An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2848 Replies
  • 286794 Views

0 Members and 2 Guests 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 #1200 on: 27/05/2013 21:40:43 »
You can also consider it from our ideas of a locally defined speed, stopping somewhere just under 'c'. We do it relative incoming light, and possibly fixed stars. We define it as we can 'move' to that speed. That's nothing 'relative', that's absolute motion to me although, locally defined relative some other frame of reference. So we have that.

Then we have 'relative motion'. Assume we meet something moving close to the speed of light. Would we then expect ourselves to be the one moving? We can easily find this to be untrue relative locally measured blue shifts, versus 'fixed stars', so no, it's not relative to me. Not from a global description.

From a local definition though, all motion should disappear, locally measured. But to make it disappear I also need to define what a 'frame of reference' is, scale wise. Being 'at rest' is okay, approximately, for a macroscopic object, as me relative earth. But it's not precise enough to define where those 'frames of reference' stops interacting. Then we come to super positions, etc, microscopically. Maybe it's possible to define them as not having any motion from relativity too? At least I think it might be :) that is, if we define a uniform motion as being 'still', locally defined. but that also has to do with the scale you use for defining a 'frame of reference'. Like a weird puzzle :) but interesting.
"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 #1201 on: 27/05/2013 22:05:20 »
If you define uniform motion as being still. Then define a frame of reference as a object imaginary containing 'uniform motion', accelerations, 'c' and a equivalent clock. Then define that 'frame of reference' to a scale. You will have a local definition in where uniform motion should be a 'ground state', a acceleration something else, possibly defined from frames of reference interacting. With frames of reference interacting, changing into accelerations, defined over frames of reference becoming something 'growing' scale-wise into the universe we see :)

Can't help but like it, a imaginary puzzle, although no theory dlorde, just thoughts.
=

but you need to consider how 'uniform motion' then would fit QM, and the ideas we have of decoherence, etc. And that is also a question of how to define being 'at rest' macroscopically as I see it.
« Last Edit: 27/05/2013 22:08:28 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 #1202 on: 28/05/2013 19:56:21 »
I might regret writing this, then again, maybe not? :)

To me the confusion regarding time is not there. I use the local definition and in that one there is no confusion, 'c' equivalent to a clock, defining a life span, no matter where. What creates my confusion is instead how to explain the universe we agree on, the 'common one'. and there I find 'c', but 'c' is always a definition relative that local constant (clock). So I need something, 'dimensions'? Distances? Something more, to bind it all into one coherent definition of a universe.

Information carriers.

That's what 'c' becomes to me, and as I consider it the 'ultimate game', you need to ask yourself what you would need to create a game  like this.. Because, I expect us to be able too, knowing the rules.. Doesn't mean we decide outcomes, but we might be able to set the right parameters.
"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 #1203 on: 28/05/2013 20:16:51 »
Because that was what I started on, trying to define our arrow, or 'time'. So far I see a clock :) But not 'time'. Because, assuming a clock to be related to one frame of reference, locally defined and equivalent to 'c', it still doesn't answer where 'time' comes from, or how that one should be described. Using scales though, we find them end, physically and mathematically, at Plank scale.

So Planck scale.

And what we find there? It can't be the arrow, the arrow need frames of reference to get a 'motion'. It has to be 'time', but it's no 'time' understandable macroscopically. It's quantum logic, super positions, probabilities.
"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 #1204 on: 28/05/2013 20:24:13 »
Think of it as a strictly 'local' line. Thats the arrow at Planck scale, according to my definition. Then introduce 'frames of reference' and something joining them. That's 'c'. What you now have wandering 'upwards' is something that starts to 'tick'. But the definition of those 'ticks' are always locally defined, in some way becoming a 'cone' as you introduce more and more frames of reference, ending in a 'universe'. At Planck scale the definition for lights speed in a vacuum is 'one Planck step at one Plank time'. Physically it becomes meaningless to get past that, defining a arrow.
"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 #1205 on: 28/05/2013 20:31:43 »
Does this definition make strings redundant?
Nope, it's just that you need definitions for how they can 'interact' creating that Planck scale. and there we find 'probabilities' etc. Think of it as a symmetry too. The 'symmetry break' we become needing a Quantum and String/Loops universe to exist, and that, or those, needing us to define itself. And we 'stuck in the middle' of it, being consciousness..
"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 #1206 on: 28/05/2013 20:41:56 »
Crazy stuff :)
"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 #1207 on: 28/05/2013 20:44:36 »
But I'm pretty sure I got this right, you can test it by trying to define a 'frame of reference' as a 'position in space and time'. then try to define a arrow, and 'interactions' in it. I'm rather sure you won't be able too. But you will be able to introduce indeterminism, even there.
=

what I mean by a arrow here, is something 'ticking'. One Planck length in one Planck time can only start 'ticking' as you introduce one step more, that's a 'oscillation', and one more 'frame of reference', and that is what I expect to define a 'common universe' :) Frames of reference interacting.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2013 20:55:39 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 #1208 on: 28/05/2013 20:58:16 »
And that is what creates our 'linear arrow' and causality, to me.
=

although exactly why, well, to me it's the definition you have of a 'arrow', as defined locally, over frames of reference, 'c' becoming both a 'speed' and a 'clock' for you, as well as for me. That arrow becoming a locally defined geometry.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2013 21:04:38 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 #1209 on: 28/05/2013 21:09:52 »
And you can see why we need frames of reference for getting a clock running here. And you can see why we find Lorentz transformations too, if you think about it a little. But I don't have a answer to why there is 'frames of reference' interacting, although we can use 'c' defining how they do 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 #1210 on: 28/05/2013 21:15:34 »
And remember, it may just be my delusions.
But it will still be a nice mind game, and in the end, that's why we up here live by, our minds :)
"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 #1211 on: 28/05/2013 21:47:56 »
And you can see why 'time' won't tick backwards in my universe. There is no possibility of it, that I can see. The arrow becomes something getting a direction through frames of reference. The best we can do is to define it as 'stopping', as maybe at a event horizon, but only as defined by you not being there, observing from afar. QM should be where the arrow disappear, locally defined, but as you use a local clock measuring you will define it as 'stopping'.
=

There is a difference here though. Locally at a event horizon, the arrow exist as long as we have frames of reference interacting. Only when scaling it down will you be able to define where that arrow disappear 'for real'. And we're all just as close to that point, no matter how we define ourselves positionally in macroscopic 'space and time'. Sort of nice isn't it :) You only need to find a way to 'translate yourself' a very short way to 'transport' your 'information' to some other positional definition macroscopically. But that is a very tricky proposition quantum mechanically, but? I don't know, it depends on how well we will understand frames of reference in the future I think. And understand what makes them able to (co-)exist, well, in my universe that is :)
« Last Edit: 28/05/2013 21:57:57 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 #1212 on: 29/05/2013 11:20:28 »
Then we have dimensions. If you use the idea of all points equivalently close to Planck scale, dimensions becomes a really strange idea. Somehow they 'reach out' from it, creating a universe, allowing us (matter, dead and alive) to come to be as some secondary effect, presumably. When speaking about 'constants' from locality I'm not sure how it should work. 'c' is a local definition, measured over frames of reference, for example. It shouldn't matter how 'close' you place that local clock to yourself measuring, it should be a constant anyway, only getting a greater fit/precision relative yourself, A acceleration then, looking at it as some weird constant? As I want uniform motion to be some sort of original state for a frame of reference I have to refer to it as something created from interactions I think. To assume that a acceleration is possible 'inside' one single frame allow a interaction inside it, making it a multitude. Then again, what is a constant? A property of something, isn't it? Not something interacting measurably, yet giving us a constant answer. Ideas :) of a set relation, mathematically and experimentally.

And 'gravity'? What would that be?
"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 #1213 on: 29/05/2013 11:46:31 »
You could see it as me trying to define 'bits', locally of some same properties, that 'joined' and 'interacting' from those properties create a macroscopic universe. And as I want a frame of reference to make sense physically I limit it to Planck scale.

And then we have 'gravity', a relation to matter in our present universe, as far as I see. It also has a relation to 'energy' naturally, as in a Big Bang, but? I don't know what 'energy' is.

Possibly a origin and a property?
"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 #1214 on: 29/05/2013 12:16:03 »
It's also a relation. There are several ways to look at that one. You might want 'energy' to be what a universe 'is', behind symmetries, 'forces', matter/space. But I don't think of space as interacting, a point possible to define several ways, still, personally I do not expect us to gain added 'free energy' from it? To me energy seems as something described through transformations.

Let us assume that you by scaling down, get a 'flat space', as if gravity disappear. Would the same idea work for a event horizon? If you assume it does, what would that tell us about scales and gravity?
"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 #1215 on: 29/05/2013 17:48:42 »
How about the Casimir force? Assume it is a result of 'waves', not fitting in between, creating a pressure. Now, as the 'plates' meet, is this 'work done'? Or is it a result of a equilibrium? What about you applying a force to stop them meeting. Is that 'work done'?  And what have you spent, for what?
"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 #1216 on: 01/06/2013 13:09:08 »
You can ask yourself what you think the arrow is, one thing or several?

I define it as one thing, with a temporal direction pointing the same way everywhere. Doesn't matter if you measure a time dilation to 'stand still'  relative your local clock, it still have a same local direction. And when we then come to comparing accelerations to uniform motion we now will have to choose. Either a time dilation is the same thing, or not, for them. I define it as the exact same thing for both. And the idea, imagining different (in a uniform motion) distances, although keeping everything else (all accelerations/decelerations) the exact same for a twin experiment, should confirm that statement.

The second point about it to me, and the simplest one, is that if I define a arrow to be equivalent to 'c' then I have no other way to define it than everything you measuring, giving you different clock readings relative your own, must be equivalent. Also remembering that those clock readings only give you a provable 'local' difference, if we involve a acceleration (twin experiment), as we need something locally same to 'split' into two, one make a travel, to then come back to its origin, to locally measure a temporal difference.

That's not the same as assuming that we must have accelerations for time dilations to exist. And they are both the exact same time dilations, although only the twin experiment becoming provable, as uniform motion won't allow you to go back. And it doesn't matter really, because even if assuming that all uniform motions present you with a different 'time stamp', you measuring by your local watch. It still will be so that as you join this 'frame of reference' you and it will have a exact same (ideally) 'clock beat' and there will be no way for you to define any difference. Making it into a 'illusion' as globally defined. At the same time it will be your reality and locally defined 'constant' everywhere.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2013 19:16:16 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 #1217 on: 01/06/2013 13:29:13 »
The confusion about it also seem to go back to the way SR and GR differ. In GR your clock measurements are defined by gravity (mass), 'frames of reference', and 'motion'. One type of motion becoming a constant uniform acceleration, equivalent to a gravity. NIST tells us that we get different clock readings on earth, depending on elevations or gravitational potential, are those 'real'?

Sure, from my point of view all time dilations are real.

Are they measurably 'different'?
Yep

NIST did a 'twin experiment' using two synchronized clocks, moving one to then put it back with its 'twin', finding a measurable change.

This universe is defined by 'gravity' as I see it. It's the metric defining it. In it you will find what we call 'geodesics'. Paths where it is assumed that no 'resistance' exists. Those paths define a uniform motion, and they are everywhere. You can send a ball in any direction you like on Earth. It will follow a geodesic as soon as the acceleration disappear. And no directions are prohibited or forbidden by physics. So geodesics comes to be by your choice of direction/throw.

That one is worth thinking of. You have gravity as the metric, using my definitions and really ideally good clocks, you then should be able to find time dilations everywhere, in empty space too, relative your own 'clock beat'. At the same time as this universe is defined by geodesics, uniform motion, 'simultaneously' existing everywhere, no direction prohibited.
=

Can you see what I'm getting at here? If gravity is a metric of SpaceTime, then you will find 'accelerations' too, accepting time dilations, and as that was one way to define 'real differences' in time discrepancies? :) Ignoring that, we still can define a vacuum as belonging to GR (everything belongs to GR in my eyes though, SR and GR being one coherent description to me) And then the real clincher, a vacuum frame of reference as having a 'acceleration'?
==


It's pretty easy to see why it would be simpler defining accelerations 'gravity' to be what defines 'real differences' in SpaceTime. But I define it locally instead, and from that point of view, all time dilations are as 'unreal', or 'real', depending on how you define that universe we see. Globally commonly 'same', or from what I call 'locality'.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2013 16:30:27 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 #1218 on: 01/06/2013 13:48:57 »
I find my view the simpler solution. Why? Well, I don't differ uniform motion from accelerations when it comes to 'time'. Neither have I a problem describing a arrow as being 'real'. The only way you define anything in this universe is relative that local clock and ruler, all other descriptions becoming theoretical, involving 'information', by someone else (also locally defined).
"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 #1219 on: 01/06/2013 14:07:49 »
And then we have 'gravity', as being some form of acceleration? That would put it back, inside, a frame of reference to me. Because that is 'matter'. And matter can be defined to 'move' spatially, but considering its constituents as 'accelerations', it become another type of 'motion' to me, not easily definable. It also wrecks havoc with my choice of 'uniform motion' as some ground-state of a 'frame of reference'.

Furthermore it question how 'energy' should be described. Because if we use a 'acceleration' to describe a change, how would we then describe one single frame of reference, consisting of both uniform motion as well as of a 'acceleration'? I could call it properties naturally, but I still need to define the 'energy' involved. Weird thoughts :)
"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 #1220 on: 01/06/2013 15:58:39 »
When it comes to gravity as a metric, then that depends on how one define it. I define it as directional preference firstly, 'clocks' as a by-clause to the way a vacuum will present us with gravity, distances, and 'dimensions'. To me the question of what clock readings are more 'real' than others has no meaning, assuming we define a frame of reference to be able to exist at Planck scale, containing some properties as 'c', becoming a equivalent clock, defining a arrow. To that I definitely will add uniform motion, accelerations becoming a trickier question to me. The universe is a in a equilibrium, and as defined by our local clocks, in a 'dynamic equilibrium'. But in my universe there are no certainty of 'relative motion', not from local measurements, only relative your observations over frames of reference.

Now, that is a direct equivalence to the way we can find a 'time dilation' in my view :) Also using a local clock and ruler relative other those frames of reference. Although, even if thought of this way one would still need to define how frames of reference then can interact, locally described.
"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 #1221 on: 01/06/2013 16:10:31 »
Try defining our dimensions from this definition.

No points in SpaceTime are further away from Planck scale, than any other points.

All points in SpaceTime can be related to a smallest meaningful description.
All 'frames of reference' are equivalent, having the same properties (constants) locally measured.

'c' is  our force and information carrier locally, as well as 'globally' over frames of reference.
"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 #1222 on: 01/06/2013 16:17:10 »
When I do it I naively see this 'cone', defined from each frame of reference, finding other frames of reference as it widens up into a universe, with a 'arrow' starting to tick as we add them in.
"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 #1223 on: 01/06/2013 16:22:58 »
I was never very happy with the idea of dimensions as something you could 'glue together'. I'm happier with the above definition although it doesn't state what a 'dimension' should be, just describe one possible way to imagine them 'projected', as I think of it. But I don't see it as a holographic expression, although it seems somehow similar.
=

Instead it becomes more of a fractal to me, scaling it?
« Last Edit: 02/06/2013 00:43:31 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 #1224 on: 01/06/2013 16:39:59 »
Well, I do have some hypothesis's :)
as 'c' as a 'clock'

But not a theory, a theory needs a he* of a lot more than this, although I still find it logically consistent. Now, if someone could suggest a experiment proving some smallest frame of reference to me, also proving it won't 'tick'? That would certainly make me smile, as some Cheshire cat in the dark :)
"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 #1225 on: 02/06/2013 14:39:14 »
What would a big bang be from scaling? What do you find at Planck scale, a arrow? Thinking like this, admittedly weird way, we have the Big Bang under our feet, and it never 'stopped', still 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 #1226 on: 02/06/2013 14:41:45 »
On the other hand, it never 'started' either, we did.
"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 #1227 on: 06/06/2013 22:55:01 »
So, dimensions?

We have them, we also have Planck scale. Do you find 'dimensions' at that scale? The problem with defining anything, be it clocks or dimensions, is that we do it 'locally'. We use a platform, macroscopic, containing a clock and a ruler, and it is from that one you explain your observations. It's a difference defining a arrow as disappearing (as I like to do), instead of defining it as 'stopping'. To define a arrow as stopping presumes it to exist, although not ticking, and that is you measuring a event horizon in my thoughts. But to refer to the arrow as 'disappearing' I only can use Planck scale.

And then we have dimensions :)

Seen from Planck scale (if we just could:)  no point is further away than any other, a entanglement being a perfect description of that. I like Weinstein's idea of our four dimensions embedded in fourteen, not because I like dimensions, well, as I've seen them described. More because we both seem to share a idea of dimensions not being 'glued together', as from some isolated description of singular dimensions 'fitting' a SpaceTime. The one I've seen using 'glue' wasn't Einsteins description, and it ain't mine either. And I see each 'point' in SpaceTime as something whole, although breaking down at Plank scale.
"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 #1228 on: 06/06/2013 23:01:24 »
Think about it, if I now want to define a 'frame of reference' as belonging to some smallest meaningful scale. What would four singular 'dimensions', somehow 'joined' make such a description? Is that the simpler answer? When Weinstein describe it as embedded, I see a mathematical analogue to something four-dimensionally whole in itself, as described from where we observe. That makes it easier to digest for me, assuming you can 'glue dimensions' together. In the end it might just be semantics 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 #1229 on: 06/06/2013 23:12:51 »
We can prove Planck scale, we can prove entanglements, we can prove SpaceTime. I do not think we have a 'delayed choice experiment' proven though. A Common Fallacy in Quantum Mechanics: Why Delayed Choice Experiments do NOT imply Retrocausality

I like quantum mechanics, but I don't expect you to ever measure time running backwards. It's impossible from all current measurements, using a local clock and ruler. But I do expect a arrow to be able to disappear. And I do not think we have four separated 'dimensions' 'clinging together' either, although I find it hard to define what it should be seen as otherwise. Maybe it's a question about how to describe it 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 #1230 on: 06/06/2013 23:19:44 »
Then maybe strings are a better definition, or loops?
Something under 'pressure', and defined as SpaceTime macroscopically, quantum mechanically something else.
Maybe the question should be, where does dimensions disappear?
"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 #1231 on: 06/06/2013 23:33:49 »
The problem to me with defining such entities (at and under Plank scale) is that we use words we use to describe macroscopic phenomena. On the other hand it is those words we have, as well as mathematics. But entanglements, quantum mechanics, statistics, probabilities, allows for new interpretations and meanings of 'old words', don't they? Take 'pressure' for example, a pressure relative what? Is there a 'back ground' to that, some other 'frame of reference' from where we can define it? Or is it us lifting down old words to describe something different?
"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 #1232 on: 06/06/2013 23:40:06 »
And we define them from a macroscopic platform.
"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 #1233 on: 10/06/2013 16:10:07 »
Let's consider lights propagation from a idea of accelerations defining 'real time dilations'. What such an idea state is that depending on your acceleration it then also must set a subsequent clock rate, that must exist at your later uniform motion too. That as different (subsequent) uniform passages will give a twin experiment different 'real' time dilations, as the traveling twin returns. That statement invalidates the principle of equivalence of all uniform motions, as well as defines the the 'time dilation' as belonging to both a acceleration and a uniform motion.

That should mean that if you find a universe to consist of different 'relative motions', you also must assume that they, presuming everything needs a acceleration to present us with different uniform 'relative motions', also are of a different 'time', as locally defined from their different uniform motions relative you.

So can you prove that?
Nope.

All uniform motions are locally equivalent, and there will be no local discrepancies regarding a locally measured time rate after some acceleration. It is also so that your uniform motion can be set at anything, from null to ?? depending on what 'frame of reference' you define it from. Incoming light can be used, CBR (cosmic background radiation) can be used, any sun or planet can be used, but there is no absolute set 'frame of reference' that you can use, to tell you your 'absolute speed' from, as far as I can see. You might use a average of all incoming light to define it, but you can with as much right use just one stars light, in relative motion' to define that 'speed' you want your uniform motion to have.

On the other hand, I'm all for that time dilations exist, measurably so in both uniform motions as well as in accelerations. So where is the difference? The difference is that I don't need a acceleration for it, and so I do not need to define a universe as first 'accelerating' to get a 'time dilation'. The other thing I do is to define it as locally measured, all arrows being the same, using 'c' as the 'time device', splitting it. So I do not need to assume that your acceleration, as locally measured also 'slows down' your clock. I go out from what the experiment states instead. I refer to time dilations as a result of interactions between frame of references, solely, as defined from 'c' locally measured. That also mean that I put a lot of importance in those interactions between 'frames of reference', and that I presume them to 'exist'. That makes the universe we see a mosaic to me, in where your measurement and definition of a universe is uniquely yours, as mine is uniquely mine. And the thing defining it as commonly same is lights speed in a vacuum, as it communicates over frames of reference.
==

Simplified, if accelerations is what sets a 'clock rate' for a subsequent uniform motion, you now have defined a universe of 'time islands', including all relative motion. In such a universe we then need a explanation to why no local measurements ever give us different results, time wise. And we have not made a arrow into a illusion, as your local clock still ticks for you, same as always. And we have invalidated our ideas of 'repeatable experiments', as we expect them to give us a same outcome in different (relative) uniform motions (inertially defined). And you will give me a headache :) as I then must find 'time islands' existing everywhere (gravitational time dilations) without me ever being able to measure them locally. I don't like that.
=

Furthermore, you now have introduced a variable light speed, globally defined, as you locally defined, (even though not locally measurable) have defined 'time pockets' using acceleration as setting a subsequent 'time rate' for that uniform motion.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2013 16:53:32 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 #1234 on: 10/06/2013 16:57:21 »
Whatever universe that is, I don't see it as Einsteins. And it's not the one I prefer, I like it simpler.
"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 #1235 on: 10/06/2013 22:11:42 »
Another point well made is that if I want to define a arrow as 'illusionary' I only can do so 'globally', from a commonly same universal perspective. If I also do it locally I actually also invalidate what we build science on, 'repeatable experiments'. I will then need to find another ground of commonality, defining how they are possible. Because they are, and we create nano technology, quantum logic, as well as atomic power, from those experiments and ideas.

I use a local clock, you use a local clock. We define a same outcome from a 'same' (similar) experiment, made inertially on earth, calling that a proof. Without a arrow, where would that proof lie? To define it as same entropy :) seems more of a question of nomenclature, than anything real. And it won't make it simpler. We use some presumptions defining a universe, one is simplicity. If you have two explanations predicting the same result, then we normally choose the simpler one, until proven wrong. That one makes eminent sense 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 #1236 on: 11/06/2013 00:12:36 »
You can't have it both ways, defining a globally same universe, using light as a constant, also finding it to set different 'time pockets' by different 'relative motions'. If that is a truth, then those 'time pockets' in uniform motion should be measurable locally, but they are not. And even if we assume them to exist, without us being able to measure it, you still will need to redefine what you mean by a 'repeatable experiment', and lights constant. That as you with differing (uniformly moving) 'time rates' need a variable light speed to compensate for it, to still present you with 'c', locally measured. Imagine the complications using such a reasoning as you can't even define that 'uniform speed', other than relative some arbitrarily chosen 'frame of reference', as the CBR, or incoming light? That is what relative motion states, that there is no absolute 'frame of reference', defining a 'absolute speed'.
"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 #1237 on: 11/06/2013 00:31:25 »
I do not define a 'globally same' universe. Instead I define a 'commonality' to lights speed in a vacuum, as locally measured, to present our impression of that 'same universe'. It is that constant that informs us, and defines that 'common' universe we agree on. In it we need Lorentz transformations to agree on events. I do not agree to a local arrow being an illusion, instead I define it to 'c', locally measured. I do not agree to time reversibility, as being able to reverse the clock, from you locally measuring. Instead I refer time reversibility to causality, us needing a logic to be able to exist. Those two are not the same.
"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 #1238 on: 18/06/2013 18:03:39 »
Don't you find this interesting :) "In his doctoral dissertation, submitted to the University of Zurich in 1905, Einstein developed a statistical molecular theory of liquids. Then, in a separate paper, he applied the molecular theory of heat to liquids in obtaining an explanation of what had been, unknown to Einstein, a decades-old puzzle. Observing microscopic bits of plant pollen suspended in still water, English botanist Robert Brown had noticed in 1828 that even tinier particles mixed in with the pollen exhibited an incessant, irregular "swarming" motion — since called "Brownian motion." Although atoms and molecules were still open to objection in 1905, Einstein predicted that the random motions of molecules in a liquid impacting on larger suspended particles would result in irregular, random motions of the particles, which could be directly observed under a microscope. The predicted motion corresponded precisely with the puzzling Brownian motion! From this motion Einstein accurately determined the dimensions of the hypothetical molecules.3

By 1908 the molecules could no longer be considered hypothetical. The evidence gleaned from Brownian motion on the basis of Einstein's work was so compelling that Mach, Ostwald, and their followers were thrown into retreat, and material atoms soon became a permanent fixture of our knowledge of the physical world. Today, with the advent of scanning tunneling microscopes, scientists are nearly able to see and even to manipulate actual, individual atoms for the first time—a circumstance that would satisfy even the most entrenched Machian skeptic......

Experimentalists had found that when solid bodies were cooled, the amount of heat they lost failed to fit a simple formula that followed from Newtonian mechanics. Einstein showed that the experiments could be explained only on the assumption that the oscillating atoms of the solid lattice can have only certain, specific energies, and nothing in between. In other words, even the motions of atoms—which are continuous in Newtonian mechanics—exhibit a quantum structure. Mechanics and electrodynamics both required radical revision, Einstein now concluded: neither could yet account for the existence of electrons or energy quanta. " from David Cassidy's book, "Einstein and Our World."

Let us assume a frame of reference to be a physically meaningful object, definable to Planck scale. At its very least consisting of 'c', and a equivalently 'constant' local arrow. What would such a reasoning make of those 'discrete energies'?
"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 #1239 on: 22/06/2013 12:22:06 »
What would a Big Bang be, described from 'frames of reference'? The 'first frame' must have been unitary, homogeneous and isotropic. We can either assume several 'frames of reference' or just look at one. In a observer dependent universe time starts with us being able to measure 'c', if we use my definitions. It becomes unclear how to define a causality, and a arrow, practically, from just one frame of reference. If using my definition of a frame of reference having a 'real independent existence', related to Plank scale.

"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 #1240 on: 22/06/2013 12:32:01 »
'Time' above should be read as being the arrow, as locally defined. Would there be a difference assuming several 'frames of reference' coexisting at that first moment, all unitary, isotropic and homogeneous? We have two definitions of a 'frame of reference', one called being 'at rest', the other being related to something whole/coherent in itself, 'inertial frames' as we sometimes loosely define a planet to be.

Assume a lot of frames of reference, all coexisting, all 'unitary isotropic and homogeneous', 'at rest'  with each other. That, ignoring 'scales' could, I think? Be described as consisting of one single frame of reference. Maybe one could express it as a 'arrow of time' isn't the exact same as 'causality'? Because you would have frames of reference, you should have a local arrow, but you would see no causality?
"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 #1241 on: 22/06/2013 12:36:40 »
Scales is then something related to being able to differentiate between frames of reference. And that makes a scale a result of frames of reference interacting.
"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 #1242 on: 22/06/2013 12:42:26 »
So scales becomes at once both diffuse and real. I like that :) Because using such a view I then are able to define, whatever amount of frames of reference we may call it, to a same 'scale', as long as they are homogeneous isotropic and unitary. One 'frame' or several, it doesn't matter. They can only come to differentiate as they interact.
"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 #1243 on: 22/06/2013 12:44:52 »
It all goes back to how I see that 'widening cone' becoming a SpaceTime naturally, each local description unique.
"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 #1244 on: 22/06/2013 14:00:01 »
If you get scales from frames of reference interacting then it won't matter what 'size' you would like to define something to. The Big Bang can be defined as a multitude of frames of reference, or, as one 'single frame'. What will differ is when causality steps in to differentiate it from the observer. And one frame of reference, as defined to being something 'objectively existing' at a Planck scale doesn't tick, according to my definitions.

And if seen as a macroscopically undifferentiated same 'frame of reference' then? As my definition of the arrow goes out from 'c', the question should be if you can measure a light speed at that instant of a Big Bang inflating.  One need to remember that I'm using a definition of a 'frame of reference' here, from a Big Bang, as something unitary, homogeneous and isotropic.

Would a clock 'tick' there?
Especially if I assume that scales is a result of frames of reference differentiating from each 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 #1245 on: 22/06/2013 14:31:56 »
There is a very important difference between SR and GR. GR is SpaceTime. And GR involves gravity. Gravity is not something indefinably same in a universe, not as long we discus mass. We can assume a flat space if we like, without mass, but could such a space be measurably existing? I doubt it could.

In a SpaceTime you can define something as 'flat', but 'flat' how? Assume I could lay out a isotropically even 'uniform field' of gravity in a space. You can measure it to be equivalent everywhere. Does that mean that you have your 'flat space' equivalent to a space without gravity?
"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 #1246 on: 22/06/2013 15:42:42 »
I define gravity as a preferred direction. Does that mean that it doesn't exist to me? No, it exist to me too, but as I don't see it as a 'force', I use it as defining directions instead.
"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 #1247 on: 23/06/2013 01:57:30 »
And, I think I'm getting pompous here too?

Ah well. You start with confusion and you end in confusion :) On the other hand, laughing helps.
"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 #1248 on: 24/06/2013 15:02:23 »
A Big Bang.

If I define a frame of reference as being of a set scale (Plank scale) then what does this make of a inflation and accelerating expansion? More 'frames of reference' coming into play? If I now define it as relating to mass then, not 'space'? Well, what is 'gravity'? A preferred direction, or a 'force' on its own?
"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 #1249 on: 24/06/2013 22:57:26 »
Gravity is a clock of sorts, don't you agree? And if it is a clock, how can we measure it? By something being there, right? So it is a relation between a 'space' defined by the metric of gravity, relative something of matter involved, giving us our local measurements of it, locally defined.

Does gravity create a 'space'? Can a space without gravity (no mass anywhere) really be measurable?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."