super atoms’, or ‘wave functions’, momentum, instantly? So, what did the momentum transfer into? And why?

Recoil anyone?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 15/12/2010 18:18:20
So, is ‘action and reaction’ a doomed concept in QM then? Don’t know?  Take a look at this experiment “Little Nudges from Light – Measuring the Recoil of Photons” from 2009.

“Prof. Dmitri Petrov in collaboration with colleagues from the Moscow State University were the first to measure this effect.  To measure the effect the researchers use a photonic force microscope (PFM) to trap a small metal covered dielectric sphere in a laser beam. The surrounding liquid contains fluorescent molecules that attach to the surface of the sphere. Excited by the light of the laser the molecules themselves start to emit light. Just like a soldier feels the recoil of his gun after firing a projectile, the small molecules pass their momentum they get from light emission on to the sphere. During this process the scientists measure two values: the forces acting on the bead (described by a tiny dithering in the trap) and the intensity of light generated by the molecules coating the bead's surface. As the intensity of the emitted light fades over time due to bleaching the scientists can observe a decline of the recoil as well.

What initially was the set-up for a different experiment turned out to deliver the first direct proof of the correlation between light emission and recoil and also allowed the calculation of the power of light emitted. In their experiment the researches measured a force of 240 femtonewtons, which equals a power coming from the bead of 1 microwatt. "Until now it has been really difficult to say how much light eventually comes off this material", says Dmitri Petrov from ICFO, “but by looking at the recoil we have a completely new approach to quantify light emission by a mechanical force”. Possible applications of the PFM-setup could be to offer a more precise way of measuring the efficiency and intensity of other light-emitting molecules, including the bleaching of fluorescent dyes.”

Ahh, a 'recoil' was it?
Delivered from something without an acceleration, instantly at light speed?

How?

Where does that recoil allow itself to be transmitted inside Planck time from the ‘propagating’ photon? Here is your ‘action and reaction’, and at a quantum plane too, if this is true. Couldn’t it be some sort of ‘sticky phenomena’ instead, no ‘recoil’ at all classically? As if the molecules moves slightly to a change in the rules? Nothing there at all really, but still creating a 'jiggle'. Or should we see a momentum as something existing on its own? A transient created out from a ‘relation’ without needing to be constricted inside ‘times arrow’? If so, does that explain how ‘virtual photons’ can transmit momentum?

And what would that say?
That times arrow is no boundary for causality?

Well, to me it speaks about emergences only, they don’t need to be defined by a clock. An emergence is a transition from one state to another, instantly or not, as we observe it. And if our macroscopic arrow is created through the presence of ‘matter, light and space’ then that arrow is a localized macroscopic phenomenon, not an ‘absolute truth’. But I think that the concept of ‘time’ is different, to me that is an axiom, something needed for all ‘causality’, no matter where those ‘arrows’ point according to us.


“Euclid's familiar geometry of two-dimensional space has the following
axioms,5 which are expressed in terms of operations that can be carried out with a compass and unmarked straightedge:

    * E1 Two points determine a line.
    * E2 Line segments can be extended.
    * E3 A unique circle can be constructed given any point as its center and any line segment as its radius.
    * E4 All right angles are equal to one another.
    * E5 Parallel postulate: Given a line and a point not on the line, no more than one line
       can be drawn through the point and parallel to the given line.6

Here. (http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/)


The modern style in mathematics is to consider this type of axiomatic system as a self-contained sandbox, with the axioms, and any theorems proved from them, being true or false only in relation to one another. Euclid and his contemporaries, however, believed them to be empirical facts about physical reality. For example, they considered the fifth postulate to be less obvious than the first four, because in order to verify physically that two lines were parallel, one would theoretically have to extend them to an infinite distance and make sure that they never crossed. In the first 28 theorems of the Elements, Euclid restricts himself entirely to propositions that can be proved based on the more secure first four postulates. The more general geometry defined by omitting the parallel postulate is known as absolute geometry.

When stress is equal on all sides then it is no longer a tensor with direction, but a scalar. That scalar is called pressure. As a direct result of Newton's first law: a static fluid undergoes static “geostatic", "hydrostatic", "isotropic" pressure. A fluid cannot support shear stress. While this is demanded for a fluid, it is also a good approximation for layers of rock strata near earth's surface:

The idea that time does not "exist" as an independent quantity would seem to be quite speculative, except for one very interesting fact. We know that Einstein's theory of special relativity (SR) describes the universe using "time". However, special relativity is not the most fundamental theory, as we said, it is derived from Einstein's theory of general relativity (GR). The tools of special relativity give us less generalized solutions that are correct only under a limited set of circumstances. In general relativity the universe is described by solutions to Einstein's field equations. Most physicists believe that a particular description of the universe is correct only if it is a solution to those field equations. The amazing fact is that Einstein's field equations can be solved without any reference whatsoever to a temporal variable of any kind, indeed the field equations may be solved without even defining "time". This astounding fact greatly increases our confidence that we live in an essentially atemporal world. “
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 15/12/2010 18:27:53
Let us take a look on non-linearity again. Earlier I said that non-linarity waits in both quantum mechanical ‘systems’ as well as in our macroscopic ‘reality’, didn’t I? But ..

“Where does that leave the problem of how quantum mechanics turns into the classical world on larger scales? One way of looking at the problem is to investigate how a quantum chaos system actually evolves with time. Last December, Mark Raizen and his colleagues at the University of Texas at Austin managed to do just that, using an experimental version of a system called a quantum kicked rotor. The idea is to couple two oscillating systems to produce chaos. Imagine pushing a child's swing. If you time your pushes in rhythm with the swing, then it simply rises higher and higher. If you push at a different frequency, the swing will sometimes be given a boost and sometimes slowed down. If this is done too vigorously, the oscillations become chaotic.

In Raizen's quantum version, ultra cold sodium atoms were subjected to a special kind of pulsed laser light. The laser beam was bounced between mirrors to set up a short-lived standing wave -a periodic lattice of light that remains motionless in space rather like the acoustic nodes on a violin string. Depending on their precise location in the standing waves, the sodium atoms are pushed around by the electromagnetic fields in the lattice. According to classical calculations, the result is that the atoms should be kicked chaotically along an increasingly energetic random walk. Raizen's results confirmed a long standing prediction of the quantum theoretical descriptions of these systems. The atoms did indeed move in a chaotic way to begin with. But after around 100 microseconds (which corresponds to around 50 kicks) the build-up in energy reached a plateau.

Break time

In other words, quantum mechanics does suppress the chaos but only after a certain amount of time known as the "quantum break time". This turns out to be the crucial feature that distinguishes between quantum and classical predictions of chaotic systems. Before the break time, quantum systems are able to mimic the behaviour of classical systems by looking essentially random. But after the break time, the system simply retraces its path. It is no longer random, but stuck in a repeating loop albeit of considerable complexity.

But if this is right, how can classical systems exhibit chaos? Macroscopic objects such as pendulums and planets are, after all, made out of atoms and are therefore, ultimately, quantum systems. It turns out that classical systems are in fact behaving exactly like quantum systems . The only difference is that for classical systems, the quantum break times of macroscopic systems are extraordinarily long-far longer than the age of the Universe. If we could study a classical system for longer than its quantum break time, we would see that the behaviour was not really chaotic but quasi-periodic instead. Thus, quantum and classical realities can be reconciled, with the classical world naturally embedded in a larger quantum reality. Or, as physicist Dan Kleppner of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology puts it, " anything classical mechanics can do, quantum mechanics can do better".”

“Indirect CPV

In 1964, James Cronin, Val Fitch with coworkers provided clear evidence (which was first announced at the 12th ICHEP conference in Dubna) that CP symmetry could be broken, too, winning them the 1980 Nobel Prize. This discovery showed that weak interactions violate not only the charge-conjugation symmetry C between particles and antiparticles and the P or parity, but also their combination. The discovery shocked particle physics and opened the door to questions still at the core of particle physics and of cosmology today. The lack of an exact CP symmetry, but also the fact that it is so nearly a symmetry, created a great puzzle. Only a weaker version of the symmetry could be preserved by physical phenomena, which was CPT symmetry. Besides C and P, there is a third operation, time reversal (T), which corresponds to reversal of motion. Invariance under time reversal implies that whenever a motion is allowed by the laws of physics, the reversed motion is also an allowed one. The combination of CPT is thought to constitute an exact symmetry of all types of fundamental interactions. Because of the CPT symmetry, a violation of the CP symmetry is equivalent to a violation of the T symmetry. CP violation implied nonconservation of T, provided that the long-held CPT theorem was valid. In this theorem, regarded as one of the basic principles of quantum field theory, charge conjugation, parity, and time reversal are applied together.”

From  here. (http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/bell.html) 

Okay, what do we learn here? I think that the notion of ‘times arrow’ always will be one defined by your personal frame. If we look at Earth our planets gravity differs depending on where you are, that means that time too will differ, when comparing ‘frames of reference’, but what won’t differ is your own ‘times arrow’. To you the causality chains never get violated. The broken cup never reassembles itself. But can it? Is there some thought up ‘frame’ from where I could watch this cup reassembles itself? I expect not, macroscopically we will always see the cup break, not the other way around. That doesn’t mean that when comparing ‘frames of reference’ you always will agree on what took place at what moment though

“Readers familiar with relativity may be disturbed that this derivation assumed that detector A measured its electron first. According to relativity theory it's meaningless to say which measurement happened first. Some observers will say measurement A happened first while others will say measurement B came first, and they will both be equally valid viewpoints. This doesn't affect the results of this calculation, however. If you redo the calculation from the point of view of an observer that says B came first you will get the same results, namely that if both detectors are pointing the same way they will give the same result every time, whereas if they are pointing different ways they will give the same result 1/4 of the time.

Once again, we find relativity is saved by a technicality; but this one is even more disturbing than the last one. From one point of view the measurement at detector A happens first and instantly changes the state of electron B. From another point of view the measurement at detector B happens first and instantly changes the state of electron A. Physically these descriptions seem completely incompatible. Surely one of them must be the "correct" interpretation of what happened.

Yet experimentally there is no way to distinguish between the two interpretations, so relativity can safely say that either one is a valid description from some particular point of view. Because I find this result so remarkable and incomprehensible, I think it bears repeating. In order to explain the failure of Bell's inequality we had to conclude that one of the measurements (presumably whichever one happened first) affected the state of the other electron. Yet relativity tells us it is a matter of perspective which measurement was the cause and which the effect. Although we can't ever distinguish these two perspectives experimentally, the idea that they should both be valid seems to bring into question some of our most fundamental views about causality. Issues such as these which arise in trying to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics are, in my opinion, among the most fascinating aspects of physics.” From “spooky action at a distance” by Gary Felder.

So does causality lie? If you can see either one of those two happenings coming before the other? Depending on your choice of ‘frame of reference’? If you think so you’re bicycling in my great yonder methinks :) There is no way for you to observe it from those two frames simultaneously, and even if you did, you would still find the cup break, not reassemble itself, as I see it that is. You could imagine me standing on one asteroid throwing that cup at another, where it would break according to me. But to question causality’s temporal flow you would need to find the frame wherefrom the cup reassembles, and that frame doesn’t exist macroscopically. And neither do I expect it to exist anywhere we see an ‘arrow of time’, whatever 'temporal direction' you might interpret it to be pointing, well, except conceptually possibly :) So does this make ‘entropy’ a better description? In a way maybe? I’m not sure on that one. But the arrow, or entropy if you like, would still consist of a ‘flow’ to us, not events.

And what explain it are two things I think. That you have only one real ‘frame of reference’ to yourself, the same everywhere, with one arrow of time ticking unchangingly. And, that you are ‘unique’. It seems as if macroscopic object won’t entangle. You might also state it as ‘Emergences’ restricting entanglements macroscopically as our complexity grows.

Let’s finish with this.

“Berry is excited by what appears to be a deep connection between the problem of finding the energy levels of a quantum system that is classically chaotic and one of the biggest unsolved mysteries in mathematics : the Riemann hypothesis. This concerns the distribution of prime numbers. If you choose a number n and ask how many prime numbers there are less than n it turns out that the answer closely approximates the formula: n/log n. The formula is not exact, though : sometimes it is a little high and sometimes it is a little low. Riemann looked at these deviations and saw that they contained periodicities. Berry likens these to musical harmonies : "The question is what are the harmonies in the music of the primes? Amazingly, these harmonies or magic numbers behave exactly like the energy levels in quantum systems that classically would be chaotic."

Deep connection

This correspondence emerges from statistical correlations between the spacing of the Riemann numbers and the spacing of the energy levels. Berry and his collaborator Jon Keating used them to show how techniques in number theory can be applied to problems in quantum chaos and vice versa. In itself such a connection is very unusual. Although sometimes described as the queen of mathematics, number theory is often thought of as pretty useless , so this deep connection with physics is quite astonishing.

Berry is also convinced that there must be a particular chaotic system which when quantised would have energy levels that exactly duplicate the Riemann numbers. "Finding this system could be the discovery of the century," he says. " It would become a model system for describing chaotic systems in the same way that the simple harmonic oscillator is used as a model for all kinds of complicated oscillators. It could play a fundamental role in describing all kinds of chaos."

The search for this model system could become the Holy Grail of quantum chaos research. Until it is found, we cannot be sure of its properties, but Berry believes the system is likely to be rather simple, and expects it to lead to totally new physics. It is a tantalising thought. Out there is a physical structure waiting to be discovered. If we find it, the remarkable experiments that we have recently witnessed in this discipline would be crowned by an experimental apparatus that could do more than anything to unlock the secrets of quantum chaos.”
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 17/12/2010 22:53:49
So I got some sort of idea of what I mean, maybe. I'm going to use what I think i understand a little here. Won't say it's correct though, but it makes sense to me.

F=ma is what defines force, right?

And what it refers to is the concept of 'inertia', which is a objects tendency to stay in whatever motion, or position, it has unless acted upon by a change. And to me that finally will come down to the idea of 'energy expended'.

Momentum is a property we use a lot, but to me its primary use is for describing a photons 'force' of 'pushing'. When we talk about parallel light beams converging in deep space we are referring to the beams energy 'stressing space' and 'bending/twisting' it.

Relative mass and 'potential energy' seems to me equivalent descriptions of a similar phenomena, used when introducing the 'motion' of matter.

And, to me, light won't budge :)

As JP wrote.

"In SR, velocity alone determines time dilation.  Mass isn't useful in doing so.  Velocity is also determined by the ratio of energy to momentum, so you could determine time dilation if you know energy and momentum.  For photons velocity is always c and the energy-momentum ratio is always constant.  Of course, there is no mathematical theory for the point-of-view of photons, so no physical theory is going to answer the question of how they experience the universe.  happy

In GR, time dilation is also caused by curvature of space-time, so mass does get involved, but as I mentioned elsewhere it gets involved through the stress-energy tensor, so the fundamental quantities are still energy and momentum.  I don't know the details as well in GR, though."

==

Now I'm going to wave my magic wand and declare both 'relative mass' and 'potential energy' unnecessary. I don't think I need those concepts to see why 'energy' raises with 'motion'.

If you now imagine SpaceTime as consisting of a variety of different 'room time geometry's'. Each one belonging to, and unique for, the 'object', ah, projecting itself on SpaceTime, exchangeables to the concept of 'frames of references' if you like. Then when you accelerate your room time geometry by 'speeding up' relative some reference frame, like Earth, you will observe a Lorentz contraction in your frame of reference, aka your 'personal SpaceTime'.

That Lorentz contraction will 'shrink' your distances. If we now assume that you didn't pop out of normal SpaceTime into something 'else' the 'energy that space contained in form of vacuum fluctuations, foam, virtual photons, gluons and, whatever, still have to be there, but now possibly, from your 'frame of reference' as a compressed state. If you also want to count in the 'time dilation' that you will observe as a 'speeded up' universe, due to your acceleration, then that might be seen as equivalent to a 'blue shift' from your moving 'frame of reference', as I think of it. Still, both of those statements speak of the same, namely that the 'SpaceTime' you observe will, relative you, contain a 'higher energy density' due to 'motion'.

And that is your 'potential energy' as I naievly think of it :)

But it's not 'potential', it's real. And when two 'frames of reference meet in SpaceTime, like if colliding, the energy released will be a combination of both 'room time geometry's'. Stop looking at it as if there was whole 'SpaceTime' for this example. You need to use the 'mind-space' to see how I see it.

So I don't need to call it potential, because it's there at all times, and what creates different 'energies' observed is your 'room time geometry' contracting and blue-shifting, or the opposite, expanding and red-shifting relative your 'motion' and 'proper mass' aka 'matter'. And that means that we only have one description left to wonder over, lights momentum?

Both 'relative mass' ('momentum' for matter, as I think of it) and 'potential energy' is gone from my efforts to understand motion and 'Einsteins relativity'.

What I have left is a, ah, field maybe? But as I see it as something under Plank size, anyway impossible for us to measure, without extreme acceleration,I think of it as being 'somewhere outside our arrow of time'. But with acceleration it will become visible energy, 'emerging' as I call it, inside that I can observe in my moving 'frame of reference', which now also can be seen as a 'detector' due to its acceleration.

Unruh radiation comes from two effects. The first is that you accelerating will force some particles to chase you, some never catching up depending on acceleration. That will create a 'event horizon' in your 'room time geometry', meaning that the light you use, and all other particles carrying 'information' about your 'SpaceTime' now will become restricted and twisted to your accelerating velocity. The other is that, depending on acceleration, you will find the light blue-shifting gaining energy, together with all other 'energy quanta' you meet accelerating. A blue-shift means that the 'energy' you see coming 'at you' will be compressed in time and of a shorter frequency, 'spikier waves' so to speak.

"These two facts are combined into surprising relation of gravity (because accelerated frame of reference is equivalent to the presence of constant gravitational field!) and thermodynamics (see for example recent paper by Brustein and Hadad), that can be formulated as follows. The presence of apparent horizon means that there are regions of the global spacetime which will never be observer by us, so there should be a certain entropy. If we calculate the energy flux dE from the horizon, we find that

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nonequilibrium.net%2Flatexrender%2Fpictures%2F60fc479d2fa8ebcce4e498c64b7936b3.gif&hash=330a955956b5ca839a04fc9d235750ab)

i.e., the second law of thermodynamics that appears in a rather interesting context: we need a) a curved spacetime (or an accelerated observer) and b) quantum fields living in this curved spacetime."

And to that you can add the Rindler effect in where you will see a radiation bath. Read this and ponder. "The Unruh effect tells us that an accelerated observer will detect particles in the Minkowski vacuum state. An inertial observer, of course, would describe the same state as being completely empty; indeed, the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor would be (unreadable equation here, sorry).

But if there is no energy-momentum, how can the Rindler observers detect particles? This is a subtle issue, but by no means a contradiction. If the Rindler observer is to detect background particles, she must carry a detector - some sort of apparatus coupled to the particles being detected. But if a detector is being maintained at constant acceleration, energy is not conserved; we need to do work constantly on the detector to keep it accelerating.

From the point of view of the Minkowski observer, the Rindler detector emits as well as absorbs particles; once the coupling is introduced, the possibility of emission is unavoidable. When the detector registers a particle, the inertial observer would say that it had emitted a particle and felt a radiation-reaction force in response.

Ultimately, then, the energy needed to excite the Rindler detector does not come from the background energy-momentum tensor, but from the energy we put into the detector to keep it accelerating."

However one present it it will be a radiation existing only as a relation to your acceleration. And if I allow for 'something', reminding me of 'energy', to exist under our limits of observation but in a very real sense becoming part of your 'room time geometry' as radiation/energy then I also will expect that this 'energy' can 'do work'. If it now deliver more energy than the 'energy expended' by you as you measure, what will you call this surplus?

I know what I will call it :) an 'Emergence' created out of motion. there are more things to it too, but I need to sleep now, been awake all too long this time.. Hopefully I will remember it when I wake up.

But yeah, I like it :)
In a totally unscientific way I surely do.

Heh.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 18/12/2010 12:31:53
I wrote "If it now deliver more energy than the 'energy expended' by you as you measure, what will you call this surplus?" above didn't I :)

That's a preposterous statement if we are to believe the laws of conservation and transforming. As if that was right you would all of a sudden get more energy out of our universe than what you put into it. Think of it as a 'system' in where you watch the transformation of energy, then consider what will happen with it as you fill it with 'new energy' from outside the defined 'system'... And maybe I should have wrote the above as ...'As if that was right you would all of a sudden get more energy out of our universe than what you use creating the relation'.. Well, that depends on whose 'room time geometry' we are talking about maybe? I'm not sure on that one, you can have several 'explanations' there I guess.

One is that you never will be able to 'lift' more energy out of a 'room time geometry' than you expend, keeping in terms with how we think of 'SpaceTime' today.

But then we have 'Singularities'? Tell me, if they really are 'Singularities' what happened with their amount of 'energy', no longer a part of our SpaceTime? We can't count that energy as belonging to SpaceTime rigorously speaking, can we? Not if its gone into a different 'Space continuum' like a singularity is seen to be. And so we come into a position where we do have 'energy' disappearing from SpaceTime.

Then on the other hand we have Hawking radiation. That's about the normal pair production under which a particle is thought to be able to come into existence under certain circumstances, like under high 'energies'. And what would the 'room time geometry' be surrounding a black hole? If you look at it my way?

Yeah, extremely well filled with 'energy' wouldn't it? So we should have a lot of 'pair productions' around and at the event horizon of a black hole. Then we come to the statement that this pair production lifts 'information' from that black hole. Nope, not if we are thinking of a particle and its anti particle separating at that boundary (EV), The idea is that instead of taking out each other one particle, the anti one falls in to the Black hole. Well, inside it will take out a 'ordinary' particle as itself is a 'anti', or 'Emo' as some say :) and so diminish the 'states' possible inside that black hole. Whilst the particle left outside the Event horizon goes on, smiling and uncaring of its twins sudden disappearance, and so adding to the 'states' existing 'inside' our SpaceTime. Can you see the symmetry presented here, it's a nice one with one exception, 'Information'  :)

The idea is that we have an entanglement created by this 'pair production' where the death of our 'anti particle' will put its stamp on the other still existing particle 'informing' us. There is a lot of subtleties to that statement. First of all, if we shrink all states to 'information', then look at entanglements, creating new 'entanglements' trough splitting 'photons' in mirrors and prisms. Have we really created something? Not if you assume that it's all about 'information', then you have one 'dollar' of information. And just as you can split that 'dollar' into smaller denominations you can split 'information' into smaller denominations too. There is one dissimilarity to the concept though. The dollar when split contain no information of its 'brethren' whilst our 'photon' split (as we see it) in a very real sense always will be the 'whole dollar', no matter what we do to it. Accepting this you get another confirmation of what I'm trying to argue, distance doesn't exist.

There are more stuff I'm thinking and wondering about, but my fingers complain here :) We'll see where it will take me. But it's starting to make more sense to me now.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 18/12/2010 12:49:33
There is one simple way around this discussion though, accepting that 'times arrow' also is a 'illusion'. Then you can have the whole "SpaceTime' with singularities and all existing. And although we will, inside our arrow of time, find that SpaceTime unsymmetrical at times :) with all right too. It still will when looking at it from my 'mind-space' conceptually be a symmetric 'bubble' in equilibrium. but to get to that 'state' of existence there is some things we need to accept first. Distance is an illusion (Conceptually speaking now, remember that mind-space I 'constructed') And the 'times arrow' is also an 'illusion.

So, what would that concept do to our ideas of 'forces'?
==

In a way it all seems to come back to 'entropy' doesn't it? If 'entropy' is a definition of our 'times arrow' then it shouldn't be able to reverse should it? But the fact is that entropy can 'reverse' as well as it can keep 'islands' where the entropy won't act from 'usable' to 'unusable energy' in the same manner as outside those 'islands'. That one you better take on faith for a while as it will take me some time to proof the idea, but as far as I know this is true.

And if you use that definition I present for 'entropy' here, you can have more 'energy' lifted out of 'SpaceTime' than what you expend, 'locally' that is, and by 'locally I mean under one segment of 'time' as well as 'room' now, the 'bubble' won't mind that. Remember that entropy talks about 'transformations' from 'usable' energy into 'unusable'. It does not talk about annihilating the 'energy'. and looked at that way we come to a new, to me that is :), definition of what constitutes 'living'. 'Living' is only possible under this transformation, from usable energy into unusable energy.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 18/12/2010 13:25:20
And that's it, really :)

In my universe you might find it possible to get more energy out, locally, than what you would expect looking at a whole 'objectively existing SpaceTime'. But not when looking at the unique 'room time geometry' you created by 'matter' or motion/acceleration. And that I expect to be proven by experiments soon enough. But it may also be so that we have constants regulating it. In fact, there has to be constants regulating it as we otherwise would have had a chaotic universe making 'life' highly unpredictable. So I expect this to be possible only under highly localized circumstances and not as a 'general rule' of 'SpaceTime'.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 18/12/2010 14:06:44
So, have I changed my mind when it comes to entropy then? Before I said it was enclosed by our 'arrow of time' only able to exist inside it? I don't think I have, it's about conceptual space and your real 'room time geometry', they are complementary. In conceptual space (mind-space) entropy rule, but in our 'room time geometry' we will always have an unchanging arrow of time, as checked by comparing your heartbeats to your wristwatch for example, as well as finding that a 'meter' always will be a 'meter' as checked by your personal 'meter stick'. We need to 'split' those ideas to make the world make sense. Your 'mind-space' and your 'room time geometry'.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 18/12/2010 14:27:58
I'm looking for the proofs for my statements about 'Entropy'. Eric Verlinde is the one inspiring my comment about 'entropy's reversibility' but not about the 'islands' existing. Smolin finds Verlinde's ideas working for his 'loop quantum gravity' as you can check out here. We apply a recent argument of Verlinde to loop quantum gravity, to conclude that Newton's law of gravity emerges in an appropriate limit and setting. (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.3668v2)


=

Don't find the exact paper by him that I read, in where he states his idea about 'reversebility'  :( But what inspired Eric's ideas I understand to be 'entropy' as studied from the viewpoint of biology. Now you might to ask what that have to do with physics :) But, if you do you're lost in the clouds.. All things experimentally verifiable inside SpaceTime must become the results we build 'SpaceTime' on. You can if you like 'hypothesize only' but when doing so you need to remind yourself in what 'sphere of pure imagination' you exist as you do, or 'system' if you like.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 18/12/2010 14:45:30
So where do I differ?

Well, my 'SpaceTime' I expect to be one of 'relations'. Those relations 'together' are your 'discrete events'. If I apply my view on a particle I can present it like this. It have a 'confinement' defined by the 'forces' of its relations but when inside that confinement there will be 'nothing' to be found. What we call spin polarization, charge etc, is all relations coming to bear by the 'emergence' of that 'confinement' as decided by the 'game rules'. Our arrow of time is also a 'emergence' coming to bear as 'matter' 'space' and 'motion' emerges out of the transitions of those 'rules'. And that we talk about 'forces' is a direct effect from the 'arrow of time' creating the causality chains we take for given.

==

So, is 'forces' wrong?

No, they exist inside our 'arrow of time'.
And they are what made all other ideas come to bear too. I don't like to speak of them myself as I find them too 'jittery' having so many 'causes and effects', but that has to do with where I look at SpaceTime from too. In our real 'room time geometry' they can't readily be ignored, and they will decide what happens. But I still expect us to find 'systems' in where we can bypass them 'locally', although not at the energies (and sizes) normally 'lived in' by us. And that goes both ways, from BEC's to CERN.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 18/12/2010 15:53:05
So why do I use 'size' if I don't expect 'distance'?

That's a hard one, but it has a direct relation to how I look at 'distance'. As some sort of 'magnifying' relation. And that it can 'magnify' and 'shrink' we already have seen. To me it seems that 'size' is a description of 'room time geometries' and that it is inside those that we will find our 'distances'.

And I truly don't know what other definition I can use? There is mathematics describing the relations, but they don't convey the mystery of it. Maybe we will invent a new vocabulary to describe it that will make more sense to us, in the 'future'?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 18/12/2010 18:32:18
Here is Erik's paper On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton. (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785v1)

And here is his response to some, criticizing his approach.

"Entropic forces and the 2nd law of thermodynamics
15/01/10 02:21
Let me address some other confusions in the blog discussion. The fact that a force in entropic does not mean it should be irreversible. This is a complete misunderstanding of what it means to have an entropic force. This is why I added section 2 on the entropic force. For a polymer the force obeys Hooke's law, which is conservative. No doubt about that.

Just last week we had a seminar in Amsterdam on DNA. Precisely the situation described in section two was performed in lab experiments, using optical tweezers. The speaker, Gijs Wuite from the Free University in Amsterdam, showed movies of DNA being stretched and again released. These biophysicist know very well that these forces are purely entropic, and also reversible. The movies clearly showed reversibility, to a very high degree. In fact, I asked the speaker specifically about this, and he confirmed it. They test this in the lab, so it is an experimental fact that entropic forces can be conservative.

So please read section 2, study it and read it again, and think about it for a little longer. When the heat bath is infinite, the force is perfectly conservative. For the case of gravity the speed of light determines the size of the heat bath, since its energy content is given by E=Mc^2. So in the non relativistic limit the heat bath is infinite. Indeed, Newton's laws are perfectly conservative. When one includes relativistic effects, the heat bath is no longer infinite. Here one could expect some irreversibility. In fact, I suspect that the production of gravity waves is causing this. Indeed, a binary system will eventually coalesce. This is irreversible, indeed. This all fits very well. Extremely well, actually. Of course, when I first got these ideas, I worried about too much irreversiblity too. I knew about the polymer example, but had to study it again to convince myself that entropic forces can indeed be reversible.

Another useful point to know is that when a system is slightly out of equilibrium, it will indeed generate some entropy. But a theorem by Prigogine states that the dynamics of the system will adapt itself so that entropy production is minimized. Yes, really minimized. This may appear counterintuitive, but I like to look at it as that it seeks the path of least resistance. So this means that there will in general not be a lot of entropy generated. At least, the system will do whatever it can to minimize it.

By the way, it is true that the total energy of a system of two masses is given by the total mass. But if one then takes the entropy gradient to be proportional to the reduced mass, one again recovers the right force. I thought of putting that in the paper, but I think it is kind of trivial. This confusion was not to difficult to solve.

Another point that may not be appreciated is that the system is actually taken out of equilibrium. If everything would be in equilibrium, the universe would be a big black hole, or be described by pure de Sitter space. Only horizons, no visible matter. If a system is out of equilibrium, there is not a very precise definition of temperature. In fact, different parts of the system may have different temperatures. There is no problem also with neutron stars. In fact, physical neutron stars do not have exact zero temperature. But the temperature I use in the paper is one that is associated with the microscopic degrees of freedom, which because there is no equilibrium, is not necessarily equal to the macroscopic temperature.

In fact, the microscopic degrees of freedom on the holographic screens should not be seen as being associated with local degrees of freedom in actual space. They are very non local states. This is what holography tells us. In fact, they can also not be only related to the part of space contained in the screen, because this would mean we can count micro states independently for every part of space, and in this way we would violate the holographic principle. There is non locality in the microstates.

Another point: gravitons do not exist when gravity is emergent. Gravitons are like phonons. In fact, to make that analogy clear consider two pistons that close of a gas container at opposite ends. Not that the force on the pistons due to the pressure is also an example of an entropic force. We keep the pistons in place by an external force. When we gradually move one of the pistons inwards by increasing the force, the pressure will become larger. Therefore the other piston will also experience a larger force. We can also do this in an abrupt way. We then cause a sound wave to go from one piston to the other. The quantization of this sound wave leads to phonons. We know that phonons are quite useful concepts, which even themselves are often used to understand other emergent phenomena.

Similarly, gravitons can be useful, and in that sense exist as effective "quasi" particles. But they do not exist as fundamental particles."


Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 18/12/2010 18:50:11
And.

"
13/01/10 07:39
THE ESSENTIAL NEW POINTS OF THE PAPER

I have noticed another point of the paper  that is not appreciated in blog discussions.  For many years, there have been previous works in the literature that discuss the similarity between gravity and thermodynamics. In particular in Jacobson's work there is a clear statement that if one assumes the first law of thermodynamics, the holographic principle, and identifies the temperature with the Unruh temperature, that one can derive the Einstein equations. This is a remarkable result. Yet it is already 12 years old, and still up to this day, gravity is seen as a fundamental force. Clearly, we have to take these analogies seriously, but somehow no one does.

I studied the previous papers very well, and know about them for years. Many people have. We have seen a recent increase in papers following Jacobson, and extending his work to higher derivative gravity, and so. But from all of these papers, I did not pick up  the insights I presented in this paper. What was missing from those papers is the answer to questions like: why does gravity have anything to do with entropy? Why do particles follow geodesics? What has entropy to do with geometry?

The derivation of Jacobson does not take in to account the fact that the mass of an object and therefore its energy can change due to the displacement of  matter far away from it. There is  action at a distance hidden in gravity, even relativistically. The ADM and Komar definitions of mass make this non-local aspect of gravity very clear. This  non local aspect of gravity is precisely what the holographic principle is about.

Jacobson's argument is ultra local, and assumes the presence of stress energy crossing the horizon. But there is no statement about an entropic force that is influencing particles far away from the horizon.  My point of view is an attempt to take a much more global view, and map out the information over a bigger part of space, even though initially I can only do that for static space times.

The statement that gravity is an entropic force is more then just saying that "it has something to do with thermodynamics". It says that motion and  forces are the consequence of entropy differences.  My idea is that  in a theory in which space is emergent forces are  based on differences in the information content, and that very general  random microscopic processes cause inertia and motion. The starting point from which this all can be derived can be very, very general. In fact we don't need to know what the micro-scopic degrees of freedom really are. We only need a few basic properties.

 For me this was an "eye opener",  it made it from obscure to obvious. It is clear to me know that it has to be this way. There is no way to avoid it: if one does not keep track of the amount of information, one ignores the origin of motion and forces.  It clarifies why gravity has something to do with entropy. It has to, it can not do otherwise.

When I got the idea that gravity and inertia emerge in this way, which is close to half a year ago, I was really excited.  I  felt I had an insight that makes clear what gravity is. But I decided not to publish too quickly, also to allow time to make it more precise. But also to see if the idea that gravity is entropic would still appear to me as new as exciting as my first feeling about it. And it does. Now, almost half a year later, I still feel that way.

For instance, the similarity between the entropic force for a polymer and gravity is a real clue to something  important. The fact that it fits in well with an adapted version of the work of Jacobson gives additional support.  The derivation of  the Einstein equations  is not really knew, in my mind, since it technically is very similar to the previous works. And I agree that the other line of the paper that discusses inertia is  heuristic, and leaves some important gaps. But nevertheless  I decided to publish it anyway, because I think this approach to gravity is the right one, it is different, very different from everything that is done today.

Everyone who does not appreciate that this view is different from previous papers are missing an essential point. If space is emergent, a lot more has to be explained than just the Einstein equations. Geodesic motion, or if you wish, the laws of Newton have to be re-derived. They are not fundamental. This has not been discussed anywhere, not even noted that it is the case.

If the previous papers had made the emergence of gravity so clear, why are people still regarding string theory as the final theory of quantum gravity? Somehow, not everyone was convinced that these similarities mean something, or at least, people had no clear  idea of what they mean.

Some people may think that when we develop string theory further that eventually we will learn about this. I am not sure that string theory will necessarily take us in the right direction, if we keep regarding the definition in terms of closed strings as being microscopically defined, or may be equivalent to some other formulation. And not if we keep our eyes closed for emergent phenomena. Gravitons can not be fundamental particles in a theory of emergent space time and gravity.

So what is the role of string theory, if gravity is emergent? I discussed this at some level in the paper.  It should also be emergent, and it is nothing but a framework like quantum field theory. In fact, I think of string theory as the way to make QFT in to a UV complete but still effective framework. It is based on universality. Many microscopic systems can lead to the same string theory. The string theory landscape is just the space of all universality classes of this framework. I have more to say about it, but will keep that for a publication, or I will post that some other time.

Of course, I would have liked to make things even more clear or convincing.  In this paper, I use heuristic and you might say handwaving arguments. The issue of motion: why is the acceleration a that I introduced equal to the second time derivative of the position? If one assumes the equivalence principle, it is clear. Also coordinate invariance would be enough. But I do not have a very precise way of seeing how that emerges. How to go from just information  to a Lorentzian geometry in which general coordinate invariance is manifest. Some assumptions have to be made.

But again, this are questions that others have not been even started to think about.  These are questions that have not been even addressed by previous works. But they are essential. When one really understands this well, there should be no doubt that gravity is emergent and forces are driven by entropy.

This is the essential idea, which is really new and important, and which in my view  justifies this level of reasoning, certainly in a first paper. It is clear that  this is not the final paper on this subject. This is also my own view. I clearly did not answer all of the questions. In fact, my approach probably raises more questions than it answers.  But it should be obvious that these questions are important, very fundamental and their answers should lead us in a completely new direction. Our theories will have to based on new paradigms.

I find all this still very exciting and will continue to work in this direction.

And remember, quantum mechanics was also not developed in one paper. Do you think de Broglie knew exactly what he was talking about? Leaps based on intuition are sometimes necessary. They are an important part of progress in science, even if they do not immediately give complete finished theories of Nature."

Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 18/12/2010 18:51:16
And finally..

"    Logic of the paper

12/01/10 00:50

The paper is not technical, but some background is needed, more than just being able to read the text and the equations. The text explains the logic, but apparently some important points are misunderstood. Clearly, I should do a better job in making them more clear. But it is my impression that the misunderstanding is partly due to a lack of background or a difference in reference frame. Because the logic of the paper is being misrepresented in some reports, I add here some clarifications.

So here is an attempt to address some of the points that I think are not appreciated or generally understood.

The starting point is a microscopic theory that knows about time, energy and number of states. That is all, nothing more. This is sufficient to introduce thermodynamics. From the number of states one can construct a canonical partition function, and the 1st law of thermodynamics can be derived. No other input is needed, certainly not Newtonian mechanics. TIme translation symmetry gives by Noether's theorem a conserved quantity. This defines energy. Hence, the notion of energy is already there when there is just time, no space is needed.

Temperature is defined as the conjugate variable to energy. Geometrically it can be identified with the periodicity of euclidean time that is obtained after analytic continuation. Again there is nothing needed about space. Temperature exists if there is only time.


It is possible to introduce other macroscopic variables that are associated with a finite but still large subset of the microstates. Let us denote such a variable by x, at this point this is just some arbitrary choice. It can be any macroscopic variable that singles out a collection of the microscopic states. So specifying x in addition the to energy gives more detailed description of the microscopic states, but nothing more. So it is not even necessary to think about x as a space coordinate. Nevertheless one can define a number of microstates denoted by Omega(E,x) for given energy E and for a given value x for this macroscopic variable x.

Next one can introduce a formal variable called F and introduce in the partition function as the thermodynamical dual to x. Following just standard statistical physics (I avoid the word mechanics, since Newton's law is not necessary) one can obtain the 1st law of thermodynamics. dE=TdS -Fdx. This makes clear that F is a generalized "force", but it has nothing to do with Newton's law yet. It is defined in terms of entropy differences. The macroscopic force that is obtained in this way has no microscopic origin in terms of microscopic field. The force is entirely a consequence of the amount of configuration space and not mediated by anything. There is no space yet.

The meaning of the statement that space is emergent is that the space coordinates x can be viewed as examples of such macroscopic variables. They are not microscopically defined, but just introduced as a way of singling out part of the available micro states. It is my impression that not all readers have understood or appreciated this essential point. Hence, if the number of states depend on x there can be an entropic force, when there is a finite temperature. This is all, nothing more. Again, for this point I don't need to assume Newtonian mechanics. It does not exist yet in this framework.

The other central point paper is that if one chooses a macroscopic coordinate x that corresponds to a fixed position in a non-inertial frame, that Newton's law of inertia F=ma will be the consequence of such an entropic force. It has to be. There is no other way it can arise, simply because x is not a microscopic variable. It is obvious. Nevertheless, it is a fundamental new insight that has not been noted before. This is not an empty or circular statement. It says something about the way that the function Omega(E,x) should behave as a function of x. All this can be derived and defined without the input of Newtonian mechanics.

The other formulas presented in the paper are just there to illustrate that indeed it is possible to get gravity from this kind of reasoning, and that it is consistent with the ideas of holography. But the main point concerns the law of inertia. The derivation of the Einstein equations (and of Newton's law in the earlier sections) follows very similar reasonings that exist in the literature, in particular Jacobson's. The connection with entropy and thermodynamics is made also there. But in those previous works it is not clear WHY gravity has anything to do with entropy. No explanation for this apparent connection between gravity and entropy has been given anywhere in the literature. I mean not the precise details, even the reason why there should be such a connection in the first place was not understood.

My paper is the first that gives a reason why. Inertia, and hence motion, is due to an entropic force when space is emergent. This is new, and the essential point. This means one HAS TO keep track of the amount of information. Differences in this amount of information is precisely what makes one frame an inertial frame, and another a non-inertial frame. Information causes motion.
This can be derived without assuming Newtonian mechanics.

So the logic of the part of the paper dealing with inertia is:

microscopic theory without space or laws of newton-> thermodynamics -> entropic force -> inertia.

The part that deals with gravity assumes holography as additional input. But this is just like what has been done before. It is also not the main point of the paper. Gravity in a way does not exist in Einstein's theory either. But one would like to recover the gravity equations. The logic here is

thermodynamics + holographic principle -> gravity.

The obvious question is: where does the holographic principle come from? Of course, it was extracted from the physics of black holes. But the holographic principle can be formulated without reference to black holes or gravity. Hence, it can be taken as a starting point, from which one then subsequently derive gravity. Again, this part is in essence not new. Jacobson followed exaclty the same logic.

This way of turning the logic of an existing argument around is done more often in physics, and it is known to lead to much more clear formulations of a theory. One example that comes to mind is the way that Dirac used the result of Heisenberg that p and q do not commute, which was obtained in some roundabout way, and made it in to the starting point for quantum mechanics. This is how it is being taught today. Another is how Einstein changed the logic used by Lorentz and used the constancy of light as a postulate. Lorentz tried to explain why it was constant by using concepts like Lorentz contraction. In fact, Lorentz theory and Einsteins are equivalent. The only difference is in the chosen starting point. The reason we give credit to Einstein is because everything follows in a much more simple fashion from his postulated starting point.

In my paper I claim that gravity follows in a very simply fashion from holography, but that the direction the other way is much more complicated. One has to be able to switch one's perspective, and then the logic becomes more clear. So don't use your usual reference frame with Newtonian mechanics in the back of your mind, but let it go first.

Anyhow, I hope this clarifies some points, and removes some of the misunderstandings ."




Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 18/12/2010 19:18:28
Reading him I find that he seems to have the same idea :) Well, I think at least it's similar? And no, I did write about him when the paper came out, but then other things came inbetween and I sort of forgot it. But I'm pleased to see that we agree, I think? :) Maybe not agree then, but we have the same sort of idea of a universe coming out of 'relations'. I still don't know just how the 'holographic universe' is thought to come to be, but the same can be said about my simplified 'relational universe' I guess.

But I'm sure i will learn more as I read about people and their ideas, physics must be the best game, ever :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 18/12/2010 22:23:13
So under what circumstances can we expect a room time geometry to be able to behave like this? Shrinking and expanding? Does it state something about the 'information amount' available. I imagined the 'states' of SpaceTime getting compressed when you accelerated. But can you see it other ways too? Yes I think you can, you can also think of it as that 'screen' hanging in front of us all. You know, the one with the movie featuring you and 'SpaceTime. That screen contains all information reaching you, and it is called the Bekenstein bound. If we look at it from the 'screen', I don't know if I can assume a 'compressed state' of energy relative you when you're accelerating?

It depends, let us put it this way, will I, if accelerating, get more or less information?

"Bekenstein has long argued that the bound should not apply to such wavepacket states (which will eventually spread out in space), but only to `complete systems' which are truly connected to a finite region and that one should include contributions from the energy of any `walls' used to hold the system together.

It is here that some cleverness is needed to make this statement precise since in flat spacetime, even if walls are introduced, the full system (including the walls) will necessarily possess an overall center of mass degree of freedom which will be unconfined and will eventually spread out across all of space."

What does that mean? What is a 'complete system' and what do he mean by 'finite region'? Does he mean that this bound only will work when you twist the 'room time geometry' by expending energy. No that can't be right can it? a black hole will 'twist' the 'room time geometry' too won't it? But it does so from its proper mass, not from expending energy? Is a black hole a 'complete system in a finite region'?
==

In a way it is, one of the few I guess that actually can be defined that way?
But an acceleration then? Is that too a 'complete system in a finite region'?

Depends on how you interpret the 'information' reaching you I think?
Does it contain the same amount you started with, being 'still' relative Earth, or not?

Read this Information in the Holographic Universe by Jacob D. Bekenstein. 2003 (http://community.livejournal.com/ref_sciam/1190.html) I need to learn more about this one. And so, I guess, do you :)

While your at it, take a look at this one too Note on bound states and the Bekenstein bound (http://iopscience.iop.org/1126-6708/2004/08/033/pdf/1126-6708_2004_08_033.pdf)

And this one perhaps?
Presenting Bekenstein-Hawking entropy (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking_entropy)
===

(Tippler goes slightly, ah, wild(?) discussing it. Well, from where I stand :)
From 2100 to the End of Time. (http://129.81.170.14/~tipler/wired.html)
But he's interesting, I liked his idea of AI:s although, I don't share his beliefs)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 18/12/2010 23:18:36
One guy that seems interesting here is Gerard ′t Hooft at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Utrecht. I especially like when he write

"  The Hierarchy Problem.

Now  − December 2010 − I can report further progress. To improve our theoretical description of matter going in and out of a black hole, we need a description that works both for observers inside (or near) a black hole, as for observers far away. This is the complementarity principle. It is more important than the holographic principle, even if that is also often ascribed to me. To make complementarity work, I now propose a relativity of scale. In itself, this idea has been proposed many times earlier, but I am giving it a special twist. Local scale invariance is expressed in a field called the dilaton field. What is needed is that the dilaton must be treated as an independent dynamical scalar field. In conventional treatments of gravity the interactions are singular when this field tends to zero. This, I claim, should not be.

The nice thing about this observation is that it generates a new constraint on the way particles may interact: all interaction strengths, all masses and even the cosmological constant are now completely determined by algebraic relations, while they used to be freely adjustable quantities. An important problem can now be addressed: the hierarchy problem, which is the question why particle masses are 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck mass, and the cosmological constant even more than 120 orders of magnitude. Could my theory explain this? I have been studying some intriguing ideas. Could the coefficients that relate to the cosmological constant and the mass terms be due to instantons? They are known for generating exponentially suppressed amplitudes.

My present theory allows me to investigate such approaches, but as yet without success. At this moment, only one firm prediction stands out: constants of nature are truly constant. Attempts to observe space and/or time dependence will yield negative results.

Because of this prediction I strongly support experimental searches for space-time dependence of natural constants, in particular the searches using the "frequency comb" for high precision comparisons between different spectral frequencies in atoms and molecules." From Here. (http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/)

Ahh, those constants :) I couldn't agree more to that suggestion. They are weird, but here, if we only find out how to see them.
===

Now, he seems to be arguing against an 'emergent SpaceTime'.

Due to quantum effects, a black hole emits particles of all sorts. Thus, if left entirely by itself, a black hole gradually looses mass, eventually ending its life with a gigantic explosion. This is the Hawking effect. For an intuitive understanding of our world, the Hawking effect seems to be quite welcome. It appears to imply that black holes are just like ordinary forms of matter: they absorb and emit things, they have a finite temperature, and they have a finite lifetime.

One would have to admit that there are still important aspects of their internal dynamics that are not yet quite understood, but this could perhaps be considered to be of later concern. Important conclusions could already be drawn: the Hawking effect implies that black holes come in a denumerable set of distinct quantum states. This also adds to a useful and attractive picture of what the dynamical properties of space, time and matter may be like at the Planck scale: black holes seem to be a natural extension of the spectrum of elementary physical objects, which starts from photons, neutrinos, electrons and all other elementary particles. In such a picture, however, what happens to the horizon and the space-time singularities?

An answer sometimes suggested by string theorists, as well as others, is that all of space-time is just “emergent” the theory should first be formulated without space-time altogether. Or, perhaps, time alone is an emergent concept. It was argued that, at least, locality would have to be abandoned. In this paper, however, we dismiss all such options. In particular, we insist that any satisfactory theory should have built in a strong form of causality, as well as locality, in order to explain why cause precedes effect, and why events separated at some distance from one another appear to evolve independently. For this, space-time appears to be indispensable. Something has to give, and in this paper we claim to have found a good candidate for that: the definition of scales in space-time....

We suspect that, eventually, scales enter into our world in the following way. Information is now strictly limited to move along the light cones, since only light like geodesics are well-defined, not the time like or space like ones. It is generally believed that the amount of information moving around in Nature is limited to exactly one bit in each surface element of size 4 ln 2 Planck lengths squared. Turning this observation around, one might assume that, whatever the equations are, they define information to flow around. The density of this information flow may well define the Planck length locally, and with that all scales in Nature. Obviously, this leaves us with the problem of defining what exactly information is, and how it links with the equations of motion. The notion of information might not be observer-independent, as the scale factor ω isn’t. Quantum mechanics will probably require that all these bits of information form distinct elements of a basis for Hilbert space." From Quantum gravity without space-time singularities or horizons. (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.3426v1)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 00:41:10
I especially like the way he discuss the question of what a Planck length should be seen as in a accelerated 'room time geometry' at least that is how I read it? "The density of this information flow may well define the Planck length locally, and with that all scales in Nature." Can we use that one? I wondered about that one too when I started to wonder about 'distance'. My conclusion was that it would be 'the same'. That is, just as your 'time' and 'meter stick' locally will be the same for you in whatever frame you exist so will that Plank length be. But when it comes to the 'information received'?

Would that informations Plank length necessarily be yours too?

In my 'contracted universe' I don't think it would. But this introduces a new problem. Suddenly we need two definitions, the one for your 'room time geometry' that always stays the same locally, and then one for the 'information' received?

That we know it to be so we already have defined, you will measure a meter by your meter stick, you will measure the same heartbeats by your wristwatch. But you will also measure a 'contraction' of SpaceTime, and if you like, a speeded up universe, aka a 'time dilation'.

So how do one put that together?
==

Maybe that idea of a 'screen' can help us with that one?

Another thing, talking about 'equivalences'. If you look at it you can see a clear equivalence in the way you observe a time dilation to what the 'earthly observer' will. From your 'frame' the universe 'speeds up'. From his 'frame' you have slowed down.

But when it comes to 'distance'? From your 'frame' distance shrinks. But from his frame distance is unchanging. That's not the same, is it? It's like there is something missing here, what?

What one can argue against that interpretation is that a 'time dilation' only will be 'noticed' if you return to your 'original frame of reference' and that nowhere whilst you 'travel' will you, or your earthly observer, notice a 'time dilation'.

So okay, let's turn it around. Is there anywhere you notice a change? For the earthly observer the answer is 'no' but for you traveling it will be 'yes', on both counts.

And if we accept that for you both effects exist, although not for the earthly observer, that will age so much more than you, then what did you do?

The only thing I can see is that you expended a lot of energy, transforming it into motion.
So expending energy will create a time dilation? and a Lorentz contraction too?

But where? Not in your own frame, wait, the time dilation is still real for you as you reach the star faster than you should, isn't it? Nope, that was the length contraction..

So we're left with the length contraction.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 01:39:35
You know, I think I'm wrong seeing it as only a 'contraction'. I should in reality see it as a shrunk 'room time geometry'. And saying that muons only notice a length contraction isn't true. That example is all wrong, the muon will notice a new 'room time geometry' looking out the 'window'. To her both length and time have changed for the objects she study, their movements will be faster as well as the 'distance' closer.

But her own time and length will be the same. And that is what phreaks me out somewhat. As it states that its not her, its the universe changing. And that is not possible if we look at it from a 'energy expended' perspective. The universe is 'massive', and so big. To expect to be able to change the universes 'room time geometry' just by expending a finite amount of energy is not reasonable, the equivalence is slanted.

So where do I go wrong?
=

It has to be 'energy expended', but does it have to be motion?

Can I introduce a new 'room time geometry' just by expending a lot of energy in a unmoving coordinate system? If we assume that there is a equivalence between 'proper mass' and energy we can use 'matter' as a proof of that concept. But it is a slanted one too as they are not the exact same, very near but as I understands it, not the exact same.

But maybe the 'difference' is in the condensed state matter is found to be, matters 'density' so to speak? I think I can accept that one.
==

So I will simplify, with the risk of becoming too simplistic here. :)

'Expending energy' will change a 'room time geometry'. And seen as 'entropy' what do I do when expending energy? I speed it up, don't I? But in my own frame of reference then? Seen from Earths frame I must have 'slowed down' my entropy? And in my own 'frame' my entropy is unchanged whilst the universes 'usable energy' is burning up.








Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 02:30:06
The only way I can make this work is by assuming that neither time, nor distance, nor entropy exist as 'objective values'. And that what I 'change' expending energy is 'information'. But that makes no sense :) or at least, very little sense.

What it does is to create a universe of information in where I am its center, depending on my expending of energy that information will change. And it also states that the beliefs I have, of what my 'outside observations' consists of, have very little to do with what happens.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 02:51:01
Let's look at it from another perspective. When I accelerate I will see a blue-shift, Unruh energy and Rindler observers notwithstanding. So, assuming that I see the whole of the universe visible in my direction. How much energy will that make? It will be usable energy from my frame of reference too, I can collect it with ah, tinfoil :) and use it to heat my food. Will that energy be more than what I expend accelerating? It seems to me that it should, but I'm not sure. It have to do with how much my 'event horizon' will shrink and with it the amount of 'energy quanta' I will receive.

Okay, assume that I travel toward a really big and hot sun, with me very near light speed. I will travel such that the sun for me is placed at the center of my viewing field, relativistic effects notwithstanding. Will that make a difference for the amount of 'information' I receive?

What I'm asking here, is 'energy' and 'information' the same?
Either they are and then it will have a difference, more information the more sun :)
Or energy have nothing to do with the idea of 'information'
==

What I did before was reasoning me forward to a concept in where I defined 'energy' as what made the 'room time geometry' change, not the 'motion' per se. And the reason I say motion instead of only acceleration here is that I expect a changed 'room time geometry' to stay, even after you stopped your acceleration.

But thinking of it I can't be right there, about energy changing my room time geometry I mean. Not if uniform motion will keep the 'room time geometry' unchanged, as that one you can 'stretch out' as far as you like 'time-wise, without expending any more energy. And that idea I'm very sure of. It must, or your 'SpaceTime' will be a magic rubber band, where you sprooing back into a universal, having one same 'frame of reference' with all uniformly moving objects, their velocities relative each other non-withstanding. And that makes no sense, what so ever, as that will introduce a non-relativistic 'objective' frame of reference for all uniform motion.

But I will consider it, soon :)

So energy can't be the thing changing a 'room time geometry', at least not as I put it here.
==

But is it information then?

Well, that depends on how you look at it coming at you. One way of looking at it is as 'light quanta'. Then it can only have one 'energy' per 'unit'. and what you call more energy will from that perspective just be more 'light quanta' hitting you in the same period of time. Forget everything about waves and frequency's for this one please :)
==

So yes, from this perspective that sun makes no difference for the amount of 'information' presented. If we look at it as 'still frames' one at a time, it will only mean that they come at you at a shorter 'time interval'.
=

That means that we have a contender for 'information', the energy quanta.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 04:18:05
Okay, let us consider the universe in where only acceleration present you with a time dilation, as well as a Lorenz contraction.

So I let you speed away at .999999999999 of light speed under one week. then coast one year, then decelerate one week and come home. You get a time dilation of 100, as a arbitrary unit.

Then you do the same but this time you coast ten years, and 'travel' so much further before coming back. Now that should also give the same number of time-dilation, shouldn't it? A 100.

And it also present you with the possibility of you accelerating one second, very hard, to watch our universe die, or a year if you like, or a million..

Then again, how about the time dilation measured by our GPS-systems? Are they constantly correcting in their 'uniform motions' or do they just do it one time?

It do make sense to me, in a very weird way, but I have a lot of problems with it still. It makes momentum and relative mass totally unable to have any time dilating effect for example, if you assume that to exist when 'coasting' too that is. But that's quite okay to me :)

What's not as okay is the idea it presents of all uniformly moving objects as 'equivalent' no matter their velocities. I've assumed the equivalence before but in a black box scenario, the same type of scenario you make when imagining a uniform acceleration at one Gravity being equivalent to standing on Earth.

But where the later needs the black box for it, and also will introduce one he* of a time dilation after just a year, the former suddenly becomes a general statement saying that different uniform motions won't contract your 'distance' and give a 'time dilation', but proper mass will?

Also it must mean that there can't be any length contraction observed for our muon 'free falling' following a geodesic towards Earth.

Or that I'm wrong in assuming that following a geodesic, free-fall, having no weight (if you tried to put a scale under your feet in that 'free fall' it wouldn't register you, so to speak:) towards Earth is the same as following any other geodesic?

But if it so, then I need someone to tell me where the difference lies?
That is, how to measure it?

But it has to be right, as the time dilation I would expect, falling into a Black Hole, from an outside observer, will be greater than if I was falling towards the Earth. Or proper mass doesn't create a time dilation..

And that one we know it does.

So, free falling towards Earth, and free falling in outer space isn't the same, even though I won't, as far as I can see, be able to differ between them, Coriolis force (& frame dragging) excepted?

And the equivalence is absolute for all uniform motion, except when near a 'proper mass' like a planet that is. Meaning that we have one truly 'objective' equivalence in 'SpaceTime'.

So why would acceleration only be able to do this?

Sh* :)
==

And it states that following a geodesic won't be a general equivalence to following another geodesic, suddenly changing a uniform motion, as measured by you in your black box falling towards a non rotating proper mass (planet). The geodesic I follow towards the planet then need to 'communicate' that fact to the object falling as there will be a Lorentz contraction as well as time dilation.

And that smells like a proof for the concept of something like Higgs particles needed to me, or possibly gravitons?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 04:39:32
So the game rules change here, we have a universe where all uniform motions, except when ending in a object of proper mass, will be the same from the perspective of time dilation and Lorentz contraction. That should mean that all statements of two spaceships passing each other observing a 'time dilation & Lorentz contraction' is bogus if you don't explicitly state at least one of them as accelerating, shouldn't it?

Wonder how many that thought about that :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 04:50:18
And it split 'motion' into two parts. Where only acceleration is the one redefining SpaceTime, uniform motion not having any effect. And also splitting following a geodesic into two parts, either ending in a planet where it will introduce a time dilation and Lorentz contraction, or in deep space where it will be 'universally & magically' the same as all other 'uniform velocities', not introducing time dilation and Lorentz contraction.

Anyone more than me that gets a headache here?

Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 04:57:58
So what the he* makes it possible. The energy expended? Well, that was the one I really liked and now when uniform motion doesn't matter? Except when matter, ahem :) we're back in play, ain't we.

Yep eeeneeergy.
==

There is one weird effect of it though, validating an idea I've had. For a long time I've assumed a photons 'timelessness' to be related to its 'masslessness'. I've seen other state that it have to do with its speed, don't think so friend:)

Masslessness rule :)

Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 05:17:51
So let us consider a free fall towards a planet. Before I said I could accept the equivalence between matter and 'energy', calling a planet condensed 'energy'. Could I use that for redefining why the in-falling object will observe a time dilation and Lorentz contraction?

After all, think of it. The free falling object does not expend any energy, does it? But it's trucking along towards a object 'filled to the brim' with, ahem, frozen energy :) As that is what it is if we compare it to the state it was in, at the Big Bang. Our whole universe have to be in a 'frozen state' comparatively to that.
===

And inertia?

In a 'frozen universe', what could inertia be?
That remarkable 'resistance' to change?

And gravity?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 06:19:05
Just a footnote:
 
I'm still not sure that uniform motion plays no part for time dilation and Lorentz contraction. But for the sake of arguing (as well as I can't see how to refute my own logic, dam*:) I will argue like I'm convinced, unless someone present definite proof of the opposite?

If you have and can resurrect my former belief I'm interested, not that it won't work this way too, but it becomes a universe in where 'motion' suddenly have a 'duality' and .. ?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 07:28:39
Nope, I'll have to refute that one. It can't be right.

But when it comes to the muon free falling it is right that he will have a changed 'room time geometry' aka an equivalence to acceleration. and that screws up my beautiful geodesics, again :)

Let's see.

How to prove that uniform motion will have a time dilation :)

The first evidence is the evident absurdity the other idea introduces, especially if you think that the room time geometry will change in a acceleration.

The other is how to think about it. We have two theories of relativity, one called special relativity (SR) the other called general relativity (GR).

SR treats inertial frames (constant velocity without forces)
GR treats acceleration and gravity.

==

How do we know who introduced a change?
Think of it as a coordinate space.

You have A and B placed in different locations. If you are C you can see who moves first relative you. But when it comes to A and B then? That's where the acceleration comes in, to create a change you will need a acceleration, and the one introducing it ('A') will feel it as his inertia gets disturbed.

That's the simple one and falls under GR
 
=

But in a coordinate space where both are moving uniformly relative each other then?

There you will find it harder. First of all you can't really say who is moving relative one. It's a relative question who is moving relative who in this case. You can as easily define yourself as unmoving as the one you meet, or split the velocity into two or any mix inbetween, as I understands it. And this one falls under SR.

So how do we know that clocks slow down here too?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 07:59:52
Think of two mirrors at rest relative yourself, then let a light-corn bounce between them. As it does you will find the path that light-corn to take being a straight path, back and forth.

Now let the mirrors move, it won't matter when you look at them, under the acceleration or after it. From your point of view the light-corn suddenly will move slower, due to you finding it having a longer path between the mirrors, as they constantly moves away from you. Also you will find the path to move in a diagonal as it 'tags' after the mirrors in a zigzag motion, relative you, being still.
==

You being still falls under SR but the mirror when accelerating falls under GR,and so as a 'system' you both belong to GR there. After the acceleration when it just 'coasts' you will both belong to SR.
==

But thinking of it, can you under any of those circumstances find a moment when that light-corn didn't move in zigzag, having a longer path to traverse between the mirrors?
==

Now imagine that you would move with those mirrors, being at a constant rest with them.
First of all, when will you be able to prove that you are moving?

The acceleration right?

How do you think that light-corn will behave then?
Will it zigzag according to you being at rest with the mirrors :)

Contrast that to when you've stopped accelerating, uniformly moving.
Will the light-corn zigzag?

Do you think there is a difference between the acceleration and later uniform motion?
==

For the last one, imagine each one of the above. The only difference being that you both are inside a very large box. It's really, really black in there as the engineers forgot all about the windows. So, in which scenario will you be able to say that you are 'moving'?
==

When you've done those, you will know what I think I know :)
And you're right, the mirrors becomes the light clock.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 08:32:07
Hey, doesn't that destroy the equivalence I was talking about before between all 'uniformly moving' frames of reference? Nope, not when you do it in a black box scenario. And if we apply that on our muon free falling the geodesic he follows will be the same as if in deep space, as long as we ignore 'twisting' like the Coriolis force and 'frame dragging'.

So I change my mind, again :)

But doesn't the muon create a twisted 'room geometry' by himself then?
Yes, but if you exchange him for you, being inside a black box, free falling. How can you tell your possible 'speed'?

You can't.

How can you tell you're falling towards Earth?
No use trying that scale, it won't work.

Ignoring Coriolis force (and other frame dragging)
You can't.
==

Now imagine two sets of mirrors A and B passing each other in space, coasting or not.
How will their 'light-corns' tick? (Imagine yourself to be A first and look at B, then change)

And that's why it's nice with fixed stars, so far away that they 'never moves' relative Earth.
Helps you know when you're moving :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 10:58:21
So what did you see when jumping between those 'light clocks'. and was it real? I consider it 'real' but there are different interpretations to that. If we take the last example we can start with saying that we are on A and then meet B. Well knowing that A have a velocity relative an inertial frame like Earth I can then look at B:s light clock and divide part of that 'ticking' to get what will be his 'correct' velocity, relative Earth :) Earth as that is from where I got my initial idea of what for me is considered my 'rest frame'. So in a way i can just let the ticking be what it is and so get any velocity I like it seems, between null and the maximum speed his clock can describe. It all falls back to that there is no ''exact time device' in the universe. But how the he* will I know if I've reached my correct near light-speed then, if I can change my velocity just by changing reference frame?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 11:01:44
If we had an aether we would have had a tarmac for our wheels to count their speed. but we have no such 'tarmac'. But we do have relativistic effects. And those are SpaceTimes answer to you speed/velocity, and only yours.
==

But to get back to the ordinary light clock. Yes, the ticking you see is 'real' but relative. Relative Earth, or Alpha Centauri or ... It is the 'right time' you see, you just don't know for whom, or if it needs to be 'split'. A weird subject indeed.
==

But if you think of it in form of your own unique 'room time geometry' it becomes easier to handle. You just need to remember that with acceleration and velocity that room will shrink, and so create your 'time dilation' and 'Lorentz contraction'. Then you can use relativistic effects to define your speed, if you don't have a defined 'rest frame'. It all builds on you knowing what to expect in form of hard radiation and 'Space Wrapping', aka the 'screen' you will meet at 'relativistic velocity' of course. But, it opens for surprising interpretations when it comes to what a uniform motion should be seen as, at least it does for me :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 12:04:25
It's been my impression that most mathematicians and physicists don't really want to discuss what those dilations and contractions 'is'. but a easy argument is to use 'room time geometry', and then say that in traveling near light speed the pilot will observe his SpaceTime contracted, as well as 'warped'. If we then assume that his meter stick still measures a meter for him and his heart beats the same according to his wristwatch. Then what is this contraction. Not real? Go tell him :)

I don't see how one can get past that fact. That this only comes to bear at very high velocities is no hindrance to the concept existing. And if it exist 'for real' then we have a very weird SpaceTime'
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 12:29:14
You might have noticed that I didn't use 'inertial rest frame' for Earth. that's because its a matter of interpretation with three :) answers

1.No. Earth rotates and have 'fictitious forces' like the Coriolis force.

2. Yes. In a Newtonian sense Earth is a 'inertial frame' in which Newton's laws of motion and the idea of inertia holds, having a constant velocity.

3.Yes. "Earth rotates around its axis as also revolves around the sun. In both these motion. Centripetal acceleration is present. Therefore, strictly speaking earth or any frame of reference fixed on earth cannot be taken as an inertial fame. However, as we are dealing with speeds  » x 108 ms-1 (speed of light) and speed of earth is only about 3 x 104  m/s, therefore when small time intervals are involved effect of rotation and revolution of earth can be ignored. Furthermore, this speed of earth can be assumed to be constant. Hence earth or any other frame of reference set up on earth can be taken as an approximately inertial fame of reference."

And that last one I think most people use today, At least I do it :).

Einstein's famous though experiment about the elevator builds on treating Earth as a inertial frame of reference. Without that concept the general relativity's 'principle of equivalence' wouldn't exist. It states that a gravitational field at a uniform velocity is indistinguishable from a uniform acceleration in the opposite direction. And when we discussed the twin experiment there comes a 'time' when the traveling twin turns around to go back.

At that point it is as correct to see the Earthly twin as being the one falling down a gravity well with the 'traveling twin' being at rest and where the Earth twin 'age difference' being the result of 'turn-around acceleration'. That one is quite weird to me I must admit, and I'm not sure I really see how they think there? But I believe it to build on Einsteins idea that you could treat an 'accelerating reference frame' as it would 'create' a pseudo-force opposing the true acceleration of the reference frame? Or maybe not, it depends on where they expect it to happen? It's another weird one :) One could understand it as a centripetal force accelerating the rocket, maybe? But then it seems to me that this acceleration would have to be quite strong to produce such an effect? Heh.

Does that one even make sense :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 19/12/2010 13:48:05
Ah :) Now it make sense, the only thing being that it haven't anything to do with the 'turn around' in itself..

"
The simplest way, if the duration of the acceleration is small, is to just divide the distance (according to each twin) by the relative velocity. Then double the results to get the answer for a two way trip.

For example, if a ship travels to a star 10 light yrs away from earth at 0.8c, the elapsed time on earth will be 10ly/0.8c= 12.5 yrs. And the elapsed time on the ship will be 6ly/0.8c= 7.5 yrs (the distance is 6 ly in the ship's frame due to length contraction).

So the difference in elapsed time (between earth departure and star arrival) between the twins for a one way trip is 5 yrs. For a two way trip, it's 10 yrs.

The asymmetry in this "resolution" is the simple fact that the distance between the earth and the turnaround point is defined in earth's frame (un-contracted) and contracted in the ship's (inertial) frame. The distance "expands" back from 6 ly to 10 ly in the ship's accelerated frame during the deceleration."

It's about having the turnaround defined from different frames. Kind of weird but I presume they have a reason? I like my 'room time geometries' better. Why mix it?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 15:55:18
Now let us take a look at that light-corn again. As far as I understand this idea is the perfectly true one, but it's also remarkably weird. It catches the idea of 'frames of reference' perfectly, but if you think of it also says that there are no 'events' to it.

That it (time dilation and Lorenz contraction) grows with speed or velocity doesn't prove that it won't exist at lover speeds and velocities. And that we don't recognize it on Earth doesn't tell us a thing about if it's there or not. As all other proofs I can easily tell you that the reason why we don't perceive it at 'human standards' or biological is just the same reason why we 'work' and can 'communicate' in the linear human/biological way we do.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 16:34:55
So, how about it?
Do we live in a 'frozen' 'SpaceTime'? And if we do, what have that to do with 'frames of reference'? It's just a way of looking at it but you could imagine a plasma and ask yourself how many 'frames of reference' there would be in one homogenized plasma. If we assume that it from an outside observer would have a very slow 'time frame'. What would it look like from the 'inside' from its own 'frame of reference' aka room time geometry.

Imagine a 'plasma', and that you're piloting it. Imagine it extremely hot and energetic, then, would you agree to this being the same as it having reached a 'relativistic speed' near what motion would take you being near light speed in a vacuum?

It actually doesn't have to 'move' relative 'something else' for reaching this state. Heat is 'energy', and expending 'energy' can be seen as both a 'Lorentz contraction' and a 'time dilation', but you could also assume that it was a very weird type of 'confined plasma' with all its processes directed in one direction, creating a 'thrust' inside our 'SpaceTime' to see my meaning. It's not needed but it's a 'equivalence' sort of. Because I'm coming to a slightly different question soon.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 16:38:34
If that plasma created this time dilation and Lorentz contraction that I expect it able too, what would you see as its pilot? Would you see a 'Lorentz contraction'. If you think you would, is there a state where this plasma, or whatever you would like to call it. Is there a 'place' when it would become what we call a 'point particle'?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 16:46:51
Remember how I discussed the 'energy' and Black holes? I said

"Or that I'm wrong in assuming that following a geodesic, free-fall, having no weight (if you tried to put a scale under your feet in that 'free fall' it wouldn't register you, so to speak:) towards Earth is the same as following any other geodesic?

But if it so, then I need someone to tell me where the difference lies?
That is, how to measure it?

But it has to be right, as the time dilation I would expect, falling into a Black Hole, from an outside observer, will be greater than if I was falling towards the Earth. Or proper mass doesn't create a time dilation..

And that one we know it does."

So, what was wrong with this assumption?

As I see it it was me forgetting my own idea of 'room time geometries'. There are two things twisting a 'room time geometry', proper mass and expending energy. Motion is a function of expending energy but a planet isn't 'expending' anything. But both ideas will twist your 'reality'.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 17:01:53
So energy can contract a distance as seen from the inside of it?
Maybe, we wouldn't notice it (outside of it) if so, would we?

But if it was right there should be a time dilation to it, as measured from our 'frame of reference', shouldn't it? so maybe not? But I will continue assume that I'm right for a while :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 17:10:08
There was actually quite another question that this was leading too, but believe me or not, I've forgotten it :) but we can look at another one that also will work. If we assume a 'time dilation' to energetic processes, no matter if they are 'moving' in a vector or not, why don't we notice it here and now? Is the energies to 'weak' normally? Yep, that's what I think anyway :) Consider the experiments at CERN and the energies they expect themselves to need. But you might look at it differently?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 17:18:35
And that takes us to the photon in a roundabout way. If energy can contract its 'distance' as defined from its own frame of reference, can it become a 'point particle'?

That's interesting, isn't it?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 17:24:35
And that is another way of asking what it was I was thinking of originally.

Remember that I discussed the notion that you in your moving 'frame of reference' always would measure your 'distance' and 'arrow of time' as unchanging. No matter if you measure it on Earth, falling towards a 'Black Hole' or speeding away at some velocity as defined from 'somewhere else'.

Well, think of my question above and then tell me how to reformulate it so that we can in-cooperate both view points into one. As they are two 'points of views' inside the same 'frame of reference', at least when it comes to matter. Inside that ship my universe becomes really 'short' at the same time as my 'yard-stick' still measures a yard.

Heh, it became better, the question, as I forgot it?
The universe works in mysterious ways.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 17:55:07
So is 'the arrow of time' a function of geometry? If we look at the 'mirror example' above we find that the reason for 'time slowing down' actually could be seen as a result of that light-corn having to 'traverse' a larger amount of 'space' as seen from us on Earth. But why doesn't he traveling on the mirror notice that too? Well, put that 'black room' around you both, then look down at that light-corn bouncing. Does it take a straight path or not?

If you imagine that it doesn't, then I can imagine a 'time when it stops 'ticking', as it will miss the oposite mirror totally, not reaching it in 'time'. And if that mirror-set with the light-corn bouncing could be seen as a 'clock', which it definitely is, then you have just introduced the concept of time stopping.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 18:00:00
So, here's the next question. Looking at it, assuming that the concept of mirror-clock is correct. What is 'space', that classical 'nothing'. I say that it is a emergence from the 'rules' governing 'SpaceTime'. But can you think of some other way to explain it?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 18:37:57
Think of that path you see the light-corn take from Earth. From your view, incorporating the 'arrow of time' the guy traveling experiences as being his 'normal' (from his point of view). From your view, or better still, with the eyes of a God :) Could we say that this guy is right, distances have actually become compressed, inside each 'tick' of that clock.

Now think of it, suddenly I left the question of 'motion', instead jumping to that single 'tick', stating it as possible to see as if each of those 'ticks' had a greater volume of 'space' compressed inside it.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 18:56:34
So, what is it that makes it possible for us to discuss argue, and get downright ** at each other? Those 'ticks' I would say. How else can you think? Everything we do take some 'time'. You have nothing else to replace it with. Entropy doesn't discuss that creates thoughts, time does.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 19:05:25
Or turn it around, do thoughts have an entropy?

Sure they do, they can stop, grow, die out, even reverse sort of. But, they do it inside an single 'arrow of time', pointing in one temporal direction.

From your birth to your death.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 19:15:34
And if we go back to "Now think of it, suddenly I left the question of 'motion', instead jumping to that single 'tick', stating it as possible to see as if each of those 'ticks' had a greater volume of 'space' compressed inside it."

How does such a notion fit the idea of singular dimensions 'criss crossing' each other in every 'point' of SpaceTime?

I would say, badly.

I prefer the notion of 'properties'. Then what we see, in its 'internal workings', is a function of 'properties' undividable in Space. Just as a 'photons' properties. And then people can stop using one of the most irritating expressions I know :) Two-dimensional systems. In mathematics it's a useful tool, but when using it to describe a three-dimensional system I find it highly inappropriate.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 19:25:52
"As they are two 'points of views' inside the same 'frame of reference', at least when it comes to matter. Inside that ship my universe becomes really 'short' at the same time as my 'yard-stick' still measures a yard."

One solution would be to say that there is no dichotomy. That yard-sticks measures will be the same outside his space ship too. So he and his 'surroundings' are 'compressed' both. But, will that agree with what you see on earth?

That is, watching him in your super-duper-hi-tech atomic telescope you find him to contract? If it was correct, wouldn't it also imply that you at some possible 'time' would wach him 'disappear' into some speck?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 19:51:38
That one is actually quite simple to solve, you just need to think about what light-clock told you. You did see the light-corn take a longer time as its 'path' between the mirrors grew, but you did not see the mirror 'shrink'. So watching that ship, if you could see its atoms 'move', you would find them to 'move' slower, and that's all.

So where do the 'shrinking' come from?
==

And am I saying that there is no 'shrinking' involved from my point of view, aka 'Earths frame of reference'.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 20:42:06
That one needs thinking about.
Let's test if it would be possible to assume that that there is no shrinking observed from Earth.

But first, could we assume some 'law' defining that shrinking, if there was one observed?

Think about it.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 20:46:53
Let us start with defining a 'piece' of length. A rod :) perhaps?

Then we make it really, really, long. and yes, that law.
Well, it have to be something making sense with what we would expect to be a equivalent duration of time for the light to take from our 'frame of reference' (Earth). No matter how it is placed in 'space' relative us, wouldn't it :) And yes, it's that rod I'm talking about.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 20:53:10
So imagine that rod now, no, imagine two rods.
Let's mount a mirror at each of their endpoints, making it four mirrors for two rods. Now you take one of those rods and point it like a rocket away from you, the other you place perpendicular to the first one, making it look like a 'L' from Earths point of view.

| _  Like this.

They are both of the exact same length, with mirrors mounted at their endpoints as I said.


Now, let us put a light-corn bouncing between those endpoints. Booinnng boiiiinnng booiiinng.

We are at rest with the rods, looking at our two clocks we see them 'tick' at the same exact pace. Good, they are working.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 20:58:36
Heh, lightclocks have to be the best invention since the wheel, and single malt of course.

Now we're going to boost them away. Z000OooOm and off they go, at some speed close to light. So let's watch what happens with our clocks. Will it have an importance which way they are oriented in space relative us watching?


 
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 21:00:38
Actually that's a pretty good question.
So, will it?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 21:04:05
After all, when I used the first example with the mirrors, you automatically thought of the light-corn as observable, didn't you? with the mirrors pointing away from you so you could see that light-corn bounce. But if you think of the mirrors turned 90 degrees so you can't really watch that light-corn? would it still be the same?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 21:16:35
Let me ask you a question, that first light clock we made, which way was the light bouncing relative us? -- like that, right? 'Parallel' to us so to speak

So thinking of those two rods that will be _ that one. Now we introduced another one pointed as a rocket | too, as seen from Earth. But they are traveling together, as a 'system' you might say.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 21:20:58
The one rod parallel to us ( _ ) will provide the same time dilation as we saw with our mirrors, that we're sure of, well, I am at least :)

But the other one then? The one pointing | like that?

Will that clock tick the same? It should shouldn't it? Or I would have to assume that there was something really strange to the 'arrow of time' as both rods move 'together', being as I called it, a 'system'.




Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 21:33:30
That they move 'together' means that you, if standing at any of those rods, would see the other one 'tick' the exact same as the rod-clock you're standing on, just like they did at Earth.

But think of this | one now, and imagine a light-corn bounce between its endpoints. When the light travels from the end, furthest away from its motion, it will have he* of a distance to travel to catch up to the foremost tip. In fact it will take too long time to make sense. The return time instead, bouncing back, meeting the rearward endpoint will be extremely quick.

How can that be?

I see the two rods moving together, but they no longer 'tick' the same? But if I teleport, being at rest with with them they will?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 21:56:30
In fact I'm not sure if this is the best example really, thinking of it. But it's correct in that if the rod | pointing that way, relative you, are moving at 95.5 c and are 186 000 miles long, the same length it takes a photon to travel in one second. Then you, having them beside you on Earth, would see them 'tick' one second per bounce.

But, when later, traveling at that speed the 'forward bounce' (in the direction of the overall motion) seen by us 'Earth still' relative it, suddenly takes 200 seconds, and that can't be right?

Can it?

so how the he* do I explain that?
I have to assume a length contraction, that's what I have to do..
But, what about the other rod then?

Well, remember that if you were standing on the | rod .. Both the _ rod and itself would 'tick' the same, and look the same as on Earth, as you were 'at rest' relative them, joining the 'system' so to speak. So building from that what would you expect?

Will that one also contract?
Or is it only the | that shrink?

And how much did that | rod shrink if so?
According to what I understand :) about 90 %.

(For the rod directed | it will take it 19.9750 seconds to travel with the rods motion to 'catch up' the overall motion. Bouncing back will take it 0.05 seconds getting a 'round-trip' of 20.025 seconds)

===

Also, remember that I said they didn't 'tick' in time, synchronized after starting to move relative us? But if that rod 'shrinks' then we should get a synchronization again, at both 'places', or positions in SpaceTime. That as you, when on the rods, won't notice their length contraction, instead you will find SpaceTime to be the one 'contracted'. As I understands it, that is.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 22:05:44
So can you object to it?

Well, one of the first postulates of light is that it will move at the same speed in a vacuum the 'frame of reference' notwithstanding.

So if I assume that I am at the 'top end' of that | watching the light bounce towards me, I will measure its speed to the exact 186 000 miles It should have, but of a weaker 'energy' as it would become red-shifted working its way towards me, as I imagine it :)

But, can you see my problem objecting?

I changed frame of reference doing it, didn't I?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 22:14:12
But when we look at the rod being parallel _ the question becomes another. We made that rod very long, didn't we? 186 000 miles. How the he* can the same light that, according to us on Earth, slow down and then speed up in the first rod, the | , in the other not care a iota about that the whole rod moves as it merrily bounce between the rods mirrors?

And that's a weird one alright

What we do know though is that if I was standing on any of those rods I would see them 'tick' in time, synchronized the same way they were on Earth. And if I do that I'm forced to assume that the light in that _ rod will find the mirrors even from my point of view standing on Earth.

So, would that too contract :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 20/12/2010 22:21:21
So why do I find it a bad example?

Well, consider yourself watching the light from Earth. Assuming that it have the same speed in all frames of reference you can't ever notice it 'speed up' or 'slow down'. All of this with light-clocks in 'reality', whatever that may be :)takes place in the 'mind-space' I discussed earlier. It's very imaginative and as far as I can see right too, but only from the 'mind-space' reality.

So what would you see?

Nothing at all.
 
(Ah, except from the blue and re-shift that is, if you could measure it somehow.)

That's why a time dilation only can be proven when coming back to your place of 'origin' aka Earth.

But the length contraction then?

Yep, that one you actually would see :)
Weird as it may be.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 00:00:51
And according to my reference only the rod | would show a length contraction?
Now, that one I'm having a hard time assimilating.

First of all, and lastly, why?

What one could assume is that all length contraction would be in the vector of its motion, a little like considering a fast ship breaking waves, with more speed the closer the waves. But assuming that you would first of all introduce the notion that 'Space' somehow had a 'field' that aligns against your velocity contracting? Which makes me rather confused as we now seems to speak of something 'existing' like a 'aether' maybe, with 'distance' behaving like inertia.


Anyone that can shine some light on that one?
I can't, I knew this actually but I'm afraid I've just accepted it.
There should be a reason.

As it destroys my lovely idea, at least forces me to reevaluate it if it is this way.

And when it comes to gravity wells, like planets. It's the room time geometry that will change your time relative 'the outside' not 'gravity' as a 'force'. Thought that some may take it as I treat gravity as a 'force' so I added this just to be sure you don't :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 00:06:10
Well, let us consider a ring, like you throwing a pebble in the water, a sphere growing is even better. Now assume that we 'pump it up' at .99 c. Would it have a length contraction?
==

I think it would, as each point of it could be seen as accelerating away from a common center.
so that one wasn't that good.

It doesn't destroy the idea I have of distances, but it puts an awful lot of importance on motion it seems?
And I don't believe in motion :)

As long we're not talking bikes of course?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 00:15:34
A question. Would that mean that our 'arrow of time' might have a vector too?
Awwwhhh ...

And if it was a vector the _ rod (versus Earth) also would need to show a contraction of 90% in its 'thickness', shouldn't it?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 00:23:37
Well, I believe in the concept of motion when it comes to matter, more than I do with light at least :) But .. ?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 00:47:30
So let's change our point of view. We've been speaking of 'contractions' for quite some time, but how about 'expansion'? Why does it only take part in Space, and as I understand it outside the galaxies, not inside, so make that deep space :)

Does it have a relation, a vector too perhaps??
Or does it work as a sphere 'popping up' out there?

If contraction only works in the motions vector my 3-D points will have a hard time too I guess, depending on where they come to be size-wise. Then an idea of singular dimensions may make more sense, maybe?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 00:50:24
What's interesting with that idea is that we actually believe SpaceTime to add more of 'nothingness' into itself, and thereby growing our 'distances'. Anyone more than me having difficulties with that concept?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 01:23:08
We assume that SpaceTime is a place where 'stuff' only gets transformed. We don't lose anything, no leaks so to speak. But then we have singularities which have to take energy away from SpaceTime as the possible Hawking radiation can't be that quick. We also have the 'Expansion' which, if you believe in distances, must bring more energy into SpaceTimes fold, even if it will be in equilibrium. That means that we don't get an 'added energy' per area, rather that we keep the proportions 'Space' have intrinsically, that is if you believe in fields and quantum foam/fluidity whatever :) And I think I do believe in that.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 03:21:06
There is one way to resurrect my idea of 'everything' contracting, but it doesn't build on what we see happening, we have to go up in that mind-space again for that one. Imagine that sphere we discussed, I said that all points in it should contract as you could imagine them as all being a 'straight line from the center, right?

Well, in that mind-space we have one thing that seems sure, that no matter which way I turn that rocket I will meet this length contraction. So in a way I can say that space is isotropic, unchanging no matter my direction. Looked at that way space is contractible everywhere :) The only thing missing being my motion.

I agree, it's not that good is it? But we can at least assume it to be a sort of 'property' of space, when meeting the right ingredients, proper mass or motion.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 03:53:34
Okay, back to basics. Let's see, what made Einstein think of time dilation? Well as I understands it it was his insight that light 'propagates' with the same speed in a vacuum in all reference frames possible. And that in its turn falls back to how to define motion. We use uniform motion where it's not possible to define (following geodesics) we use uniform acceleration which in a black box becomes 'gravity' (One constant G) and then we have non-uniform acceleration that defines us as the ones moving.

The first one (uniform motion) makes it possible to define any of two objects 'A' and 'B' meeting each other in space as being the one moving, as we can't say who it is without using for example 'fix stars'. But on each of those objects Maxwells equations should be obeyed telling us that light will move with 'c' in a vacuum.

And if that is correct, at the same time as I can decide that 'A' moves with 100 000 miles /h, or Null miles, depending on my mood there have to be something compensating for that lights invariance. So what can we compensate it with? Time, right?

I could say that on my 'A' sending out a beam, instead of it going faster than light should be able too according to the experiments made, it has to do with time somehow. So, what is speed? A distance measured over time right? So finding that I send out a beam over a defined distance that takes a certain invariant time no matter how fast I'm moving as I send it away what can I blame it on? Assume that we decide that it's not the time, then we'll have to blame distance Like Lorentz did, although he knew that time would vary too he saw it as firstly as a mathematical notion, not applicable on reality. And it took him some time to accept Einsteins later ideas. Or we can blame it on time, or as Einstein did, both time and distance.

Well, that's how I understands it, maybe there is a better way of seeing it though?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 04:29:05
Going back to our expanding sphere, let's throw away motion for a while and test if we could see it as 'times and distances inertia' :)

Let's try it from 'distance' first. Assume that there is a inertia to distance, gotta love physics, and dreamers :)

Would that work?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 13:53:36
So how does the red and blue shift come to be? If you look at the question above you'll see that we have two alternatives when it comes to explaining why light don't act as a ball thrown from a speeding car contrasted to someone throwing it from the sidewalk. Light keeps the same speed in both cases.

And we have two possibilities to why it does so, a length contraction and a time dilation. Well as far as I can think of it for now? And considering that all speed is made of those two, distance and time, what can we translate them into when it comes to a wave?

A wave have its 'energy' expressed in its frequency. With a length contraction applied to a wave you will compress it in 'time' and so find it gaining 'energy'. all those jagged zigzag lines coming together as it is, somewhat like compressing a accordion. That's a blue-shift.

In an 'expansion' if a wave wanders into it the idea is that the wave gets 'stretched' and so less 'compressed'. You can see the same effects with objects moving from each other, if sending out light they will find each other waves being 'red shifted' as their motion 'works' against the direction light propagates. And the other way around, it becomes 'blue-shifted' as the objects move towards each other.
 
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 13:58:11
And that is the real effect you will see when observing objects using light-clocks, that and a 'contraction'. And that's the mystery to it, and also I guess why Lorentz found his 'length contraction' as being somewhat more 'real', as it should be directly observable for a distant observer as well as inside.

The way to turn it around? How about light not moving :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 15:27:16
That doesn't change anything when it comes to how light seems to behave, the rules that Einstein and Maxwell and Newton and Lorentz saw will still be here. But it makes for one more interpretation, as I think? Depending :)

So how to make an argument for that light can't move?

I think the first argument should be just what we observe, that light keeps it speed in any frame possible to observe it in, and from.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 15:36:12
To me that always have felt like a 'field', like something (a property) resting behind everything we see. And if that might be, then why don't we see the 'field'. But I think we do see it, even though we can't prove it. We call it a lot of things, a fluid or a foam, or gluons or virtual particles or perhaps even loops and strings, I think I can make that list pretty long. But what they all have together is that they are non-observables.

We can only 'see' them 'indirectly'. We can't 'observe' them like we do a billiard ball or even a 'atom'. But we are pretty sure they are needed. They are what we call the 'energy carriers', those remarkable 'thingies' that we believe to be responsible for exchanging 'energy'. As long as we discuss them as 'moving' we have a problem though, then we expect them to be able to 'pop in and out' of existence to influence all atoms there is, as well as space.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 15:39:24
But if they 'exist everywhere'?

Here, as well as in the deepest emptiest space, shouldn't they be looked at as a property instead? And if you look at that way, you're no longer bound. For a property there is no distance, the law of lights speed in a vacuum stops to exist, and there is no 'motion' as we think of it.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 15:42:42
For a 'property' you don't exist. And neither do I, they are expressions of the 'ultimate reality', maybe? Not the one we are in though, here they are 'bound' into patterns and mosaics, or 'forces' if you like.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 15:57:41
"In the beginning there was light" :)
I don't think so, I think 'in the beginning there was 'rules'.'

We have to assume something, and if it stands between 'energy' and 'rules' I expect rules to be the first thing needed, 'energy' without rules might be possible too, but not really. The rules that we then see would come from what? And now you give that 'function' a name, maybe 'entropy'?

Well, okay :) In the beginning there was 'entropy'. Happy now?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 16:22:12
What we have done is to define a border between 'observables' and what 'doesn't exist'. And where 'entropy' comes into play there will be effects. One of those will be space, another one will be matter, from that you get 'distance' presuming that there is someone 'observing'.

So what would a 'observer' be? Myself I design that as all that can have a relation inside SpaceTime, obeying what we see as its 'laws', including space dust :)

And wherever you find 'matter and space' you will find motion, as that is a relation between just those two, and with that come velocity and speed.

But 'light' then?

Well, light would be what 'shines through' our SpaceTime, but only according to 'rules'. So, do I think that this 'light' is a background for us?

Nope, I think of it as 'emergences'. We're all the same thing, but with 'emergences' we gain new 'properties'. The atom have 'properties' not understandable, like its spin, from classic physics. That we can model them doesn't necessarily say that we 'understand' what they are.

We are very ingenious, and the best 'copy cats' existing. So we are capable of learning new rules, and we also find them deducing. That means that we 'guess' but we guess using what we know and sometimes from what we think we can see as being 'new laws'. That was what all the best did, they connected effects to new ideas and laws, so we are more than just 'copy cats' in that motto.

But to do that you will have to go against the stream at times, creating your own idea. But if you do you need to know your basics, just like Einstein. He gave the basics a long hard stare at the same time as I think he too had some idea of how he 'wanted it to be'.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 16:25:06
I'm definitely not a Einstein, but there might be some of you getting ideas, and maybe even seeing ways to prove this notion of mine. And that's what cool with the Internet, we all share up here.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/12/2010 17:41:42
So, is a red shift a time-dilation?

Depends on how you see energy I guess, to me it have to be an equivalence to a time dilation, but it express itself different depending on its vectors. Think of two objects each one separating from the other near 'c'. The beam they send between each other will travel at 'c' still, but as a consequence of them separating become very red-shifted. We know that both of those objects have to have a 'slower time', as compared to us being at their origin waiting for them to come back, so they are highly 'energetic' objects and so the red-shift observed is just a consequence of their respective vectors in space and no telltale of their 'inherent' energy.

If they was coming together instead, keeping the same speed? Sending a light-beam to each other that light-beam would be perceived as very compressed and so extremely 'energetic' from both perspectives.

So red or blue-shift is no absolute quality, informing you of the 'state' of the object sending it out. But as I suspect that 'energy' can and will create a 'time dilation' I would say that the later description would create a greater 'time-dilation'.

What one need to remember discussing this is that you can have three ships :) One going away the other two meeting each other. The relations described here will then be simultaneous.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 22/12/2010 01:28:53
Back to the Lorentz contraction :) Why do I think it's real?

Well, I have no problem with there being no 'forces' in the usual sense, acting on the object. Look above at those three ships and the 'Lorentz contraction', loosely speaking, their beams have.

There is no 'force' involved in this, motion yes, and a 'space' that acts weird from the view of any of the two others watching that, whatever, ship they are watching :)

But stay with your own 'room time geometry' and you will be fine. You can change that two ways as I know, motion or 'proper mass'. If we look on motion it becomes clear that we, even though 'needing' an acceleration as compared to our origin, too be able to perceive it. We still can't state that the room time geometry we were in, being 'at rest' wasn't twisted too. So a uniform motion, or a inertial object have a 'twisted room geometry' too in fact. The only way to prove me wrong is to show me where the objective universal rest-frame exist. The place wherefrom the universe sets its 'speedometer', and no, not relative.

So everything twists, not rocks but twists :)
Well, to me it rocks too :)
===

Maybe I should say three ways?
Energy too I expect to be able to do it.

Like a very hot plasma.
But if you think I'm wrong point it out :)
And give me a good explanation.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 22/12/2010 01:45:58
The interesting thing here becomes how to make sense of that space we perceive?
Why we have so much trouble accepting a twisted space I think comes from the way it looks. You look up on the stars and you see them all, no matter their relative speeds, and Lorentz contraction. space being isotropic, the same to us everywhere. It would have been cool if we had that extra sense that allowed us to see those different room time geometries and how they melted into each other but we can't. And you have to remember that this is also the 'frames of reference' that I never stops wondering about. How and where do one stop and another come into being, and considering that you can have two different 'frames of reference' for one object depending on where you're watching from? Imagine if you could be like those photons we split, getting 'entangled' then imagine that we without 'observing' allow one to meet a really cold gas, so cold that it will slow it down, then imagine that it was us instead, then we would have a chance to see what a 'split' reality might look like.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 22/12/2010 01:51:31
But we can't, as far as I know? We can still try to make sense of it though. So when that space around me contracts, did I contract too? I think I did actually, that seems the simplest answer. The other simple answer is to trust in my yard-stick and point out that, no, it wasn't me, the real culprit is SpaceTime. "Where were you sir, 08:43 Standard Greenwich Time?" and "Can you prove it" :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 22/12/2010 02:01:43
So what does this make of a 'position'? If all 'Positions' becomes variables depending on your 'room time geometry' for the moment? Look at Frediks try to explain how he sees it when discussing how the light from watching a loong rocket will reach you differently from the front, as compared to the rear. It's valid for any 'frame', as I think, this explanation.

"Note that a "frame" is another word for "coordinate system" and that a coordinate system is just a function that assigns four numbers (t(p),x(p),y(p),z(p)) to each event p.

A hypersurface of constant t is "space at time t" in a particular coordinate system. The union of all such hypersurfaces defined by a coordinate system is spacetime. So a coordinate system defines a way to "slice" spacetime into 3-dimensional spaces representing space at different times.

But different inertial coordinate systems slice spacetime in different ways to make sure that the speed of light is the same in all of them. If your velocity relative to me is v in the x direction, my "slices" would intersect yours at an angle arctan v.

The motion of a rocket is represented by a set of curves ("world lines") in spacetime (e.g. one for each atom). What represents the rocket "right now" in a particular coordinate system is the set of points where those curves intersect "space at time t".

But my "space at time t" is tilted by an angle arctan v relative to yours. So when we both try to measure the distance "in space" between the world line of the front of the rocket and the world line of the rear of the rocket, we're not measuring the same thing. We're both measuring a distance between the same two world lines, but not between the same two points on those world lines. "
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 22/12/2010 02:11:19
Gives you a headache does it :)
Well, you're not alone.

Worldlines is one weird subject, involving too much math. But notice "But different inertial coordinate systems slice spacetime in different ways to make sure that the speed of light is the same in all of them."

That's a very clever way of describing it. what he states here, as I see it, is that different 'room time geometries' will see different things. And why they do so is because we have this remarkable 'rule' telling SpaceTime that it always have to adapt to one rule, namely that the speed of light always have to be equivalent to 'c' in whatever medium it passes, be it a vacuum or windowpane, as seen from that 'room time geometry'.

That's a really cool idea.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 22/12/2010 02:54:48
Can you see how it works?
Like invisible boxes, made of 'light'.
Yep, they are made of 'light', they are all radiation.
You define your room from the radiation perceived, and that goes for matter too.

You never touch anything, when you think you do what gets exchanged is the radiation between 'objects' that your body translates into different sensorial expressions like heat, pressure, etc.

The same goes for what you taste, on a slightly higher 'size' or level, working our way 'up', taste becomes geometrical formations fitting certain receptors in your mouth and tongue. That's why artificial sweeteners can be so strong. On the molecular level they seem to have a better 'fit' than natural sweetener, like sugar, all as I understands it.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 02/01/2011 04:17:43
Thinking about it I would like to thank a lot of guys for helping me see what the he* I thought I though. I always found that young girls answer to my liking, that answered when asked why she spoke so much. "I speak to find out what I'm thinking." That's how it feels for me too. So when we discuss the right way, being cool without trying to come out the 'winner', then I grow and learn. And I think you can learn from it all, both what is wrong and what is right, and a really cool discussion dives headlong into both I think :)

So thnx, JP naturally, it's always a pleasure reading him, and Lightarrow who tried to explain the math behind waves, Soul Surfer, LeeE, Pmb, BoredChemist, MrChem, Rosie, Gezzer, Jartza and yes, also those of you I haven't seen here for a while. I'm sorry that I can't remember all names. I do miss you guys & gals, I learnt a lot reading and talking with you. This place needs us all, so I hope you'll show up again, if you're now reading this. And then there are people outside I learnt a lot from, like Sapo and all the guys & gals on his site, a cool one. GoodElf, always a gentleman, with intriguing ideas about holography, and also those guys that once, so long ago, helped me on that site where I started this physics journey. I think my ideas have grown out of what we've discussed and without that, it would have been a he* lot harder :)

And no, I do not have a theory, it's more a summary of what I think so far, but I'm pleased anyway.
I have views, some set, others flexible, and they may all be wrong.
But maybe?

Anyway
Here goes nothing :)

==
The energy density of a vacuum is, as I understand it, a 'negative' one, also called the cosmological constant as that is what is thought to define this 'negative density', and also called Einsteins biggest blunder. Maybe it isn't though, a blunder I mean. QM 'zero point energies' if added up differs from the measured cosmological observation by a magnitude of one hundred and twenty orders, making the discrepancy very large and unexplainable. It is also thought of as one of the, or the, reason(s) why we see an expansion as it corresponds mathematically to a gravitational repulsion.

But, being 'negative', the reason two plates join I do not see as 'space' having a pressure. Space have a 'zero' pressure. I see the real effect as disallowing certain 'virtual wave lengths' by having the plates extremely close, creating an local 'unbalance' that SpaceTime rectify by forcing the plates together. I see it as a result from our 'arrow of time'. A 'unfettered space' have all those wavelengths outside Plank time as I see it. When we introduce the plates we disallow some of them, creating a effect inside our arrow of time, as SpaceTime equilibrium is disturbed. So yes, to me the Casimir effect has to do with time. And so has Rindler observers and Unruh radiation.

As for the first of my statements you can look at General relativity: an introduction for physicists by Michael Paul Hobson, George Efstathiou, Anthony N. Lasenby. (http://books.google.com/books?id=5dryXCWR7EIC&pg=PA187&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false)
 

The virtual particles we talk about is 'energy carriers', existing inside us, as well as all around us. Without them we have no idea for how 'energy' gets transformed and distributed. My view isn't that strange I think :) As I think of it 'SpaceTime' exist in a 'size' of its own, defined by its dimensions, and there we have some different 'dimensional topologies' to choose between, times arrow being a really important one. Could we place ourselves outside that arrow I doubt a 'SpaceTime' would be seen. Naively seen my 'SpaceTime' is infused with a lot of other possible 'realities', one that we call 'virtual'. If there are more I don't know, so far we have 'virtual particles' and gluons as the two strong contenders, but I expect both to be under what is 'meaningful' for us, impossible to observe inside our arrow. Density is a concept we use, remember that this is my view now:), inside SpaceTime. Outside an arrow of time it becomes different. That's why Space is nulled, becoming classically 'zero' as I see it.

You can discuss 'negative pressure' as a concept but to me it's more of a 'time reversal' well maybe not reversal, more like opening a 'rift' in SpaceTime. If we look at a Black Hole it seems as SpaceTime have one answer to singularities, close it. So when those plates are brought together, disallowing the wavelengths, we create a disturbance and SpaceTime 'closes it'. Hawing radiation is a 'communicative' process only if seen from the viewpoint of its entanglement as I understands it. You can not speak of it as anything 'moving' from the inside of the EV to the outside. What we see is to me a self regulatory expression of a state of SpaceTimes equilibrium, and if you like 'entropy'. It's like a game, if you stop looking at motion and distance, it has some very peculiar rules that will make things happen inside our arrow, where the idea of entanglements for making a SpaceTime work seems really important to me. And furthermore, if we define Hawking radiation as a 'communicative process' we introduce a communication from a 'singularity' making my idea more plausible as I see SpaceTime as a place where we only can see a part of the 'real thing'. The 'arrow of time' is what creates it for us, making linearity work, without an arrow it would all be chaos. It seems as 'SpaceTime' uses linearity inside non-linearity, inside linearity insi.. ad infinitum, as one of its main 'rules'. But we haven't realized that particular concept until recently. And now we are trying to make sense of it, and it may make sense if linearity is one of the peculiarities you get with an arrow.

You can see a Lorenz contraction two ways as I understand. As a geometrical 'twist' fooling our senses and measurements or as 'real'. If you see it as real, and you really should if you believe in a 'time dilation' then distance is a function of SpaceTime and your 'room time geometry'. I've used 'frames of reference' before, the problem being that it is a very neutral definition, you can talk about your own, then about someone else's in the same breath fooling yourself to see both as being of the same 'value'. They're not, no matter what you do, how fast you travel, if you're at a neutron star, you have the same expiration date. But all other frames you ever will notice, or as I call it 'room time geometries' are relative you open for 'change', and by the same 'experiences' that you will find 'not' changing your duration. If you see how I think.

When I use my description I know where I stand with it, I'm looking at the universe from my 'room time geometry' and mine is unique. If discussing yours then that one also will be unique, solely yours.

There is a subtle difference in it to me :)

Helping me to see what I think is important. People seem to think that this universe is a seamless 'whole', and I agree in one way, but if you look at it as 'room time geometries' they seem to come in all 'sizes' from a pebble on the beach to a electrons 'orbital' to, whatever I can think up i guess :) And they all have to be slightly different I think, presenting a different SpaceTime, but still giving us all this feeling of 'sharing' the exact same universe.

And how they do that is radiation. There are three things SpaceTime is to me.

A topology defined by your 'room time geometry' (gravity/space)

Radiation.

Matter.

For the moment that is, I'm open for change :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 02/01/2011 05:11:39
And if we accept that 'the arrow of time' just as your 'room' is a function of that 'room time geometry' then what you call 'distance' I prefer to look at as a 'sliding relation, magnifying and contracting' your 'reality'. How that works is hard to see but it have to be a function of our arrow, well maybe we need 'it all' to get to that 'arrow' probably it is so. Speed is a distance measured in time. So speed is relative your 'room time geometry.' With one exception. Light... So what is motion? If it can change with 'potential gravity' or 'stress'. And does light really move? Think of it. I know, it sounds like a rather weird question, doesn't it. I find light easier to understand if I go after its definitions, instead than after what I think I observe 'normally'. Then light will have the same 'speed' in all 'frames of reference', be that your own, or any other 'frame' you measure (like that attacking space fleet coming at Earth, and no, they're not, just an example:)

And light only exist in its interactions.

Weak observations will still build on 'interacting' even if removed from what you observe. To prove that wrong you need to observe without observing at all. (It makes most sense if you remember that I see SpaceTime as a 'game', the rules doesn't necessarily have to make any 'sense' to me if I compare it to mine 'immediate reality' writing here) You can look at space as a 'spring system' where the density will express itself as springs, resting against springs, resting against spr.. Ad infinitum.

Your light will then represent a 'oscillating motion' having a velocity in that mass of springs where the light-corn/wave :) is represented by the oscillation 'propagating' in the medium. The density of the medium it travels through may be thought of as the rigidity of those springs, or their 'inertia'. Or as a single extremely long spring being 'SpaceTime'. And doing so the oscillation/light still can be seen to travel through that spring, but the 'spring' never move. A third possibility is to let those springs 'pop up' from nowhere, making indentions very close to each other creating an illusion of movement for those looking, like a sheet with someone doting it from behind with a marker. Like our 3-D was sheet upon sheet upon sheet, with a he* of a lot of markers everywhere :) Then you also would have our 'arrow'. And, in a strange way, it all becomes a question about what 'times arrow' really is? But if I'm correct in assuming that 'SpaceTime' is related to unique 'room time geometries', and that everything you observe, have it's own. And that light will in and from all those 'room time geometries' only present us with that same one speed?

Why?
And how?

In 'frames of reference' I find a difference between what I see as my 'time' relative all other frames, just as you can do when comparing yours to all others. I don't see how I can do the same with the speed of light? Can you see a way? To me it seems as if this 'light' always is 'the same' no matter how I choose to look at it? And why do we only observe its 'interactions'? And 'virtual light' is real 'light' for a Rindler observer and as Unruh radiation. And, just how did it become 'real' now again? As I see it you do it by 'compressing' your 'room time geometry'. And there are two ways I know of.

Invariant proper mass (restmass)
Motion.

Imagine it as a 'still frame.' Let light exist in 'propagation' Mark out where those light-corns will be on your frame.Now compress the frame speeding away. What happened with your coordinate system? What coordinate system will your neighbor see from home? The question could be stated as which frame is the 'correct' one? And to see its inherent weirdness: Remember that your neighbor never lost touch with you 'speeding away' looking in his telescope. And, what the he* happened with our 'propagating light'? Is it in two places? Eh, its' real, no joke. There are two coordinate systems there, each one having its own 'time dilation' & Lorentz contraction as I see it. You can't just expect one object motion to create it. There is no absolute 'frame of rest' inside SpaceTime. The best we can do is to define them relative each other. And if you succeeded in placing two non uniformly accelerating rockets in absolute sync, we could define those too as being 'at rest' relative each other

Lets back up a little. Entanglements? What about 'ordinary light'. Can that be entangled too? I don't know, do you? If it was, would that make a difference? To me, a entanglement makes a difference, by just existing. We just need to know that the concept exist. And light, how can it 'communicate' in 'no time', over singularities, and as far as I understand, having no limit to their distance as they do so. 'Communicate' here, I see as setting a opposite spin for its other half, by you interacting with one of them. You can widen this idea to entangle more 'photons' too. Those are the things I wonder about. And now you do it too :) Heh. And 'room time Dimensions/topology' includes string and loop quantum theory too. Although I look at dimensions as 'properties', not singular 'thingies', but I might be wrong in it all :) Life huh :)

==
Hi yoron!

Some remarks of mine:

You wrote: "Although I look at dimensions as 'properties', not singular 'thingies', but I might be wrong in it all :)"

That's not as strange as it looks on a first glance; vectors of QM-Hilbert-space can be represented in a multitude of bases, the space-representation just being one possibility amongst others; another one e.g being the spin-up/spin-down basis. Thus the concept of space being a "property" amongst others is quite plausible.

    "As I think of it 'SpaceTime' exist in a 'size' of its own, defined by its dimensions,"

Riemannian Geometry is indeed an *intrinsic* formulation of geometry thus "size" may solemnly depend on the unit of the metric compared to other quantities existing "in" that very spacetime. There is also a very good video lecture on GR including Powerpoint-docs available from Uni Tuebingen:

=== By Solkar

Which made rather pleased, my ego taking off like a hot air balloon ::))
Well, we all have one. don't we?
No, not balloon..

Only me??
Da*n

... Then ..

==
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 02/01/2011 05:12:50
==
I feel there is always an intrinsic frame of rest which is always the first person, observer's "room". And, I've always had difficulties with time, myself. I tend to think of time as a dimension (not unlike any other) and time dilation is a result of perspective within that dimension, relative to your "room."

Solkar: Here's a copy and paste version of your excellent reference:
General relativity. (http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~kokkotas/Teaching/GTR.html)

=== By ubavontuba.

"I've always had difficulties with time, myself. I tend to think of time as a dimension (not unlike any other) and time dilation is a result of perspective within that dimension, relative to your "room.""

I agree :) it's hard to 'divide' what we call 'SpaceTime' We need to see the rules making it a 'whole' like the Feigenbaum constant and the Bekenstein bound. I'm not saying that they are absolutes, but I think we will find more constants if we just start to look, and we need to too. So maybe this universe of ours is even weirder than we thought huh :)Rereading you ubavontuba. Maybe you meant that there is two 'dimensions'? Namely the 'room 3-D' and 'times arrow'? I think so at times too, it depends on my mood :). It's very hard to ignore the arrow, and I don't agree with placing entropy before the arrow. To me it you can't even discuss 'entropy' and neither 'discrete events' without implicatively assuming a 'arrow' resting behind it. To put it bluntly, there is a need of a 'glue' for your causality chains to exist.

Then, on the other hand, we have the concept of a 'whole' 'SpaceTime'. Looking at it that way your 'arrow' becomes a property of the whole 'shebang' impossible to free from the idea of a 'SpaceTime'. There may be a way to solve this though, at least as I see it, and that is to look at the way our 'universe' changes appearance through what chaos math calls 'emergences'. Water becoming ice, gaining totally new properties (ever tried to skate on water?:) Some look at that as 'hand waving' but I don't. To me this is no stranger argument than when you define what you call your 'system'. The idea of a 'system' is to me a equivalence to 'emergences', meaning that, you or the 'universe', defines an 'importance'. The difference being that the 'universe' was first doing it :) It's either that or walking a lonely path to smaller and smaller 'thingies' and then walking back trying to see how they build this 'SpaceTime' and the 'states' we associate with different 'sizes'. Macroscopically, QM, Plank Size and under. Because we see that the 'universe' behave differently, don't we?

In a really good game you should have several ways to solve your goal. And I think that this is exactly what SpaceTime offers us. There might be a possibility to prof SpaceTime the 'lonely way'? Another might be through 'emergences'? The worst thing we can do is to assume that there exist an 'objective truth' a linear process, simple to see that will define it all. On the other hand I do believe there is one (not necessarily 'linear' in the way we used to think of it though:) But I also expect us to have to redefine a lot of 'self evident' truths and ideas we have first to see it. And that's where my interest lies. To see what is possible to redefine. And now I'm sounding both pompous and self-contradictory. It's not what I set out to do :) But I do think we will find a 'causality chain' making 'sense'. And it seems like a lot of guys, & gals, are doing just what I think is necessary to get there. although the chain will seem to have very little with what we call 'reality' in our daily lives. I don't know if it's true but I've seen some suggest that with new words comes new ways to see. So I'm hoping we will find those words. (Like Emmy Noether did)

==
It looks like we're on the same page. I view time in lots of ways, depending on the application. Like how spatial dimensions hold mass/energy distributions, time holds event distributions. Time is also the river which passses through the spatial dimensions and changes the spatial mass/energy distributions. By doing so, time effectively shatters the Bekenstein bound - by allowing the defined space to hold more things, but over time. So time can be viewed as both a dimension, and an effect. It's also part of the very topology of space. And, "the arrow of time" has many definitions, as seen here: Arrow of time: Arrows. (http://http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#Arrows)
==By ubavontuba.

Yeah :) but in the definition of 'entropy', we can also find a reversibility as well as 'islands' that stays the same, according to several sources. Entropy is not a desert of sand growing, killing us off. It's more like an ocean in where you can find different salinity and spots that stays the same. So in that motto it does not fit the unique arrow you have, no matter what others might think of your 'age'. Maybe there is some way to adapt 'entropy' to that fact though? The reversibility of entropy comes from biology, but the 'spots that stays the same' is actually an accepted definition amongst those working with 'entropy' since long time past. We only need to accept one of them to see that your unique 'room time geometry' isn't 'entropic'. To be so it should be possible for your arrow to stop in your own 'frame of reference'.

==
Well, entropy is certainly observed. I wouldn't suggest that life is a reversed entropy, as the energy of the entire system which supports life certainly is dissipating. Rather life is the result of the useful energy which remains in the system. It's been suggested there may be a sort of entropic "reset" mechanism, which would be the cyclic universe model, but it seems unlikely. However, these musings boil down to philosophy, as we simply don't know from whence the energy of the universe originates. Perhaps universes spring into being as a regular occurrence. Perhaps there's only the one universe, dying a slow death. Perhaps new energy is being introduced into our universe from sources we simply haven't yet observed. Perhaps... You see? Nothing but speculation and philosophy. So what we know is entropy is real locally, and locally is all we really have. As for staying young, I think that's a matter for the microbiologists and geneticists to sort out.
==By ubavontuba.

Yeah, it's interesting. But what I'm boiling down too is that entropy when defined as I do, in unique 'room time geometries' don't fit in. Not if I assume that those laboring with it are right in that you can have 'isolated islands' where the energy don't transform into 'energy done' at the same rate as seen from a larger perspective. That is if one assume that ones personal arrow constantly tick with the same rate measured inside. And I can't find any way to disprove that notion? And no, to me that one isn't philosophy, rather an unavoidable fact of relativity. Maybe someone already have an answer to that question? Another thing, defining times arrow. If I assume that what 'communicates' is radiation, what does that make 'the arrow of time'? What I notice is that lights speed is a constant. Your time as measured from/in your own 'room time geometry' can also be seen as a 'constant'. That makes them interesting as an equivalence. You could also argue that radiation is the best 'clocks' existing. Getting closer to 'times arrow' than using radiation I don't think is possible? And it works when measuring other 'frames of reference' from your own too. When you do you use the 'arrow of time' you have locally, aka 'room time geometry'. So, maybe it's right? I don't really know, but maybe? To define radiation as our arrow of time? One problem being that, if so, it contradict my earlier question about 'lights motion', doesn't it :) But maybe both ideas works together? It's just us not seeing it? In defense of my notion I will spell out two 'magic words'..

Lorentz contraction
Time dilation.

And one more.
Constants.

I'm going for one more proof why I think light 'doesn't move', risking to bore you to death. To explain how 'photons' can be of different strengths I've seen some suggest that they come in 'higher concentrations' per time unit. That as they are thought of as invariant light-quanta. Not waves now, 'photons'. Think of the sun as a sun-hose streaming out 'photons' at a black hole. Put a solar panel between the black hole and the sun. What do you expect to happen as we move that detector closer to the black holes EV (Event horizon)? Will the photons deliver more energy? Why? If they do, can I assume that to be a consequence of them getting 'compacted' bunched together by 'gravity'? Nope. If we assume gravity to 'accelerate' them they should be spaced out:) Not 'bunched together' as they close in. So that one didn't hold water, did it? Well, they can't 'accelerate' you point out. Instead they 'change' energy. Okay, but then they can't close in on each other either, right? And what do we say they do instead of accelerating? Change energy? By themselves, intrinsically you mean? But they're timeless? And only defined in their 'interactions'? Where do you expect them to do this amazing feat? And if they did? Why isn't that an 'interaction'?
 
It's no different from a 'photon' bouncing near the Event horizon. As it 'climbs up' it will become red shifted relative the 'far observer' and so 'lose energy'. And it's a very good argument of it not existing until in its 'interaction' to me:) As we otherwise would have to find an explanation to why it 'loses energy' when it's expected to be of a defined 'light quanta'. To see what I mean there you have to remember that light is 'time less' intrinsically, and only 'existing' in its interaction. If you want to define it as it changes 'energy' as it climbs you will have defined an 'interaction'. That's not possible, if so, all light would annihilate as soon as it meet another gravitational potential, and it doesn't. That's where its 'timelessness' comes in too as that is what we assume to make it possible to 'propagate' vast 'distances' without losing 'energy', as I understands it. To see it my way you need to see it as a game, nothing more but nothing less either. Another proof is that this photon climbing if measured outside that gravity well will be found to have gotten all its 'strength' back, telling us that it expended no energy climbing, no matter what we would have measured it to be if inside that gravitational potential. So looking at it as a game helps one accepting the rules. Looking at it as we observe it here in our daily life won't.

Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 08/01/2011 21:01:37
Energy is limited by one thing it seems to me.
The speed of light (in a vacuum).

Somehow it's related.

You can also see it as an expression of 'objects' interacting.
But regulated by light. And 'motion', as easily can be proved if you let one bystander be 'still' relative an explosion, another going from it, a third going towards it.

All three will give different 'energies'. Then you have to differ between the 'conceptual view' in which we look upon those three relations, analyzing their relation finding a common connection, and the one in where you're 'there' observing a 'single outcome'.
==

But 'motion' falls under lights speed in a vacuum, so in the end we come back to one constant, I think?
It all depends on how you look at SpaceTime, as a God, or as a observer.
==

To me the observer is the important thing, if we would see a different 'energy' but it being an 'illusion' created by our 'moving observers' then it wouldn't matter and the view point of 'God' would be appropriate. But if we find the 'energy'  to differ, then the three 'observers' all are right, and 'God's' point of view becomes slightly skewed.

To see it better you can imagine the two 'moving observers' as having a uniform motion, inseparable from being 'at rest'. It is a fact that we have no 'rest-frame' in the universe, and so all uniformly moving objects are contenders for that universal 'frame of rest' if you like. If you find a way to put this notion into doubt we will have a different universe. That also mean that when I define two observers as 'moving', then that is only a 'relative truth' relative the third, that I then arbitrarily decided to define as 'being still'. Although he is being still relative the origin of the explosion there is nothing guaranteeing that this is the ultimate place of 'rest' in our universe. In 'reality' there are no such thing, or all uniformly moving 'objects' will be 'still', no matter what velocity you define to them.

Read it closely, one more time, and then try to see the universe, and the explosion from the viewpoint of expending energy. Any time you make a change in the universe you will have to 'expend energy' according to my view. Not expending 'energy' is, making no change. So do the uniformly moving observers spend any energy?, do the one at rest? But, if I am right we still have three 'types' of energy, real energy bursts happening? As far as I can see the only thing expending energy here is the explosion.

If so a gravitational acceleration, according to how I see it :) should be no 'acceleration'. Why, well nothing expends anything there, do they? accelerations is all about 'change' and 'change' is about expending energy locally, changing your 'SpaceTime'. To me that is, and now :) I need to think this over again I guess, but for now I'll go with it.
 

What is 'energy'?

If you accept that the energy is real for all three then you've killed the idea of 'objectivity', or that 'God like' point of view. That you can find a common relation and three energies guarantee only that there seems to be a 'sliding relation' between different observers, joining their observations. But, and that's the important thing, those energies was all real, by themselves. And as a 'system' you might want to define it to have a uniform motion, well, you're God after all :) making those energies tell you yet another thing about their 'strength' relative the 'universe'. The 'sliding relation' you see is meditated by radiation. And that's governed by lights invariant speed in and from all frames of reference, namely the speed of light in a vacuum.

So there is no way to define a universal measure of 'energy', but they will still, all three, do different amounts of 'work'. Then 'energy' also is a very 'local definition' and no truth you can use to describe a common SpaceTime. Remember that all uniformly moving frames, according to me, can be seen as equivalent, no matter what velocity you measure from your 'position'.

You can't have one  'common SpaceTime' where three observers, all being 'still', will measure three different readings for the same explosion, can you? If you can I'm quite interested in how it's possible?" And they are, being still, if I define them to be. It's two views you can use here, one looked at as a 'system'. There you can define who's moving against whom. But you can also choose to define it from all three points of view, one at a time.

I'm free to define each one of them as unmoving if seen from inside that black box. Just exchange the explosion for a siren, (equivalent to a light beam) keep our three observers but put them all into black boxes. Let two move uniformly, making it impossible to separate it from being at rest. Then listen to the Siren as one approach it, one are beside it, and one leaves it. The sound perceived inside that black box will be equivalent to the different 'energies' I'm discussing.

And all three will define it differently.
And all three will, according to the best of their definitions, see them self as being 'at rest'.

This one I expect to hold true in a constant uniform acceleration too, but not with a non-constant, non-uniform one, at least not having the exact equivalence as the uniform, and uniformly accelerating, motion seem to have? It's a difference there, even though all three still should refer to measuring a different energy? As for if I can define the constant uniformly accelerating observers as being at rest? Well, assuming one gravity it becomes a direct equivalence to Earth, doesn't it? Although, without any Coriolis force involved? So would I be able to?:)
==

Accepting my definition about there being three real and different 'energies' I hope you will find my definition of different 'room time geometries' making more sense. In your unique 'room time geometry' 'times arrow' give you the same expiration date no matter where you are, always 'ticking' with the same duration. The only 'time dilation' you will see will be the one defined by SpaceTime accelerating in 'time' as you 'move' near light speed. The Lorentz contraction can also be seen the same way, if you like, as an expression of 'SpaceTime' as your yardstick will give you the same measurements as before, measuring.

But, does that makes sense? I like it better if I define it as it all being one whole 'expression' where we use 'energy' to change it. And that's why I like 'energy expended'. Your 'room time geometry' will then be the whole of 'SpaceTime', and all yours. My 'room time geometry' will be another, having a different 'SpaceTime'. Then there is the question why they 'join' into one 'big SpaceTime'? I think it's by the same 'sliding relations' I mentioned before, radiation. And that's also why we have so many 'points of view', all depending on where we imagine us standing, observing. But my 'room time geometries' are defined from each 'object' existing, as they all should describe something unique.

Don't know how much sense it make seen 'globally', but 'locally' I'm quite happy with it :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 10/01/2011 04:58:22
So does the idea looking at light as not 'propagating' change anything?
Well it changes a lot, first of all we can stop discussing 'photons' and 'wavepackets'. We can also forget about 'waves'.
Combine it with my notion of distances being a variable and what do you get?

We get interactions creating a SpaceTime.

What would then define those interactions in a 'meaningful way'?
Well 'meaningful' just states that we exist, and we are self aware, therefore we are 'meaningful'. so it's a relative expression really, relative what we find to be 'meaningful'

Constants.
==

Why do I put such an importance to Constants? That's quite easy to answer, no matter what we have, propagating or not, we have rules defining it. Some of those rules are weirder than most, and those are the constants. They are weird in that we do not know where they come from, the other rules binds into each other as I see it but a constant is like a border. A barrier separating 'reality' from what 'might be'.

The more 'constants' we can find, the better we will see the game. They are the ultimate rules of SpaceTime, and from them I believe all other rules to come, when looked upon as a hierarchy. I might be wrong in that as I when doing so assume a causality chain ordering itself according to some principle, but inside SpaceTime I expect them to do just that.
==

Assuming that light doesn't propagate breaks down all notions we have about an 'arrow of time', but will it break down the idea of 'entropy'?. After all, they are not the same as I see it. Your arrow always ticks the same, but entropy?
==

And what exactly should we then call this light? I like photons, because that narrows them down, making it easier to consider them 'point like particles'. You can if considering it a wave also consider that same wave to 'propagate' in such a manner that it from its own frame have no 'distance' to speak about. None outside it, and none inside it.

So what does that make them. Heh, they are the holes in our 'reality' :)
They exist in their interaction. Depending on what rules that create that interaction they ..will.. express themselves differently. In a way they really are 'holes'. It will be the 'relations' that demands them that also create what we measure.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 10/01/2011 06:07:03
So can we construct a experiment proving that concept? I don't know, I don't think so, as for now that is. That as all 'photons' have to be a result of the surroundings demanding them to 'become'? On the other hand we seem to walk further and further from the path where our experiments make any 'common sense' if looked at from a quantum mechanical perspective. So from the viewpoint of 'delayed choice' I expect you to feel a certain sympathy for my way of looking at it :)

But if we really follow my logic we will meet some 'constant' and causality chain explaining those too. But one of them will be the one I present here. It all depends on how you want to look at the universe. Put your thoughts into perspective and consider how you would have thought when Newton was alive and well. I guess we all would have been quite happy with his universe, even though we would have tried to move its 'borders' then too.

Now we have a universe in where 'distance' and Newtons 'unchanging time' both are variables. Where light, although it interacts with us at all time, does not take any place inside SpaceTime, does not have any mass, is intrinsically timeless, and so able to collect all light there is in a possibly 'one or none-dimensional' spot. Not existing.

Try that for a nobrainer.

So, how do my ideas see that last example?
All photons 'compressed' into one dimensionless spot?

NP. They are after all what I call 'holes' in our 'reality', only there because of what defines them. so sure, compress and be done with it. All you get is a new 'hole', no different from the 'holes' you started with. But won't it be extremely 'energetic'. Maybe? It will be the surroundings and relations that define that 'hole', nothing else, so it might be possible to arrange some sort of experiment testing that, collecting light but differing the surrounding defining it, and see if it change :) But that's what we already are doing after all, and also getting different answers for the 'same' light.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 10/01/2011 07:01:31
So what is a 'photons' groundstate?
Does there exist one, and how do we define it?

Let's first check what a 'ground state' is thought to be. Normally you would assume it to be what a particle has when being 'at rest', don't you agree? So is a photon ever at rest? Nope, it can't be at rest, there is no way to define it as being 'at rest'. But we can 'slow it down' can't we?

Yes, we can. But to see the difference between that and a photon not ever being able to 'rest', we better take a look at what defines a photon again :)

"Anything with zero mass always travels at the speed of light.  But since the speed-of-light is always the speed-of-light... to everyone... there’s no way for these objects to ever be stationary (unlike massive stuff).  Vive la différence des lois!  It’s not important here, but things (like light) that travel at the speed of light never experience the passage of time."

But that photon when slowed down doesn't move at the speed of light, does it? Well, what is it we do when we slow one down? We send a laserbeam into a condensed gas, held by a magnetic field, and chilled to a temperature that makes all 'motion' and 'jiggling' stop. A photon, although of no mass still have a 'momentum', the thing that makes it able to 'push' at other things. So we also use other photons to 'bounce' it against to take out its 'momentum'.

Which is embarrassingly wrong, you can't use the momentum that way, hate it when I do that, trust my memory that is :) The thing I remembered was how they used lasers to shoot photons on the particles making up for the gas slowing/cooling them down. So writing ". All as I understands it. I should really check this up huh." was sadly all to right. Anyway, but at least I re-remebered it right this time, I hope? I thought it was kind of questionable as i wrote it, but, ah well, sh* happens, and in the best of families too.. But I at last have corrected it. and why it can't work on itself, so to speak, is because the force of its momentum is electromagnetic according to QM and relativity both. And as a photon acts as if it was neutral they cant influence each other electromagnetically. I hate being wrong, even when I know I am :) If that makes any sense..

No more than usual huh :) Anyway, this one might help. Not trusting my memory I've double checked about what a photons momentum is defined as.

"For most average objects, momentum is truly mass x velocity.  When motion
gets close to the speed of light, we find that the momentum relation p=mv is
only an approximation.  It is only correct when speed (v) is much smaller
than the speed of light (c).  The relation that works for all speeds is E^2
= p^2c^2 + m^2c^4.  It is much less convenient to use, and doesn't help
figure anything out until you reach speeds of perhaps thirty million meters
per second.  For a particle with no mass, the relation reduces to E=pc.
This works for a photon.  For very small speeds, the system reduces to
E=mc^2 + (1/2)mv^2, and p=mv.  This leads to relations with kinetic energy
and momentum:  much more convenient to work with and just as accurate until
you reach speeds close to the speed of light."

I let this one follow with it, not that it have to do with photons directly but?
It's good :)

"As for magnetic field, there is no reason why it should behave like gravity.
For one thing, the strength of magnetic FORCE depends on the speed of the
particle being pushed or pulled by the field.  Also, unlike gravity,
magnetic force pushes sideways, perpendicular to the field direction.
Gravitational force is just gravitational field multiplied by the mass being
pushed or pulled.  Electric force is just electric field multiplied by the
charge being pushed or pulled.  Magnetic force depends on the charge, speed,
AND direction of the charge being pushed or pulled, as well as the strength
of the field.  It is a very different kind of force.

As for "carrying" the field, it is known that photons of light transmit both
electric and magnetic force.  In fact, light is waves made of oscillating
electric and magnetic fields."


But what we are left with in that condense is no longer any 'photon'. It's a 'imprint' of the photon, like something remembering what a photon should be 'normally', and then as soon as the gas is getting 'warm' starting to 'jiggle' releases our 'photon', 'resurrected'.

So yes, I think I'm pretty right in saying that a 'photon' has no 'rest-frame' and also in my idea of it not 'propagating' other than as something created out of its 'relations' to what demands it.

But relative something else then? Isn't that what the notion being 'at rest' imply after all?
That you only need to find the relation that you can use for defining it to be 'at rest' relative?
Maybe, but what are you going to find that you can define it being 'at rest' against?
Another photon?

"A bound system (such as an electron in an atom, or a simple harmonic oscillator) has a ground state. An unbound system (such as a free particle) does not. So it makes no sense to talk about the ground state energy of a free particle." Would you call a photon a 'free particle'? As it's not even there :) How much freer can anything become?

But isn't there a definition for that photons energy.

==Quote

In 1905 Einstein managed to write a law that works whenever: E^2=P^2c^2+m^2c^4.  The same year (the same freaking  year) he figured out that light is both a particle and a wave and that the energy of a photon isn’t governed by it’s mass or it’s velocity (like matter), but instead is governed entirely by f, it’s frequency: E=hf, where h is Planck’s constant.

For light m=0, so E=Pc (energy and momentum are proportional).  Notice that you can never have zero momentum, since something with zero mass and zero energy isn’t something, it’s nothing.  This is just another way of saying that light can never be stationary.

Also!  Say you have an object with mass m, that isn’t moving (P=0).  Then you get: E=mc2 (awesome)!

====End of quote

I agree, it's awesome :)

But does a photon have a frequency?
Light as a wave sure has one, but a photon?
Also if a photon had a 'rest mass' shouldn't that raise into infinity as a photon 'propagates' at light. This one is not mine, but Daniels, but I wish :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 10/01/2011 10:06:13
Jastra and I was discussing motion and blue/red shifts, thinking of how a blue shift can import mass when its ray 'hits' you. And there we came to 'uniform motion' contra other types of motion. He's very good at making me see where I miss defining :) anyway, this is how I think about 'gravitational acceleration'. It's trickier than what one might expect, but I still consider it a sensible approach :)

"Look, the friendly men in white coats are waving at me again, wonder what they want?"

Ahem, sort of :)
==

Well, heads that think that light sources are moving, tend to think that the motion of the light sources causes blue and red shifts.

Those heads that think that they are moving, tend to think that they are butting their eye into light, when they are facing the forwards direction,
 
== Jartza


You're right :)

If we assume a uniform motion to the rocket we can exchange the motion of the rocket for one of the box instead. But either way I will in 'reality' only be able to notice a blue shift as I (or the box) approach, and then a subsequent redshift as I (or it) leave. I can see how you think but the light inside that box doesn't exist for you. The only light that exist is the light reaching your detector/eye. And as we assume a uniform motion here then the light inside the box, for someone being in it, will be 'normal as long as he is 'at rest' versus it, not rushing at light speed towards one of the mirrors.

And as it was you Jaztra :) that suggested a uniform motion here and arbitrarily changed your 'point of view' when it came to who it was moving relative whom, you will have to agree I think?

The only way you can change viewpoint like we did here is when we talk about 'uniform motion'. As soon as you decide to put in an acceleration you will know who is moving. Those two frames of reference, the head versus the box won't be equivalent anymore as one will feel a 'force/acceleration'.

But I see what you mean, and as I said before. As soon as we're talking accelerated frames your mass/energy situation comes into play, as far as I can see :)

==

One thing though. 'Accelerated frames', as I define it, will have to expend energy to be 'accelerated'.

Gravity does not create a 'accelerated frame' for our photon, even though it will from the solar panel at rest with the black hole do so. To see my thinking you can ask yourself what the ultimate 'velocity' would be for a piece of matter falling into a black holes infinite gravitation, ignoring tidal forces. Would it be light, or at least as close to light speed as matter can reach?

And when you done that you might ask yourself what gravity is?

If it is a geodesic and no force then that 'speed' we wondered about is no 'force' either but the ultimate 'being at rest' matter can achieve relative gravity. Remember now that if we exchange the matter for a photon the equivalence to the speed is its blueshift, and we know, as it is of a defined energy quanta, that if going up from a EV the photon to the far observer will be red shifted but to its partner coasting beside it be 'as always', at all times. And so, if we assume it 'propagating' it will, when coming out of the gravity-well, have expended no energy.

If we don't assume it 'propagating' the only thing that will decide its energy is the interaction and where it takes place. Then what you see is 'the reality'. if it is red shifted then that is real, and it will be of a weaker energy. If you would meet it outside the gravity well then you would measure another energy etc. The 'where' we talk about here is your coordinate system relative the objects surrounding you, defining your possible gravity/speed.

To me there is a big difference between you forcing a 'change' in your coordinate system locally and when just following a geodesic, expending no energy. And all change that expends energy, whether by you or on you are the same, but not gravitational potentials, aka the 'weird metric.'
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 10/01/2011 11:20:13
Those of you that think that the arrow of time is an 'illusion' should be rather pleased with my definitions :) That as what I'm doing is discussing 'moments in time' like if our universe in reality was 'frozen' and in a way unchanging. We know that it change, it's so easy to notice, but from my viewpoint the change is a conceptual thing, we create it in our living. The remarkable thing is that we all agree on its durations :) And that is what I call the arrow of time, always of the same duration for you, no matter where you are.

Entropy on the other hand? I need to know more about that before daring to have a decided opinion. It discusses how systems develop a complexity, growing from order, like your mum laying out your socks, to disorder, like the next morning when you realize that you don't remember where those da*ned sock are anymore. The disorder I speak of is also a greater complexity, after all, those socks could be anywhere, right? But, and that is a big but, it is not the same as when we speak of for example intelligence, and how a nut becomes a tree.

Take a look here at Entropy. (http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/)
 
I wrote "grow from order" there. It's a rather strange statement isn't it? Why should things grow from an order to an disorder. Well, there are only so many ways to arrange something to order but there's a he* of a lot more way to to leave it into 'disorder'. In a way it's a good proof of the idea of 'emergences' from chaos math. The concept there is how things organize themselves from the 'simple' to the 'complex' creating 'a complex order' not a 'complex disorder' as entropy is expected to do. Think about it :)

Okay, rereading myself. I should stop talk about Entropy as a 'disorder'. It is not a disorder, but neither is it what intelligence seems to be. Entropy is spilling milk in your coffee. You see it mix becoming a fluid , slightly colder and evenly spread in your cup, making the world look so much brighter too :)

That's entropy.

Chaos theory is an attempt to find the principles hiding behind why something very small and insignificant, like a spermatozoa meeting a egg can develop into a human being, filled with purpose and intelligence, sometimes :) So pouring your milk into that coffeecup won't produce a intelligent coffeecup. At least I don't think so myself.

That kind of complexity is something totally different, not covered by entropy, as I see it? To find an explanation for that kind of behavior we have to look to chaos theory, and the math describing it. Entropy can also be seen as the total mix of states into a uniform mixture, where there is no imbalance left between 'work' and 'work done'. Sorry, realized that this one came out ambiguous, what I meant there is that the idea is that we have two states when it comes to 'energy'. It either is 'on' meaning that we can transform it into 'work', or it is 'of' meaning that this 'energy' whatever is on strike, refusing to do any more work, ever.. Yep, hard line strikers those, don't you agree :).

The weird thing is that we expect there to be some 'soup' left in the universe, but unable to transform. And that is weird too if you think of it, on the other hand, if it would be under what we call Plank size it shouldn't be there at all, and then there will be no soup, and no universe either as I see it. But Black Holes are expected to survive long after, so it may be that they then will 'coagulate' into each other, as Space should contract if there only are those and a 'gluon soup' as some suggest. That as I expect space to be a construct needing matter to exist.

The problem is that we at least then have three different descriptions of what's happening inside SpaceTime. The wristwatch description, Entropy's description, Chaos theory's description.

Maybe there are more ways to look at it.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 10/01/2011 11:53:08
The important thing here is that if you accept that gravity don't need 'forces' then you better start asking yourself why you expect it to be particles? I don't need it to be any particles at all. I just need a constant describing where the limit goes, and the limit for gravity is lights speed as I see it. Think of that matter 'accelerating' to its ultimate state of 'rest' versus gravity. I will suggest that the ultimate, although never reachable state for matter is light. That is gravity is circumstanced by lights speed in a vacuum. Nothing more.
==

Thinking some more on it it seems to open for a new way to describe motion for me. If I call the velocity matter reach falling into into that infinite gravity 'rest' what does that make of motion? This one was rather weird :) and I most certainly will need to think about it. to be at rest is to define something against something else, normally we use it with matter but here I used matter against gravity? A very weird one indeed, would that make all other velocity, the matters need to find a position of rest versus gravity? And what would it make an acceleration? Yeah, I should get some sleep huh :)
==

Okay so who needs sleep? It's overrated anyway :)

QM needs its quantum, and then Space too needs to be in 'pieces'
In General realtivity Space is a 'smooth' thingie without breaks.

So what?

Don't get that one, you can have QM and general relativity both I think. I mean, we have both and they do a good job explaining a lot of reality. Look that you want to define a granularity is no problem, just don't apply it on space. Space is a classical nothing, think of lights speed in a vacuum, do you want to assign a granularity to that too? Why not, in which way is that different to space? Both exist, don't they? that we can't say that here is 'lights speed' doesn't make it go away, and the same can be said for space. Pick any point in a empty space and tell me what you got. Nothing..

Also, what happens to the granularity in a Lorentz contraction/Doppler effect?
Both exists, both 'seems to' concentrate and deliver more energy?
If information is SpaceTime, what do I have left, as close to light speed I can come?
A infinite point representing SpaceTime?

Hmm, I think both time and space is a 'smooth' thingie, no granularity to it.
What this do is to mix what I call 'emergences', demanding them to be the same.
That's not gonna work. It's against all what seems to create us.
Ah, us.. We who looks at it and wonder why :)

==

"According to general relativity when stuff falls into a blackhole everything about it’s existence (with the exception of mass, charge, and momentum) is completely erased.  That doesn’t sound so bad.  We tend to think of blackholes as being like galactic garbage disposals.  However, if all the information about something is destroyed, then you lose time-reversibility.  Time-reversal is the idea that if you run time backwards, all the basic physical laws of the universe continue to work the same.  More obscurely, you can predict the future based on what you know now, and time reversal means that you can derive what happened in the past as well.  QM requires that time-reversibility (or “unitarity”, to a professional) holds.  So QM requires that blackholes cannot destroy information.  One way around this is amazingly complicated entanglement between all of the in-falling matter, and all of the Hawking Radiation that comes out later.  Again, we’ll never be able to measure this.  To get results we would have to exactly measure at least half of all of the photons generated by Hawking radiation over the essentially infinite life time of the blackhole (every blackhole that exists today will be around long, long after the heat death of the universe)."

Not a good argument. Hawking radiation is about a balance, not about 'meaningful information'. Okay, it's a sort of information, but in no way meaningful. Also the particle antiparticle annihilation should leave a rest of positive energy inside the EV, is that not information? And considering the way plants move energy through entanglements I would call 'energy' pretty da*n meaningful? What Hawking radiation seems to do is to set a opposite spin for the surviving twin outside the EV. Not the same, the opposite. So assume that the universe is a software program, can you reverse bits of your code and still expect the program to work the same? If you want to assume that what you get from the radiation is meaningful you better define how, and if you think energy you better consider the 'rest energy' left inside that Black Hole
==

Okay, mostly I argue because I don't like it :)
Why would one way of seeing it be the only one?

It's like we have a universe that works on many planes, some of them undefinable other than mathematically. does that mean that we will need two descriptions of one 'reality'?

Myself I hope not, and I like my space 'empty'. It makes for a free topology to me, and in it we have one definition for what gravity is. It's something that are 'at rest' with matter at the speed of light. I know, I'm just testing here :) to see where it might take me. So what would it make a velocity? Matter is defined by inertia, isn't it? Light, as I see it do not have inertia.

Which makes perfect sense if I define all light as being 'at rest'.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 13/01/2011 14:34:02
So what is matter?

After all, light is supposed to be intrinsically timeless.
Space we can't assign a 'time' to in itself, only to the phenomena and objects we observe in it.
Then we have matter?
 
"Using magnetic fields, though, we have managed to trap a small amount of anti-matter. Indeed, in 1995, scientists at the CERN accelerator in Switzerland made nine anti-hydrogen atoms. How long would it take to make three grams (the mass of a penny) of anti-hydrogen? CERN makes about ten million anti-protons in a second. If CERN could keep generating anti-protons at that rate non-stop, they could make three grams in about six billion years. Fermilab could do the job in a tenth the time, since they make 100 million anti-protons per second. Still, six hundred million years is a long time to make three grams of mass.

Thus, we don't make much mass in particle accelerators, because it takes too much energy. The lights of Chicago may not actually dim when they run the Chicago's big accelerator at Fermilab, but the accelerator is a "significant drain" on the electricity grid, says Koji Mukai of NASA'S Goddard's Space Center. Consider how much energy is in a kilogram (2.2 lbs) of water. If we could convert that mass into the equivalent energy, we'd have enough energy to drive a car for about 100,000 years without stopping, say CERN scientists."

Okay so we can make 'matter' if we by that mean particles.
But what is it?

"The mass of a proton is about 938 MeV. It consists of three quarks, each of which have a mass on the order of 3 MeV (more or less, not very accurate.) There is a huge discrepancy between 938 and 9. The remainder of the mass of the proton is the potential and kinetic energy of the gluons holding the whole thing together. The correct vision of a proton is a little subatomic gluonic lightning storm, buffeting three nearly insignificant quarks. "

Ahh, okay :)

But what is it? Let's simply say that it seems to have a lot to do with 'energy'. Okay, so what is energy then? Well, as I see it energy is a relation, not a 'thingie'. It's how we measure what surrounds the idea we call the 'energy', and that one is easily proved by red and blue shift. Or by what we call 'potential energy'. that's the energy we find to be in a interaction, as defined in some positional space and time. But is potential energy the same as 'energy'? Not really, it doesn't exist until in the interaction. why do I say it doesn't exist?

Well, if it did we should notice it as for example radiation, But we do, don't we? Like when heating something for example, won't that make radiation? Yeah, but that's not what I'm talking about. On earth we have all those different 'densities', gases like air, fire, and matter, and fluids, all coexisting. When we bring them together they will produce radiation, however small amount it might be. Because they all have that 'stored energy' in them (particles) that will 'collide' in form of atoms, molecules etc. But take a spaceship, give it a velocity relative Earth. Make it go really really fast, will the atoms in that ship start to 'jingle' as we now have a lot more 'potential energy' 'stored' in the ship (relative Earth)?

Nope, not that I know. There is no 'jingling' to be seen in that ships atoms. No 'energy' transfered from its 'motion' through space. So there are no 'potential energy' stored in that ship. That we use the idea is an effect of the math that we use, in it this kind of thinking makes a lot of sense. but in reality there isn't any such thing, as I know at least.
==

But we still think that 'particles' have this close relation to the thing that 'doesn't exist' don't we? 'Energy' I mean.

How?
What is Space?
 
We know that a atom is 99.999~ something 'Space', and that in that 'space' we have all this 'energy' and some ,very few, moving 'particles' that we can observe. Under those, at the same plane as I understands it, as 'virtual particles', we expect there to be other 'things' called 'gluons' etc, that somehow keeps it all together. Making those particles, all put together, into a lasting 'piece of matter'. So how do they do it? Those particles, how do they know how to form themselves into a lasting piece of matter? What 'binds' them together?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 13/01/2011 15:59:23
'Virtual particles'? what is virtual particles, and gluons? And leptons?
And do they have anything to do with matter?

Let's take a look. First of all, when discussing those things we have a principle. It's a really important one too. It's called Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and states that it won't, never ever, be possible to measure a simultaneous definite value for both the position and momentum of a particle. That idea have since then been widened to count in a lot of other properties/combinations too. Here's how he looked at his idea.

"For example, there is a passage (Heisenberg, 1927, p. 197), where he discusses the idea that, behind our observational data, there might still exist a hidden reality in which quantum systems have definite values for position and momentum, unaffected by the uncertainty relations. He emphatically dismisses this conception as an unfruitful and meaningless speculation, because, as he says, the aim of physics is only to describe observable data.

Similarly, in the Chicago Lectures (Heisenberg 1930, p. 11), he warns against the fact that the human language permits the utterance of statements which have no empirical content at all, but nevertheless produce a picture in our imagination. He notes, "One should be especially careful in using the words ‘reality’, ‘actually’, etc., since these words very often lead to statements of the type just mentioned." So, Heisenberg also endorsed an interpretation of his relations as rejecting a reality in which particles have simultaneous definite values for position and momentum." So now you know why I so often put 'reality' in brackets. I have that same feeling as he seemed to have. Reality is a really weird idea :)

This principle is what allows 'virtual particles' to influence 'real particles'. So how many fundamental 'real particles' do we have that make up matter? Twelve, as far as I understand.

"In the modern theory, known as the Standard Model there are 12 fundamental matter particle types and their corresponding antiparticles. The matter particles divide into two classes: quarks and leptons. There are six particles of each class and six corresponding antiparticles. In addition, there are gluons, photons, and W and Z bosons, the force carrier particles that are responsible for strong, electromagnetic, and weak interactions respectively.

These force carriers are also fundamental particles. All we know is that quarks and leptons are smaller than 10^-19 meters in radius. As far as we can tell, they have no internal structure or even any size. It is possible that future evidence will, once again, show this understanding to be an illusion and demonstrate that there is substructure within the particles that we now view as fundamental."

"Leptons are spin-1⁄2 particles. The spin-statistics theorem thus implies that they are fermions and thus that they are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle; no two leptons of the same species can be in exactly the same state at the same time. Furthermore, it means that a lepton can have only two possible spin states, namely up or down.#

And

"Leptons have various intrinsic properties, including electric charge, spin, and mass. Unlike quarks however, leptons are not subject to the strong interaction, but they are subject to the other three fundamental interactions: gravitation, electromagnetism (excluding neutrinos, which are electrically neutral), and the weak interaction.

For every lepton flavor there is a corresponding type of antiparticle, known as antilepton, that differs from the lepton only in that some of its properties have equal magnitude but opposite sign. However, according to certain theories, neutrinos may be their own antiparticle, but it is not currently known whether this is the case or not.

The first charged lepton, the electron, was theorized in the mid-19th century by several scientists and was discovered in 1897 by J. J. Thomson. The next lepton to be observed was the muon, discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1936, but it was erroneously classified as a meson at the time. After investigation, it was realized that the muon did not have the expected properties of a meson, but rather behaved like an electron, only with higher mass.

It took until 1947 for the concept of "leptons" as a family of particle to be proposed. The first neutrino, the electron neutrino, was proposed by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 to explain certain characteristics of beta decay. It was first observed in the Cowan–Reines neutrino experiment conducted by Clyde Cowan and Frederick Reines in 1956.The muon neutrino was discovered in 1962 by Leon M. Lederman, Melvin Schwartz and Jack Steinberger, and the tau discovered between 1974 and 1977 by Martin Lewis Perl and his colleagues from the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The tau neutrino remained elusive until July 2000, when the DONUT collaboration from Fermilab announced its discovery.

Leptons are an important part of the Standard Model. Electrons are one of the components of atoms, alongside protons and neutrons. Exotic atoms with muons and tauons instead of electrons can also be synthesized, as well as lepton–antilepton particles such as positronium."
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 13/01/2011 17:22:43
So what happened to those protons and neutrons then? Wasn't they the ones making up the atoms nucleus? (And how many atoms do we have? Ninety two, naturally occurring). After all, isn't all matter made out of atoms, in where we find protons and neutrons?

Well, according to the standard theory those protons and neutrons in 'reality' are made out of quarks. The proton has two 'up quarks' and one 'down quark', the neutron has two 'down quarks' and one 'up quark'. The proton also carries an electrical charge, which mean that at least some of the quarks should be 'electrically charged'. As the neutron, as it sounds, is 'neutral', having no charge, also is built of the same quarks as the proton there had to be something else making them differ, and that was how you combined those quarks.

Before the discovery of quarks all charges was thought to be multiples of the proton charge but finding that it was made of quarks the protons charge had to be split up. The standard model describe three basic amounts for a charge. + 2/3, −1/3, and −1. When it comes to electrons they are similar to the muon and the tau, having the same electrical charge and acting similarly, although the electron having a different mass and that the muon and tau could decay into other particles, whereas the electron was stable and unchanging.

So .. "Everything around us is made of matter particles. These occur in two basic types called quarks and leptons. Each group consists of six particles, which are related in pairs, or ‘generations’. The lightest and most stable particles make up the first generation, whereas the heavier and less stable particles belong to the second and third generations. All stable matter in the Universe is made from particles that belong to the first generation; any heavier particles quickly decay to the next most stable level.

The six quarks are paired in the three generations – the 'up quark' and the 'down quark' form the first generation, followed by the 'charm quark' and 'strange quark', then the 'top quark' and 'bottom quark'. The six leptons are similarly arranged in three generations – the 'electron' and the 'electron-neutrino', the 'muon' and the 'muon-neutrino', and the 'tau' and the 'tau-neutrino'. The electron, the muon and the tau all have an electric charge and a mass, whereas the neutrinos are electrically neutral with very little mass."
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/02/2011 10:18:43
As it is the place for new ideas, sort of :) I'll present a question i have. Ever heard of Feynman's partons? "In particle physics, the parton model was proposed by Richard Feynman in 1969 as a way to analyze high-energy hadron collisions.[1] It was later recognized that partons describe the same objects now more commonly referred to as quarks and gluons. Therefore a more detailed presentation of the properties and physical theories pertaining indirectly to partons can be found under quarks."

Now, I came to this one discussing Lorentz contraction. Here's how the 'inventor' Hendrik Lorentz imagined his concept once.  "The Spherical Wave Structure of Matter tells us that there is no discrete particle and instead we are considering the behavior of the wave-center. Thus we realize that the motion of the particle through Space is actually the apparent motion of successive wave-centers which are determined by where each successive spherical (in reality ellipsoidal) In-wave meets at its respective wave-center. As the spherical In and Out waves combine and then cancel one another, the particle effect of the wave-center appears in a discrete point in Space, then disappears, then re-appears again as the next In-waves meets at its wave-center (roughly 1020 times per second).

As Wertheim explains;

In the quantum world, subatomic particles lurch about, suddenly disappearing from their starting points and reappearing as if by magic somewhere else. (Wertheim, 1997)

Further, this apparent motion of the wave-center (particle) is caused by a difference in velocity of the In-waves from one direction, and this also necessarily changes the spherical shape of the In-waves (they become squashed or stretched spheres / ellipsoids)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spaceandmotion.com%2FImages%2FMoving-Wave.jpg&hash=0f44b969310e96b3d0277d918241041f)
Fig:1.1 The Ellipsoidal Shape of a Moving wave-center: If the In-waves on the right are slowed down as they travel in through Space then they change ellipsoidal shape (rather than being exactly spherical) and have a shorter wavelength. It is this change in velocity, ellipsoidal shape and wavelength of the In-wave which causes the apparent motion of the wave-center and the Lorentz Transformations.

The Lorentz Transformations provide formulas for the change of ellipsoidal shape of matter (SSWs) with the apparent 'motion' of the 'particle' (wave-center) and how this affects Mass, Time and Length/Dimension. This explains the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment as Lorentz explains;

In order to explain this absence of any effect of the Earth's translation (in the Michelson/Morley experiment), I have ventured the hypothesis, that the dimensions of a solid body undergo slight change, of the order of v2/c2, when it moves through the ether. From this point of view it is natural to suppose that, just like the electromagnetic forces, the molecular attractions and repulsions are somewhat modified by a translation imparted to the body, and this may very well result in a change of dimensions. The electrons themselves become flattened ellipsoids."

Now I had some reservations to the picture. In a Lorentz contraction even space 'contracts' right? How would that work? Those explanations I've seen try to use the idea of everything being able to reduced to some 'smallest constituent', like 'light/photons', for explaining for example the 'pole in the barn experiment', discussing how the shock waves from the pole meting the rear, now closed door, will travel back in the pole as 'information', telling the pole that its 'speed' now is over and done with, more or less. Not satisfactory to me by several reasons. One being the idea of space contracting, then we have the problem with atoms contracting without their 'widening' as one might expect in a more common world explanation of how matter would react. There are several other arguments I can point out, but that's neither here nor now. I'll let them be for the moment, the main point is the idea of using 'information' in form of particles telling the pole what to do or not to do relative 'speed' is not good, neither do I find it straight forward.

Einsteins SpaceTime is not a divided entity. You do not have three singular dimensions and then a time dimension, instead you have a SpaceTime.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 21/02/2011 10:42:40
The interesting thing with his 'parton model' is the way Feynman seems to use 'contraction' and 'time dilation' explaining them. "In this model, a hadron (for example, a proton) is composed of a number of point-like constituents, termed "partons". Additionally, the hadron is in a reference frame where it has infinite momentum — a valid approximation at high energies. Thus, parton motion is slowed by time dilation, and the hadron charge distribution is Lorentz-contracted, so incoming particles will be scattered "instantaneously and incoherently".

The parton model was immediately applied to electron-proton deep inelastic scattering by Bjorken and Paschos. Later, with the experimental observation of Bjorken scaling, the validation of the quark model, and the confirmation of asymptotic freedom in quantum chromodynamics, partons were matched to quarks and gluons. The parton model remains a justifiable approximation at high energies, and others have extended the theory over the years."

Feynman, I think, had a really good mind, and he seems to have wondered about the same as I'm wondering about now as he found it necessary to introduce those concepts into our tiniest 'reality'. You see, when we move at those sizes it seems to me that the only ting we truly can see are the 'traces', and indirect evidence. We do not see them in other words, we infer them. And what he's doing there in fact is that he is introducing something never measured 'time dilation & Lorentz contraction' as entities having an existence in their own right. In a way this becomes as meta physical as it ever can be, we introduce what is not 'here' to explain what we 'can't see' directly, only guess our way too, by making mathematical models and predictions based on statistics and probability. It's surprising how fast some guys & gals are to deem out 'meta physics', at the same time as they move further and further out in the minefields.

But I think Feynman was right. You need those concepts to describe 'particles'. What started as a description from 'matter' by Lorentz in his try to define a aether has, to me at least, became a much more subtle proposal, where the 'contraction' isn't a 'materialistic' effect with some 'real particles ready for whittling' but instead a description of what's already there. A fractal behavior if you like, a 'contraction' hidden in what we call the 'contraction'.
==

Take a look at the Physical Basis for Feynman's Parton Picture. (http://ysfine.com/einstein/emc/fparton.html)   
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 22/02/2011 04:22:27
So I keep coming back to speed. That's after all what our contraction seems to build on, isn't it?
Take a 'inertial frame', meaning a planet, moving uniformly through Space. We can give it all kind of speeds depending on what we will use as a reference point, but does that state that the universe can't differ between those 'speeds'?

Assume that you have this planet, going at half the speed of light, relative the CBR and blue-shift you measure. then send away a star-ship from it. That starship is built to accelerate for 6 hours 'ship time' to reach 99.9999 of lights speed in a vacuum. And it does as defined by the CBR and the blue shift it measures.

Take another planet, define its speed relative the CBR, and blue-shift, at a quarter of the speed of light instead. Then send the same exact star ship away. Will it after six hours reach 99.9999 of lights speed in a vacuum? Why would you expect that? If it doesn't, can the universe differ between 'speeds'?

If it can't differ between speeds then it shouldn't matter what speed your 'inertial frame' had, as compared to any other frame. You should then still reach 'light speed' in about the same hour's, no matter the initial 'speed' you measured for your 'origin' of take off. Or we will have to assume a universe that somehow have a marvelously clever way of adapting your acceleration to where you start from, compensating so that no matter the 'inertial frames' mass and relative 'speed' you always reach the same percentage of lights speed, in about the same time. Or we have a universe where only 'gravity' aka 'invariant mass' define your start position, speed being meaningless for defining it.

So what do you think? Can the universe differ between speeds? I'm pretty sure it can. If it couldn't 'speed' shouldn't exist I think. And for that it doesn't matter what we call, or ultimately expect, that 'speed' to be. As a measurable phenomena it exist and so our question is relevant. So why do we say that all speeds are the same then, well, in a uniform motion? That's the 'black box scenario' isn't it? Where you're enclosed in a black box moving uniformly through Space. From that point of view no speed exist, as there is no way I know of proving a speed, except relative tidal forces, but assume it to be somewhere with a unmeasurable gravity (relative you) for this.

So now we've done away with the question if the universe can and will differ between speeds.
Yes it can, and will. And if you differ with my estimate there you will have to define how speeds can differ as well as explain my examples away, without using the universe as a reference point

Does that mean that it can differ between uniform speeds too?
Sure.

But we can't, can we? So why can the universe do what we can't? Well, if you found a way to push our universe into that 'black box' and then let it move uniformly, in itself, maybe it would get into trouble? :) Or better, another universe, exactly the same as itself. But if the universe can differ between frames, shouldn't it also be able to define a 'zero motion'?

That one is really tricky. Either it can but we haven't succeeded in finding out how it does so, or 'zero motion' is just a 'relation'. How did our universe fare in that black box, btw? Could it differ between 'speeds' there? Nah ...

So how does the universe differs between speeds out of that black box then?
How about it having 'relations'?
==

Also, that absence of a gold standard when it comes to 'speed' and 'zero motion', as we define it, I see as very important for what 'speed' really is. Without a 'zero motion' no 'speed' can be defined as a 'true speed'. It can only be defined relative a arbitrarily 'moving' frame, that we then for this question define as having a 'zero motion' relative our star-ship. Like our Earth..

But we do have a 'stop' for speed, don't we :)

Lights speed in a vacuum is that stop. So will that 'stop' come at different times for our star-ship, depending on what we took of from, like Earth or some 'speeding star-station', being at half light-speed relative Earth? Sure, it will matter, even though both of those frames could be defined as being 'zero motion' relative our starship taking off from any of them.

We have a 'stop'. That's important, but we do not have a 'beginning'. Can that tell us something about 'speed'? Try your imagination, what is 'motion', if there is nothing defining a 'zero motion'? Only something saying 'to here, but no further'.



Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 22/02/2011 21:13:13
I don't know what a distance is but I'm pretty sure it's connected to time. The only way you can see a length contraction, or time dilation, is between frames. The effect seems to create a symmetry in that the length contraction is as from the moving observer whilst the time dilation is the complementary effect his 'opponent/frame' will observe, or not :) Depending on the definition of a common origin needed.

Inside your own 'frame' there is no time dilation and neither will you observe a time dilation. The only true way to measure anything is by direct observation, and in that frame none of those are possible to measure as your measurements change with the time dilation/Lorentz contraction. So what is a 'distance'? Unchanging at all times for you, but according to you speeding relative the universe 'shrinking' even though your measuring tells you otherwise.

So what do we use to prove that it have 'shrunk'? Our history, right? The memories and recorded truths we have about how the universe looked before us speeding away. And we trust our history, we have too :) Without it nothing can be measured, as all measurements then will lose relevance as soon as we 'moves on temporally' finished with observing them. So, the universe shrinks with speed, and with gravity, but our own 'frame' won't?

Imagine yourself move infinitely close to light speed. The universe should soon be over, a contracted point in front of you. If you are moving uniformly now there is no energy expended and there is no 'end' to your motion. That speck you see should be the universe you too are in, but if you measure it? By light perhaps, can you tell me where you are in it?

==

And as you are in a uniform motion, I now declare you being at rest. And that should be true as far as I know :)
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 23/02/2011 06:59:22
Yeah I know. I don't seem to get 'there', do I? :) But it's the path that matters, not the end. What I'm wondering is simple, we have 'something' & 'virtuality' then we have QM (entanglements, undefined arrow, tunneling) and then we have Macroscopicallity, with Einsteins SpaceTime.

And the only thing I know about Space macroscopically is that it contain 'distance' or, if you like, that it have a real part of our three dimensional 'space' working inside our arrow. any try to diminish (a pun) a Lorentz contraction will need to explain how it 'shrinks' the distance in 'Space'. And you can't, not as I know it? There is no 'light' to labor with there.

So why do space 'shrink' with motion? What was speed regulated by? It wasn't 'Zero Motion' right? In fact only regulated by one thing 'lights speed in a vacuum'. Look at that as a fish looks at the underside of water, as something 'real'. Then look at the opposite, no 'motion'. We don't have that, no 'motion' becomes a way of describing infinity to us in that we can't reach it. And that elusive 'distance'? What happened with motion, from your perspective. Nothing to your arrow that you could see, but your universe became so small. So what is a distance? Something contracting and magnifying?

Yep.

At least I think so, take our cube of jello representing SpaceTime, imagine we put it under a equally spread pressure in all points. It 'shrinks' until its matter breaks down into a singularity. And that is what 'motion' seems to create, a tension in your SpaceTime. I say yours because we do not share the same, not as I understands it. The mediator of our common SpaceTime is radiation, and if you like, with that 'information', all taking place macroscopically regulated by lights speed in a vacuum.

That is not true under QM. There the universe entangles, as well as tunnel when needed. Proteins folds by quantum jumps instead of following a linear logic, plants transport 'energy' by entanglements. I wouldn't be surprised if, was it Penrose? is right in that we too at that plane use entanglements and tunneling. QM laughs at 'distance' and 'times arrow'.

So how do we get from there to here?  'Magnify & contract'.
=

And if that is true you need to stop looking at distance as only a straight line. It can't be that. A distance will be a representation of a ? Cone ?? (let's use cone for the moment, to give us that real 3D feeling, real 'cone' reality is of course 4D, but a 3D cone will suffice for our imagination:) widening or shrinking with your motion and also 'time' as part of it. Motion being a 'cone' plastered with 'time'. There is nothing 'one dimensional' in our macroscopic world. As soon as you're over Plank size I expect every point to be in glorious 3-D plastered in 'time' and propagated in macroscopic 'times arrow'.

You need to think about this for a while, as I :)
But I think I'm right here.

=
Some wild speculation, okay, wilder then :)

If you look at motion from the concept of energy, where will that energy be near light? Contracted in front of you, right? What will you see looking to the rear of your ship? Nothing of what should be there I think, you will see the bended light representing what's in front of you. Possibly you will see some red shifted light, but the closer you come to lights speed the less it should be, and at some point I would expect that red light to become unmeasurable for you too. And at near light your 'SpaceTime cone' ahem :) should end in yourself. That will mean that though you, possibly, I'm not sure what will happen as a universe 'stops', or if it does? Possibly can go on 'forever', until your natural death at least, inside your 'arrow of time & frame of reference' aka room time geometry 'times arrow'  as observed from another 'frame' will lose its meaning. Do you see what I mean? That 'times arrow' need a 'space' too, and your own 'SpaceTime' is so contracted there that you shouldn't even be observable from any other 'frame of reference'. In fact I suspect you have stopped to 'exist' for any other 'frame' in our common SpaceTime, speeding that fast.
==

You might want to argue that if we only had another ship speeding beside it, being at rest with it, it still would 'exist'. And that's true, but neither of those ships will be measurable. You might ask yourself what measuring means for this one. And as I see it a measurement is defined by your measuring, simple as that. If you can't make that measurement, well, then it's not 'there', simple as that again. Prove me wrong :)

You might, to see this question, imagine what would happen to you if that ship, contracted as it is relative you, you still being at rest relative it at Earth, passes through Earth. At what contraction will it stop being noticed by Earths matter? Or do you expect that enormous 'relative mass'/energy-momentum' to express itself, any contraction notwithstanding? I'm not sure about that, if there is a momentum 'collected' in its 'compression' then that added 'energy' expresses itself strangely in that, assuming your ship is moving in a uniform motion, there will be none to be measured, and that from any frame of reference. The only time you will get a measurement is in a 'interaction', as I understands it? And, as you're constantly getting closer to light you must contract, as I expect becoming as small as a 'particle' relative your origin, or smaller possibly all the way 'down' to Planck scale, as seen from our Earthly 'frame', being at rest.

==

There is a problem here though :)
The contraction is only working in the direction of your motion.
Shows you the danger of letting your imagination run free.

So your 'width'  will be the same. That shoots down that example, but still, I think the idea works and also, what happens to a contraction taken to its extreme? Is there a 'stop' for it relative the speed of light, and the observer watching it, being 'at rest' relative it.
==

Still, another question, what will happen with something moving close to light speed relative you, contracted in its motion, if you also start to spin it close to light. And how many rotations could you do on it? Two? How about spheres inside spheres? they should crack right, but rockets spinning round their axle then, should be the same though, shouldn't it?
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 24/02/2011 09:30:08
Anyone ever wondered about alchemy :)

We seem to be doing the modern equivalent of it, in white coats instead of mantles with stars on but? And weirdest of all, it seems to work out? Then, on the other hand, what did you expect? A mechanical clock with you as the automata bending to some constructors instructions? Naaah, any universe worth living in should present us a free will, and the sheer possibility of us able to questioning it should show you that we have it too. It leaves a lot on our shoulders, it will be us that define right from wrong, justice from injustice. There are no 'laws' of how to be 'a real human being', it's just us, creating them as we live. That's also why the world looks like it does. The western ideas of democracy and liberty is just one of the ways to live, and without you realizing and defending those ideals it will soon be gone. That includes testing that democracy, constantly. If it fails those tests? Well, then it will be something else, no matter what you like to call it.

To me we're just animals, honed for self preservation primarily, and if that includes working in groups so be it. A lot of animals can present the same flock behavior as us. But, we have also this strange ability of 'conserving' our past, remembering it, writing it down and using it to create a better future. Only, that future can only be as good as your ideals. We've just lifted ourselves from the medieval way of thinking, in where we treated each other as 'resources' and 'property'. And I hope we're trying to do better now, but we're still missing out on most of the rest of the flora and fauna of this planet.

We're no guardians of Earth, never was, the last three four hundred years we've moved from being a part of its animal kingdom to becoming a sore on it, using it shortsightedly for our own enrichment. But the planet is very small today, and with its resources shrinking getting smaller for each fleeting hour.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 11/03/2011 06:13:48
Some weird questions and musings, or something?

Anyway, let's start with SpaceTime. I will now state that any position in SpaceTime is decided by possibly 'four things' or two. Your position in space and your time. Your position in space can only be 'relative' something else as I understand it, but how about time? Is that also a relative thing? If you look at time dilation it seems so, doesn't it? In quantum physics you can have two systems being in the exactly same state initially, but bifurcating into different states. If you have that, what differ them?

Their position in SpaceTime? As if time had a relation to your overall position? But a time dilation is relative motion, isn't it? So something more than only position spatially and temporally, or else ? A different 'SpaceTime'? Because that is what you see with a time dilation/Lorentz contraction isn't it? You have two choices here, either look at it with eyes of a God. Then everything in SpaceTime will be relative your observation 'outside' it, and you see the 'time dilation', and also Lorentz contraction, in a 'universal sand box' or you're inside this universe. Then you will see a different SpaceTime for every phenomena at the same time as your own 'time' always will be the same. Can a quantum system be relativistic? The sizes we look at is very small so you could say that all 'distances' is magnified relative what you look at, do you agree?

If you look at it that way, a small difference in position should give a large result, if that assumption was right.
==

Think of time as being of one measure, exchange magnifying for a larger chunk of time instead, just as you did when you considered the relative 'distance' for a particle relative it 'size'. This is my feeling, that time can be exchanged in this way. Don't know how much sense it makes, but it binds together time dilation and Lorentz contraction, I think, with the 'relative size'. There is more to it of course. Smolin is very interesting in his musings. It's just that I don't like the idea of 'crisscrossing dimensions'. Otherwise I think he makes a lot of sense, well, to me he does. He's one of the few taking Einstein seriously it seems, and trying to fit SpaceTime to the very small. And any assumptions doing otherwise introduce two concepts. People gets confused by Einsteins views on QM and assume that because he didn't find QM 'appropriate' it can't be the same as SpaceTime. But I think he was just human, we all have our assumptions, and those regulate our choices. I start with assuming that SpaceTime is real, and that Einsteins ideas macroscopically was correct. Then I look at QM and wonder where it fits in. Because in a universe built on relations you must have them geometrically too. At least I assume so.
==

It's more than than that. I assume a fractal universe, and why I do so is because that seems to be the way our universe transfer 'information'. Look at yourself, you're one big piece of 'information' but once you were only a egg fertilized by a spermatozoa. And look at nature, everything start so small, growing in information from that. You have two choices, either you expect all information to be already there, at anythings beginning, or you define everything as 'fractally growing'. I believe everything use that way, SpaceTime too, that means exactly what it say by the way. Space does it, time does it, 'dimensions' does it. Yeah, I'm the ultimate 'copy cat', I think the universe knows what it's doing, we just have to look at it the right way, sort of :)
==

So let us take a look at superpositions and HUP (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) from my new perspective. If everything is fractal, what do the universe need to create us? Think about it. Instead of looking at those 'property's' as mysteries they become the minimalistic blueprints for what a universe need (to become as ours). They are 'constants' in a sense, defining our universe, just as the Planck scale do (well, I think it to do so anyway:)
==

Another question. Assume that I am right in that the 'expansion' comes to be with every point of it in glorious 3D, and time, immediately. That means all 'dimensions already 'there' in each point. What kind of universe would it need to be for this to happen? Not singular dimensions finding new 'space' crisscrossing and binding it to us, but every point already perfectly formed, as our SpaceTime 'notice' it. A little like a whale breaking 'surface', his back becoming the new 'distance'. Maybe it's possible to imagine it two ways? New 'space' coming to us, or us opening for new 'space'? Like we were 'sinking' into more space? Don't know, but I still think it has to be in 3D and time 'instantly', no delay. But how do you think such a universe should be 'constructed' to allow for such a behavior? It has to be a self like magnifying effect I think, a fractal behavior.
=

Depending on how fast you assume 'space' expanding, new 'distances' created, depending on that you also should notice 'gravity' change, shouldn't you? Inverted 'gravity waves' sort of as 'gravity' is presumed to 'propagate' at 'c'. But I don't think it does, I think the 'gravity' already existent in those new stretches 'instantly', already there. That doesn't mean that I doubt gravity waves, just that I doubt our new 'space' needing those propagating. But that is just a guess, building on my idea of a 'infinite gravity' as I believe a singularity/black hole to represent.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 12/03/2011 14:10:53
So I've been discussing 'energy'. It's a interesting concept. Especially if we look at a Black hole. That is the 'end state' of a compression. So, how about a gravitational wave, would that 'compress' you too? So here goes nothing :)

"Einstein derived a formula for the rate of change (known as the quadrapole formula), and in the centenary of Einstein's birth, Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor reported that the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 bore out Einstein's predictions within a few percent.  Hulse and Taylor were awarded the Nobel prize in 1993."

This one gives me a big headache :) Because I'm not sure how Einstein thought about quadrapole gravitation,  ('Unlike EM, which is a vector field (and can cause dipole radiation), gravity as a rank-2 tensor field cannot radiate monopole or dipole'). Was it only applicable to motion, did he see matter as the source, what about uniform motion? Did he imagine gravity to radiate? No way. Not that I know at least. But the modern way seems to be to assume that gravity indeed can 'radiate'. And why that assumption is made seems to be the idea of everything being ultimately 'the same'. That means that if gravity can be translated into 'radiation' we have a equivalence to EM (electro magnetic) radiation. You got to be impressed by those finding themselves sufficiently advanced to 'correcting' general relativity into something, theoretically fitting, a possible 'Toe', but? Are they right?

Normally when you find yourself needing to correct something it's because it is wrong. So are GR wrong? Not that I know? Does it 'explain' what  gravity is then? Well, in a way it does. It tell us how to look at gravity, even though it doesn't pinpoint its exact cause. Gravity seems to be a result of 'energy' and 'matter'. The question then becomes how? If we assume that there are two causes we're complicating it but if we look at the end state we find 'energy'. So 'energy' then? But then we have the momentum changing it too, don't we? And in this case 'accelerations' not uniform motion but accelerations only. So, if a acceleration creates a gravitation and a gravitation is 'energy' in its end-state, then a acceleration must contain that weird property 'energy'. Do you agree?

Now we need to look at that spaceship accelerating again. Can we measure that 'energy' in it? Does its atoms 'jiggle', does it 'glow' with its acceleration? Has its 'invariant mass' increased? Not that I know.

So where is the 'energy' situated? Well, in the 'energy' and that should be? The stress energy tensor maybe? And what was that, well, it's a solution to gravity describing it as a combination of several 'effects' including momentum. So, not in the spacecraft but in ?? Space? Yep. In 'space'. But, in the 'space' of the spacecraft accelerating only, and that's important to me as it connects to my idea of every 'room time geometry' (frame of reference) being unique.

The next question, considering relativity should be. From which 'frame' will it be measurable? I just said it wasn't, didn't I? Well, it's not as far as I know, not in its 'eigenstate' but when that spacecraft accelerate we do feel a gravity, and a gravity becomes 'energy' solely, inside a black hole.
Title: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Post by: yor_on on 12/03/2011 14:39:24
But if 'gravity waves' doesn't radiate? How the he* do they 'propagate'?

Well, think of a jello that you hit at the side. You now introduced 'kinetic energy' in it 'propagating'. Don't get stuck on the captions like 'kinetic'. It's just our way of separating different types of Newtonian 'action and reaction'. But you won't find one single honest physicist, or mathematician able to tell you where you can lift up a ounce of 'energy' to look at. Still, if you take offense here, finding yourself 'knowing' what energy 'really is' I'm willing to debate, ah, in some other thread.

I see it as just 'energy'. We see it in transformations, and we think that it has a 'ground state' of its own, at least I do. Like it can 'exist' on its own, as in our black holes center, not that we will be able to 'see' it. But in a way I think we do, and I think we have a another name for it too, or at least for a expression of it. Gravity.
==

So how do they 'propagate', and why do we expect them to stay inside 'c' if so? 'C' is easy to answer, it's about our Jello, SpaceTime. Four properties it has (Yoda:) length, width, height and 'time'. And it's your own little cube, and mine, and his, and that rocks too. Yeah, it rocks :) Or if you like, our 'common' SpaceTime's. That's where you live, and everything you ever will experience are defined from inside that place, so if there is 'gravity waves' propagating in 'space' it too will have to obey those 'laws' constricting our Jello. And one of them, a really big one, is the speed of light in a vacuum. But entanglements and tunneling then? They are QM effects, not macroscopic, and whilst tunneling may be said to contain 'information' in a way, entanglements don't, I think? I'm not entirely sure there as there is the idea of entangle 'energy', so maybe both tunneling an entanglements are able to do so. But the 'energy' is still something expressed in a interaction locally, not having 'moved' as in 'propagating. One of the reasons I wonder if light really, reallly :) 'propagates'.

Yep, wild speculations he has (Yoda:)

So how does those 'waves' propagate? I think of it as 'SpaceTime' contractions 'propagating'. There is nothing moving at all, but there is a contraction that to us inside our arrow 'propagates' like a 'vibration' inside a spiders web. So is that a energy? After all, didn't I say I thought gravity and 'energy' was coming from the same source, or more correctly gravity being a property of 'energy'? Yep, I did :) But gravity is no 'force' and the 'energy' contained in gravity express itself only as a 'preferred direction', or as geodesics if you like. When that book falls of the table it's following a geodesic, it's 'potential energy' is a result of its position relative its final interaction, and so a description of relations between the invariant mass of the book, Earth's invariant mass, the 'space' it falls in, 'times arrow' and the final interaction as it meets the ground. No new 'energy' situated anywhere specific, but all of it relations relative motion.
==

To me there ex