An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2848 Replies
  • 287207 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1100 on: 11/05/2013 02:47:47 »
That one isn't silly at all, although it should be noticeable, locally, as matter compressed. And the distance between planets would increase even though gravity should stay the same, I think?  Ah well, it's late here :) better get some sleep.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1101 on: 11/05/2013 02:54:34 »
Just reconsidered the point about an object shrinking as it appeared to move away from our frame of reference. If we consider that it is impossible to know which object is really moving, unless acceleration is present, the object thought to be at rest might be expanding instead of the, thought to be moving object, shrinking. This would align with the idea that energy was being added to the stationary object. It would be difficult to explain why an object would shrink but much easier to understand how one might expand where energy might be added to the system.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1102 on: 11/05/2013 02:55:33 »
That one isn't silly at all, although it should be noticeable, locally, as matter compressed. And the distance between planets would increase even though gravity should stay the same, I think?  Ah well, it's late here :) better get some sleep.
Sleep well my friend........................Ethos_
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1103 on: 11/05/2013 11:34:51 »
Physics do not have a answer to where that energy is stored, as long as we assume that 'energy' is something measurably there. You instead find 'potential energy' which to me is a imaginary component as I can't measure it. To me it's all a question of proving it by a experiment, also a question of if it exist, if you can't prove it, or in this case, where it 'exist'?

The mathematics we use is meant to describe our world, or any world, as good as we can. And they have a logic and hopefully a answer, or probabilities of answers. Can space be stressed? How do you stress what isn't there? You can see it as we must have a 'energy' in space to make all of those questions sensible, or you can go after what experiment we can make. Think of it this way, you either refer to a energy stored in each of the objects, expressed through a collision. Or the energy you refer to is a result of a whole SpaceTime in a equilibrium, accelerating locally, expressed by a collision from uniform motion. Because that is what you get in a collision, accelerations and decelerations.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1104 on: 11/05/2013 11:39:36 »
Because 'space', or a vacuum, doesn't end. It's everywhere. It's not so that as soon as you meet a atmosphere that vacuum cease to exist, microscopically it still must be there. So what ever energy you refer to as a 'vacuum energy' should exist in matter too as I think. Macroscopic borders are not the same as the microscopic, use that magnifier and take a look,
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1105 on: 11/05/2013 11:50:07 »
Do I need to store a energy in a vacuum? That one goes back to how you define this universe, is it closed? Is there only a set amount of energy existing in it? Can there be some other way to describe it that allow for conservation laws, without being closed? What defines a universe?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1106 on: 11/05/2013 12:24:42 »
If you can imagine light not propagating then you can imagine all 'forces' expressed otherwise. One description does not exclude the other. What you get in the end should still describe what we see. I would have no problem with vacuum energy if I only knew what experiment that proved it. Casimir effect is the one most used, but how do you exclude it being a result of matter acting on matter? The experiment I look on is called 'uniform motion' and there is no energy measurably stored in such a 'motion', as far as I know. If there is a energy stored from it then a uniform motion can't be seen as being equivalent anymore, as different 'speeds' then store different amounts of energy. But if you can't proof that energy by experiment, then it won't matter if your equation makes sense of the collision, there is still no experimental evidence. That's one of the trickiest, most irritating things I know of.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1107 on: 11/05/2013 12:35:05 »
There is a experiment called the dynamical Casimir effect though, in where you let the equivalence of a mirror oscillate, creating 'photons' from 'virtual particles' as you 'transfer' the kinetic energy to the vacuum.

Maybe we should take it in its temporal order..
http://www.chalmers.se/en/news/pages/chalmers-scientists-create-light-from-vacuum.aspx

Then.

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-nihilo-dynamical-casimir-effect-metamaterial.html
« Last Edit: 11/05/2013 12:40:56 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1108 on: 11/05/2013 12:43:22 »
If it is that way, then we might say that we live in a regime, motion wise, in where we can't measure those 'potential' energies, created by motion, although they should exist. And then we have a way to differ uniform motions. So, how about combining a Casimir effect with this dynamical effect. Do both in tandem to see if the Casimir effect then will give a different value in the vacuum close to that mirror?
« Last Edit: 11/05/2013 12:46:26 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1109 on: 11/05/2013 12:54:46 »
But the dynamical Casimir effect is a result from accelerating, not uniform motion.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1110 on: 11/05/2013 14:08:56 »
There is a experiment called the dynamical Casimir effect though, in where you let the equivalence of a mirror oscillate, creating 'photons' from 'virtual particles' as you 'transfer' the kinetic energy to the vacuum.

Maybe we should take it in its temporal order..
http://www.chalmers.se/en/news/pages/chalmers-scientists-create-light-from-vacuum.aspx

Then.

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-nihilo-dynamical-casimir-effect-metamaterial.html
Interesting article yor_on, it causes one to reconsider the aether concept. Not necessarily the same however, because the Michelson Morley experiment debunked the notion of space being akin to a fluid of sorts. Nevertheless, space is composed of something, otherwise virtual particles could not be generated from it. There is another thread currently running here trying to define Energy. And somewhere between this thread and that one, there lies a great scientific secret that entices curious people like us to continue searching for the ultimate truth.

However, in this experiment that you linked us to, might it be possible that these virtual photons are not pulled out of the vacuum? Just as a thought experiment, is it possible that they are generated only thru the action of the vibrating mirror, transforming the energy of motion into these elementary particles? Do we really need the vacuum as the source or origin of the supply that turns itself into photons? In which case, maybe the vacuum is truly empty and void, only a place where matter and energy can move around?

I'm not sure which makes more sense???????
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1111 on: 11/05/2013 14:25:50 »
We have a very good standard theory describing effects from 'virtual particles' Ethos. Myself I think of it as 'indeterminacy' though. Both define 'something' from where a energy can express itself, but indeterminacy is the better concept to me. Because we think in archetypes, and it's high time we stopped. We define motion right :) We also define a Big Bang, from 'nothing'. I say the 'nothing' is still here, under our feet so to speak. The old Greeks wasn't that far away from it, thinking of it as shadows on a wall, as I see it. But I start with defining what I call 'reality', because I need something that defines it, and that is to me what I call 'locality'. And 'reality' can be measured, and experimented on, but only locally defined. Then we come to frames of reference, and that is about quantum logic to me, and scaling. We tend to think of stuff in terms of time, as "there 'was' a Big Bang, but now we're far away from it temporally". Not so, the arrow is one of the dimensions or 'degrees of freedom'  defining my universe. To me it's part of it and indivisible from the other 'dimensions', so linear time is a local description, although it sharing constants with all other frames of reference, becomes a global one. With some discrepancies that Einstein was the first to prove, and Lorentz quantified.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1112 on: 11/05/2013 14:29:54 »
I do see where science get's this notion about space being something other than empty however. Imagine you're waving your hand thru a body of water, the movement of your hand will create eddies and waves forming structure of sorts. But for space to be similar to this, it must consist of something like a fluid but that has already been disproved. We need another look at things, we need to start thinking out of the box. We are certainly missing something very important here, but I don't have an answer, only questions at the present.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1113 on: 11/05/2013 14:34:45 »
well :) We can make this one into a nice SF if we like, or fantasy maybe. On the whole I tend to enjoy fantasy more than 'hard core' SF, unless someone really used his imagination. Btw: That doesn't mean that a arrow is a illusion, it's a constant, equivalent to 'c'. But the universe as a whole might just be one.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1114 on: 11/05/2013 14:43:57 »
Or you can define it as a symmetry break, with its 'roots' still resting, through 'scaling', in a different type of order. And there I do not see a 'arrow', I see indeterminacy. Maybe we need both, the place from where a probability can resolve itself, relative the macroscopic place in where relations define what 'probability' should materialize? Looking at this way we come from probability, and we go back to probability, and the universe we describe macroscopically is a symmetry to the part we can't measure on.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1115 on: 11/05/2013 14:44:17 »
well :) We can make this one into a nice SF if we like, or fantasy maybe. On the whole I tend to enjoy fantasy more than 'hard core' SF, unless someone really used his imagination. Btw: That doesn't mean that a arrow is a illusion, it's a constant, equivalent to 'c'. But the universe as a whole might just be one.
Absolutely, and I do believe in this arrow and the paths that we find ourselves existing in. And now that you mention fantasy, which I also like myself, you said something a while back about the consciousness creating order. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately and as applied to SF, maybe you're on to something here. Maybe our thoughts have much more to do with reality than we have ever given them credit for?????
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1116 on: 11/05/2013 14:47:37 »
and we go back to probability, and the universe we describe macroscopically is a symmetry to the part we can't measure on.
And what better way to understand probability than to link it to consciousness?
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1117 on: 11/05/2013 14:52:31 »
Yes, it's hard to ignore consciousness. it seems as a added complexity to life, both expressions defined through linear time, Just as we use to define a entropy (tentatively so).
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1118 on: 11/05/2013 14:59:48 »
If you choose a symmetry break to define it then nothing is a illusion. But we're missing out on the part of a universe that we need, to define the one we have. Thoughts, and action and reaction, entropy, all speaks from a arrow as i see it, linear causality creating complexity.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1119 on: 11/05/2013 15:02:23 »
Yes, it's hard to ignore consciousness. it seems as a added complexity to life, both expressions defined through linear time, Just as we use to define a entropy (tentatively so).
I agree, when considering the most astonishing facts of reality, consciousness is by far the grandest of all. For us to even question our own existence, to ask the universe: "Why am I here and what is my purpose?" It's like the universe asking itself a question, very astonishing by all means.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1120 on: 12/05/2013 00:20:30 »
Energy is weird. We define kinetic energy, potential energy, radiant energy, and ? Depending on choice we can go on. But it should be transformations of one thing, shouldn't it? Except that potential energy, that still seem locally imaginary to me, although correct mathematically and experimentally from a system. A 'force' then, is that a 'energy'?

Everything should be 'energy' I think? Except possibly a vacuum :) EM energy propagates a vacuum, that's the main stream definition. Heat does it. But that universe is described from dimensions, and 'infinity' using a clock and a ruler. If it now is so that you can describe this universe as something coexisting with its origin. Scales defining where that origin is. Then you can use another description, because all distances should then be equivalently distant from those points, or expressed otherwise, they are constantly with us.  And what we find to be distance and dimensions should then break down at Planck scale. And if you think of light as a quanta? Dimension less, but still defined from a speed, it too breaks down at Planck scale. What do you expect to exist after it stopped making sense physically, and mathematically? You should have that quanta 'frozen' from such a description, and there you meet indeterminism. It's another way to discuss what distances are, because no points are further away from Plank scale, than any other.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1121 on: 12/05/2013 00:32:29 »
Let us assume we scale down to Planck scale, you able to measure a position (as the macroscopic observer, using your local clock and ruler) in 'space' and 'time'. Would you expect one such position to differ from another? If one do one also should be able to assume that we can surpass that definition into something else, 'under' Planck scale, as I see it. What would it mean if you found that what you measure at that scale is indistinguishable from any other positional point you can choose to measure?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1122 on: 12/05/2013 05:56:41 »
Or should they be different? Those points. It depends on how you think, assuming a difference at that scale between measurements? Either becoming as some sheet then, assuming that we can't pass that scale, and that would, in a way at least, define a dimension or else assume a further depth, passing that scale. But if what you get at that scale is HUP and indeterminism then? Probabilities and super positions? would they differ? I don't think so, although it would need to be a local experiment as in joining that 'frame of reference'. Because I'm not sure how I would be able to measure it over frames of reference? When you measure something normally you use your local (macroscopic) arrow as reference. And that clock 'tick' equivalent to 'c' defining your measurements if you see how I mean. Sounds weird but there it is, if we measure over frames of reference we can't avoid a arrow, with that arrow then being a result of scales. It's possible to think of the arrow as not 'stopping' at Planck scale too naturally, in a way that was what I first thought of as 'time'. But to me the arrow ('c' as a speed) do seem as a natural result of scaling. You need to remember that this is pure speculations, and furthermore a rather nice book :) if I ever got to write it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1123 on: 12/05/2013 06:06:56 »
It's not that the arrow really disappear at Planck scale to me. As long as I find it possible to define a light quanta, 'c' and the clock exist, but there will be no 'temporal motion' locally. And that is the arrow to me, as defined locally. 'Time' as a logic definition, or principle, from where we get this arrow will still be present though as I think. Very speculative this one I admit.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1124 on: 12/05/2013 19:00:08 »
A 'force' then, is that a 'energy'?
Force is something that influences an object. It is associated with the conversion of energy from one form to another when work is done.

Quote
Everything should be 'energy' I think? Except possibly a vacuum :)
Everything has its energy equivalent. In a quantum universe, even the vacuum has energy equivalence.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1125 on: 12/05/2013 19:32:26 »
"Force is something that influences an object. It is associated with the conversion of energy from one form to another when work is done." Nice definition dlorde.

The second I'm not as sure on though. I'm thinking of it in form of 'frames of reference' and they are 'distorted', globally described, although perfectly fitting your local clock and ruler. And I'm trying to define from first principles as they say, starting with what a universe should be seen as. Locally defined you and me see different universes, although joined through 'c', locally as well as between 'frames of reference'. Because radiation is force and information carriers, as well as a local limit, and for this it won't matter what scale I would like to define a 'frame of reference' too. But if i want to play with a eye of God I should see a mosaic, assuming I could be locally 'everywhere simultaneously'. My 'frame' makes perfect sense to me, as your frame will do to you. And my experiments, locally made, will be the same experiments you locally can do, if repeatable. And that's the way we define 'reality', as in using locally made 'repeatable experiments'. From that we use Lorentz transformations to define a 'global reality', and from there we build up various 'global' theoretical frameworks. But we do communicate, and we are 'here' together. The question, to me, is how to define a universe from locality, and what and why frames of reference exist. You can use 'c' for it, but that will not explain it, only set a limit.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1126 on: 12/05/2013 19:48:17 »
Although 'work' is a tricky one to me. Take a atom and imagine the particles relations, are they 'doing work' defining that atom? I think of it from of accelerations and uniform motion, defining the particles inside a atom as being in a uniform motion, equivalent to being 'still'. That's one big reason why I want a experiment proving a added 'vacuum energy' in different uniform motions. Because if it is so I will have to change that definition and look for something else. As I most tentatively are thinking, for now, though, I define accelerations to all living, 'uniform motions' to particles. Why that is, is because I want principles, locally made. And I'm presuming a acceleration, and uniform motion, to be two locally definable 'constants' there.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1127 on: 12/05/2013 19:56:43 »
And accelerations/decelerations would then be a equivalence to 'doing work', although only if you define work done as a 'change'.
=

The problem with 'change' is that you can define it differently macroscopically 'doing work' relative microscopically. Me pressing a hand against a wall, is that doing work? Not macroscopically, but what happens to a rod you compress? Is that doing work? And what happens microscopically in my arm as I'm pressing that hand against the wall? Assume superman to do it, grafted with a mere human arm :), or maybe even with his own? After all, he can't be made out of unobtanium rigidious, can he?

A acceleration is simple to me, and I want it as simple as I can get it:)
« Last Edit: 12/05/2013 20:09:28 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1128 on: 12/05/2013 23:12:07 »
And accelerations/decelerations would then be a equivalence to 'doing work', although only if you define work done as a 'change'.

And without an observer, a body can't perceive it's uniform motion. In a hypothetical space where only two objects exist, motion can be detected but knowledge of which one is moving can't.  Only when acceleration or deceleration takes place can a body perceive is own motion. For acceleration of a body adds energy to it's mass and, deceleration subtracts or dissipates it.

So,.........what are we to understand about motion? 

Adding energy to a body will be felt as acceleration.
Subtracting energy from a body will be felt as deceleration.

I suppose, and I could be wrong here, that one might leave out the word motion altogether and simply replace it with; "energy added or subtracted".

In a hypothetical universe where only a single body exists, one could correctly say: "Motion is nonexistent, even when experiencing acceleration, only energy has been added to the body."

And in the same hypothetical universe, energy and time are so closely connected that they can't be separated. Without time, no added energy, no change. One might say that time is evidence for energies existence. One might go so far as to say that the arrow of time chooses the change.

I suppose one could say that we have sufficient evidence that the arrow of time contains all energy, they may be only a single identity. Not so for motion however, I can see where the need to define motion might be unnecessary. And maybe, the reality is that motion is only an illusion???????????

 
« Last Edit: 12/05/2013 23:14:50 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1129 on: 13/05/2013 14:12:20 »
And accelerations/decelerations would then be a equivalence to 'doing work', although only if you define work done as a 'change'.
Work is done when force moves something. So when a force acts to accelerate or decelerate something, it does work and energy is converted.

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1130 on: 13/05/2013 14:16:53 »
... maybe, the reality is that motion is only an illusion???????????
Absolute motion maybe. Relative motion, no. You could test that by walking into traffic, but I advise against it  ;)

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1131 on: 13/05/2013 15:18:25 »
Yeah, that's very true dlorde. Relative motion exist, and is definably measurable relative any inertial, or not, observer. I'm solving that one by staying in one frame of reference, defining it from there. That one bugged me for the longest time, as I both found all uniform motion 'equivalent(ly)' still, locally defined and measured. At the same time you found different speeds, comparing between them. But defining both accelerations and uniform motion as 'local properties' gives me the freedom to relate them as a sort of constant local properties, belonging to all frames of reference.

But using this definition you also need to define how 'frames of reference' would present us with that 'relative motion' though. And that one I don't know a answer for. I would love to find one though :) because then it would be simpler for me.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1132 on: 13/05/2013 15:40:29 »
Although, you could define it as 'relative motion' existing, not nosediving into trying to define it from frames of reference. You can also define energies to a vacuum, keeping the equivalence between all uniform motions locally measured, but I want to know where and how that 'energy' is expressed from a local perspective. I don't see how it would be expressed globally as that is observer dependencies to me. Accepting that they exist there should be some way to express it though, without invoking Lorentz transformations, as we indeed can communicate over frames of reference. What I mean there is just that it might be more than one way of defining a universe, hopefully :)
=

Meaning a experiment defining a vacuum energy, also proving it to differ in different uniform (relative) motions.
« Last Edit: 13/05/2013 15:47:07 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1133 on: 13/05/2013 16:02:37 »
As for uniform motions on earth, or any mass for that sake, I would say they involve accelerations to work. Only relative a mass in a vacuum, and our definition of a 'geodesic' as a path of no resistance, can we find something uniformly moving, not gaining or losing energy locally. One thing, to me speaking of 'gravity' as no 'field' I know of, is the way you can imagine 'gravity' as some sort of 'field lines' defining paths for mass. Just fill that universe with billions of mass, in different relative motion, having all sorts of different directions, and try to see how all of them, from your point defining it, find those geodesics simultaneously, never meeting any 'resistance'. And that also goes back to what 'energy' should be seen as to me.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1134 on: 13/05/2013 16:14:51 »
Because that is the point, as I see it, with a geodesic. Ignoring atmospheres resistance we can define it such as a 'ideal geodesic in vacuum' is without resistance or friction. And mass have both a active as well as a so called passive, (mass) gravity. Acting on a vacuum, as well as being acted upon by other mass. But geodesics are everywhere in this universe as far as I can see, on Earth and outside it, and ideally defined without friction/resistance. That one also hurts me head.
« Last Edit: 13/05/2013 16:21:47 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1135 on: 13/05/2013 18:04:42 »
... maybe, the reality is that motion is only an illusion???????????
Absolute motion maybe. Relative motion, no. You could test that by walking into traffic, but I advise against it  ;)
True,....but in my example, I set the stage with only two bodies in empty space. My point here is; without acceleration or deceleration, we can't determine which one is moving. It is possible that they both are moving or it may be only one or the other. This example also holds true for the busy universe within which we live. Without acceleration or deceleration, it is impossible to prove self related motion of any particular object. An observer may determine that you have moved, which is defined as relative motion, but how can he prove that it is you and not he that has moved? So,...........yes relative motion is real, but without acceleration or deceleration one can't know whether it is themselves or the other doing the moving.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1136 on: 13/05/2013 19:48:01 »
My point here is; without acceleration or deceleration, we can't determine which one is moving. It is possible that they both are moving or it may be only one or the other.
Since motion is entirely relative and neither space nor time are absolute, it makes no sense to ask which one is moving without giving a frame of reference. They may be moving relative to each other or they may not. If one changes velocity to match the speed of the other, it is equally valid to say it has decelerated to match that speed as to say it accelerated to that speed. Knowing the acceleration history of the bodies from some arbitrary past point in time may tell you which object has changed velocity since then, but whether it is now 'moving' depends on your frame of reference.

Quote
An observer may determine that you have moved, which is defined as relative motion, but how can he prove that it is you and not he that has moved?
The point is, when you ask 'who moved?' in this context, you're really asking 'who accelerated?', so it becomes obvious that to answer the question you need to know who accelerated...

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1137 on: 13/05/2013 23:39:16 »

The point is, when you ask 'who moved?' in this context, you're really asking 'who accelerated?', so it becomes obvious that to answer the question you need to know who accelerated...
I think you are missing the whole point of my example and I confess that may be my fault. I did make mention of how accelerations and decelerations affect the results we determine by their influence upon bodies. But my example was about two bodies in uniform motion, of which neither was accelerating nor decelerating. In this scenario, neither can determine which one is moving even though relative motion can be established. Hopefully, this agrees with your interpretation of reality but if it does not, I wish not to argue the point.
« Last Edit: 14/05/2013 00:46:02 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1138 on: 14/05/2013 01:37:46 »
"And in the same hypothetical universe, energy and time are so closely connected that they can't be separated. Without time, no added energy, no change. One might say that time is evidence for energies existence. One might go so far as to say that the arrow of time chooses the change. " You're thinking of it in terms similar to mine when you talk about time, if we define it as a arrow of time. I relate it to 'c' locally, so for your example the only presumption we need to make is that 'c' regulate 'this universe' too. Doing so you can define accelerations as expressions needing 'c' (as a speed limit naturally, but most importantly for me, as its local time keeper, a clock.) Using that I see the clock as the carrier of force and information, and it won't matter how many objects I introduce. The only thing that happens introducing more rest mass will be definitions relating to how that local constant, and clock, will treat other local definitions, creating time dilations and Lorentz contractions.
=

That's one very good reason for why I find it important for me to see if I can imagine a scale, making sense, defining a local frame of reference.
« Last Edit: 14/05/2013 01:43:04 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1139 on: 14/05/2013 05:08:26 »
You're thinking of it in terms similar to mine when you talk about time, if we define it as a arrow of time. I relate it to 'c' locally, so for your example the only presumption we need to make is that 'c' regulate 'this universe' too.

Yes,....and this arrow not only has a speed limit as you've said, it also influences things like the rate of relative motion. Thinking from the observational perspective of the photon, the relative motion of all other bodies in the universe becomes instantaneous. This raises the question: When relative motion becomes instantaneous, can we still call it motion. Similarly, in the quantum world, experiment sometimes finds particles existing in two places at the same time. What does this tell us about relative motion?

We define motion as the process of linear change along a described path. If we eliminate the path by having only a point of origin and an end, can we really be certain that movement occurred along the assumed straight line path? Certainly, it depends upon which local frame one does the observing from doesn't it. And from the frame of the photon, does it really observe motion? And in the case of a particle existing in two places at once, can we really say that relative motion was involved? How does a particle move from one place to another while still remaining at it's origin?

I'm with you yor_on, the speed of light and time are the ultimate judge here.

The obvious question would be; Why would I suggest that we view things from the perspective that light has on reality?

My answer:
Light is the ultimate judge, it's what we use to observe almost every detail in nature. It's the closest thing to being eternal as we can presently understand. A beam of light will continue if unobstructed for almost eternity. I say "almost" for obvious reasons. We can still see the first light from our very beginnings. So I say; "I will try to understand nature from the position of it's most basic and unchanging medium............Light"
« Last Edit: 14/05/2013 05:39:56 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1140 on: 14/05/2013 09:56:16 »
One thing Ethos, to me it's very difficult discussing what a photon might 'see'. I know that they are force and information carriers inside as well outside 'frames of reference, described globally with the eyes of a God. From my own perspective though, locally measured, There are no other frames of reference versus 'c'. When I, or you, locally measure that speed it will be the same over all 'frames of reference', even though you and me might define it differently relative each other time wise, as well as contractions.

But light have a defined speed relative me, and it must interact with me, so the definition making most sense to me is the one where I use it locally. And using it as a clock it doesn't necessarily need to have a own frame of reference, you might think of that as light flickering instead, annihilating each time it interact, and also presenting us with a speed as it seem to propagate relative our local description. Which is a really weird way of thinking of it I admit :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1141 on: 14/05/2013 10:04:48 »
I could actually use that to describe 'relative motion'. But then you include accelerations too in it, as we now are discussing something 'static', in where light becomes what created all motion as well as propagation. Using it I would have no problems, I think, with a uniform motion, but how would I describe a acceleration? As I define both a uniform motion, as well as accelerations as 'local constants' of a sort, together with 'c'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1142 on: 14/05/2013 10:07:46 »
And I would also need to define what 'mass' should be from such a perspective, which I don't know how to do? Doesn't mean you can't imagine :) though.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1143 on: 14/05/2013 10:21:16 »
What I mean is that I still would need something more than a 'flickering universe'. Thinking of it as 'dimensions', or degrees of freedom, and using a local definition I might want to describe it as a uniform motion becoming what a universe 'is', its 'ground state' sort of, with accelerations becoming something locally defined that find some other degree of freedom to express itself in locally. That as I only discuss it from a local definition. It would then give me two degrees of freedom, possibly :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1144 on: 14/05/2013 10:37:34 »
Using it this way, 'relative motion' aka 'uniform motion' and accelerations all becomes a expression of two states, or 'degrees of freedom' defined locally. I have 'c' locally as a 'speed' and a 'clock'. I have uniform motion and accelerations as two degrees of freedom relative a locally defined Planck scale 'frame of reference'. I also have 'static patterns' defined locally, that the 'clock' ('c') puts together into a seamless 'arrow of time'. Creating and driving a 'propagation', as well as motion, defining 'relative motion' and 'speeds', as I doubt we ever will notice the flickering, as in experimentally prove it. It's sort of neat :) and weird.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1145 on: 14/05/2013 15:03:28 »
... my example was about two bodies in uniform motion, of which neither was accelerating nor decelerating. In this scenario, neither can determine which one is moving even though relative motion can be established.

My point was to try and clarify your scenario; i.e. neither can determine which one is moving relative to what?

I ask for this clarification because the phrasing seems to imply some absolute 'stationary' frame... whereas if the two bodies are simply in relative motion, A is moving relative to B and vice-versa. They can both determine that there is relative motion; and from the frame of each one, the other is moving.
« Last Edit: 14/05/2013 15:16:51 by dlorde »

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1146 on: 19/05/2013 00:24:09 »
Just want to lift up a proposition I've seen proposed. As I'm interested in defining a scale for a frame of reference. Not that I expect us to measure it fully, but, assuming that its premiss's are correct we will at least get closer to a definition. It's, ahem, physically fiendishly clever :) and hopefully even feasible?

Quantum Complementarity Meets Gravitational Redshift.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1147 on: 19/05/2013 20:08:00 »
Wrote this elsewhere

wonder how infalling matter is seen from a event horizon?

Assuming light to blueshift everything outside the event horizon should speed up, locally measured from the Event Horizon, and infalling mass should then seem to arrive, as good as, instantly. That is if it speed up, locally defined? You can also imagine yourself accelerating, to get that effect, which then close to light speed would mean, what? Just think of some other frames trajectory or geodesic, then accelerate, if now your local clock slows down relative a universe, will those geodesics mass move faster, as defined by you? It's also a question of your motion relative theirs naturally, but what I'm wondering about is how a local clock will define other frames motion, when close to 'c'.

If you think it will, is there a point where that trajectory or geodesic, for you accelerating, will seem to move ftl? It can't be , unless 'c' is wrongly defined. Because we define it locally. We can also assume a uniform motion, after such a 'final' acceleration. Will your clock still 'tick' slower relative other frames of reference, equivalent to your accelerating, or do you expect that local clock to become of one rhythm, same for all uniform (relative) motions?
=


There is a paradox hidden here as it seems to me. 'c' puts a limit on everything I measure, and let's assume me close to 'c' in a uniform motion for this, But if my clock moves slower I can just as easily define yours to move faster. And that goes for all motion. Infinitely close to 'c' I would expect a universe's lifespan to pass me by in a twinkling of my eye.

Shouldn't that mean a 'infinite blue shift' for me, locally measured. As well as me assuming that as much light should be able to reach me, as if my clock hadn't slowed down, alternatively, the universe 'speeded up'. As I'm still part of the universe, no matter what speed I measure relative other frames of reference. Either you assume a equivalence between your clock slowing down, represented by your outside universe 'speeding up', or you stop at the definition of your local clock slowing down.

So, slowing down your clock, but not assuming the equivalence of a universe to speed up, what effects would that give you? Think of lights speed in a vacuum, should it change? Would you expect it to blue shift or red shift. How about mass (planets etc) moving, would they speed up? Is there a way to differ those two, either assuming a equivalence allowing me to define my 'slower clock', as yours 'faster'? Relative defining it as 'one universal clock' versus your 'slow'. To use such a definition from a acceleration may work, but from a uniform motion?

And this one was one weird example :) But it may work for me? Although it is not symmetric.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1148 on: 19/05/2013 20:15:43 »
And it is not 'time pockets'. It's still observer dependencies, and as you observe the universe someone else observe you, defining you from his 'local clock'. So what you define and what he define is not the same. But it might still be possible to define all other frames as coherently a universe, relative the local distortion measured by you?

Because his measurements is his truth, not yours. You have one answer that will fit where you are, he another. Yours do not fit his, his does not fit yours.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1149 on: 20/05/2013 20:54:12 »
The problem with such a definition is that it is not what we measure. We measure a locally invariant 'clock', meaning it keeping a constant time, its oscillations the same in all uniform motion, no matter your speed. And when you measure other frames of reference you do it against that clock, no other. And defined from that view it is the 'universe' that change, not you. Your ruler and clock becoming something of 'local constants', defining all experiments, together with 'c'.
=

And your lifespan use that local 'constant' clock too.
« Last Edit: 20/05/2013 20:57:39 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."