An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2848 Replies
  • 287054 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 #1350 on: 29/07/2013 15:47:15 »
And another thing, the equivalence principle, if I get this right, is one defining the equivalence between a uniformly, constantly accelerating rocket and a homogeneous gravitational field, as we can assume a perfect sphere of matter, non spinning. But to me it also follows from defining a ' commonly shared 'global SpaceTime' '. Assuming locality to define it instead, I don't think I need to define it this way. Because then I eliminate, at least ignore, observer dependencies. Although they are necessary from a global perspective, it locally becomes a definition where "what you see is what you get". And that is consistent with the way we define a experiment, always locally accomplished, not globally.

We infer from the assumption of a commonly same universe, that if I locally find a experiment to give me one result, and you doing a equivalent experiment find it to give you the same, then we must have such a common universe. As I think it shows you a logic 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 #1351 on: 29/07/2013 15:55:36 »
Locally defined any absence of gravity and tidal forces should be a place 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 #1352 on: 29/07/2013 15:57:54 »
Also, if matter is what defines gravity, and gravity is what defines a vacuum?
"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 #1353 on: 29/07/2013 16:01:18 »
and then we have accelerations? How about different uniform motions, would they give a different relative mass? assume you could accelerate a spaceship to 99,99 % of lights speed in a vacuum. Then you stop accelerating, would you now expect the relative mass to be gone? And, would you then define that uniform motion to be equivalent to all other uniform motions?
"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 #1354 on: 29/07/2013 16:15:48 »
The point there is that locally, you inside a room in that ship, measuring the output of a lightbulb, shouldn't notice any difference. Globally it becomes something else 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 #1355 on: 29/07/2013 16:52:25 »
So why can't a ship become a black hole at some relativistic speed? That one goes back to 'frames of reference', if you can't find a frame of reference from where that black hole isn't a black hole, then it has to be a black hole. If you can find a frame of reference in where you can be 'at rest' with what another frame would observe as a black hole, observing it differently, then it isn't a black hole. In the cause of the relativistically speeding rocket you just need another rocket, them being at rest with each other, to find that it still is a ship, but trading this for a real black hole no such 'rest frame' should exist as I get it.

You can also consider the definition of lights speed in a vacuum for this. There is no frame of reference possible for fermions in where you can be 'at rest' with light. What a photon sees looking at another photon, 'co-moving' with it, is a question without a answer as I get it.

It also goes back to our definitions of what a 'proper mass' is. "The invariant mass, rest mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass, or (in the case of bound systems or objects observed in their center of momentum frame) simply mass, is a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations. If a center of momentum frame exists for the system, then the invariant mass of a system is simply the total energy divided by the speed of light squared. In other reference frames, the energy of the system increases, but system momentum is subtracted from this, so that the invariant mass remains unchanged."

And then we have relativistic mass, defined by "The Einstein field equations (EFE) or Einstein's equations are a set of 10 equations in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity which describe the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by matter and energy. First published by Einstein in 1915 as a tensor equation, the EFE equate local spacetime curvature (expressed by the Einstein tensor) with the local energy and momentum within that spacetime (expressed by the stress–energy tensor).

Similar to the way that electromagnetic fields are determined using charges and currents via Maxwell's equations, the EFE are used to determine the spacetime geometry resulting from the presence of mass-energy and linear momentum, that is, they determine the metric tensor of spacetime for a given arrangement of stress–energy in the spacetime. The relationship between the metric tensor and the Einstein tensor allows the EFE to be written as a set of non-linear partial differential equations when used in this way. The solutions of the EFE are the components of the metric tensor. The inertial trajectories of particles and radiation (geodesics) in the resulting geometry are then calculated using the geodesic equation.

As well as obeying local energy-momentum conservation, the EFE reduce to Newton's law of gravitation where the gravitational field is weak and velocities are much less than the speed of light.

Exact solutions for the EFE can only be found under simplifying assumptions such as symmetry. Special classes of exact solutions are most often studied as they model many gravitational phenomena, such as rotating black holes and the expanding universe. Further simplification is achieved in approximating the actual spacetime as flat spacetime with a small deviation, leading to the linearised EFE. These equations are used to study phenomena such as gravitational waves."

and

"The nonlinearity of the EFE makes finding exact solutions difficult. One way of solving the field equations is to make an approximation, namely, that far from the source(s) of gravitating matter, the gravitational field is very weak and the spacetime approximates that of Minkowski space. The metric is then written as the sum of the Minkowski metric and a term representing the deviation of the true metric from the Minkowski metric, with terms that are quadratic in or higher powers of the deviation being ignored. This linearisation procedure can be used to investigate the phenomena of gravitational radiation."

The last idea seems as a analogue to magnifying and shrinking, doesn't it? What was it Einstein thought of magnifying a patch of vacuum? That it would become a 'flat SpaceTime', containing no 'gravity'? Here we have a reasoning suggesting that if you just get far enough from, a neutron star for example, its gravity become negligible, and so you can find a solution.

I don't know. I think gravity is what defines a space myself, but I also think it's observer dependent. If we then include us all, we all should have a unique definition of the gravity, relative ourselves (frame of reference). Makes it real hard to find what joins those differing representations to me. We are here together, on that here can be no doubt, and we can define being 'at rest', at least from a macroscopic point of view.
« Last Edit: 29/07/2013 22:05:37 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 #1356 on: 29/07/2013 17:04:44 »
Being at rest becomes another mystery to me, when trying to define microscopically. All mass acts on all mass, a particle of restmass (proper mass) should then have a gravitational influence on the vacuum surrounding it. If it has it also should have a time dilation as well as its symmetry, the so called Lorentz contraction. Can you imagine this? The particles making up your body interacting through time dilations and Lorentz contractions? In what way are they 'at rest' with each other? It's more like a equilibrium isn't it, than being 'at rest'? Or maybe one can exchange that for being at rest?

Macroscopically we can ignore microscopic influences though, using the same reasoning as above, them being too small to be noticeable from our macroscopic reality. So, why can't we do something equivalent with gravity, magnifying a space, finding gravity to disappear? Pauli thought it possible if I remember right, but I don't think Einstein agreed on that.
"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 #1357 on: 29/07/2013 17:34:28 »
What about gravity as a 'field' then? Disconnect it from mass, existing as a (vacuum?) property possibly, interacting with mass (and 'energy)? That seems to have been Einsteins thoughts about it? If we assume that he didn't seem to enjoy the notion of shrinking a 'space', so disappearing '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 #1358 on: 29/07/2013 17:35:40 »
That idea seem rather close to the one using Higgs bosons, doesn't 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 #1359 on: 29/07/2013 17:37:26 »
What would proper mass be from such a notion?
"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 #1360 on: 29/07/2013 17:40:12 »
But I don't see how it solves observer dependencies.
"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 #1361 on: 29/07/2013 17:42:46 »
Translating it between frames, doesn't state that you've solved it. It's like the question why 'c' exist. It's what relativity finds its ground in as I think, but it's not solved. Not if you want this minimalistic description of something being 'invariant', representing some ideal universe without observer dependencies. Don't mix those two.
"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 #1362 on: 29/07/2013 18:14:30 »
Of course, being foolhardy and brave, we then can define 'gravity' as a 'observer dependent' 'field' :) Or, as a 'observer independent' 'field', if you like, assuming one then able to prove in what way it is observer independent. Although, if it is observer independent, what would a time dilation be, and a Lorentz contraction?
"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 #1363 on: 29/07/2013 21:22:03 »
You know, the more I read about how Einstein thought about gravity, the less I know :) It's very different. Hopefully I will be able to assimilate some of it. A important point with it is that it is assumed to be covariant though, able to translate between metrics, coordinate systems, and masses, presenting you with different inertial frames depending on what coordinate system and metric you use. The best approximation I get to, at the moment, is that he thought of it as 'fields', observer dependent fields when defining it locally, although also as one 'field' defining a SpaceTime. I will blame this on me not looking at gravity before, accepting the equivalence principle as a expression of gravity, although in a restricted fashion, as you need to get away from frame dragging/ tidal forces (as Earth spinning). Using that description one might consider the equivalence principle as some sort of extension to Special relativity, as SR ignore 'gravity', although that would be wrong. The equivalence principle do describe General relativity, and gravity.

We define SpaceTime from the 'inside', and looking at it we find light to bend. It should be possible to turn that around, assuming that what we see 'bending' indeed could be considered a straight line, remaking everything we observe into something different topologically, sort of mind-bending that one though :) If gravity is a acceleration, then Earth accelerates us at one constant uniform gravity. But Einstein clearly differed between a earthly gravity, relative the gravity you find in a uniformly accelerating frame.

It's strange, because I find it so hard to imagine this 'unified field' acting. I can see how it comes from observer dependencies, as ones local position in time and space, also depending on accelerations (as spin), and mass. But using the equivalence principle strictly I'm starting to suspect it may be wrong assuming all accelerated motions able to be expressed as gravity, although it should be so in my mind? Maybe it will become clearer rereading it, maybe not :)

There is one other thing, to me contradicting the idea of not all accelerating motions being a equivalence to gravity. Einstein found a equivalence between inertia and gravity. If I assume all accelerating systems to find a inertia, then they also should have a equivalence to gravity. Just goes to show that I really need to reread this :)

As an example, assume you're living on a neutron star, you measure a distance to some 'patch of space', hey, it's just an idea, not a thesis. You have a observer outside the neutrons stars gravitational field, at rest with it. Will you both agree on a same distance? If there is one 'global field', why won't your coordinate systems fit? Translating it doesn't state that your measurement is wrong, and his right or vice versa. Both should be right, but, if I assume one 'field' then this reasoning becomes inconsistent to me?

Anyway, here's one description of what differs, or joins, a coordinate system, and a metric.
Coordinate Systems and Metrics
« Last Edit: 29/07/2013 22:01:20 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 #1364 on: 29/07/2013 22:19:03 »
And one more thing, if now gravity is what defines a space, isn't this close to an aether? One could think of it as a aether distorting a space, interacting with densities, as matter/mass, 'energy', accelerations, and uniform motion (if defining it through Lorentz contractions and time dilations). But you would then also need to define this aether as dynamically changing with motion etc, as well as being observer defined from local definitions. It would be a really weird aether, wouldn't it? the original idea was that a aether would give us a fixed point from where we could decide 'absolute motion' etc, but that wouldn't be this 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 #1365 on: 31/07/2013 20:44:45 »
I argue for that a arrow points one way, not two, calling time reversal a 'logic', not a proof of time being able to reverse.

Quantum Moxie have thought some about that subject. He also makes a point of " the “law” of physics that has to be maintained under the transformation is the Minkowski metric. This means that time and space must have opposite signs in the signature! Thus, time and space cannot be perfectly interchangeable. If they were, they would have the same sign in the metric and this gedankenexperiment shows the importance of maintaining the metric signature. Anyone who says time and space are the same must explain the origin of the metric signature. I have yet to hear anyone provide a good rationale for this that is not ad hoc." Which, to me then, relates to any and all discussions of how 'space and time change signs' inside a event horizon. It doesn't make sense to me, assuming a world in where you at some point would be able to change your overall temporal direction, while still finding the cup to break locally as it normally would do.

There is one possibility, maybe? If we assume everything to reverse, not only that arrow, then your cup may break as 'normally', while still enabling you to define the arrow as going 'backwards'. Maybe it's possible to think of it as something flowing,  creating whirlpools, as a river? Whirlpools in it can change 'direction', although everything inside a flow behaving normally (locally measured)? In fact, that should be the only version of a arrow 'going backwards' that makes sense to me, and it would then also again open for what is more 'real'. The global 'commonly same' universe we think us see, or the 'local version'. From a philosophical view, defining it locally, then a arrow won't reverse, ever. It points one way, giving you a same life span no matter what you define it to have done relative a universe, no different from the way you find a clock observed close to a event horizon to 'freeze'. The arrow is a local phenomena to me.

Time symmetry and the laws of physics
Closed timelike curve.
"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 #1366 on: 31/07/2013 22:08:49 »
Nah, I can't make it make any sense, although it is alluring to imagine a universe steered by 'something', behind the measurable processes we find. Assuming a arrow is equivalent to 'c' (always locally measured), which I do. How would I reverse 'c'? I can't locally, and neither can I do so 'globally'? So how?
"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 #1367 on: 31/07/2013 22:17:36 »
I think of it this way. I can split 'c' to Planck scale. After that it stops making sense to me. What is under Planck scale is not what we observe assuming the arrow to stop making sense there. Assuming a time reversal connected to 'c' should then mean that instead of not making sense as a arrow, we then should find it reverse, passing Planck scale? With Planck scale then being some sort of 'limit' for a arrow, where it doesn't 'run' any more. Well, it's symmetric I guess :) Good for an SF.
"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 #1368 on: 31/07/2013 22:23:48 »
Even so I expect to be correct macroscopically. The arrow won't turn for you, ever. Although we might be able to find 'immaterial precedents' for lack of a better name, for processes, that behave outside of a arrow, maybe :)
=

But if I really assume it to 'reverse', then you must find a way to show both a effect, and its cause(s), reversed?
Wouldn't that be a interesting universe :)

Even entanglements won't make that proposition, they are, well, 'instantaneous', aren't they? But you don't see any of those 'pairs' giving us a outcome before the measurement. Even if you find them to adapt to your manipulations, 'knowing' them instantaneously, they do it in 'real time', similar to the way we can imagine a clock to 'stop' at a eventhorizon.

A real proof must be giving me a effect, to then after its outcome let me observe the causes of it. And what would that say about energy conservation? Maybe it is allowable though? Depends on how you think of it, as a linear cause and effect, or as some equilibrium that has to be preserved, possibly?
« Last Edit: 31/07/2013 22:39:38 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 #1369 on: 28/08/2013 15:59:53 »
A weird musing this will be :)

Think of a inflation, define it as any point chosen in it must find a equal, evenly and equivalently distributed, new space, constantly coming into existence, around it. Could I from such a reasoning assume that I would be able to define a 'original center'? Now assume that all points are able to present us with this, new as old. Frozen at some moment in time, will those 'new points' of space also see the same behavior? Finding themselves surrounded by a constantly inflating space, evenly and equivalently distributed for all?

Seems like a one way proposal to me that one? In the direction of our arrow, but not able to retract to any origin, even if we could 'compress' that inflation? So what about a time reversal then? I'm so totally unsure on what a distance mean (as well as of what a motion really is:) Relativistically it stops making sense as a objective reality, Quantum mechanically it to me seems to do the same, although we find a different reasoning as to why. It's just here, at our current 'regime', non relativistically, macroscopically, and at rest, those two makes sense as some commonly agreeable 'objective truth'.

But you need something to go out from.
=

The point here is that although you at any moment in time can define a center, it will (should?) be a time dependent center, as with new space and time there will be displacements of what you defined as a point. You can consider it as although restmass binds restmass, it does not tell you where it 'exists' as all vacuum then must inflate, inside as well as outside this restmass.
« Last Edit: 28/08/2013 16:41:38 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 #1370 on: 28/08/2013 16:03:03 »
Assuming such a scenario a time reversal shouldn't solve it either. If you think it would, how?
"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 #1371 on: 28/08/2013 16:11:57 »
And what does such a reasoning make matter, aka rest mass? Assume a inflationary existence in where the only thing defining a distance is matter. That is what we use, we can't use two ideal (non materialistic) points in a vacuum, without first having a reference to something measurably there, becoming anchors for our ideal measurements. Theoretically we can do all sorts of things but even there I think it would be hard to take a ideal inflationary vacuum, possibly boundless, or as a matter of fact, surely boundless, as what sets a boundary to a vacuum practically is matter. Anyway, from inside such a 'place', define two points to measure a distance in between?
"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 #1372 on: 30/08/2013 18:23:57 »
The real question there, if you now missed it :)
Is 'reality' time-reversible?

And what exactly would you base such a assumption on?
Memory? Histories?

So, you know how to 'back track' a inflation then?
"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 #1373 on: 30/08/2013 18:34:51 »
The point I'm making is that a time reversibility presumes a 'box'. We need predestination actually to make it work:)
Because it presumes that what happens will be reversible, and that demands a box of sorts, limiting it.

Are you that sure that you can be played backwards?
"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 #1374 on: 30/08/2013 18:41:04 »
You could see it as a open horizon, before a outcome. As soon as that outcome is existing though, you must have your 'box, defining a time reversibility. Don't think that way myself :)
"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 #1375 on: 01/09/2013 10:26:03 »
In a way it's similar to the question of ones 'free will'. Both rests on a idea of there being a incalculable existence of something that allows you to change your mind, with no resolution taken, before your decision materialize a 'outcome', if you see how I mean.

Let us assume that probability is a physically true definition of the state of the very small. Then use 'free will'. Does probability forbid something of a low probability to happen? And what is the difference between a probability of something on the QM plane, versus the uncertainty of ones choice, before a 'outcome'.

Free will exist, but the probability of you doing something directly counterintuitive to the society around you should be rather less than the one in where your choice reflects the 'meta stable laws', defining how your social etc surroundings expect you to behave.

If now a probability gets its definitions from immutable physical 'laws', then we should need those laws, before matter and space. If we on the other hand define it such as it is the interactions between constituents of matter and space that defines those laws? What would it then need to get it started? More or less 'laws'?
"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 #1376 on: 01/09/2013 10:36:08 »
The 'box' I'm referring to is defined by histories, statistics. Those refer to a past behavior, defining a future behavior. To be able to use statistics either demands a arrow, or a 'quantum computer'. A quantum computer, in my mind then, bearing a uncanny resemblance to all actions taken, weighting them, finding one answer as the most probabilistic, naturally also depending on the question.

Would the answer exist without the question?

"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 #1377 on: 01/09/2013 10:48:27 »
Is there a way to differ between 'immutable ideal physical laws' and an idea in where it will be circumstances defining the same? And if it would be circumstances defining them, what keeps them stable and 'countable'?

A arrow?

A quantum computer might be seen as containing all answers, drawn to its extreme. Those answers it contains though, must include those of low probabilities too. So, using that analogue, it looks at it all. The idea of one being possible questions what a arrow is. It also questions what a 'instant of time' is.

Assume the whole idea of a universe as being some sort of quantum computer. Would it then exist inside a arrow? What is 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 #1378 on: 01/09/2013 10:51:27 »
Outcomes?

What then define those outcomes?
And what allows them to be 'stringed out' in a linear procession, called 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 #1379 on: 01/09/2013 11:00:33 »
There is a difference to me, between 'immutable ideal physical laws' and circumstance. The first is a ideal description of 'something', existing even without a universe. The other is a description of interactions defining laws. Defining laws as following constants being set I read that as a description of certain types of interactions being more probable than others. So :) Do constants 'fall out' from interactions, or do interactions 'fall out' from constants?
"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 #1380 on: 01/09/2013 11:01:17 »
We have '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 #1381 on: 01/09/2013 11:06:47 »
Symmetries, that's what a quantum computer, and a universe, make me think of. A quantum computer contain a symmetry, a arrow contain symmetries. When we speak of something 'broken' though, for example, due to temperatures, creating 'emergences'. What do we need for this to exist?

A arrow? How will you get to a temperature without 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 #1382 on: 01/09/2013 11:10:09 »
You might see it as our whole universe should be a illusion, as it seems to me. A illusion finding its reality using 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 #1383 on: 01/09/2013 11:29:45 »
It is also so that even if something have a low probability it can still become a outcome. The difference between such a universe and a 'magic' though, should be that some probabilities should be nonexistent. As the one in where you defies the 'law' of gravitation, levitating. That does not state that levitating isn't possible, just that it isn't allowed in a universe defined by a arrow and ? Constants, circumstances, statistics. Crazy, isn't it :)

If we use probability to define it, then also use 'free will', consciously choosing to enact a outcome of very low probability. Is that also predestined? The mere idea, or possibility, of one choosing such a action implies free will to exist, although from thinking of it as a limiting 'box', no actions chosen gets out from it.

Then we have Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Is that a example of 'free will'?

Uncertainty?
"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 #1384 on: 01/09/2013 11:41:27 »
Maybe it's possible to consider it both ways. Free will and uncertainty existing before the outcome. With what comes after becoming our set 'reality', histories enabling statistics. Would that make for a predestined universe? And would that make 'constants' existing ideal descriptions, defining interactions?

If it would, what is the illusion?
"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 #1385 on: 01/09/2013 11:49:39 »
It depends on from where you look at it, doesn't it? Looking back you find the 'box', but before you is uncertainty, probability, free will and indeterminacy.

Assume that in some beginning there are 'constants', defining interactions, becoming outcomes. Would you consider that the same as predestination?
"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 #1386 on: 02/09/2013 17:26:38 »
Would you understand if I'm getting tired?

I see a marvelous universe :)

It's the ultimate challenge, but do you dare to take it up?
Or do you want to be remembered as one that 'fit in'?

I don't know, life is a mystery.

Maybe fitting in is more important, for you and your descendants?

I don't know, and I'm not joking.

We got a new system, in where every step you take is survivable.

Is that what you want?

No more crazy people telling you that freedom is just one step ahead?

I don't know there either?

Wish I 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 #1387 on: 02/09/2013 17:34:18 »
Survivable for the individual I mean.

I have this vision. Of us adapting, to some thought fitting a stagnant reality ?


It scares me.

I have kids, I want them to think by themselves

Do you?

(and yeah, this time I'm using it as a blog)

But I didn't before.
"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 #1388 on: 02/09/2013 17:56:35 »
This point is so simple that I will excuse you if you miss it.

Otherwise I expect you to use your mind.

You are born, and you die.
do you get that one?
you will die, and excepting your descendants.

what the he** is it about?
If you never asked yourself that one.

It's high time.

I want a 'reality' in where democracy, fantasy, and a bravery for loving exist.'
Or are you not able?

but for you  it is,  what you make.
It's a question of bravery, and daring.

Are you able?

You live, and you die.

What the he** did you expect?
« Last Edit: 02/09/2013 17:58:16 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 #1389 on: 02/09/2013 18:23:46 »
I'm sorry, in some ways I'm getting slow and I hate it. I guess it's about time, but some things are still true. Love is true, what may come from it, might become a problem, but do me a favor there. Be true to truth, tell it as it is, it won't make it easier when it happens, but it will make it more hand-able when one think back. And , I don't know? I've had a lot of fun writing here. I'm proud over us all, geeks and warriors alot :) Crazy is my first name I guess?

But to face up to me, use that mind of yours, and take the consequences.
=

And as always, my spelling sux.
« Last Edit: 02/09/2013 22:51:21 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 #1390 on: 02/09/2013 18:56:07 »
I don't know.

You will make your own choices.
It's about dreams, and daring to love.

I won't form you. It would be a disgrace to suggest anything like that.
Do it yourself, but please, use your own mind to do it, not someone else's thoughts.

Read me, but use your mind, not mine.
"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 #1391 on: 13/12/2014 21:44:42 »
Got to say.

thanks, seems I'm not the only one confused by physics. We all want to understand it, at least those of us wondering about life. Some seem to accept it at 'face value' but I don't. If you read through all this?  I don't think you did too. Good on you my friend. We live, and we die.
"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 #1392 on: 17/07/2015 20:08:47 »
Don't know what good this will do, if anything? :)

Some questions has been bothering me a lot more than physics for the last couple of years. As, where are we going? We have Global warming, we have over population. We have politicians and others lifting forward solutions as how you can compost at home. Or solutions as if we all only would turn vegetarians, or if we can't stop it by pricing CO2, 'making it affordable again', at the same time as we then redistribute some 'wealth' to poorer country's, without our energy needs, by 'buying' their unused 'rights' to pollute.

All of that are more or less futile in my eyes. But we seem to like it. Anyone recognize greed when they see it, and how it can be used to manipulate? And if you say that you don't find that sufficient, you become 'negative'. Ever heard of the emperors new clothes? Well, he's here, again, with most of us loving his new outfit.

I don't.

The problems goes together and are fairly simple to solve, that is, if we want?

One kid per person for the next two hundred years.
No more talk about selling rights to pollute.
Accept a thinner wallet.
Change your view on what 'wealth' is.
Stop polluting.

Wealth is not about getting to be the richest dead guy. Wealth is about loving, nurturing the planet, caring, and trying to gift your descendants a better place to be. Wealth is about living, and letting live. It's terribly simple, and it goes against our grain. Because we want to fight our way to it, instead of adapting. So instead of the simple solutions we try to imagine ourselves 'terraforming' this planet, or leaving it for some technological habitat in space. That won't work, we're forgetting that we already live on a 'spaceship', that have taken geological time to come to exist for us.

Anyone recognize hubris when they see it, any more?

sometimes I wonder if all this new technology just stop us from using our minds? Too much information, too many voices telling us what life is about.

One kid per person, non negotiable.
Alternative energy sources that is renewable, as far as we can make it.
Nuclear only as a last resort.
Redistribution of wealth.

It won't stop global warming, and it wont stop overpopulation, but it will give us a chance. And it's ethical.

There are other solutions, stupid ones but still. As a nuclear winter, but if you go for that, then we're talking genocides.
"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 #1393 on: 23/07/2015 20:10:12 »
It's sort of strange.

I love people that are brave. They can be female or male, some of them may hurt me, as in a relation. But I love them still. Some of them (as in something that is true) may pick five, but they still are lovable. Not in that they could do that, but in that they think, and question themselves. There is noting especially lovable to be born with quick reflexes and a ability to hate, but when you start to question yourself you make life something worth to live. Not that I find life, the way we do it, that lovable. So, you got strength and marital arts? I got a 45 and some training. You want to take it a step further? So I got a missile. etc etc etc etc ad infintum.

That's not the point of it.

Stupidity galore.

So nobody but you understand what I write?
And you know you are prepared, but when you think of those others? Those that don't get it? You know it's all BS?


I'll give you this, I don't care about those others, I care about you, and your decisions.
I want you to grow up.
"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 #1394 on: 23/07/2015 20:26:38 »
Yeah, it's not physics.
But it is about you.
"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 #1395 on: 24/07/2015 18:03:19 »
Yeah, it's not physics.
But it is about you.
Yes, it's not physics yor_on. But it's really about "US" isn't it? For every generation has witnessed the inhumanity that we humans seem to revel in. It's truly sad my friend, we all seek answers where none seem to be found. And life goes on, trouble and distress all around us and nobody with good solutions. So I intend to concentrate on my personal responsibilities and leave the other problems to the Despots which seem to always create war and famine for the rest of us. How do we stop them is the question, how do we interrupt their persistent march to the positions of power they always seem to attain?

Yes, we live and then we die. It's inevitable isn't it. But there is one note of comfort we might take from this future certainty. In death, we only return to the place from whence we came. There was most certainly a time when everyone of us did not exist and to that place we are destined to return. Nothing new under the sun my friend, it's all a great and mysterious circle.

This is of course the Secular point of view, those of religious persuasion are free to believe in their own personal convictions regarding the state of existence after death.

...........................Ethos
« Last Edit: 24/07/2015 23:33:07 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4057
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1396 on: 25/07/2015 16:47:57 »
We vote the despots in Ethos. Someone has to follow them. If absolutely no one voted or followed them their power is gone. The solution is to not vote for or follow ANYONE.

*

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 #1397 on: 30/07/2015 15:20:01 »
Yes Ethos :)

Seems we're of a same mind. We go back to where we came from, what-, and where-, ever that now might be. when it comes to personal responsibilities then I think that that can be expressed many ways, depending on from where one look at it. The way we used to look at, was intimately connected to nature, aka 'hunter society's/nomads' but lately we've moved away from that idea in preference for us becoming some sort of 'crown of evolution', deciding and directing all other flora and fauna. And in doing so we succeeded in overpopulating this world, killing of fauna and flora, polluting it in so may ways. And we can't stop, because that's not 'economically sane' :)

We're interesting, in a rather sad way, but as individuals we seem to refuse to grow up. We don't want to take those stands that force us away from our 'self interests'. Only saints are expected to do so. And they never get rich, do they :)

As for what you say there Jeffrey. Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether you agree with someone, or not, also what depth of knowledge one apply on it. Crowds can be very powerful, especially if they gained a consensus through independent thinking. But that is difficult, and can be uncomfortable.
« Last Edit: 30/07/2015 15:37:57 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 #1398 on: 30/07/2015 18:32:54 »


We're interesting, in a rather sad way, but as individuals we seem to refuse to grow up. We don't want to take those stands that force us away from our 'self interests'. Only saints are expected to do so. And they never get rich, do they :)


I've held to one particular position regarding humanity for many years now.  Whether saint or Despot, those individuals responsible for the majority of the distress created in our world today are those idiots that invest total effort in attempting to prove a point. Whether it's Communism versus Capitalism, Christianity versus Islam, Atheism versus Theism, someone is always ready to go to war to prove their way is the only way.

My way is MY BUSINESS and everyone else can choose their own. The people that insist everyone else must conform to their standards, whether they are sticking their finger in your face or a gun makes no difference, these are the people that cause all the trouble.



« Last Edit: 31/07/2015 02:40:59 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1399 on: 30/07/2015 20:07:07 »
Quote from: Ethos_
Whether saint or Despot, those individuals responsible for the majority of the distress created in our world today are those idiots that invest total effort in attempting to prove a point. Whether it's Communism versus Capitalism, Christianity versus Islam, Atheism versus Theism, someone is always ready to go to war to prove their way is the only way.
What a beautiful way to express that all to true fact. My compliments to the chef.