The Naked Scientists
The Naked Scientists
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Answers to Science Questions
Do an Experiment
Ask a Question
Meet the team
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
This topic contains a post which is marked as Best Answer.
Press here if you would like to see it.
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
20/09/2009 17:06:15 »
This is just thought's and questions, no theories, not even hypothesizes, okay, some hypothesizes, possibly? And no, I haven’t even begun to touch all there could be said. And I’ll leave it, as is, so you can see just how confused I am. Yeah, I’m confused. The dichotomy between particles and waves never stops confusing me. And time, and mass, and distances and.. . It would be nice if there was a common background to it. And I probably misstate some ideas, oh yes, I’ve done it before, but here I’ve tried to avoid it, well mostly
And I have to split it into several parts to fit it in here so... Well, it's at least entangled?
Then, on the other tentacle, if it’s not argumentative and just ‘adapts’, where is the joy of reading? Also it seems I’ve lost my ‘password’ since my last visit. Well, sh* happens, right? Just look at ‘Global Warming’. And it’s been some time since I was here too, due to my lack of ‘medium’. Yep, I lost my ‘crystal bowl’. So feel free to trust me in that I’m me
I’m pretty sure on that one.. I’ve even checked me in the mirror this morning, in the process finding that one should better avoid doing so. Why? Just trust me on that one.
What it is? A work in progress, regressive progress? Progressive regress? And there is no real order to it either as I’ve added to my questions, quotes and views, where ever I pleased. So if you find one part boring or ‘incompetent’ try another. Well, judge for yourself. I’ll freely admit to wishing it was more ‘elegant’, as well as shorter. Try to read it ‘holistically’, the way it came to, it hopefully will make more sense at a second reading, but, probably not? If so, do try to read it backwards. To me it all knits together
Remember, if read holistically one percent will be quite sufficient for you to build the continuance of it according to all known principles involving holistic information. And if you find me lifting up the same old things repeatedly, you’re wrong, I wrote them after that…
So they’re definably new.
And you don't really need to take it seriously, and all that said..
I do. For now.
( I do too choose too to do do so, so?
I’m planning to have that inscribed on my tombstone too.
. . . . . For now.
And my next work will be ‘The second coming’.
Catchy title, ain’t it? ( Don’t worry, you’ll get it..)
---And now for that Warning Label---
One way to read it might be to see it as a entangled try for that really confused science-fiction, connected to sanity by only the thinnest of threads, soon to slip through your nerve-dead fingers, leaving you a disjointed wreck oozing revolted innocence at those fellow compatriots accusing you of reading it.
If you don’t like my views I mean
And yes, I’m arguing myself through a maze here, discussing ‘wrong and strange ideas’ to see if I understand them to ‘my’ satisfaction. Remember that I started to write it for my sake, not yours, also that ‘it’ may have, to you, all to obvious false conclusions. ( Easily satisfied you say? Yep, that’s me. - Oh, you
And I try to argue for there being a distance-less quality hidden inside SpaceTime creating rules we see defining it, yeah
I know, a little like ‘one dimensional strings’ but interpreted so that it seems to make sense for me. Why it should be so? Well, mostly to diminish my headache. I’m not sure, as I don’t know the math, if one-dimensional strings would relate to how I think this ‘dimension-less reality’ might behave. Physicists or mathematicians reading it, ( if any ) may give up on me all to soon. . .
But please, if you're crazy or bored enough to read it, don't come complaining. And, I totally agree , it’s a totally unstructured hydra begetting all to many heads. With far more wrongs than rights to it I'm sure, but then after all is said and done, that's, .. life for you.. And me. It is in fact just that sort of scary mythological beast you might best avoid. Growing into an ever more uneven shape as it w(j)iggles itself towards obscurity. Making what sense it may out of its meager existence.
Consider yourself duly warned.
----End of Warning text----
As we all know, if its ‘too good’ for you it will contain a warning label.
At least, that’s how my marketing division presented it when they insisted? on me writing one.
I'm afraid that I started it some month ago to cure my boredom (and see if really understood anything at all?
, having no internet connection. Which goes a far way to show you the dangers of that. With the exemption of climate issues where I feel like that old joke. “It seems so bad that it isn’t even the bottom of the bottle, the bottom just fell out”. And there I’m afraid you’ll find me quite acerbic, lashing out. But it would please me if you would read it anyhow.
Yeah, that citation above loses something in the translation. But it’s fun in Swedish.
As we know about beer. . . And climate. Cause we have both. But the beer has been far superior to the climate lately.
Furthermore, as a layman I most likely will abuse both words and concepts that should have a more refined definition to a physicist. But as it’s just an essay and not any holy grail, please bear with me (and it) if so. And, oh yeah, That ‘arrow of time’, referred to all too often here, is just the universal macroscopic order of ‘events’ creating that ‘unwavering time-flow’ I believe us to observe in SpaceTime. Birth -> to -> Death. So to speak.
Hey, At least I'm still a growing boy.
What is momentum? We say that photons, ‘entities’ of no mass still contain momentum. That, to me at least, singles momentum out as something differing from mass. Inertia f. ex. Can a photon be said to have inertia? (The tendency of a body to maintain its state of rest or uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force). SpaceTime 'bends' the paths of photons using gravity but is that the same as it having inertia? When we talk about mass we all know from normal experience that the heavier the car(t:) the harder it is to stop and that is what inertia normally refers to, isn't it? So, would you accept me suggesting that light bends in the nearness of gravitational objects in varying degrees due to their inertia? Nah, didn't think so, inertia to me relates to invariant mass but momentum doesn't. Also I would say that measured in 'energy' (whatever that might be) the photon always use the 'shortest path' energy-wise and that inertia only relates to 'invariant/rest mass' which is the kind of mass that will stay consistent no matter where you place it. Like you moving that chair to Pluto where its weight will change but its invariant mass remains the same.
---Some facts about rest mass contra relativistic mass----Quote--
The invariant mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass or just mass is a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference...If the system is one particle, the invariant mass may also be called the rest mass."
- - -End quote--
versus Relativistic Mass.
" The quantities that a moving observer measures as scaled by ? in special relativity are not confined to mass. Two others commonly encountered in the subject are a body's length in the direction of motion and its ageing rate, both of which get reduced by a factor of ? when measured by a passing observer. So, a ruler has a rest length, being the length it was given on the production line, and a relativistic or contracted length in the direction of its motion, which is the length we measure it to have as it moves past us. Likewise, a
stationary clock ages normally, but when it moves it ages slowly by the gamma factor (so that its "factory tick rate" is reduced by ?). Lastly, an object has a rest mass, being the mass it "came off the production
line with", and a relativistic mass, being defined as above. When at rest, the object's rest mass equals its relativistic mass. When it moves, its acceleration is determined by both its relativistic mass (or its rest mass, of course) and its velocity.
While relativistic mass is useful in the context of special relativity, it is rest mass that appears most often in the modern language of relativity, which centres on "invariant quantities" to build a geometrical description of relativity. Geometrical objects are useful for unifying scenarios that can be described in different coordinate systems. Because there are multiple ways of describing scenarios in relativity depending on which frame we are in, it is useful to focus on whatever invariance's we can find. This is, for example, one reason why vectors (i.e. arrows) are so useful in maths and physics; everyone can use the same arrow to express e.g. a velocity, (speed having a given direction) even though they might each quantify the arrow using different components because each observer is using different coordinates. So the reason rest mass, rest length, and proper time find their way into the tensor language of relativity is that all observers agree on their values. (These invariants then join with other quantities in relativity: thus, for example, the four-force acting on a body equals its rest mass times its four-acceleration.) This is one reason why some physicists prefer to say that rest mass is the only way in which mass should be understood.
- -End of Quote ----
It may be interesting to note here that this geometric notion of describing
SpaceTime wasn't entirely shared by Einstein.
- - - -
Quoted from John D. Norton
Department of History and Philosophy of Science
and Center for Philosophy of Science
University of Pittsburgh----
"In thinking mathematically, or, as Einstein's sometimes said, formally, one takes the mathematical equations of the theory as a starting point. The hope is that by writing down the simplest mathematical equations that are applicable to the physical system at hand, one arrives at the true laws. The idea is that
mathematics has its own inner intelligence, so that once the right mathematics is found, the physical problems melt away. Philosophers will recognize this as a form of Platonism.. Just how did Einstein's physical insight work? One part was an keen instinct as to which among the flood of experimental reports were truly revealing. Another was his masterful use of thought experiments.
Through them Einstein could cut away the distracting clutter and lay bare a core physical insight in profoundly simple and powerfully convincing form.. That geometrical way of conceiving special relativity is not Einstein's. It was devised by the mathematician Hermann Minkowski shortly after Einstein published his special theory of relativity. Einstein was reluctant to adopt Minkowski's method, thinking it smacked of "superfluous learnedness." It was only well after many others had adopted Minkowski's methods that Einstein capitulated and began to use them. It was a good choice. It proved to be an essential step on the road to general relativity. Einstein preferred to think of his theory in terms of the coordinates of space and time: x, y, z and t. The essential ideas of the theory were conveyed by the algebraic properties of these quantities, treated as variables in equations. Its basic equations are the Lorentz transformation, which, in Einstein's hands, is a rule for changing the variables used to describe the physical system at hand. The laws of physics are written as symbolic formulae that include these coordinate variables.
The principle of relativity of relativity then became for Einstein an assertion about the algebraic properties of these formulae; that is, the formulae stay the same whenever we carry out the symbolic manipulation of change of variables of the Lorentz transformation. The emphasis in Einstein's algebraic approach is on variables, not SpaceTime coordinates, and formulae written using those variable, not geometrical figures in SpaceTime. For many purposes, it makes no difference which approach one uses, geometric or algebraic. Sometimes one is more useful or simpler than the other. Very often, both approaches lead us to make exactly the same calculations. We just talk a little differently about them. However there can be a big difference if we disagree over which approach is more fundamental. We now tend to think of the geometric conception as the more fundamental one and that Einstein's algebraic formulae are merely convenient instruments for getting to the geometrical properties. There is some evidence that Einstein saw things the other way round. He understood the geometric conception, but took the algebraic formulation to be more fundamental"
And if you're interested in what he saw as the difference's between those two
approaches you could search on. ' physics + "How did Einstein think?" John D. Norton '
(I’m sorry not to giving you the direct links for my quotations, blame it on my not having a Internet connection. But I swear to that they exist, somewhere
And no, Einstein was only human and most definitely no saint, as far as I've found out. But that imagination of his was unworldly, and a pleasure. )
The thing that never ceases to amaze me about Einstein is not just that he came up with theories that altered our fundamental understanding of our Universe (that would CLEARLY be impressive enough!). Max Planck did something quite similar in order to explain the color of light coming from hot objects (Black Body radiation). But Planck developed his theories ONLY because he could think of no other way to explain experimental results. Einstein did exactly the same thing WITHOUT any experimental results that needed an explanation! What he did (not once BUT TWICE) was to ask a perfectly hypothetical question, come up with what he thought MIGHT be the result, and then develop the result in a rigorous mathematical formula. In both cases, his theories were radical changes in basic physics. And both times his purely conjectural ideas were supported by experiment!
For SR, he asked what would happen if he moved away from a clock at the speed of light. His conclusion (somewhat reasonable) was that he would never see the clock advance, as none of the light from the clock would ever be from a time past when he started to move away at that speed. He then asked if that meant time was standing still as he moved away at that speed. He then developed a mathematical formalism that made some mind-blowing ideas about the effect of uniform motion, including the famous E = mc^2.
However, even Einstein noted that his formulae for SR had no way to determine what would happen if someone were accelerating. It wasn't a thought or experiment, it was obvious -- so he resolved to fill this gap. His "Aha!" moment was when he asked what would happen if someone was in an elevator in free-fall in a LONG shaft. Again, he developed the idea in a mathematically rigorous way (this took YEARS) and showed that, if his ideas were correct, light from a distant star would "bend" when close to our Sun. When photographs during a eclipse showed that's exactly what happened, Einstein went (literally overnight) from respected obscurity to being the most famous scientist in the world.
Invariably, scientists develop new theoretical frameworks only when the old ones no longer explain certain experiments. Neutrino oscillation, the absence of proton decay, dark matter, and dark energy are all unexplained at this point in our history; and scientists are working furiously to develop theories that would cover these verified results. Einstein, on the other hand, developed radical theories BEFORE anyone needed them to explain anything, and experiments showed that his theories were completely correct! This never ceases to amaze me.
--------End of quote-
Wish I knew this guys name.
But hey, all my quotes are good
( Btw: Feel free to quote this and the quotes, but also, please tell us exactly where you got it from. With enough doing so I have great hopes that it will end in something where the quoting of who quotes who, will become to the reader as a really thick and estranged phone book, totally obscuring the original quotes as well as any questions in question. It’s a holistic principle in action and I can’t wait to see it. I’ve done my part here, now it’s your turn. Yes, I decisively must insist on your ‘total history’ of ideas and sources origin, through its full hierarchy:)
Doing it this way we will soon have us a TOE..
Yep. Exactitude my aim..
Last Edit: 17/12/2009 21:10:39 by yoron
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #1 on:
20/09/2009 17:07:35 »
Anyway, we know that photons have a particle-similarity in their momentum, one thought experiment trying to take this into account is to enclose photons in a 'perfectly reflecting' box. When weighting that box, before and after introducing the photons, there is expected to be a weight difference. Let us first agree on something, there is no way you can define anything ‘moving’ to not touch the reflective walls in that ‘prison’. To truly define a ‘eigen’-mass to ‘photons’ or ‘waves’ you would also need to ‘freeze’ them inside that box’s space, can you see what I mean? And then weight it before and after the introduction of ‘light’. And as soon as you ‘touch’ something, f ex. that light, to ‘freeze’ it you will change its properties, so that’s not acceptable to me. When something ‘moves’ and then ‘reflects’ it will interact with what’s its ‘touching’, that’s also a ‘rule’ to me, but that said what we here is ‘playing with’ is a perfectly reflecting box. And there it is expected to be shown a ‘weigh/invariant mass’ difference. Weight is something changing to where you are right, like in water you weight less, but invariant mass is the sum-up/collection of what you really are, no matter where you reside. So do we expect it to be a weight difference or a mass difference here? Do we define it to the box only or to the sum of the box and its ‘waves’ inside. As far as I understand we will treat it as ‘a system’ defined as one single ‘object’ and the ‘mass’ referred to will be ‘restmass/invariant mass’. And that defined I will ramble on. Does that mean that photons have a 'mass' after all? I personally don't think so, one way is to see it as an exchange of 'energy' only, with the photons 'bouncing' around inside that box exchanging what momentum they have for 'lesser energy content' sort of, if seen as waves possibly red-shifting them in the process. If that was correct it seems to mean that this weight should change as photons momentum 'shrinks' with their energy content, or possible termination.
But what does that mean? That you have a 'loosely' defined number of photons 'bouncing' and as they bounce they all loose the same amount of energy? Or that they 'disappear' as they exchange their energy with the reflecting wall through virtual photons as they are of 'one energy quanta'. Or that they stay in that box infinitely as they can't 'slow down', as the box is defined as reflecting them 'perfectly'?
If seen as particles you could expect them to lose 'energy' with every 'bounce' of the walls, mediated by those 'virtual particles/photons'. And as their momentum, to me that is, can't be related to any mass in this case, with them being photons and all I see two possibilities. One is this strange thing called momentum and the other one is the intrinsical energy contained in a photon. If it is related to their energy content. Then, if photons consists of unvarying light quanta, shouldn't that mean that they will disappear from our observation at the first 'impact/bounce/energy loss' with those walls, not caring for any further 'reflection'. But they don’t, well they do, but other takes their ‘place’. The idea behind that is called ‘mediating’, and the ‘mediating’ is done by ‘virtual particles/photons’. If you on the other tentacle see them as waves, then we know that they will reflect, just as from an ordinary mirror and if that reflection was 'perfect' you might assume that they would bounce for ever. That leaves the question of what force(s) one would expect to work/mediate with the box mirrored walls. No matter if you call it mass or if you call it momentum there is that idea of action and reaction. Those virtual photons mediating the force between the photons momentum and the box should loose/exchange 'something' to create an added mass in that box, wouldn’t you agree? You can't have a mass created by those photonical (demonical?) waves without something being distributed/mediated between the box and the waves themselves.
As we all know, as soon as you share that cookie with someone else it becomes less somehow, even before consumed? But not here, instead it seems to become ‘more’ as we compare waves and particles? So what can I guess about the wavelike properties of photons?
Well, they can't reach above lights speed in a vacuum at least. But can they slow down? That we 'know', if meeting something of the proper density they will slow down, as when light travels through a prism, or water and so lose some 'energy' and/or 'speed'. So, can they traverse even slightly through this perfect mirrors 'glass'? According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) they must, as there is no way I know of defining any mirror as being 'perfectly reflecting' without giving the mirrors smallest 'constituents' strange properties violating HUP. So there can't be any perfectly reflecting mirror anyway as I understands it, which to me makes the idea sort of moot, as any wave reflected will lose ‘some information’ meeting ever so shortly that mirrors ‘properties’ before it bounces back.
But, to consider something ‘perfectly reflecting’ and then expect a change of the box’s (system) restmass/invariant mass would indeed be a proof for waves having mass. But the fact remains that even when light do interact with ‘invariant mass’ it do so through ‘mediating’ and if so, there must be something exchanged between the ‘invariant mass’ and the light. And as long as you’re not prepared to see matter and light as the ‘exact same’ simultaneously under our arrow of time then light is not ‘invariant mass’ even though they can ‘transmute’ into each other under certain manipulations, like an atom-bomb transmutes into ‘energy’ or very high ‘energies’ can create a ‘particle’. But to be ‘perfectly reflected’ seems to me to crave that wave not to be ‘touching’ at all, and why would it ‘reflect’ if so? Let that be a warning us all
any thought experiment craving ‘magic’ to be accomplished will be a ‘minefield’ to walk through. All the same it is an idea that made me wonder.
In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the values of certain pairs of conjugate variables (position and momentum, for instance) cannot both be known with arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one variable is known, the less precisely the other is known. This is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but rather about the nature of the system itself. In quantum mechanics, the particle is described by a wave. The position is where the wave is concentrated and the momentum, a measure of the velocity, is the wavelength. The position is uncertain to the degree that the wave is spread out, and the momentum is uncertain to the degree that the wavelength is ill-defined.
The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength. Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position. So in quantum mechanics, there are no states which describe a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum. The narrower the probability distribution is for the position, the wider it is in momentum.
The uncertainty principle requires that when the position of an atom is measured, the measurement process will leave the momentum of the atom changed by an uncertain amount inversely proportional to the accuracy of the measurement. The amount of uncertainty can never be reduced below the limit, no matter what the measurement process.
This means that the uncertainty principle is related to the observer effect, with which it is often conflated - (meaning ‘mixed together with’) -. In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is the theoretical lower limit of how small the observer effect can be.
-------------End of quote------
Another way of expressing it may be, that to observe something that small you need to ‘touch’ it somehow. If you ‘touch’ it by radiation f ex. then your ‘light’ will act just as a ‘force’ invalidating that ‘something’s’ state of equilibrium and so also invalidate your results. But that’s only half the truth. You also need to remember that when ‘pinpointing’ very small ‘systems’ or ‘particles/waves’ the ‘information’ needed for defining them runs to ‘infinities’ of needed information, and there we get lost in the wilderness, you will see more of this later in the text, as well as some questions about if there can be ‘limits’ to mathematics?
(‘Heisenberg's uncertainty principle asserts that it is impossible to specify both the position and the momentum of a particle. That ‘uncertainty principle’ can also be regarded as an expression of the conflict between wavelike and particle-like properties. If we use a De Broglie's relation instead and express momentum in terms of wavelength we will still find it impossible to describe ‘simultaneously particle and wavelike properties’.)
But it still leaves the question open if one could see them as 'corpuscles' consisting of some common degree of energy-quanta. Or of several constant degrees of energy-quanta, or if they can change in themselves? As well as the question if 'high energy' radiation of photons then should be seen as singular 'corpuscles', each one containing a higher energy content, or if this just is a effect of it being a higher (denser) amount of 'photons' there at any given ‘instant’ of your observation. If you see them as waves you also should get the effect of them quenching each other but then, on the other hand, they also should be able to reinforce each other, so I presume this to balance itself out? But how have waves a momentum? It's easier for me to relate to momentum if the definition of it resembles a object/particle, on the other hand, light do have very much a wave-like appearance.
Light have a 'momentum' but no mass?
Momentum = product of a body's mass and its velocity…
Hey, don’t look at me, that what’s my dictionary told me. Probably one of them crazed ‘particle partisans’ writing it. Although.. In the case of photons there is no body's 'rest mass', only velocity. So where is the ‘particle’?
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #2 on:
20/09/2009 17:08:35 »
“Momentum is the Noether charge of translational invariance. As such, even fields as well as other things can have momentum, not just particles. However, in curved space-time which is not asymptotically Minkowski, momentum isn't defined at all.”
---End of quote—
But a Minkowski SpaceTime is the exact one you’re in. Defined by its three spatial (‘spacelike’) dimensions and its one ‘timelike’ dimension. And if you’re wondering about what this lovely girl, Emmy Noether's, theorem was about..
It states roughly that..
“ if a physical system behaves the same regardless of how it is oriented in space, its Lagrangian …(which is a formula of transformation).. is rotationally symmetric; from this symmetry, her theorem shows that the angular momentum of the system must be conserved. . .The physical system itself need not be symmetric; a jagged asteroid tumbling in space conserves angular momentum despite its asymmetry – it is the laws of motion which are symmetric. . . As another example, if a physical experiment has the same outcome regardless of place or time (having the same outcome, say, in Cleveland on Tuesday and Samaria on Wednesday), then its Lagrangian is symmetric under continuous translations in space and time;
By Noether's theorem, these symmetries account for the conservation laws of linear momentum and energy within this system, respectively….Modern physics has revealed that the conservation laws of momentum and energy are only approximately true, but their modern refinements – the conservation of four-momentum in special relativity and the zero divergence of the stress-energy tensor in general relativity – are rigorously true within the limits of those theories. The conservation of angular momentum, a generalization to rotating rigid bodies, likewise holds in modern physics.
--------End of quote------
Ah yes, it never ends does it. Four-momentum you say?
Let’s have a look.
In special relativity, four-momentum is the generalization of the classical three-dimensional momentum to four-dimensional spacetime. Momentum is a vector in three dimensions; similarly four-momentum is a four-vector in spacetime.
So if I get this right, never thy doubt, someday I might… It relates to that momentum can be seen as being a ‘property’ relating not only to those ‘three distances’ we have but also to the ‘vector’ of ‘time’. Being proposed by Albert Einstein. “The "length" of the vector is the mass times the speed of light, which is invariant across all reference frames:” So why do we need to apply a momentum to time?. It seem to come from the ‘invariance’ of four-vectors under a so called Lorentzian translation which is yet another mathematical transformation. “Relativistic momentum can also be written as invariant mass times the object's proper velocity, defined as the rate of change of object position in the observer frame with respect to time elapsed on object clocks (i.e. object proper time). Relativistic momentum becomes Newtonian momentum only at low speeds.
But of course it is correct, all ‘momentum’ is acting in time and to give a proper definition of it you will need to consider its time component. Also, as that time-component can be seen as ‘contracting’ as observed from the frame of f ex an accelerated rocket versus those objects/time outside, it then seems to make time ‘elastic’, if you like. Compare that to our older ‘Newtonian universe’ where time was seen to always be the same ‘inelastic’, no matter your ‘speed’ or acceleration and you will see how he thought.
In Galilean SpaceTime the physical existence of an absolute time is assumed.
The pioneer of physics Isaac Newton defined it in the following way.
"Absolute, true and mathematical time, in itself, and from its own nature, flows equally, without relation to any thing external; and by other name called Duration. Relative, apparent, and vulgar time, is some sensible and external measure of duration by motion, whether accurate or unequable, which is commonly used instead of true time; as an hour, a day, a month, a year. It may be, that there is no equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is liable to no change."
Because of this absolute time the global notion of past, present and future is the same in all reference frames. If two events are simultaneous in one particular reference frame, this means that they are also simultaneous in all reference frames. . . Within the framework of Galilean Space-Time, faster-than-light speeds are possible in principle. However, electromagnetical waves are limited not to exceed the speed of light c, which usually depends on the direction of the light signal the reference frame in which it is measured. The speed of light is constant only in the absolute space-time frame, which is also called the Newtonian rest frame.
--End of quote---
And furthermore, as the light/photons velocity just 'is' having no ‘beginning’ (acceleration) even though an 'end', being its impact on your retina, I'm not even sure if velocity or speed is the right description for it. That as all other velocities/speeds we know of need a accelerate component to them. You can create ‘bosons’ like helium4 by super-cooling but they do not inherit this strange ability of instant ‘c’ that photons is expected to have, as far as I know. “When liquid helium is cooled below 2.2 K, a Bose condensate begins to form in the liquid. At these low temperatures, liquid helium behaves as a superfluid having, among other strange properties, zero viscosity.”
“The helium-4 atom… In an actual helium atom, the protons are superimposed in space and most likely found at the very center of the nucleus, and the same is true of the two neutrons. Thus all four particles are most likely found in exactly the same space. Classical images of separate particles thus fail to model known charge distributions in very small nuclei.
The nucleus of an atom is the very dense region, consisting of nucleons (protons and neutrons), at the center of an atom. Although the size of the nucleus varies considerably according to the mass of the atom, the size of the entire atom is comparatively constant. Almost all of the mass in an atom is made up from the protons and neutrons in the nucleus with a very small contribution from the orbiting electrons” Superimposed? At room-temperature? That’s interesting.
What we call Bosons and Fermions is what makes up for all ‘particles’ inside SpaceTime.
Bosons has a integral spin and all can occupy the same state (super imposed) and examples are photons, 4He atoms, gluons. Fermions has a half-integral spin and can only occupy ‘one per state’ (one ‘peg’, one ‘hole’) and examples are electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, neutrinos
“ The spin-statistics theorem shows that all bosons obey Bose–Einstein statistics, whereas all fermions obey Fermi-Dirac statistics or, equivalently, the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that at most one particle can occupy any given state. Thus, if the photon were a fermion, only one photon could move in a particular direction at a time. This is inconsistent with the experimental observation that lasers can produce coherent light of arbitrary intensity, that is, with many photons moving in the same direction. Hence, the photon must be a boson and obey Bose–Einstein statistics.”
And now we know what the heck a ‘one per state’ is. That went back to that definition called ‘the Pauli exclusion principle’, stating that you couldn’t have more than one fermion existing in any given quantum state. What that means to me is that bosons should be able to be ‘superimposed’ upon each other, like photons, without taking any ‘room’ physically, but fermions can’t, and won’t.
As fermions is what makes ‘matter’ possible we should be grateful for that. I mean, your ‘super imposed’ chair, how would you ever find it, and what would you do with it if you found it? One more strange thing about those fermions. Under certain circumstances relating to a few of those types of fermions they may ‘transform’ into bosons like that helium-4. But then again? I thought that as they now behaved as Bosons they should be able to be superimposed. But now I’m not sure anymore?
” In a superfluid helium, the helium atoms have a volume, and essentially "touch" each other, yet at the same time exhibit strange bulk properties, consistent with a Bose-Einstein condensation. The latter reveals that they also have a wave-like nature and do not exhibit standard fluid properties, such as friction. For nuclei made of hadrons which are fermions, the same type of condensation does not occur, yet nevertheless, many nuclear properties can only be explained similarly by a combination of properties of particles with volume, in addition to the frictionless motion characteristic of the wave-like behavior of objects trapped in Schroedinger quantum orbitals”
So? All Bosons are not the same then? Containing the same properties? Equal but not equal then? Somewhat like our ‘representative democracy’ perhaps? With more of a sliding scale of properties instead? That we deem to be ‘Bosonic’ anyway.. Really? That made it so much simpler, don’t you think? We just need to consider the Boson as being our democratic ‘Man on the street’. With our lovely Fermion as a woman, as they do all the ‘real’ work. Yes I am breaking it down in easily digested parts here. ( Wave to the public now Boson
“When gaseous bosonic atoms are cold enough (so that they have a long quantum wavelength) and dense enough (so that the spacing between the particles is on the order of the wavelength), quantum effects become important and the gas may undergo a phase transition into the Bose condensed state. This must be done in a density regime low enough so that the gas does not nucleate and form a solid.” And there I presumed that you could ‘super impose’ them too? As for ‘spin’ and ‘polarization’, you will find it the later in the essay, or goggle
But there is one other very strange thing, although bosons/photons are supposed to be able to ‘superimpose’ on each other, they also seem to be able to collide. “ For example, photons suffer so many collisions on the way from the core of the sun that radiant energy can take about a million years to reach the surface, however, once in open space, a photon takes only 8.3 minutes to reach Earth. The factor by which the speed is decreased is called the refractive index of the material.” But doesn’t they get ‘exchanged’ as they ‘collide’ inside the Sun. Isn’t it only the ‘mediating process’ into new photons taking that time (3 million years) ?
That is what you can see in your mirror too, where your photons gets reflected. They collide with the mirror and ‘bounces’. Do you find it strange? I do:) So photons can be superimposed but also collide happily and often? And helium-4 as an atom have most of its constituents already superimposed even without cooling? But when super-cooled down to a Boson state (Bose-Einstein condensation) they still, each one, will occupy a volume just as fermions?
Ahh, the pain, the terrible pain…
“I thought I saw a light a coming, alas, it was only my migraine.”
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #3 on:
20/09/2009 17:09:45 »
On the other tentacle, if seen as ‘photonical particles’ what bounces back from your mirror should be ‘new photons’ mediated through the interaction between the mirror and the original photons coming from you by ‘virtual photons’, in their turn mediated from the original photons once hitting your face, mediated from the interaction by a electric current inside your light-bulb, due to Einstein’s photoelectric effect and so originating from Plancks ‘black body radiation’ that “showed that hot objects emit electromagnetic radiation in discrete packets, not as a flow but having ‘discrete jumps’ to it, which leads to a finite total energy emitted. And that result was in direct contradiction with the classical view of light as a continuous wave”
“In a classical wave picture, the slowing can be explained by the light inducing electric polarization in the matter, the polarized matter radiating new light, and the new light interfering with the original light wave to form a delayed wave.
In a particle picture, the slowing can instead be described as a blending of the photon with quantum excitations of the matter (quasi-particles such as phonons and excitons) to form a polariton; this polariton has a nonzero effective mass, which means that it cannot travel at c. Light of different frequencies may travel through matter at different speeds; this is called dispersion. The polariton propagation speed v equals its group velocity, which is the derivative of the energy with respect to momentum.”
And if you to that add the idea of ‘virtual photons’ mediating between particles to do ‘work’ as they ‘interact’, what do you get? Well, except a headache? Here they talk about phonons and excitons too, but let us presume that this is just a more refined proposition for how those '‘virtual photons’ are seen to mediate, specifically, with matter.
Another thing worth considering here is that those ‘virtual photons’.
“In perturbation theory, systems can go through intermediate "virtual states" that normally have energies different from that of the initial and final states. This is because of another uncertainty principle, which relates time and energy” That means that virtual particles as where our virtual photon belongs can be allowed ‘energy states’ that is stronger than what they would have if they were photons existing over Planck time.”
“Dirac's second-order perturbation theory can involve virtual photons, transient intermediate states of the electromagnetic field; the static electric and magnetic interactions are mediated by such virtual photons. In such quantum field theories, the probability amplitude of observable events is calculated by summing over all possible intermediate steps, even ones that are unphysical; hence, virtual photons are not constrained to satisfy E = pc, and may have extra polarization states; depending on the gauge used, virtual photons may have three or four polarization states, instead of the two states of real photons. Although these transient virtual photons can never be observed, they contribute measurably to the probabilities of observable events. Indeed, such second-order and higher-order perturbation calculations can give apparently infinite contributions to the sum.
Such unphysical results are corrected for using the technique of renormalization. Other virtual particles may contribute to the summation as well; for example, two photons may interact indirectly through virtual electron-positron pairs. In fact, such photon-photon scattering, as well as electron-photon scattering, is meant to be one of the modes of operations of the planned particle accelerator, the International Linear Collider.”
-------------End of quote--
And here we see the word ‘renormalization’. We will look at that later
Did you notice their possible polarization states? Normally there are only two in our ‘arrow of time’.
The most accurate and complete definitions of virtual particles (e.g., virtual photons) are mathematical. Most non-mathematical descriptions, however, usually describe virtual photons as wave-like (i.e., existing in form like a wave on the surface of water after it is touched). According to QED theory, virtual photons are passed back and forth between the charged particles somewhat like basketball players passing a ball between them as run down the court. Only in their cloaked or hidden state do photons act as mediators of force between particles. The force caused by the exchange of virtual photons results from changes charged particles change their velocity (speed and/or direction of travel) as they absorb or emit virtual photons.
As virtual particles, photons are cloaked from observation and measurement. Accordingly, as virtual particles, virtual photons can only be detected by their effects. The naked transformation of a virtual particle to a real particle would violate the laws of physics specifying the conservation of energy and momentum. Photons themselves are electrically neutral and only under special circumstances and as a result of specific interactions do virtual photons become real photons observable as light.
----------End of quote---
“The fundamental nature of the photon is believed to be understood theoretically; the prevailing Standard Model predicts that the photon is a gauge boson of spin 1, without mass and without charge, that results from a local U(1) gauge symmetry and mediates the electromagnetic interaction. However, physicists continue to check for discrepancies between experiment and the Standard Model predictions, in the hope of finding clues to physics beyond the Standard Model.
In particular, experimental physicists continue to set ever better upper limits on the charge and mass of the photon. A non-zero value for either parameter would be a serious violation of the Standard Model. However, all experimental data hitherto are consistent with the photon having zero charge and mass. The best universally accepted upper limits on the photon charge and mass are 5 × 10−52 C (or 3 × 10−33 e) and 1.1 × 10−52 kg (6 × 10−17 eV/c2, or 1 × 10−22 me), respectively .”
So what does it mean that they can be ‘superimposed’? Under what circumstances do they do so?
Waves do it all the time when they quench or reinforce each other as I understands it. And naturally we can lay several waves ‘upon’ each other. Does that mean that they get entangled in the process too? It should, shouldn’t it? So then we might have a ‘entangled universe of light’ too, if we assume this happening normally to non-coherent light (sunlight), and expect it to exist on its own between ‘source/sun’ and ‘sink/you’.
When people try to combine those two aspects of light (particle/wave) into one I’ve gotten the impression that most try to see light as waves but containing some 'focus/nexus' allowing it its 'particle-like' behavior. But how then would light-waves loose energy in our thought up ‘perfectly reflecting mirror box’? Well, as long as there is an exchange with the walls inside, them being an obstacle for the wave's supposed ‘propagation’ beyond, I might expect a certain loss of energy. The exchange mechanism behind that is described as belonging to virtual photons mediating the 'force exchange' developing in the 'collisions', but that we might leave aside for the moment. But If you now consider a wave as something able to 'go down' in energy without 'disappearing/dying' then ..where exactly.., will it loose that 'energy'. I mean, if it has some sort of 'nexus' concentrating or manifesting its particle like properties can I then expect that to be the 'place' where that 'energy loss' will manifest itself if observed as a particle? It seems so to me and that idea makes me uneasy, because a wave is a wave, whatever 'nexus' or concentration of 'energy' it will show you can not be anything else than a effect of limited interactions within it if so. That interaction if so implies to me no less than that our wave/photon now consists of more than 'one' property as it can interact with itself. If that is possible then this 'wave' seems to be able to be broken down into further singular 'bits' and therefore be no correct description of what we see as the properties belonging to a 'particle like' photon.
Let me ask you a question. Think about a dark room in where you have a light-source that you can manipulate the intensity of. You sit in there as the 'detector' observing the radiation from very high (Gamma) to the very low red. Assuming that the intensity of radiation is a measure of the amount of light-quanta hitting your retina in any given amount of time, do you believe that the lower spectrum of radiation will consist of a lesser amount of 'photons' per 'instant' hitting you? And that this then would leave a greater amount of 'space' between them? If that is true shouldn't there be 'instants' without light intermixed with the light quanta? That as if seen as 'light-quanta', photons should be expected to occupy a certain spatial position. And if those photons are of an invariant energy quota then a lower radiation should mean less 'photons' per 'instant' observed spatially. But as far as I know no detector we use will notice 'instants' of darkness intermingled in any constant (unwavering:) radiation, no matter what 'intensity' of radiation measured. So seen as a 'wave' I might expect light (waves) to be of no defined spatial focus/location and therefore unable of keeping a 'nexus' to them as I believe this example to prove.
But we also know we can send defined 'photons' almost like bullets to a detector which then must define clear boundaries/edges to them 'time-and space-wise'? So the answer to that question could be that when seen as ‘photons’ there is no variation to the amount of those photons if they in them selves would consist of different energy content? But wouldn’t they then also need to fill the same amount of space as a wave does to be ‘unwavering’? If you see how I think. And if so they shouldn’t be able to be detected ‘one and one’ inside various time segments. Which then seem to crave that there must be ‘gaps’ to it? Or? Is it all only a ‘relation’ created by the ‘source’ and the ‘sink‘ cooperating? With the idea of photons, or for that sake waves, just being the expressions we use to define that relation? On the other hand it could be so that they are of an defined variable intrinsic light-quota that once set at the source (sun) never will change, except as observed/interpreted by you watching their interaction with f ex. a gravitational object like a Neutron star. Where they to you will seem to accumulate energy, but to themselves still will be in that same equilibrium they had at their source. And if you moved with them they would always be the same to you, unchanging, no matter SpaceTimes geodesics. But, if so, do they only come in one intrinsic flavor (energy content) originally? Or do they have several intrinsic ‘energy contents’ possible? In that case you have all sorts of variables and some of them should create ‘gaps’ between ‘photons’ spatially. Still, if you look at it as waves (radiation) there will be no ‘breaks/gaps’ intermingling between ‘it’ as far as I understand.
“According to Einstein’s photoelectric effect in where he proposed that light is made up of packets of energy called photons. Photons have no mass, but they have momentum and they have an energy given by: Energy of a photon : E = hf … The photoelectric effect works like this. If you shine light of high enough energy on to a metal, electrons will be emitted from the metal. Light below a certain threshold frequency, no matter how intense, will not cause any electrons to be emitted. Light above the threshold frequency, even if it's not very intense, will always cause electrons to be emitted. It takes a certain energy to eject an electron from a metal surface. This energy is known as the work function (W), which depends on the metal. Electrons can gain energy by interacting with photons. If a photon has an energy at least as big as the work function, the photon energy can be transferred to the electron and the electron will have enough energy to escape from the metal. And a photon with an energy less than the work function will never be able to eject electrons. Knowing that light is made up of photons, it's easy to explain now. It's not the total amount of energy (i.e., the intensity) that's important, but the energy per photon. “
--End of quote—
Am I getting this right? That ‘photons’ then will consist of corpuscles of different strength. And what we call a waves ‘overall strength’ then could be seen as being the same amount of ‘high energy photons’ existing spatially as one with the same amount of ‘photons’ but now of a lower ‘energy level’? And in the first case each one containing a higher ‘energy’. What does this imply? That all ‘light’ is a constant number of photons if seen as localized phenomena in SpaceTime? Then a higher ‘overall strength’ of a wave could be directly related to its photons ‘energy content’? not having anything to do with how many they are per time segment. But if we can send photons one and one to a detector, is there then any limit to how many we can send by a ‘time segment’? I don’t know, do you? But we seem to be able to vary them though? So if I send six photons of strength ‘1’ per a given time segment case_(A). Will that be the same as sending three photons of strength ‘2’? per the same time segment? Case_(B) ..
Then there seems to be two variables here. I can do A and get the same result as if I did B? But as they both obey ‘c’ ( Lights speed in a vacuum
I will be able to concentrate the radiation by sending as many high ‘energy level photons’ as I possibly can under any given time segment. Am I right there? I should be, shouldn’t I? And ‘c’ combined with what possible ‘energy content‘ one single photon can ‘contain’ would then define how much energy I can send per time segment? So B will always win out here? Doesn’t that imply that they must occupy a defined location in space? And if so, shouldn’t there be ‘gaps’ in that radiation? Ah, we have a problem here. As photons goes they are very small, so small as they don’t even exist inside SpaceTime. They do? But they are size-less, ain’t they? Yep, I’m confused here. If seen as waves how would one explain this? As waves could be seen to be undefined spatially only existing as a ‘local effect’ when observed, then? On the other hand, isn’t that the exact same with our ‘photons’ too? So, can we differ between them? But waves are ‘unbroken’ by time as I understands it, photons is ‘broken’.
And that is the other way to see it, photons as 'objects' of their own, each one of them having a precise amount of energy, a so called 'energy quanta', that they can't lose except when impacting, at which time they will disappear. But don’t we have red shifted waves too, that even is seen to disappear, as observed by you, not ‘impacting’ at all? Like a ‘Black Body’ residing in a Black Hole radiating energy that is so red shifted to your view that it never is seen at all. Possibly not seen even by that ‘black body’? If you read me closely you will notice that I differ from the idea of momentum being a property relating to mass, believing that momentum is a general description for energy's tendency to react at whatever 'obstacles'. Also I'm not really sure what 'rest mass' or 'invariant mass' is. And also I'm protesting due to that it, to me, would violate the photons ability of 'traveling' at light-speed, as I see that as a direct consequence of its 'mass-less-ness'.
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #4 on:
20/09/2009 17:10:37 »
Acceleration seems to me to be what build momentum normally. When we accelerate something we create what is commonly known as a 'gravity well' residing outside the rear of that accelerating object (rocket f ex.). That acceleration, if uniform, meaning constantly (Uniformly) accelerating with the same 'force', at one G (Gravity) f ex. will give us the exact same experience as if we experienced a real gravitational field belonging to f ex. Earth. But don’t get this mixed up with ‘uniform motion’ (‘coasting’) btw. We can't, as far as I understand, distinguish between that uniform acceleration and a planetary gravitational field, at least that is, if placed in absolute vacuum with no other gravitational objects/effects like a planets rotation influencing our observations. And even if we had such influences acting upon us I think it would be a real pain in the, ah, to find a difference between our rockets acceleration and us being in a ‘usual planetary gravity’. That as all ‘uniform motion’ to me is a cause of comparing between frames. (Although angular momentum created by a planets rotation would be noticed I think, as it is so on Earth.( which means the product of the momentum of a rotating body –>think- children’s carousel<- and its distance from the axis of rotation ) ) Anyway, ‘Gravity’ only exists in the limited cause of acceleration or in the nearness of a invariant mass (like Earth). This effect of Earth’s rotation is also called the Coriolis force and is seen as a ‘pseudo force’ not existing in an inertial frame outside Earth. Then Earth also have ‘tidal effects’ due to the planets interacting gravitational ‘forces’ but all of those are as far I can see ‘outside influences’ not invalidating the concept.
An ‘inertial frame’ is something uniformly moving (coasting:) from which you measure another frames motion in time, not stating that it in itself have a ‘zero motion’, If you have another frame moving uniformly relative to your ‘inertial frame’ (coasting along) that one too will become a inertial frame according to you. And a ‘frame of reference’ is simply a standard relative to which motion and rest may be measured. So if your ‘frame of reference’ is Earth, then, if we assume Earth to ‘coast’ it also will become your ‘inertial frame’.
Just as a ‘by-thought’ (a low association threshold is mine.) think of a circle. If I state that any circle can be defined as a infinite amount of straight lines slightly ‘angled’ against each other, would you agree to that? Or do you see a circle as something truly ‘bent’? To me, depending on what view one choose SpaceTime will differ. If we look at nature I’ve seen statements to that there exist no straight lines in it, so?
When we on the other hand stops that ‘uniform accelerating’ and instead is 'uniformly moving' (a.k.a. coasting) that 'gravity well' created behind the rocket disappears leaving us weightless, kindly informing us that our planet just took a tea-break, hopefully to come back. Or possibly that we have taken to weight-watching all to seriously. So now you might think of the light-sources inside that rocket accelerating? Shouldn’t there be a difference between the one at the cockpit and the one at the back, if you were standing in the middle of the rocket? As the light from the cockpit then would fall towards the ‘gravity-well’ situated outside the rockets ah, posterior begetting more energy, as compared to light from the back that must travel ‘up’ towards you from that same ‘gravity-well’ losing energy as it does so?
In physics, light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength originating from a source placed in a region of stronger gravitational field (and which could be said to have climbed "uphill" out of a gravity well) will be found to be of longer wavelength when received by an observer in a region of weaker gravitational field. If applied to optical wave-lengths this manifests itself as a change in the colour of the light as the wavelength is shifted toward the red (making it less energetic, longer in wavelength, and lower in frequency) part of the spectrum. This effect is called gravitational redshift and other spectral lines found in the light will also be shifted towards the longer wavelength, or "red," end of the spectrum. This shift can be observed along the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
Light that has passed "downhill" into a region of stronger gravity shows a corresponding increase in energy, and is said to be gravitationally blueshifted.
------End of quote----
You know, I think you are right there, but now we are talking about the light, not gravity. There is no way you can differ that uniformly accelerating rockets G-force from a planetary G-force (not considering if that same planet rotates btw) and the light falling down on Earth will produce the same phenomena of acceleration as the light from the rockets cockpit does. And if you just made a hole in our Earth to that opposite side of the Earth (or its middle) the light coming to you from that hole would be ‘red shifted’ just the same as the light from the back of that rocket would be. The difference is that the gravitational ‘place’ of attraction in the rocket will be placed outside its ‘end’ as it accelerates, but in the case of Earth its attraction is the sum of all restmass ‘coagulated’, also taking out each other in the middle of that object (earth) where, if I’m correct, you would find yourself weightless. But then you could argue that the extra energy the light will get falling in that first half of your new hole (China/Earth) would countermand the ‘climbing’ it would have to do the last half ‘up’ to you at the surface so, okay, we better define it coming only from the ‘middle of the earth’ here
As for if light can ‘accumulate’ ‘energy to conserve it and better ‘spend it’ when finding ‘resistance’ I’m not really sure? Also it falls back to the idea of light as a defined non changing ‘light quanta’ or not to me. If it is unchanging but still found to be able to ‘accumulate energy’ and so ‘conserve’ it, then I believe you still will have to look to the question of a ‘larger amount’ of ‘photons’ being created in any given ‘time segment’ by this phenomena. Otherwise the single ‘photons’ in themselves can make that intrinsic ‘jump’ up and down in energy spontaneously and then also emit that energy in discrete ‘steps’. That is, as long as we see photons to be something ‘defined’ as ‘entities’ existing on their own between ‘source’ and ‘sink’. Then the best way may be to see it as ‘unchanging’ I think and the different ‘values’ you observe as it goes down or up versus that ‘gravity well’ being a relation between it and the possible ‘energy/gravity frames’ it passes by, observed by you as its ‘energy’. And if seen as a wave? Don’t know how to quantify that, a compressed or expanded quality in any given time segment perhaps, but would that fall out to be the same as particles? There are different qualities or ‘properties’ defined to a wave, so I’ll leave it be for the moment. I do like my headache to be manageable
. But what we call its momentum is still there and, as far as I know, not 'adding' any measurable energy to those atoms etc creating this 'frame of reference', that means, not making them rockets electron's 'jiggle' any more? I may be wrong here? Do the momentum (uniform motion) influence the 'jiggling' of atoms in the rocket if traveling in a ‘perfect space’? That is, will those keep a higher level of ‘noise/jiggling’ constantly when moving uniformly? And why the heck won’t they? If there is a ‘higher’ energy level to a faster ‘speed’
This one is really irritating to me, assume that we are surrounded by a ‘perfect vacuum’, and accelerating. As there is no ‘friction’ anymore there is nothing to react against the atoms of our ship. The only thing that possibly can create this jiggling will then be the acceleration in itself. When we accelerate ‘something’ like a rocket in this perfect vacuum, what exactly do the engines flames/energy/explosions ‘push against’. Didn’t we say that there was ‘nothing’ outside? Well it might be that the ‘pushing’ comes from the explosions in themselves and so crave no ‘resistance’ to push against. But how? A car uses the road to ‘push’ against. A plane uses the air to ‘push’ itself through. But here we have nothing at all to offer any resistance against our ships engines. So why should it move? If we consider the explosion an expanding ball of energy resting inside the engine it will have only on way out from that chamber, as it searches and find that weakest link it will create an imbalance inside that chamber, that means that the force acting from this expanding ball won’t be equal anymore The force finding its way out will weaken out in that direction of the ship and the forces acting inside the enclosed part will ‘push’ the ships walls as it tries to pass through. So to me it seems what ‘pushes’ is the breaking of symmetry or equilibrium in those explosions. Think about it for a moment. The explosions will work the same everywhere, no matter what density there is outside, as long that density isn’t as thick as the engines wall. Do you find it strange? Well, I do. So you need to form that chamber to lead those ‘pushing’ forces in the direction of the ships axis of direction ‘pushing’ it forward with as little loss as possible due to forces acting in the wrong directions, that is out the weakest way, ‘the opening’ as it is.
But what exactly is the ‘force’ acting against? The ship of course, but not space, as there is nothing to create a resistance there, that force can't ‘act’ against anything. So the ship in a way seems to lift itself by its own bootstraps, will you agree for now? What does it tell us about ‘explosions’ and motion? That they can expand from a ‘possibly zero’ area equally in all directions acting out their ‘force/energy’ at any ‘resistance’ meet. That they have a sort of equilibrium in themselves too perhaps if unhindered? It’s strange, there is something that I can’t put my thumb on here, irritatingly enough. It says something but I can’t seem to find it? Maybe that this ‘concentric’ force seems to feed on itself? Expanding as it does without any anchor anywhere except in itself, can you see how I think? Like it won’t matter if we place it on earth, in a Black Hole or space, (although when placed in a Black Hole it will matter
but the real idea hidden in it is just that, that it gets its ‘force’ from the way it expands from a center concentrically in time. So in a way it is a lovely statement of equilibrium from a zero point of origin if nothing interferes with it. If I by equilibrium mean anything that, no matter if seen as moving, growing or not, will keep its symmetry as long as it stays undisturbed. So could I say that what we do with the rocket’s explosions is to disturb that ‘balance’ by introducing a density in some directions but not in other. And could forces then possibly be seen as something ‘balanced out’ in themselves? If we used that stroboscope, what would it look like? I have a very low association threshold I’m afraid. Although in fact I’ve never seen anyone defining what a ‘force’ really consist of, neither ‘energy’ or ‘photons’, not to my understanding anyway? Doesn’t say that much, huh
Awh, anyway, there is a lot of ‘analogues’ and mathematical definitions. So, I will look at them from my point of view here. And my view is really weird
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #5 on:
20/09/2009 17:11:31 »
Imagine a space in which every point consists of some kind of ‘explosions’ How would it act? As it is ‘space’ and therefore we presume ‘empty’ from matter. Then there can be nothing ‘interacting’ as we can observe from our arrow of time. I wonder? Would it behave as a fountain but going back in on itself, forming something similar to a ball? But as we have three directions in space (+ Time) then you can imagine it ,if caught in a stroboscope, as something slightly twisted in a direction for each flicker of light. That is, if we pretended that this strobe in some way could give us a clearer view, can you see how I mean, like x-rays? In reality its ‘axis’ of orientation will be ‘everywhere’, will seem as a ‘ball’ to us as it’s axis is pointing everywhere simultaneously, but if we just decide one orientation and then assume another ‘fountain-ball’ beside it, what will they do with each other? They will ‘push’ on each other, don’t you agree? So what would be the lowest ‘push’ you can have for creating a continuos ‘distance’’ by forces? Planck size? Yes, I’m wondering if that is what we call ‘space’ and I was not totally honest when I started with a already existing space, as this could be ‘space’ and what was before then would be ‘nothing there at all’ And that would then be my ‘dimensionless existence/distance’. And those three distances that we call dimensions will also be a ‘ball’ in any point of space, pointing their axis of orientation (distance) everywhere simultaneously. Sounds strange? Yep
What would make ‘space’ able to act this way? Forget ‘dimensions’ for a while and consider it just ‘distances’. We can say that those ‘distances’ seem to grow from every point right? We can also say that they differ in ‘density’, like I’m ‘matter’ but having the same ‘distances’ in me as ‘empty space’. Do you agree? But other than that ‘distance’ as an idea is the same.
To be able to simultaneously ‘take place’ as if ‘point’ in all directions as those ‘distances/balls’ seems to do to me, you will need to question what ‘time’ is to them. If they obeyed our arrow of time there should only be ‘one direction at a time’. If it was quantum logic steering them they should still need some ‘cause and effect chain’ to them as I see it and so not be able to create those simultaneous ‘distances/balls’ . So my suggestion might then be that they express something expanding from no time at all. Which to me then also is ‘time’ but now without any defined direction time-wise, and without casualty-chains implied in it. But then again, if it is dimension less, and ‘arrow less’, then it implies that ‘what pushes’ has no number to it, doesn’t it? It exist on a plane where all equations goes to infinities, and stops making ‘sense’. So we could then call it ‘one’ outside ‘SpaceTime’, but when measured inside our arrow of time the numbers of it might become ‘uncountable’. A start I might ‘understand’ better than string-theory, well, for now that is..
As I understands it string theory works from what we have, with some ‘dimensions’ curled up inside ours? But if string theory doesn’t, and instead works from a coherent zero plane of ‘energy/time’ whatever, building to what we are, then I might be wrong about that? And then this might be a mathematical definition I could understand too, as resembling my own thoughts on it. I’m not saying that it need to be wrong just because it chooses to work from what already ‘is’, just that the answers found then will be slightly ‘skewed’ to ‘fit’. It’s like defining a position spatially, depending on where you do it all ‘distances’ to other ‘objects’ will come out differently. Yep, I’m arguing from a thought possibility of ‘objectivity’ although not in SpaceTime, outside it instead.
String theory is a theory in fundamental physics that asserts that all matter and forces are composed of incredibly tiny loops that look like strings. It attempts to construct a model of elementary particles from one-dimensional entities rather than the zero-dimensional points of conventional particle physics. It postulates that subatomic particles actually have extension along one axis, and that their properties are determined by the arrangement and vibration of the strings. The undulations of such strings were posited to yield all the particles and forces in the universe. String theory soon ran into mathematical barriers, and decayed into five competing theories, each with thousands of solutions, most of which looked nothing like our universe. Concepts of duality, however, are allowing string theory to overcome its limitations and rise to the status of a TOE. Theory crafted in the mid-1980s, and remains very much research in progress.
(‘Good to know’. The entire solar-system is only one light-day around.
According to superstring theory, space has more than 3 dimensions. A superstring is to a proton in size as a proton is to the solar system. To probe this realm directly would require a particle accelerator 1,000 light-years around.)
If you take a look at physics today they still seem to place us in the middle of things just like that old universe did before Copernicus put it right, the one that placed Earth in the middle. Not that it us specifically but it is still our ‘living room’ we look out from it seems ,SpaceTime, and from there we try to knot all strings together, with us at the hub . String theory fights with dimensions as I understands it. Dimensions that goes all ways you can think of, out from our ‘reality’. When I was writing this I suddenly realized that this too was one of the ‘things’ bugging me. That we always seem to get in the ‘middle’ of whatever endeavors we see ourselves as undertaking. I prefer a ‘beginning’ of it all that doesn’t concern itself with humans at all. And then, almost as a afterthought, life, intelligence, and humans comes to be. That makes more sense to me, looking at how it seems.
The only thing differing here is that we take a ‘bigger bite’ and speak about SpaceTime as our backyard, instead of just the solar-system like we used too. I've read people believing that they can see four dimensionality, And I’ve seen some very clever imagery? I just can’t produce those ‘cinematic effects’ in my head when I try to imagine a fourth ‘distance’ bound to the three we have, but what I can do is to pry those we have into their smallest recognizable properties and from there start to guess, building on what we ‘know’. So instead of ‘dimensions’ I prefer ‘distances’ as I do know what a ‘distance’ defines. And handling it that way you soon realize that there is something really strange with how we experience ourselves and our different geometrically defined ‘densities/mass’. And I prefer the word ‘density’ before ‘matter’. Why, well take a look at the infinities ‘renomalization’ have to ‘clean up’ just to define a electron, you know what we define as ‘restmass’ a.k.a. what makes up ‘matter’.
So densities is more ‘neutral’ to me and doesn’t force you to think ‘real’ contra ‘unreal’ when discussing it. Also it makes more sense when describing all those strange phenomena building up to it. So consider this universe through my eyes here for a while. It starts with ‘nothing’, in fact what we deem ‘nothing’ is what its made of, all of it. I name that ‘nothing’ to be ‘time’. Why? Well, I need to give it a ‘name’ because even though it to us consists of ‘nothing’ at all, and so can’t be in SpaceTime under our arrow of time it still ‘is’ and exists. According to the tome of me, that is
And considering which one of the properties we have that should get the ‘honor’ of being first I believe time to be the right pick. We could also talk about ‘energy’ but then we will have two thingies and I much prefer one. ‘Energy’ to me seems to be a phenomena we observe when straining the equilibrium of SpaceTime. We know how to ‘strain’ it and what we use to do it with we name ‘energy’ but that too seems in the end to become a relation of ‘time’ to me. Then you also need to remember that I use a ‘time’ without ‘clocks’. We can’t do that, well we can in quantum-mechanics but then we see it replaced by what I like to call ‘cause and effect’ which to me seem to be another type of ‘clock’. ‘Cause and effect’ is a kind of ‘time’ too. For people stuck in the supposed linearity of time it often get described as ‘going both ways’ as you can read it that way. To me though it's a ‘relation’, and I believe the whole universe to be constructed from ‘relations’.
And in fact that ‘cause and effect’ we see in QM is the smallest pieces of ‘time’ I believe us to be able to see. After that it all falls apart
and disappear from our observations. “Physicists sometimes humorously refer to Planck units as "God's units", as Planck units are free of arbitrary anthropocentricity. Unlike the meter and second, which exist as fundamental units in the SI system for historical reasons, the Planck length and Planck time are conceptually linked at a fundamental physical level.” Well I too find them to be eminent ‘Stop-Signs” defining where we lose our sight.
So why did I pick ‘time’. Well one thing was that I was getting quite tired of was my view of ‘time’ being a flow (in SpaceTime). Most, not all of us, but most prefer the view of ‘events’ and then ‘time’ as something created almost like some illusion out of those ‘events’ stringed together. And when we look at a Feynman-diagram that point of view makes a certain sense. But it never have to me though. Cause all I’ve seen and known in this place tells me otherwise. Time is a ‘flow’ without any ‘emptiness’’ between ‘events’, not stringed together but a ‘whole experience’ for us, just like it treats those ‘frames of reference’ we like to lean upon in physics blending them all into a universe for our admiration. Writing this I realized that I never had taken the time to wonder how it became this ‘flow’ though. The reason for that I might blame on our normal ‘time appraisal’ as something going from A to B, just like we consider distances. But that’s not the only way you can create a ‘distance’ or ‘time’.
Consider ‘time’ the same way I suggested ‘space’ to become. As something emerging fractally from ‘nothing’. But , didn’t I just state that time is a flow? Well, to me it is , but just as it is with ‘black body radiation’ you get certain ‘jumps’ to it, as it ‘emerges/grows’ into our arrow of time. The same as the radiation measured from that ‘black body’ also will be a flow, without breaks for us even though the jumps still is there at that ‘small plane’ as it ‘becomes’. Just like the ‘orbits’ of electrons can’t move ‘seamlessly’ in distance from a atoms nucleus. You see how I think? So ‘Flow’ may not be the best expression, but ‘events’ seems even worse to me, as that would imply something between those ‘events’. You cant have a ‘event’ connecting to another ‘event’ without needing something in-between. If you could it would become a ‘flow’. There are other reasons why I choose ‘time’ before the others too. For example ‘Mass’ creates its Space, but mass as we observe it (QM) is first described through what I call ‘cause and effect’ chains (Quantum mechanically). So ‘Time’ comes before both Mass and Space. And to wonder what this ‘time’ really should be seen like I can’t say. Perhaps what’s causes ‘energy’? Or the exact same?
Energy is also a very slippery thing. As far as I know no one have yet succeeded in defining exactly what ‘energy’ is, ‘work done’ is one description befitting a breathing universe, but when it gets so old that no more work is done then, or can be ‘done’ in it? Its ‘Entropic death’ so to speak, Would you say that all ‘energy’ is ‘gone’ then? In a universe that wastes not? You will still have some kind of ‘matter/soup’ won’t you? Isn’t that ‘energy’ too? And Black Holes. They will be the very last to stop producing ‘new energy’ in their hawking radiation right. Perhaps we’ve been asking us the wrong questions, relating energy to work. It makes sense inside SpaceTime, but it doesn’t necessarily makes sense to expect the same behavior outside SpaceTime. And those ‘cause and effect’ chains I’m talking about in QM could then be seen as whole processes, not ‘bits fitted together’ but processes created from ‘nothing’ following rules of ‘emergence’ to become inside SpaceTime. And ‘distance’ being what gives us our three dimensional image with ‘matter’ as its possible creator. The ‘trick’ you have ‘quirk too’ is to see something that simultaneously build in all distances from a zero point. What we deem as the distances is in fact a product of this ‘building’. Like it’s unwrapping itself constantly in front of us but with us being blind to it. I spoke about mass creating space, remember that there is very little ‘chronology’ to its original creation. If mass do create what we call space, some good questions could then be . .How? Does it go both ways, can space create matter too? Why should it do be so? We could start with looking at ‘matter’ perhaps?
But when we look at matter, and our definitions of it, It seems to disappear into ‘infinities’. Now, why does it do so? One reason I can ‘see’ is that it’s not ‘really there’. It’s an ‘emergent’ property created out of ‘nothing’. But would it then be right to say that it’s matter that ‘creates’ space? Maybe not, space creates matter too spontaneously, so once again it comes to a question of ‘growths?’ ‘sizes’ ‘magnitudes’ ‘Fractal behavior’. I prefer ‘fractal behavior’ myself though
as we need to get some ‘distance’ from them normal cause and effect chains we describe inside a ‘arrow of time’. It’s like a puzzle where you can see SpaceTime at least ‘two/three’ ways and lay it those ways and still find a coherent ‘picture’. One ‘normal’ where everything will move as we are used inside that arrow, with the exception being QM. And where we have clear casual chain of definitions and mathematical proofs for how it all ‘hang together’, well with the exception of QM then, where it all becomes ‘messy’ or ‘fuzzy’ but where particles still is bound together by ‘cause and effect’ chains
The ‘Third’ tentacle is how I might see it
In that SpaceTime everything ‘emerges’ in ‘jumps’ and ‘size’ is what makes us notice, not the ‘jumps between’. Those ‘jumps’ is done at a ‘basic level’ of SpaceTime to me. It’s at this ‘zero point’ it happens, where it ‘starts’, but for us? It doesn’t happen, ever. Can you understand how I see it? There is no way we ever are going to observe that ‘reality’ even though it is with us the whole ‘time’. And the chain of logic we use to explain the phenomena inside SpaceTime becomes a ‘complementary mathematics’ to what happens on the other side of that weirdly warped ‘mirror’. Our math can’t consider anything outside ‘time’. The nearest I believe it can come is what we have at a QM level. ‘Cause and effect’. At least I think so, it will take really clear minds to decide if you by using mathematical notation following a ‘cause and effect chain’ can give a correct mathematical description of something without it. I mean the mathematical definition of our universe according to what I believe now, might be a slightly flawed ‘0’ And what do you do with that?
With no real ‘cause and effect chains’ creating what we see from Alice’s ‘rabbit-hole’. Even the way you create your equations follows Space-’Time’s arrow’. To me it’s how you see ‘time’ that defines the way your math will treat SpaceTime. And by choosing different ‘starting-points or definitions’ the answers you get will become ‘different’ although in a way ‘complementary’.
So yes, I think Space and Mass is a ‘relation’, some sort of ‘cause and effect’ chain, not necessarily mirrored ‘realities’ , but ‘together’ and able to do/express its ‘opposite’. The reason why it so easy for mass to create space relative space creating mass is probably the intrinsical ‘energy’ defined spatially. That as all matter are an enormous bounded expression of energy/particles/restmass. But space even though containing ‘hidden energy’ is not as spatially concentrated as ‘invariant mass’ is. And that mass is ‘concentrated’ is due to the ‘distances’ we have defining it as a ‘3D geometry’ with a certain location inside SpaceTime. Then we have what’s called ‘relative mass’ which, if seen my way, becomes a geometric concentration of energy expressed in the relation between ‘mass’ (rocket) and ‘velocity/speed’ inside our arrow of time. Perhaps better expressed as a ‘momentum’ than as a ‘relative mass’?
Then I wonder, if that ‘energy/momentum’ built up is better seen as a ‘relation’ for our rocket, versus SpaceTime, and us observers naturally? But if that Rocket would hit something then? The energy released will then belong to both the rocket and that object colliding with it right? And depending on that rockets speed it might be worse, right. So the relation will become ‘real’ when ‘impacting’. But before that? Does this remind you of something? A photon perhaps. Only ‘existing’ in its impact.
To find the real origin of the concept of relativistic mass you have to look back to the earlier papers of Lorentz. In 1904 Lorentz wrote a paper "Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving With Any Velocity Less Than That of Light." There he introduced the "'longitudinal' and 'transverse' electromagnetic masses of the electron." With these he could write the equations of motion for an electron in an electromagnetic field in the Newtonian form F = ma where m increases with mass. Between 1905 and 1909 Planck, Lewis and Tolman developed the relativistic theory of force, momentum and energy. A single mass dependence could be used for any acceleration if F = d/dt(mv) is used instead of F = ma. This introduced the concept of relativistic mass which can be used in the equation E = mc2 even for moving objects. It seems to have been Lewis who introduced the appropriate velocity dependence of mass in 1908 but the term "relativistic mass" appeared later. [Gilbert Lewis was a chemist whose other claim to fame in physics was naming the photon in 1926.]
-----End of quote--
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #6 on:
20/09/2009 17:15:42 »
When you move ‘real fast’ you have two effects, one when accelerating, the other when uniformly moving (engines of) in a vacuum. That time-arrow we have also changes according to that. I really need to think about this, as I’m not really sure if you have a ‘scale’ connecting those effects you get when accelerating something and when you just are ‘coasting along’ very fast? There should be? But I’m not sure about how it expresses itself? If ‘time’ is a relation to ‘mass’ and ‘speed’ Could acceleration then be a ‘compression’ of that, like waves getting compressed due to a higher energy. Is that a good analogy? When you accelerate your ‘relative mass’ will be displaced outside your rocket. A good question here could be that if it is a real effect, shouldn’t it be recognized by other objects in the rockets path? Assume that we build up a ‘very near~ light Speed’ so near as almost to become that ‘infinite relative mass/momentum’. Shouldn’t that ‘relative mass’ distort all lights and mass paths meeting it then? That should be testable to see if it is the object itself that contains the ‘distortion’, or if it resides at some point behind the object (rocket). We both know that the ‘distortion’ comes to be by the rocket accelerating, but if the ‘distortion/mass/momentum’s’ localization will be found to reside outside of your rocket and if you define this ‘relative mass’ as being observed in SpaceTime then one could ask ‘what’s wrong with this picture’?
Another very queer question would then be if this ‘relative mass’ would be able to attract other mass? Becoming a Black hole in the process as it now would have what we deem as ‘invariant mass’ joining it, or just build on ‘virtual particles’ coming in its way, and as its ‘size’ grows wrap space and so become even more ‘virtual particles’ in it, as observed from that rocket. And shouldn’t that mean that all acceleration if taken far enough in ‘time’ should end in a Black Hole
- Hey, why do you look so strange at me, I’m only asking? - So then the idea of Black Holes can’t be formed from acceleration would become questionable? ( I do like the idea of ‘momentum’ better though
There is a clear difference between a ‘photon’ and invariant mass in my question. With the invariant mass (the rocket), light will move freely at all time and our rocket in itself won’t turn into a Black Hole. But the ‘Black Hole’ created by its ‘displaced’ gravity-well behind it may eat it
So how do we argue against this one? One way could be to state that as long light runs freely from it, it can’t be a Black Hole, but in this case we are discussing a ‘zero point’ attractor in space behind that rocket, and I know of no way to test if light can run free of it. Well maybe? What would happen if we sent a beam at this ‘zero point’. .? That light runs ‘freely’ from the rocket, no matter it’s velocity, proves that it can’t be a Black Hole you say? Maybe. .? But are you sure it is the exact same..? The other argument I remember goes back to consider it from ‘frames of references’. A Black Hole will be a Black Hole no matter which reference frame you measure it from, as it’s always created from ‘invariant mass’ not momentum/relative mass. That means that if you passed another object while going that fast it would, to you, become a Black Hole, if relative mass/momentum could create Black Holes. And that this star, to you, then also would be a exact real Black Hole. But to me watching you both that star would still be just a star. So then? How could you be a Black Hole? You get the idea? But then we have that idea of photons becoming so red-shifted as to disappear when emitted from a ‘black body’ inside a black hole? Can this be if so? If velocity can’t create Black Holes according to our ‘frames of reference test’, can light ever be so red-shifted that it disappears from ‘any’ frame of reference?
Anyway, If we would observe that gravity-well to be created behind that rocket, no matter if it ever could become a Black Hole, wouldn’t we then have a ‘zero point’ in SpaceTime, creating the same ‘effects’ as if it was a object of ‘mass’. Am I right? I will leave this, for now, and hope that you can make some sense out of it. Then again I’m not happy about the word ‘relative mass’ as it has no ‘place’ spatially, remarkably near what we expect photons to be. All other ‘mass’ (invariant) we describe do take, and have, a defined, ‘place’ in SpaceTime spatially contained in f ex. ‘matter’. Momentum seems a better word for it, but assume that our experiment would fall out to you (outside observer) observing the light bending/disappearing at that ‘zero point’ gravity well, after my passing rocket. Why, then momentum is as strange or even stranger than ‘mass’. And seems to contain the same properties but without being ‘there’ at all? And also following behind me as I move pass you, to disappear as soon I stop those engines. ( Btw: how’s your headache coming along? Good? Good. Well, you can’t say I didn’t warn you.
So do that gravity well exist? Will a outside observer see light bend at some point behind our accelerating rocket?
I mean, its like this ‘force’ of relative mass/momentum can’t catch up when I’m accelerating. And it doesn’t really care how slowly I accelerate. It still won’t be able to ‘catch up’ with me, right? So how fast does it ‘catch up’ when I stop my acceleration? ‘Instantly’ you say? No matter what speed I will find myself at? Considering that, will our ‘gravity well’ move farther away from the rocket depending on my strength of acceleration? If it does, and it seems it should? Then you have another strange thing more reminding me of some kind of SpaceTimes inertia, or ‘space inertia’ if you like, than anything solely belonging to our rocket, can you see how I reason here? I try to lift it forward as being a ‘relation’, not belonging to rocket as any ‘force’ even though it is the rockets acceleration that does it relative SpaceTime. I think I would like to see the effect as if you ‘disturb’ SpaceTimes equilibrium, more than anything else. Also that effect from that ‘gravity well’ reminds me of the fact that no matter where you turn in SpaceTime you will find ‘gravity’ working on you. As far as I understand it will express itself as an ‘inertia’ acting on you inside that rocket. A ‘reluctance’ to change direction in SpaceTime. So those ‘gravitons’ bouncing around would then react instantly to your course change and ‘fight’ it too? It’s easier for me to see both space and gravity as something existing in all points. With your mass/acceleration defining a new more ‘concentrated’ relation between ‘space’ and you
Then that course change could be the ‘concentration’ of your ‘momentum’ moving in a specific direction acting on a ‘field’, whatever that is, answering you as a ‘unwillingness’ to conform as you ‘bend’ SpaceTime to change your course, well maybe
In a way this also seems as something pointing to SpaceTime having that ‘relaxed state’ of equilibrium, that we can ‘disturb’ by using ‘energy’ or ‘work done’ as we use that engine. But it also seems to state that there is all kinds of ‘levels’ of ‘energy’ resting in those ‘equilibrium’s’.
If SpaceTime have a equilibrium it seems to allow for all different speeds, mass, or energy levels. You find that equilibrium f ex. as soon as you move uniformly, no matter at what ‘speed’ you are relative ‘whatever’. It won’t treat you differently depending on what velocity you are ‘coasting’, but? Will it then treat you differently when you change course, depending on your velocity? It should, would you agree to that? But to change course you need to engage that engine, right. You’re not a train running on rails, are you? But can I think of something similar to rails in SpaceTime? How about really massive objects changing our geodesic paths in space? Black Holes for example. Are you then running on ‘rails’ when coasting in space? And if so, will you experience that same ‘inertia’ as your path bends to those massive objects when uniformly moving? I don’t think so. The reason, I believe, is that you don’t do any own ‘work’ changing your circumstances. You are in a ‘equilibrium’. Although you, when you fall in towards a Black Hole (while ‘coasting’ by), will ‘accelerate’ as observed from a outside observer, it will still to you inside it be as if you’re ‘free falling’ giving you no information of your ‘acceleration’ as I see it. And that’s strange too, isn’t it?
Here we also have a acceleration inside SpaceTime but this time you won’t notice it? Or is it a ‘acceleration’? Should ‘acceleration’ only be treated as something originated from ‘work done’ by? If so, in this case should I then assume that it is the Black Hole accelerating? But it doesn’t move at all, well maybe infinitesimally, but as it’s a ‘infinite mass’ probably not. But the Black Hole is still the ‘work done’ in this case? Doesn’t make any sense does it? Then, could I say that it is space itself that is ‘wrapped/bent’ around that Black Hole? Why not, So then space itself is what’s ‘accelerating’ our rocket
? It seems very much as a ‘relation’ to me, relating to all of SpaceTime not really definable to any single instance, even though we know that without that Black Hole no ‘acceleration’ would have taken place. And how about that ‘gravity well’ behind your rocket? Will it be there? No, didn’t expect it to be either. But how will ‘time’ react then? It will react the same as when you was creating the acceleration by your engines, won’t it? That seems to me also as a statement by SpaceTime, informing us that there is a equilibrium to all its ‘levels’, as long as we don’t initiate ‘work done’ by our engines. So why do I get ‘stretched apart’ in that black hole? As I understand it has to do with that you as a geometric ‘density’ defined in SpaceTime won’t be allowed ‘the same’ considering you as a ‘geometric coherence’ near that enormous ‘gravity well’. Inside its EV, or at the limit of it, that gravitation (tidal forces) becomes so strong and working on such a small plane on you, that the particles making you up will loose their ‘space-timely’ coherence and separate as they interact with all its ‘infinite (equilibrationary) fields’ expanding space everywhere as expressed in distances, with all of them pointing toward the BH core ‘time-wise’. If it is a non-rotating BH of course, otherwise it gets even weirder as you will have its angular momentum acting on you too. Did you get that one? Quite confusing, ain’t it??
But if motion in an accelerating frame cannot be distinguished from motion in a uniform gravitational field what differs that from this? Well that ‘accelerating frame’ we talked about before was constantly, uniformly accelerating at one G right? Keeping one G at all times, and there it seems the exact same as Earth. But when you ‘fall’ into that Black Hole, you are not uniformly accelerating any more, are you? And you don’t use any own ‘force’, you do have the BH gravity acting on you but if you see that as the ‘contours’ of SpaceTime then it is space itself ‘accelerating’ you, but without expending any energy doing so. Much in the same way as you ‘accelerate’ when you start falling. As gravity ‘fades out’ with distance can you call that a ‘constant uniform acceleration’? But even if you think of it as a sort of ‘free fall’ it will still be an acceleration from the observer’s view and all of the phenomena will be there, except your rockets engine generating a thrust creating that displaced gravity-well. And if that observer didn’t ‘notice’ that black hole, how would he be able to differ between you creating the acceleration or ‘Space’ creating it?
Like as if SpaceTime just was ‘balances’ of time acting seamlessly in uniform motion no matter your speed, but when accelerating, or coming near ‘invariant mass’ fall out to finding other ‘balances’ seamlessly, and in the fact of ‘invariant mass’/Black Holes becoming an ‘infinite’ amount of ‘time/mass equilibrium’s’, but all still presenting a coherent SpaceTime to any observer watching our rocket.
But when considering light bending to a star then, do that photon also ‘accumulate’ energy as it falls inwards? I think so, in a way at least, but in each case only relative the object ‘attracting’ it and you observing it. Can you see how I think here? Its relation or ‘perception of itself’ as a ‘entity’ with a decided energy quota doesn’t change, no matter where it move. But its ‘relation’ to you will becoming a ‘part’ of what you deem as its energy changing. I like to think that a photon always choose the ‘shortest path’ in SpaceTime’ as defined by SpaceTimes ‘geodesics’ .And that if it was on its ‘way’ to you as seen from a ‘source’ (Sun) and then ends up in a Black Hole instead? Well, then it wasn’t on the way to you after all
No matter your definition of it’s ‘path’ before that ‘interference’ was as defined by us. And seen another way, what makes it move toward that black hole might be seen as its ‘need’ to maintain its ‘equilibrium’. So if we go back to the question if photons can be said to have a unchanging energy quota I believe it to be so, even I’m still not sure if it may be varying intrinsically. I agree to that we can vary their intrinsic energy as observed by us, we do it all the time afterall, but after ‘defining’ its intrinsic energy from the ‘source’ I expect it to be ‘locked? But I’m not really sure how I can define that intrinsic energy spatially and how I should define the way we ‘load’ it either. So I prefer to see it as a combination for now where, as you observe it accumulating energy, sees its relation with you relative that Black Hole that defines it so. As well as it would be for the Black Hole itself if it could observe the photon.
Then on the other hand, what would that Black Hole see if it could ‘observe’ it? Another Black Hole? Remember one thing here, as I see it everything ‘observes’ everything in SpaceTime as long as there is an interaction between them. But a Black Hole? Will it ever notice any ‘interaction’ with SpaceTime? It’s mass is ‘infinite’ right, with only one way in and no way out. And also if we accept the idea of ‘springs’ on ‘springs’ ad infinitum (spring systems), then, can there be a ‘interaction’ between any object and a Black Hole? The ‘information’ gotten from ‘virtual particles’ a.k.a. Hawking radiation comes from an interaction outside our arrow so I have great problems understanding how that in any way can be said to ‘lift out’ any information content from (specifically) that Black Hole. That SpaceTime do gets some sort of ‘information’ I don’t doubt, just not any of the information already ‘gone in’, it’s more of a communication between ‘distance less’ to ‘distance’ or if you like a ‘emergence’ forced by the ‘break/hole’ in SpaceTime. To me a ‘interaction’ implies a ‘relation’ where there, at least, must be ‘two’ actively involved objects ‘inside Spacetime’, somehow exchanging that ‘information’ and therefore ‘interacting’. And if that would be correct I would expect it to be space itself that ‘communicates’ with our in-falling rocket and also with SpaceTime through Hawking radiation? Can you see the difference here? If you have objects inside SpaceTime ‘interacting’ they might do it similar to how Hawking radiation comes to be, by ‘virtual particles/photons’ created at the EV as particle pairs, ripped apart by gravity, but as a Black Hole is infinite, and having one arrow by definition why do you expect it to ‘communicate/interact’? Isn’t it the ‘space’ inside our SpaceTime that communicates here? And if so, what would make me expect Black Holes to ‘die’ as seen from our perspective? They seem no ‘real’ interacting ‘communicating’ part of SpaceTime to me? Anyway, if we go back to discussing the possible ‘gaps’ between photons, which then would imply a greater or shorter distance between them I guess that might be ‘true’ too? As we can send them in various numbers and energy content, but I still prefer to see their energy as defined from their source and unvarying after that, with the rest being relations ‘defining’ them to those interacting with them. ( For now at least
, but it still rubs me all the wrong way. To me there should be one explanation simultaneously describing particles and waves. And thinking of it, as we can observe either one in ‘time’ but not both simultaneously what does this question? It seems as ‘time’ to me? And by what do we deem ‘distance’? ‘Time’ too, right? And what I’m really questioning is our ‘arrow of time’, and the way we observe SpaceTime macroscopically following this cause and effect (causality) chain, implied by our ‘arrow of time’. If we stop expecting that ‘chain’ binding ‘photons’ then we might have the cookie and eat it
as what emerges then will depend on the way we choose to observe, that being the delimiter of our experiment. Well I told you I was confused, didn’t I?
Have you given up on it yet? I’m just reasoning, and down here it becomes a even worse mix and.. That’s it..
There is no real structure to it as some of the stuff you already read build on what you will read later on, but there is some coherence, hopefully? Well, it’s all relative anyway..
Why I wonder about if ‘uniform moving/coasting’ could accumulate ‘energy’ in the particles (intrinsically), creating you and your rocket, is because it then seems rather difficult to accelerate any object to near light. As I would expect that the ‘energy’ contained/compounded inside those molecules atoms, electrons, leptons, quarks etc, 'jiggling' with acceleration then should break down into pure energy at some stage, and before that start to produce all kinds of radiation. And then uniform motion a.k.a. 'coasting' would become really strange as we can't have any real definition of an objects 'speed/velocity' except when comparing it to something else. Which then might mean, assuming that SpaceTime once near that ‘Big Bang’ contained all ‘speeds’, now should have a lot of radiation to it, possibly measurable as sticking out from what we might call the ‘normal background radiation CBR’ (CBR = The cooled remnant of the hot Big Bang that fills the universe, observed having an average temperature around 2.725 Kelvin) or else make any definition of what that ‘background radiation’ consists of meaningless. On the third tentacle we do know that there will be more ‘energy’ bound to this rocket the more we accelerate it, and that energy I would expect to be expressed as jiggling. Ahh, the headache of it all..
What I’m speaking about in fact seems to suggest that all uniformly moving ‘objects’ is 'on their very own' when unable to compare their motion relative some other frame of reference, and so always will have a indeterminate speed of their own. Also that all definitions we make comparing speeds then have to be arbitrarily, and that about the only thing we may be sure of is that those ‘objects’ can't reach 'c' in a vacuum, as long as they are of 'invariant mass'. There exist no universally defined object of speed ‘zero’ to calibrate uniform motion from in SpaceTime that I know of? If I can create more 'invariant mass' just by mediating virtual photons, what then would that 'invariant mass' consist of?
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #7 on:
20/09/2009 17:16:52 »
There is actually some ideas that say that if the mass receiving those is 'inelastic' enough, thick enough so to speak so that no recoil will be meditated by any thought up ‘spring systems’ , then those virtual photons will leave an added rest mass indistinguishable from 'invariant mass'. But why should it do so, if you look at it as ‘springs’ on ‘springs’ on ‘springs’ then something ‘compressing’ the uppermost layer will make it recoil back anyway, won’t it? Even though the motion moving inwards becomes more ‘gracious’ as the other ‘springs’ follows in a cause and effect’ chain. Maybe you could see it a chain of endlessly compressed springs acting in Space-Time countermanding that first springs recoil by their contractions? Then it would be a relation between those ‘springs’ contractions moving inward compared to the time it would take for that first ‘spring’ to ‘expand’ again, right? But then again, all ‘mediating’ is done outside our arrow of time (Plank time)? Even though their effects are observed as being ‘inside’ SpaceTime? Would you agree to that?
So no matter how ‘thick’ this ‘invariant mass’ is those processes will take the exact same amount of time in SpaceTime, that means ‘no time’. So what then is kept inside that ‘invariant mass’? We know that ‘shock-waves’ travel in matter but also that they ‘die out’ at some time? The question seems to become if virtual photons can be said to accumulate ‘energy’ and then deliver it without creating a ‘opposite reaction’ involving them again? And that might be possible I guess as they are allowed all kinds of strange properties, f ex. ‘energy’s’ that are greater than would be possible with them being ‘inside’ Plank-Time. But the reaction from them should be ‘inside’ Planck time though? And if they act so why don’t we observe it normally? Is it them loosing ‘energy’ as the effect travels inward and ‘clings off’, or should I see it as if it was the invariant mass that does it? As the effect will ‘cling off’ in our arrow of time. But here it is presumed to ‘cling off’ without loosing its ‘energy’? If I expect that it is ‘invariant mass’ that ‘takes out’ the energy then? Wouldn’t that countermand the new ‘energy’ the ‘spring system’ expect to become stored as there always should be a ‘action and reaction’ inside our arrow of time as I understands it? If I on the other hand assumed that it became ‘stored’ instead, remembering that it then according to logic seems to need a greater amount of ‘virtual interactions’ as the material is thicker? Then, as they take ‘no-time’ at all to do so in our arrow of time, how do they do it, where/how do they differ between ‘thickness’? Can one even discuss it? And isn’t that like stating that they loose something too, no matter if it is them that does it, or ‘invariant mass’? Once again there is something that I can’t put my finger on, this one bothers me too.
Looking at it again, if ‘springs’ on ‘springs’ negates a two way communication, can that be called a interaction? As the only thing I might be relatively ‘sure’ on doing so would be a ‘Black Hole’. And as, to my eyes, a Black Hole does not ‘deliver back’ any of that ‘information’ it once got, and possibly ‘gets’. How exactly would this ‘spring system’ work on ‘thickness’ of invariant mass? Furthermore, isn’t it ‘interactions’ that defines a ‘information flow’ inside SpaceTime? How can we talk about ‘information’ going only one way and expecting it to be a part of SpaceTime? As to me Black Holes are just that. Holes in SpaceTime, infinities, enigmas and singularities. They in themselves do not ‘communicate/interact’, the space around them does, due to the Black Hole disturbing/breaking SpaceTimes equilibrium. If you think of space as a 3D landscape, then welcome to Norway and the land of the deep deep fjords. As that Black Hole then would be a ‘never ending fjord’, your metaphorical ‘hole in the ground’ opening to ‘nothing’. Well, as I see it.
Anyway. What differs invariant mass from 'relativistic' as we see it today? Its coherence over time as noticed by the observer, no matter velocity, speed or gravitational ‘fields’ applied on it? (If you wonder why I use both definitions ‘speed as well as velocity’ it comes down to this. Think of two ‘perfectly reflecting’ mirrors. Then put a beam of light between them and let it ‘bounce’. Well, now I can say that its velocity is null but its speed still is lights (in whatever medium it travels in there.) Why? A velocity is the combined effect of something traveling in only ‘one’ direction spatially also containing/having a certain speed measurable in SpaceTime. So when I treat those mirrors and beam as a ‘system’ consisting of two mirrors with a beam ‘bouncing’ between them, that beams bouncing movements takes out each others ‘velocity’ as I understands it, giving it a ‘zero velocity’. But as its speed always is there, it still have a speed as well as its ‘distance done’. This idea of speed goes from distance measured in time and is true as long those two qualities are existent.
I said ‘Its coherence over time as noticed by the observer, no matter velocity, speed or gravitational ‘fields’ applied on it? But, If that is the cause, what makes invariant mass ‘coherent’ to us
Now I will suggest the 'arrow of time'.
In fact I find the statement about virtual photons creating restmass a little confusing btw. To see why you could think of a black hole and then possibly agree with me that all 'space' contains 'virtual particles' created spontaneously. Normally the rest result of those spontaneous creations should be 'null' as I understands it, meaning that the ‘work done’ for those ‘virtual particles’ will be none, when observed from our ‘arrow of time’ a.k.a. SpaceTime. but I would expect the space in the vicinity to f ex. a Black Holes core to be quite 'disturbed' creating a lot of those ‘virtual particles’. And even if space don't act as I expect here, as the Black Hole might negate it by the ‘distances/expanding space’ created, and no matter what inherent 'energy levels' a Black Hole might create near its 'core'. It still seems as all ‘virtual particles’ created there should be taken up as restmass 'sucking' out that energy from space transmuting it into for ever more restmass, without any other objects of 'restmass' needed to act upon it. And there is also the question if those too might be seen as then containing intrinsically different ‘energy quotas’? As we could consider ‘ordinary photons’ to do so, depending on ones views?
The existence of virtual pairs helps to explain a process known as pair production. The background is always seething with these pairs of particles. However, in order not to violate physical laws, the pairs always return back to the vacuum before they are observed directly.
However, these virtual pairs can become real particles. It is found that when there are very high energy photons, that the energy of the photons can be channeled into the virtual pairs and the virtual particles can become real. This process is known as pair production. The collision and subsequent disappearance of a particle/anti-particle pair is known as annihilation. What this means is that if there is a large supply of high energy photons then particles can be created.
How energetic do the photons have to be?
Consider proton/anti-proton pairs. Recall that the energy of such a virtual pair is 3 x 10**(-3) ergs
To make the discussion more concrete, let's talk in terms of temperatures. Since the temperature of a gas is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles, we have that 1.5 k T ~ energy or
T ~(2m(proton)c**2) / (1.5 k) ~ 10**13 Kelvin
So, the gas needs to be hotter than 10 trillion Kelvin in order to make proton/anti-proton pairs.
Comment--note that matter and anti-matter particles seem like that they should be produced in equal amounts. In the Universe, for every billion anti-matter particles produced, there seems to have been one billion and one matter particles produced. Hmmmm.
But virtual photons inside it becoming mass by lack of kinetic recoil then? A black hole won’t have any recoil, ever, or? (As soon you’ve passed its EV, you’re doomed. Doomed, I say:) And so we now can find two statements expressing the same, as any ‘energy’ near a Black Hole core certainly will surpass the above ‘energy definition’ for ‘virtual particles’ being allowed as ‘popping in and out’, won’t you agree?
Another general—and quite disturbing—feature of general relativity is the appearance of spacetime boundaries known as singularities. Spacetime can be explored by following up on timelike and lightlike geodesics—all possible ways that light and particles in free fall can travel. But some solutions of Einstein's equations have "ragged edges"—regions known as spacetime singularities, where the paths of light and falling particles come to an abrupt end, and geometry becomes ill-defined.
In the more interesting cases, these are "curvature singularities", where geometrical quantities characterizing spacetime curvature, such the Ricci scalar, take on infinite values. Well-known examples of spacetimes with future singularities—where worldlines end—are the Schwarzschild solution, which describes a singularity inside an eternal static black hole or the Kerr solution with its ring-shaped singularity inside an eternal rotating black hole. The Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker solutions, and other spacetimes describing universes, have past singularities on which worldlines begin, namely big bang singularities, and some have future singularities (big crunch) as well.
Given that these examples are all highly symmetric—and thus simplified—it is tempting to conclude that the occurrence of singularities is an artefact of idealization. The famous singularity theorems, proved using the methods of global geometry, say otherwise: singularities are a generic feature of general relativity, and unavoidable once the collapse of an object with realistic matter properties has proceeded beyond a certain stage and also at the beginning of a wide class of expanding universes. However, the theorems say little about the properties of singularities, and much of current research is devoted to characterizing these entities' generic structure (hypothesized e.g. by the so-called BKL conjecture). ]
The cosmic censorship hypothesis states that all realistic future singularities (no perfect symmetries, matter with realistic properties) are safely hidden away behind a horizon, and thus invisible to all distant observers. While no formal proof yet exists, numerical simulations offer supporting evidence of its validity.
--------End of Quote----------
That ‘cosmic censorship’ idea sounds very near the ‘hand of god’, wouldn’t you agree
I prefer to see it as something we will not observe due to our relation with/in the ‘arrow of time’.
In it ‘infinities’ may exist as ‘holes’ in SpaceTime but when they do so they break our ‘arrow of time’ and so becomes closed for us. And no, I’m not religious in any ‘normal sense’, I wouldn’t want to lay the burden of ‘us’ on any single ‘being’, I strongly believe that we have to take care of that ourselves, although I have nothing but respect and admiration for those of any honest ‘humane faiths’, meaning those acting from ethics, humanity, and moral, giving allowance for our imperfections. as for those only giving it ‘lip service’ I won’t even bother myself with considering them. Ah well, thinking of those ‘holes’ in SpaceTime, another ‘infinity’ of mine is that elusive photon. I mean, where would we be without it? So could I then expect a Black Hole to be able to grow even without any 'normal' restmass ever being involved? Another thing interesting if so, is the question how Black Holes come to be. If they can be ‘produced’ by SpaceTime spontaneously or if they need a ‘break down’ mediated by other ‘forces’ acting inside SpaceTime first? The ones we found so far seems to have been here since the Big Bang if I’m correct? But if they can be produced spontaneously by SpaceTime and then also can ‘grow’ on virtual particles only? Then they can grow in ‘nothing’ as long as there is ‘space/distances’ around them to start in, and as they grow then space around them will grow too as a direct effect containing for ever more ‘virtual particles’. That is, if I’m correctly informed about the relation between invariant mass and space.
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #8 on:
20/09/2009 17:18:01 »
I'm not saying that it's wrong, confusing? Oh yes, but not wrong.
Still, considering that virtual particles works 'outside' our veil of 'times arrow'? But the restmass created, if that idea is true, won't be so. That restmass will be safely situated inside our 'arrow of time' to be measured as I understands it. So that may be testable if CERN succeeds in creating their black holes, as there should become an added mass in our arrow of time from those 'virtual particles'. Then on the other hand you might want to say that this phenomena of 'non-jiggling' might be created or if you like ‘countermanded’ by 'times' slowing down inside that rocket, as observed by our outside 'stationary/universal' observer. Remember that we are ‘discussing’ the very ‘idea’ of what ‘time’ is here, not the ‘isolated’ specific physical processes having an importance for ‘it ‘. That, as the buildup of energy then couldn't take place as all processes would 'retard', according to our outside observer, and from the inside everything would seem to be in equilibrium as always as all processes in that frame of reference would equal out. If so, would that mean that there is some sort of 'balancing' equation regulating all processes time/energy wise as seen from the 'outside' as well as the 'inside'. If acceleration and uniform motion both have the same effects on time and mass then momentum is a very strange concept. And no, I know that I’m blending two ‘frames of reference’ into one here ,which isn’t allowed
But SpaceTime is in fact all those separate ‘frames’, as well as all processes taking place now, then and forever, giving me a ‘whole view’ effortlessly and seamlessly, so, to my eyes SpaceTime seems to care even less than me for that view. But you’re right all the same. I’m ‘playing with concepts’ here.
Let us go back to what we started with, acceleration, 'time' and uniform moving and try a simple test. Let's assume I accelerated my rocket ship 'The Awesome Avenger' to 99.9999999~ of light. After doing so I decide to 'coast' along without using my engine any more. This is now my ‘uniformly moving’ little world. Will I now go back to 'age' at the same rate as I was before mine acceleration, as I'm 'coasting' now? Or is my 'aging' still slowed down when 'coasting' (Time dilation). I'm playing with two 'thought cases' here, one in which 'time' only will differ in the acceleration and ‘work as usual’ (before the rocket and I) when 'coasting'. In the other 'time' will be, ah, adjusted when 'coasting' too. If the 'adjustment' created only lies in the acceleration then consider me having an extremely high acceleration as observed from that ‘other party/observer'. According to this outside observers clock I only accelerated by one second to get up to that near 99.9999999~ 'c' speed, and now you better sharpen your wits cause I'm going for a ride
Now, what time did it take for me inside? Remember that when you're accelerating your 'time-sphere/system' will slow down relative the 'outside/universe'.
Does that mean that I wasn't crushed under the acceleration, as time slowed down immensely and so saved me from those horrendous G-forces? Yep, Flash Gordon is the pilot. . Also, if time slows down and 'jumps' me forward in time relative the 'outside' only when accelerating, shouldn't that also mean that I only can get a certain 'distance' in space before that acceleration and subsequent time dilation ends. So the 'time displacement' I will experience will then only be for that short distance in real SpaceTime (a.k.a. our observers 'acceleration second') and as I after that just 'uniformly coasts' my time then will go back to 'tick' with the universe as 'normally' as it did before? There are some strange implications here.
Then there is also the question if acceleration have any relevance to ‘distance/time covered’. That is if I ‘spend/spread’ that acceleration under an hour instead of an second, will I still get the same distance and ‘time dilation’? I shouldn’t, should I? Or, should I? Presume that I would spend the same amount of ‘energy’ in both cases? If I would get the same ‘effect’ then the amount of ‘acceleration over time’ don’t seem to change my ‘aging’, if I’m thinking correctly here
which to me seems as a ‘pointer’ if so.
But then again, if that didn’t matter but I still produced ‘different distances’ when accelerating from it? Then ‘distance’ wouldn’t have anything to do with ‘time dilation’ would it? So that can’t be true, can it? Or would I get the exact same distance traveled under that one second expending the exact same amount of ‘energy’ as I would when trying for a more ‘economic’ solution? But I change the Time/distance variable here, right, even though consuming the exact same amount of ‘energy’. Think about it. I believe them to ‘fall out’ differently.
If acceleration can be described like this. |a|cc|cc|~ . .(a= acceleration, c= ‘coasting’.. | defines the intervals between one 'observers' second |.. (also expressed as ‘distance traveled’ between those vertical lines). Then that first interval between seconds gave you your speed as you ‘accelerated up’ covering a certain distance, all other seconds afterwards as observed by that observer will produce larger equally sized 'distances' traveled between the ‘observers seconds’ by your uniform moving. Furthermore that first second, if acceleration is the only thing slowing your 'time sphere/frame of reference', then must take into account all possible 'distances' you might be planning to travel. Ten, a hundred or perhaps millions of light years, or parsecs if you like, and at all those possibilities somehow 'know' your finally covered distance and adapt/adjust your time dilation accordingly. Otherwise the acceleration made under the same amount of 'outside observed' time would retard your 'age' the same, no matter what 'distance' you traveled/coasted afterwards.
In other words, ‘distance’/’time’ traveled would have nothing to do with what age you will show when you come back, as acceleration can be 'compressed' differently in 'time' from the observers view depending on, ah, that's right, the acceleration. Also if it was so then all 'time slowing' you perceive relative the rest of the universe (when finally comparing back in your 'original' frame ..Jupiter was it?) has to happen in that 'observers accelerating second. And that one might express as in a retardation subjectively, as if you would be enclosed in a 'bubble' of slow-time inside that rocket, so to speak. That, as if the universe outside your window is speeding up under that first second, relatively seen, then it as easy could be described as you 'slowing down'. If you look at it that way, then that first second you traveled, (as defined by the observer), to you could cover an immense time period and that acceleration could be seen as going at a almost leisurely pace
never giving you a problem with any G-forces. This last angle on the question does not really have to do with whether acceleration is the thing ‘aging’ you or if is both ’coasting’ and acceleration, but it do have a interest when discussing Black holes and the possible ‘space’ displacement created by them.
I can't see time as a 'force' either. If we take the person traveling in that ship you might ask yourself how that small amount of energy released accelerating your rocket, compared to the energy of the universe that is, can 'age' the whole universe? Turning it around you might want to say that it's not the universes aging process your acceleration change, its more probably the time/frame of reference of your rocket that are excluded from the universes 'normal' aging process by its acceleration. That might seem reasonable as 'time' then could be seen as somehow encapsulated inside that frame, slowing down as the system accelerates but not when it moves uniformly. But why should 'time' act like that? Why would only acceleration arrest 'time', and why would the ‘time’ you spent accelerating, change your ‘systems’ age relative the whole universe? Also it opens to the question if one ever can treat any ‘frame’ or ‘system’ as truly being on its own, ‘independent’ if you may, when discussing ‘time’. If acceleration motion and Space/Time isn’t independent, why do you expect there to exist ‘forces’ defined as ‘independent’. Can’t be? Makes no logic to me. I doubt we can have it ‘both ways’ and to me it seems quite clear that to express something solely on its own relative the rest of ‘existence’ is a very dangerous thinking as we are discussing SpaceTime. Our ‘bubble’ of ‘chains and effect’ not ‘everything’.
Considering that we don't really know any objects 'speeds' except by direct or indirect comparisons I would expect that we can't say at what 'time' the universes 'objective' collective clock ticks at, if there is any? So to me it seems as any interfering of 'time' passed, just as with the interfering of a photon's 'physical' existence/location only can be made through direct observations/comparisons. The photons and 'time' both share that strange property of existing everywhere in SpaceTime, but without us able to give them any 'objective' existence except when observing/forcing the 'event' by observing/comparing. What I infer by this reasoning is that time is not a 'force' although it reacts with mass and speed/acceleration. And to me it seems more reasonable to expect time dilation to work just as perfectly on a uniformly moving system as on an accelerating one. That is, time dilation happens no matter if you're 'coasting' or accelerating. And the best proof of that is still our beloved muon. (further down). There is also the case of 'inertia', ‘relative mass/momentum’ existing in both causes. All of those 'properties will be found in a uniformly moving system (invariant mass) but in different quantities depending on what speed you define to them relative what you compare against (including your best guess about object's ‘invariant/rest mass’ naturally).
Last Edit: 03/10/2009 20:10:25 by yoron
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #9 on:
20/09/2009 17:18:55 »
I say that I don’t expect us to define any speed as a 'absolute', without referring/defining it against another 'frame of reference', right. But we can still see whose 'speed' relative any given referent will be the 'speedier' one. So we do have definite proofs of there existing different 'speeds' in SpaceTime. Then there is another thing that seems important, inside that rocket, no matter if its accelerating or 'coasting' your own sense of time will seem as 'normal'. You won't suddenly see your tea (and yourself) acting like in moving molasses as you pour, while accelerating. So unless we should see acceleration/uniform motion as creating ‘stasis-fields’ of their own, isolated and slowing all processes from thoughts to the movement of molecules there is nothing 'objectively true' about 'time' defining its 'locations'. If Einstein and most other physicists today are correct about time dilation it must work on a very 'small' coherent level, including all 'properties' we know of from space to mass. And observations of muons entering the atmosphere as well as of clocks placed in orbit all points to the same fact, of time dilation being a very real phenomena and working just as well when 'coasting' (uniformly moving) as when accelerating.
- - Quote- - about muons and time dilation-
Taken from " Time dilation and length contraction in Special Relativity"
School of Physics UNSW. Austria.
Particle accelerators generate some short lived particles (eg muons or pions) that travel within a fraction of a percent of c, and (in the laboratory frame) they survive for much longer than their lifetime when at rest in the lab frame. Muons with a half life of 1.5 microseconds are also created several tens of km above the Earth in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. Travelling 50 km at c would take 170 microseconds or 110 half lives, so we should expect their numbers to be reduced by a factor of 2110 ~ 1033 (ie effectively none) to reach the surface. In fact they are measured at sea level and at various altitudes, with rates that agree with the relativistic dilation of their half lives.
Time dilation happens, however counter-intuitive it may seem at first.
Low orbits are the fastest, travelling around the Earth in about 90 minutes, which gives ? of about 1.0000000003. Suppose that a cosmonaut spent 2 years in space. Time dilation due to special relativity (neglecting general relativistic effects) would give an expected lifetime increase of 20 milliseconds.
Lives, let alone life expectancies, are not measured that precisely!
In a typical electron accelerator used to treat cancers, the electrons have an
energy of 20 MeV. The speed of such electrons is 0.9997*c and ? is 40.
Now of course an electron cannot go much faster than this, but it can have a lot more energy. In the Large Electron-Positron collider in Europe's nuclear research lab CERN, electrons (and positrons, or antilectrons) were accelerated to energies of 100 GeV. For such particles, v = 0.999 999 999 95*c and ? is 200,000. Yes, time is slowed down by that factor. And the momentum is increased by that factor too: something that is rather important in the design of the collider because these electrons must be turned to go in a circle.
Nature can produce even larger particle energies. Some particles striking the Earth's upper atmosphere have energies that exceed 2*1020 eV. If such particles are protons (with mass of about 1 GeV), their speeds would be 0.999 999 999 999 999 999 999 995 c. For them, ? is 1011. Now the age of the universe is about 13 billion years for us, but for such particles, the age of the universe would be about (13 billion years/1011), ie about a month. Such a particle could cross the visible universe in a matter of months (their time).
------End of quote-
…..And…now. for. That -other view.’—Quote--
In fact, if I could travel in a rocket that can accelerate at one Earth gravity in a round-trip to our nearest neighboring galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud, which is 50 kpc ..(fifty thousand parsec).. away, I would find at the end of the trip that I had aged by 47 years, while the Earth will have aged by 326,000 years.
In a round trip to the Andromeda Galaxy (M31), which is 730 kpc away, I will have aged by 57 years, and Earth will have aged by 4.8 million years.
This striking effect sound like pure science fiction, and it is the foundation of several science fiction stories, such as the Charlton Heston version of The Planet of the Apes, but it is a scientifically-verified effect: unstable particles accelerated to nearly the speed of light decay at a slower rate than particles at rest, as expected in special relativity.
Now I would like you to consider this thought experiment. If I'm correct in assuming that both uniform motion as well as acceleration creates a time dilation, does that mean that clocks/time adapt their 'speed' depending on what frame and direction you measure them against, that as we when observing them meeting each other (‘A’-> meeting<-‘B’) find that they both have the same amount of 'contraction-ruler/time-slowdown' relative each other no matter from which frame we measure/observe/compare it, ‘A’ or ‘B’.
And with that I mean that ‘A’ actually will see ‘B’:s clock going the exact same amount of 'time' slower as ‘B’ will find ‘A’:s clock to 'tick' as they pass each other, as well as their respective ‘ruler’ shrinking as observed by the opposite party. And both will behave at exactly the same ‘amount’ too. This is as far as I understand a very real effect, and no visual mirage. And I do mean Real, as real as you and me. . Hope you see how I think here, because soon it gets even weirder.
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #10 on:
20/09/2009 17:21:49 »
It could be argued that the length contraction and time dilation of special relativity are purely observational effects. One could say that the only means by which these two effects manifest themselves is by visually observing objects as they move away from us or towards us. Since these objects are always on the move, one cannot say whether the effect is real, or purely observational. But this line of reasoning quickly fails, and has been demonstrated to be false in a variety of settings, as we see below.
When a clock is placed in motion with respect to its original rest frame, the clock actually slows down. We know the clock slows down because it accumulates less time while in motion. If the moving clock is ultimately returned to its point of origin, the elapsed time physically displayed on the clock that was moving will be less than the elapsed time on the laboratory clock, even though they are now side by side in the same reference frame. This was demonstrated inconclusively by Hafele and Keating, but has been demonstrated to an unprecedented level of accuracy in the Global Positioning Satellite system. Each of the satellite clocks is pre-corrected for the effects of its orbital velocity prior to launch.
If the slowing of these clocks due to motion is the result of relativistic time-dilation, the effect is clearly real, as anticipated by Einstein, and is not simply an observational effect. If relativistic time-dilation is a physically detectable event, then relativistic length contraction must be physical as well, as anticipated by Einstein’s train-length measurement proposal. One of the difficulties in Lorentz’s original contraction theory was that he considered the length contraction to be real, while the time dilation was a mathematical artifact of no real significance. It would present an identical problem for special relativity to claim that time-dilation is real but that length contraction is simply a visual effect with no physical basis.
We can also consider the case of muons entering the Earth’s atmosphere. These particles travel the distance from the upper atmosphere to sea level in the course of an average muon lifetime. Even at velocities approaching c, the distance traveled by these particles would require the average life of a muon to be several times its rest value. As we stand on Earth, we can explain the muons’ ability to reach sea level as being due to time dilation. Since the particles are moving very fast, their internal clocks have slowed, causing their average life span to increase several fold. With a longer life, it is easy for them to finish the journey before they decay.
In the muons’ frame of reference, the situation is quite different. The only way this can happen in the muons’ reference frame is if the actual physical distance that must be traveled by them is shortened as in. This is not a visual effect for the muon. If the distance traveled by the muon is not physically shorter, the muon simply does not remain in existence long enough to make the trip, even at speeds greater than .9c. To the muon, length contraction is clearly not merely a visual effect, as the muon is not "seeing" anything. The distance to be traveled by the muon from the upper atmosphere to sea level is physically shorter than the same distance measured by a slower moving particle. The high speed muon performs Einstein’s train embankment experiment first hand.
As the SIM spacecraft follows the Earth in its orbit about the sun, its situation is indistinguishable from that of the high-speed muon. In the reference frame of the SIM, lengths must be physically contracted in the direction of motion, whether or not the SIM is "seeing" anything. To an observer at solar barycenter, no length contraction would occur, but the SIM clocks would be running slowly instead. However, we are interested only in what happens in the reference frame of SIM, and in that reference frame, as with the muon approaching sea level, all lengths are contracted in the direction of motion as compared to the solar barycenter frame, which we will use as our "stationary" reference.
You could argue here that it is not any contraction involved though, just an ‘expanded time sphere’ for those muons. But that seems to me as a mirror image of arguing that there is no ‘expanding time’ at all, only a length contraction. Can you se what I’m getting at? To me both relations are true, inside the muon its ‘time’ will be the same as always, therefore supporting the ‘length contraction’ but outside it we know that there is a ‘time contraction’. And so, to me, it falls down to the question why those properties are ‘variables’?
As I discussed before we had two systems moving uniformly, ‘A’ and ‘B’. Depending on their direction they will either give the same amount of 'Time/contraction' as observed from either frame of reference, spatially as well as time-wise, (--->’A’---> meeting <-‘B’<-). But then when traveling the exact same way spatially we will find (‘A’--- to move faster - -> and -‘B’-> slower). And if that is true I presume ‘B’ to expect that ‘A’ now will 'contract' more and have a slower 'time frame' than ‘B’ has. That as ‘A’ will be found to have a higher ‘uniform motion’ relative ‘B’. And I hope we have agreed on that uniform motion also create those effects.
To you this might be perfectly acceptable but to me it creates contradictory results, even though both follows from the same set of rules (special relativity) as I understand it. And with the same objects moving uniformly in both cases. The only thing we did to them here was to change their spatial position versus each other, not changing their speed or mass etc. Also you can consider two unequal masses meeting each other and get similar results as here.
When two frames are coasting relative to each other, you'll get one result. If one frame is accelerating, you'll get a different result. And, if two frames start with no motion relative to each other and one accelerates away, coasts, and then returns to no motion relative to each other, you'll get still another result. When there's no acceleration, the (relatively simple) rules of special relativity apply. With acceleration, the far more complicated rules of general relativity apply.
----------End of Quote-------
And if we take our thought experiment a step further. All uniformly moving 'systems' must at some point have been 'accelerated' to have a motion spatially, at least if we use our normal perception of how things is expected to behave in SpaceTime, that is, with the exception of photons, entanglements and possibly ‘tunneling’ who have all kinds of strange property's related to them.
But if what I write above is correct then time, speed, distances or ‘relative mass/momentum’ of a object as shown by our concept of 'uniform motion' can’t be defined other than relative something else. As shown by the different answers we get depending on the direction we observe. ‘A’ and ‘B’. It will produce a different answer depending on how that 'uniform motion' is compared by our observer spatially, depending on the two ‘frames’ relative directions of travel versus each other. Why do ‘SpaceTime’ allow such a behavior? And what does it do to our concept of ‘time’ and ‘relative mass/momentum’ and ‘speed’?
And if they move ‘uniformly’ away from each other at, let’s say, each one traveling at sixty percent of light-speed relative that Earth where they took of from then? In this case you will still find the other rockets light reaching you at 'c', as always. You should find that strange as there shouldn't be any possibility of any light reaching you from that ship, I do.
It is after all moving away from you at over half light speed with yourself moving in the opposite direction, just as fast. What happens here comes from one of the most strange postulates of Einstein, namely that the 'speed' of that light reaching you still will be measured as being the 'normal' for light, around 299 792,458 km/second. The only thing changing is that the lights energy content (the photons ‘energy’) reaching you will be 'downshifted' into containing a lower energy content per time-frame (red-shift). And of course this holds true when accelerating too.
And this one is very difficult to understand. How did he reach that conclusion? That the speed of light is constant in all reference frames? Because that is what this example states, that light don’t care for your ‘speed’ relative whatever direction you are sending your light at. It comes from a famous experiment called the Michelson-Morley experiment in which they tried to prove the idea of a aether in which all planets and suns was moving. They expected that the earth’s motion would produce slightly different measurements depending on which way their beam of light traveled through that aether as it woul act as a resistance in some directions slowing the beam.
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #11 on:
20/09/2009 17:23:15 »
Initially, the experiment of 1881 was meant to distinguish between the theory of Augustin-Jean Fresnel (1818), who proposed an almost stationary aether, and in which the aether is only partially dragged with a certain coefficient by matter; and the theory of George Gabriel Stokes (1845), who stated that the aether was fully dragged in the vicinity of the earth.
Earth travels a tremendous distance in its orbit around the sun, at a speed of around 30 km/s or over 108,000 km per hour. The sun itself is traveling about the galactic center at even greater speeds, and there are other motions at higher levels of the structure of the universe. Since the Earth is in motion, it was expected that the flow of aether across the Earth should produce a detectable "aether wind". Although it would be possible, in theory, for the Earth's motion to match that of the aether at one moment in time, it was not possible for the Earth to remain at rest with respect to the aether at all times, because of the variation in both the direction and the speed of the motion.
Michelson had a solution to the problem of how to construct a device sufficiently accurate to detect aether flow. The device he designed, later known as an interferometer, sent a single source of white light through a half-silvered mirror that was used to split it into two beams traveling at right angles to one another. After leaving the splitter, the beams traveled out to the ends of long arms where they were reflected back into the middle on small mirrors. They then recombined on the far side of the splitter in an eyepiece, producing a pattern of constructive and destructive interference based on the spent time to transit the arms. Any slight change in the spent time would then be observed as a shift in the positions of the interference fringes. If the aether were stationary relative to the sun, then the Earth’s motion would produce a fringe shift one twenty-fifth the size of a single fringe.
-------End of quote---
To their surprise no such effect was found. The light beams kept to the same speed no matter in which direction they traveled. And later even more accurate experiments was done finding that lights speed were the same no matter if it moved with the earth or from it.
Because it was assumed that the motion of the earth around the sun would cause an additional component to the wind, the yearly cycles would be detectable as an alteration of the magnitude of the wind. An example of this effect is a helicopter flying forward. While hovering, a helicopter’s blades would be measured as travelling around typically at 300 mph at the tips. However, if the helicopter is travelling forward at 150 mph, there are points where the tips of the blades are travelling through the air at 150 mph (downwind) and 450 mph (upwind). The same effect would cause the magnitude of an ether wind to decrease and increase on a yearly basis.
---------End of quote---
What they found was that the light at some direction seemed to have a ‘shorter path’ though?
Walter Ritz’s emitter theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent with the results of the experiment, not requiring aether. The theory postulates that light has always the same velocity in respect to the source.
However it also led to several “obvious” optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If this was correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen.
The Sagnac experiment placed a modified apparatus on a constantly rotating turntable; the main modification was that the light trajectory encloses an area. In doing so any ballistic theories such as Ritz’s could be tested directly, as the light going one way around the device would have a different length to travel than light going the other way (the eyepiece and mirrors would be moving toward/away from the light). In Ritz’s theory there would be no shift, because the net velocity between the light source and detector was zero (they were both mounted on the turntable). However in this case an effect was seen, thereby eliminating any simple ballistic theory. This fringe-shift effect is used today in laser gyroscopes.
------End of quote--
So what did this mean? Even though there were no evidence found for an aether the light still seemed to have an unequal distance to move? Did that mean that the light had different speeds after all? And it seemed to be bound to the way earth was moving? ‘The explanation was found in the Fitzgerald–Lorentz contraction, also simply called length contraction. According to this physical law all objects physically contract along the line of motion (originally thought to be relative to the aether), so while the light may indeed transit slower on that arm, it also ends up travelling a shorter distance that exactly cancels out the drift.
What they seemed to miss was that even if there was no ‘wind’ it was still ‘subtly wrong’ for the light to always keep the same speed. That is if light was expected to be behave in Newtonian way, having one ‘defined’ true speed on its own with ‘distances’ being the same as always? According to that universe neither time nor distance was open to ‘manipulation’ but here we suddenly find SpaceTime to ‘contract’ depending on velocity/speed? Einstein must have thought a lot about this experiment. You might also take a look at the light reaching us from objects in the sky, and then, expecting them all to have different motions and speeds relative us, try to see if their ‘light beams’ speed differ. Although I’m not sure how to set up such a experiment? With a beamsplitter and mirrors perhaps, or electro-magnetically? probably it already been done too? The only difference I know we have noticed though is that those beams, relative us, are red or blue-shifted. Now this contraction, would that explain red and blue-shift? Let’s see space as being of invisible ‘boxes’. Each box we can define as a ‘system’ containing a object moving at some speed relative us. Inside this box there is light produced that ‘leaks’ out to us standing by observing them move. According to the Fitzgerald–Lorentz contraction those boxes will be ‘shrunk’ as observed by us. Does that mean that light too will act so? Yes it does, the interesting thing is how we will observe this ‘contraction’. You have to remember that according to this theory it wasn’t light having a different speed in different boxes, instead it was them shrinking that explained how light could travel unequal lengths. As light, if seen as a wave, ‘shrinks’ inside this box it becomes compressed, this compression is undetectable inside the box and as every ‘distance’ has shrunk an equal amount you won’t notice anything being different inside it. But for the outside observer being at a relative rest this light will seem to be contracted if that object is moving towards him. But shouldn’t it be the same when the object is moving away from him too? Isn’t that invisible box still contracted relative the observer? Of course it is, but as the velocity of it then bears away from you, all ‘distances’ between you and that ‘box’ will grow, if you assume there being an indefinable amount of ‘boxes of space’ that light traverses in-between its path to you.
And as those boxes is not moving at the first box was then that light wave can be seen to ‘expand’ as they try to make up for the growing relative ‘distance’ between you and its source. It’s somewhat like a rubber band describing the relation, as it moves toward you it will contract, going away it will expand. Hope it made some sense. If you want to turn it around you could describe it as all ‘space’ expanding between you and what object you are observing moving away from you and all ‘space’ contracting when going the other way, towards you, but as we have objects inside those ‘boxes’ moving at different velocities we can see that this isn’t really true as those too then should act according to our relation to that first moving ‘box’. Then it must be a expression of the sole relation between you observing and what you choose to observe. Am I making sense here? So it seems to me that Einsteins conclusion is correct. But Einstein had one another idea too that to me is interesting still. ‘As late as 1920, Einstein himself still spoke of a different concept of ether that was not a “ponderable medium” but something of significance nonetheless’. And if my crazy idea is correct there is something ‘more’, even though its right expression to me might be described as ‘less’. My belief that you will find a ‘distance-less’ canvas hiding ‘inside’ SpaceTime creating what we deem as ‘distances’. I really liked his expression of it as ‘not a ponderable’ meaning ‘Not capable of being weighed or considered’. Which I too expect it to be, as I can’t see what ‘math’ will be able to describe it, but then again, my knowledge of how mathematicians create, transform and manipulate equations is dismally insignificant. To me it seems to come to the question if one can describe something without any arrow of time creating the same in a meaningful way. So when I used to state that math is the ‘universal language’ I might need to add this clause “As long as it contains some sort of causality chain.”. And so there might be a unobserved ’hole’ in our mathematics too?
Last Edit: 20/09/2009 21:24:33 by yoron
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #12 on:
20/09/2009 17:25:05 »
In Galilean SpaceTime the physical existence of an absolute time is assumed.
Isaac Newton defined it in the following way.
"Absolute, true and mathematical time, in itself, and from its own nature, flows equally, without relation to any thing external; and by other name called Duration. Relative, apparent, and vulgar time, is some sensible and external measure of duration by motion, whether accurate or unequable, which is commonly used instead of true time; as an hour, a day, a month, a year. It may be, that there is no equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is liable to no change."
-----End of quote-
Another thing worth wondering about here is the possibility of 'light/photons' getting so 'down/red-shifted' that we won't be able to measure them. Does that mean that they stop existing? That can't be right, can it? Not if photon's intrinsically are time-less, meaning that they need to ‘impact’ to die, and exist as defined objects inside SpaceTime. Also they are expected to have an intrinsical unvarying light-quanta according to some ideas? If we allow them to become so redshifted that they will disappear from our frame of reference, for example if considering a objects ‘black body radiation’ inside a Black Hole what would that state about distances? That they are there but in another ‘time-frame’ not reachable for us outside spectators? And if they can do that there, they should be able to do it if coming from an object moving away from us too. Am I right? Which then should create ‘light’ out of ‘nothing’ as soon as we adjusted our velocity or speed?
But if they can ‘downshift’ their energy spontaneously depending on the energy’s surrounding them, f ex traveling up a gravity well? Is it them doing it or is it only a new ‘relation’ being created? If it is a ‘relation’ only, the question will be if the ‘photon’ ever can change its energy, right? It may be seen as having a certain ‘potential’ when observed by us or as we ‘send’ it away, but is it then containing it, or is it our ‘relation’ that creates it? Because either it is so that the consist of unvarying light quanta that once ‘created’ by the ‘source’ never can change except as a ‘relation’ with something else. Or they do/can change intrinsically over time by them self. Or they don’t have any existence other than that of defining a relation and so only can come to exist in our observation? But if they can change their energy content in SpaceTime even though being of ‘no time’ inherently, how would that be possible? Yep, pretty soon I expect to want to discuss this with a Black Hole too.
Maybe we should take a look at what we see as lights ‘properties’ before we try to define it. As I understand, it is wrong to say that light consist of only one unvarying speed, if seen as a wave it have two speeds actually, as defined by us. So speaking of a single “speed of light” is incorrect. There exist different speeds of propagation for the different aspects of a light pulse. For example, the ‘phase velocity’ is seen as the speed ‘at which each maximum of the rapidly oscillating electric field travels for each frequency component that makes up a light pulse’. And it is very close to what we define as the speed of light and at times seen as to move ‘faster’ than lights ‘information (which normally is the ‘group velocity’) . ‘Group velocity’ on the other hand, is the speed at which the peak of a macroscopic pulse of light moves, and is usually relevant to the speed of information transfer. Those two together are as far as I know what makes up light, Well, you have frequency wavelength, amplitude (Waves) too defining them. But those two, group and phase velocity, is the reason why some state that they can send ‘something’ FTL (faster than light). When they say so they may either be speaking of the phase velocity of that ‘something’, which as stated can’t bear any ‘information’ in it until that time the group velocity ‘comes in to lunch’, in all normal circumstances like ‘traveling’ in a ‘perfect vacuum/space’. Then again, they might refer to the group velocity as the ‘thing’ doing this FTL. The group velocity can be quite different from ‘c’.
The phase velocity is slowed by the index of ‘refraction’ where the refraction is the amount by which a propagating wave is bent ‘traveling’ inside a prism f ex. As the light passes from one transparent medium to another, it changes speed and bends. How much this happens depends on the refractive index of the mediums and the angle between the light ray and the line perpendicular (normal) to the surface itself separating the two mediums (medium/medium interface) while the group velocity is inversely proportional to the dispersion of the medium. “ The propagation of information or energy in a wave always occurs as a change in the wave. The most obvious example is changing the wave from being absent to being present, which propagates at the speed of the leading edge of a wave train. More generally, some modulation of the frequency and/or amplitude of a wave is required in order to convey information, and it is this modulation that represents the signal content. This is the phase velocity of the amplitude wave, but since each amplitude wave contains a group of internal waves, this speed is usually called the group velocity.
Since a general wave (or wavelike phenomenon) need not embody the causal flow of any physical effects, there is obviously there is no upper limit on the possible phase velocity of a wave. However, even for a "genuine" physical wave, i.e., a chain of sequentially dependent events, the phase velocity does not necessarily correspond to the speed at which energy or information is propagating. This is partly a semantical issue, because in order to actually convey information, a signal cannot be a simple periodic wave, so we must consider non-periodic signals, making the notion of "phase" somewhat ambiguous. If the wave profile never exactly repeats itself, then arguably the "period" of the signal must be the entire signal. On this basis we might say that the velocity of the signal is unambiguously equal to the "phase velocity", but in this context the phase velocity could only be defined as the speed of the leading (or trailing) edge of the overall signal.“
When you read about how someone has succeeded in transmitting a wave with a group velocity FTL (faster than light) the problem is that the group velocity only corresponds to the signal/Phase velocity under ‘normal dispersion’ like what we might find in space and generally speaking only under such conditions when the group velocity is less than the phase velocity. But if those circumstances is violated by dispersing a ‘beam’ f ex through a medium where the ‘group velocity’ succeeds to reach a faster speed than the phase velocity it may come out faster of that ‘medium’ than the phase velocity. But that group velocity won’t represent any actual propagation speed of its ‘information’. Meaning what makes it possible to make sense out of a radio transmission f ex. creating its ‘message’
“ For example, in a regime of anomalous dispersion, which means the refractive index decreases with increasing wave number, the preceding formula shows that what we called the group velocity exceeds what we called the phase velocity. In such circumstances the group velocity no longer represents the speed at which information or energy propagates.”
And as I understand it this kind of ideas represent actually a ‘slowing down’ of the light as you put it through some medium other than space and then manipulate what is seen as its different properties.
Then on the other hand I have this strange Quote.
“Since the 1980s, various experiments have verified that it is possible for the group velocity of laser light pulses sent through specially prepared materials to significantly exceed the speed of light in vacuum.
-- --End- quote from—‘Group velocity’ in Wikipedia, ----
(Sorry, I can’t check this up, other than what that once downloaded page states for the moment. I don’t believe this last quote to be entirely correct as it stands though? If you put light through anything ‘denser’ than a ‘perfect vacuum/space’ light should slow down. You can’t ‘boost’ light to go faster than in a ‘perfect vacuum’ as I understand it?
If you could then it would state that certain ‘densities’ do create FTL faster than the lights ‘motion’ in a vacuum, even though no ‘information’ might be contained by it? And that would really freak me out as it would imply that density will act the opposite as what I expect, that is, instead of retarding (breaking) the light wave boosting it? (how?) )
Possibly it refers to the ‘group velocity’ that can be seen to do FTL inside some materials. when compared to lights ‘normally expected’ speed through the same, and if so I can understand it, well, somewhat anyway.
“ The group velocity of a wave is the velocity with which the variations in the shape of the wave's amplitude (known as the modulation or envelope of the wave) propagate through space. For example, imagine what happens if a stone is thrown into the middle of a very still pond. When the stone hits the surface of the water, a circular pattern of waves appears. It soon turns into a circular ring of waves with a quiescent center. The ever expanding ring of waves is the group, within which one can discern individual wavelets of differing wavelengths traveling at different speeds. The longer waves travel faster than the group as a whole, but they die out as they approach the leading edge. The shorter waves travel slower and they die out as they emerge from the trailing boundary of the group.”
And .. Furthermore..
If we imagine the wave profile as a solid rigid entity sliding to the right, then obviously the phase velocity is the ordinary speed with which the actual physical parts are moving..
What we perceive as a coherent wave may in fact be simply a sequence of causally disjoint processes (like the individual spring-mass systems) that happen to be aligned spatially and temporally, either by chance or design, so that their combined behavior exhibits a wavelike pattern, even though there is no actual propagation of energy or information along the sequence..
So we have ‘something’ that can FTL but can’t keep its ‘information’. What that signifies to me is that even though you might modulate/manipulate (encode) a wave and then send it ‘FTL’ (phase or group/signal velocity depending on medium) that ‘information’ you stored in it won’t be brought forward, no matter what ‘property’ of it you manipulated before both properties are ‘together’ again.
Still, If that last quote would be correct as it stand? With waves exceeding lights speed in a vacuum by doing FTL through ‘materials’, it do state that you can have phenomena that spatially is recognized to exceed ‘c’. Although the statement must be missing something. Now, how could that be possible if it was true? What was it we read just before about ‘casually disjoint processes’. Sounds a little like that idea of mine of a distance less ‘hidden reality’ doesn’t it?
But it’s also stating that the ‘signal/information’ must obey times arrow even if the ‘light’ may not. And what would that do to our Universe? Not as a universe of only ‘densities’ any more, would you agree? More like a ‘system of rules’ defining a ‘information Space/sphere’ limiting all information but having little to do with its densities and the way they may act. Is that what SpaceTime is? Should we split it in ‘information space’ and “non information space” then as it is only inside the “information space” all real ‘work’ is being done? There is in SpaceTime processes that seem to expend energy (work done) and others that do not, even though they change the properties of SpaceTime.. Virtual particles is a good example of that to me. So? What if so would that ‘information-space’ consist of do you think? Processes like our rocket engine (interaction/work done/information exchange) and ‘relative particles’ (‘No work done’ if considering a ‘interaction/still a change implying a ‘information’ exchange) This one is really strange to ‘fit it in’.
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #13 on:
20/09/2009 17:25:59 »
How can the phase or group velocity be able to ‘move/travel/ be outside its ‘information field’? Doesn’t waves have some sort of ‘wavefront’ to them? Does this mean that light consists of more than one ‘thing’ somehow ‘glued together’ to make a whole ‘beam’ or photon? If so that ‘glue’ seems very flexible. Or all waves/photons consist of some sort of ‘entanglement’ expressing itself as a ‘whole’ obeying the ‘information space/sphere’ as related to ‘information/work done’ but otherwise not limited to the speed of light in a vacuum. (Entanglement is thought to be when ‘one’ of something either is ‘split up or Polarized’ into ‘two’ (or more) through some manipulation or event. When later observing one of those new ‘twins’, the other twin is expected to fall out ‘instantly’ to show the exact opposite ‘spin/polarization’. No matter the ‘distances’ separating them. Why I wrote ‘or more’? How about the entanglement of an atom? By a beam?)
Now some may feel an urge to get all physical on me here and start to explain the nature of waves and all kinds of things. I would agree if photons was to be just ‘waves’ but they’re not, are they? They are multi-gifted beings doing things that are mutually contradictory, why else would ‘wave supporter’s’ fight so hard to define a ‘nexus’ to them, without succeeding, as of yet, too?
But if 'time' is something relating to your frame of reference, 'ticking' at a constant rate as experienced by you being inside that frame of reference, no matter your speed or acceleration, yet changing depending on at what direction you choose to measure the same system spatially when uniformly coasting (special relativity). Could that mean that what we call 'time' is more of a 'relation', and so neither a 'flow' nor 'instances/events'?
Yep, tried to sneak that one in, didn’t I.. And I(t) will get worse.
If we break down a biological system (human f ex.) into molecules and atoms they all will be seen to 'move' at different 'speeds', or put another way, if we define one 'system' as a molecule and arbitrarily compare it against another smaller 'system' f ex. that of a atom, then knowing that mass produce different 'time rates' just as speed and acceleration do, you might conclude that as seen from the frame of the molecule the atom should 'age' faster as it has less mass. And if so all things, down to the smallest constituents, should have its own ‘time-cloud’ shrouding it. Also the electrons orbital speed should have some impact on the atoms ‘time’. But in fact electron’s don't seem to 'move' at all, as found when we go down in 'size', the electron-cloud is in reality an unmoving 'matter of probability's'. This is also a real 'effect'. And when measuring the temperature of an atom we only talk about the 'vibrational movement' of their outermost electrons, not any ‘orbital speed’.
"Such energy is received by the outermost electrons of each atom from a source of external energy, such as chemical or luminous. The temperature of a whole object cannot be measured, so that when a given degree is stated, it refers to the presumed temperature of the object when assumed that all its atoms' electrons have the same microkinetic (vibrational) energy."
Now, if the electron-cloud around an atom isn't moving where do we get those 'vibrations' from?
Another way of seeing the question of space and time is looking at the light emanating from an object coming at you. The faster it (and you) moves towards each other the higher the energy will be as observed by you. And the energy from those photons when measured by you will be (at least) the collective energy from both ‘systems’ moving at each other. This is no ‘sleight of hands’. When you measure one of those photons it really will contain, at the very least, a multiple of both speeds. This seems strange to me, how the hell does the photon knows your 'speed' to adapt it so correctly at all possible occasions. And if we assume a third object passing simultaneously with a 'lower speed' and take a measurement of the photons coming from it we will get a lower energy reading of those but still adding both ‘systems’ of choice. One way to see it here is to consider it an effect of 'kinetic energy' and therefore not unlike a normal collision depending on the multiplied effect of two objects crashing macroscopically. Remember, as I see it here this photon truly contains the 'energy' measured by you. They are timeless objects intrinsically, ain’t they? But to accumulate energy they seem to have to do some ‘work’ under our ‘arrow of time’? How could they otherwise ‘transform’ their energy-level? As long as we consider them to be defined objects inside SpaceTime that is.
If we instead would talk about a collision between two macroscopic objects (cars) I could proclaim that the effect of their head-on crash as belonging to them both, adding up to the crashes consequences. So is it the same here? In a way perhaps, but here we have this immaterial object (photons) somehow defining this force in our observation. What this phenomena seems to point to, from my perspective, is also that the idea of the universe, if we were able to measure its total ‘energy’ would find it to be ‘zero’ as that seems a reasonable explanation for it. Why
Well, to me it points to SpaceTime being ‘one’ without ‘leaks’. Spacetime takes care of the ‘speed rule of C ’ translating it into a different level of energy instead, blue (Highly energetic) or red (weakly energetic) shifting it instead. Which to me indicates some state of ‘entropic rest’, or perhaps ‘balance/equilibrium’ is the better word here? That as an’ entropic’ state of rest seems to be related to measuring the amount of information missing for a complete probabilistic description of a system. How do you do that when you have a ‘equilibrium’? In which “Entropy is the mean number of binary questions that must be asked in an optimal decision strategy to determine the state of a particular realization given the state of the ensemble to which it belongs.” And as the questions to me seems endless depending on your choice/depth of ‘questioning’? I don’t really understand it? But a ‘equilibrium’ I can relate to, as no matter the amount of ‘binary questions’ making up for that ‘state’, if you like, I will expect it to give a consistent answer, somewhat like division ‘1/1, 2/2, 3/3,’ all will give ‘1’, if you see how I think here, no matter what those digits represent as ‘amounts/degrees/numbers/possibilities’.
As for calling that state of equilibrium ‘zero’ or ‘ten’ or ‘forty-two’, that’s up to you. But can there be a state when the red-shifted photon becomes so weak as to disappear from SpaceTime for the observer? That shouldn’t be possible should it? I mean, we can still have a ‘third party/observer’ moving at another ‘speed’ relative that ‘disappeared’ redshifted photon, getting a measurement of it other than our first observer observing it. And If it was possible what would it mean for our idea of dimensions/distances? That objects can be ‘there’ without existing for your ‘frame of reference’? I mean, this photon you can’t see (not existing) might just be a ‘blink’ away spatially, right? That would make for a quite interesting universe
So that seems to me as something supporting the idea of a smallest light-quanta always being observable, even if it doesn’t address if that ‘light-quanta’ will be a consequence of something really being there or if it is an ‘effect’ of ‘limitations of observance’ relative SpaceTime. But as we surmised earlier ‘Black Body Radiation’ inside a Black Hole is supposed to redshift that photon into ‘invisibility’ as far as a outside observer is concerned, as well as for the ‘black body’ too?. If that is correct it seem to make up for a very ‘radiate’ Universe where any light we observe directly related to our choice of ‘speed’, and with it disappearing, not existing for us, at certain speeds although still being there when measured from another speed? So does it ‘go away’ or not? As we can find it, if being in the right ‘frame of reference/speed”, I would say that it is still there, don’t you agree? But it will still be non existing when we’re out of that ‘frame of reference’? What? Yes, the headache comes marching on…
Now you might wonder what I mean by this Black Body Radiation, or ‘BBR’ as we ‘Sunday physicists’ will call it from now on. Jump on the train of progress. ->
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #14 on:
20/09/2009 17:26:40 »
It seems as all radiation, just as light, consists of a transfer of energy (heat) through space.
( …Planck showed that hot objects emit electromagnetic radiation in discrete packets, not as a flow but having ‘discrete jumps’ to it, which leads to a finite total energy emitted as ‘black body radiation’. And that result was in direct contradiction with the classical view of light as a continuous wave...It is so-called because the ideal radiator of thermal energy would also be an ideal absorber of thermal energy: It would not reflect any light, and thus would appear to be absolutely black. As far as I understands it? it's a discussion about those discrete jumps of energy creating the ‘flow’ of radiation we measure. That ‘energy’ don’t act as a waterfall where you can steer the flow continuously without stepping. Instead the energy seems to jump between certain levels. Like if I only could turn on my tap in 1 liter 1.5 l. ..2.l ..2.5.l etc. without ever getting the ‘levels’ implied in between those. But it doesn’t state as far as I understand that the ‘flow’ coming at 1.5 liter will be discontinuous to a detector with ‘gaps’ in it. )
At the end of the 19th century one of the most intriguing puzzles in physics involved the spectrum of radiation emitted by a hot object. Specifically, the emitter was assumed to be a blackbody, a perfect radiator. The hotter a blackbody is, the more the peak in the spectrum of emitted radiation shifts to shorter wavelength. Nobody could explain why there was a peak in the distribution at all, however; the theory at the time predicted that for a blackbody, the intensity of radiation just kept increasing as the wavelength decreased. This was known as the ultraviolet catastrophe, because the theory predicted that an infinite amount of energy was emitted by a radiating object.
Clearly, this prediction was in conflict with the idea of conservation of energy, not to mention being in serious disagreement with experimental observation. No one could account for the discrepancy, however, until Max Planck came up with the idea that a blackbody was made up of a whole bunch of oscillating atoms, and that the energy of each oscillating atom was quantized. That last point is the key : the energy of the atoms could only take on discrete values, and these values depended on the frequency of the oscillation:
Planck's prediction of the energy of an oscillating atom : E = nhf (n = 0, 1, 2, 3 ...)
where f is the frequency, n is an integer, and h is a constant known as Planck's constant. This constant shows up in many different areas of quantum mechanics.
“ All objects with a temperature above absolute zero radiate energy at a rate equal to their emissivity multiplied by the rate at which energy would radiate from them if they were a black body. No medium is necessary for radiation to occur; radiation works even in and through a perfect vacuum. The energy from the Sun travels through the vacuum of space before warming the earth. Also, the only way that energy can leave earth is by being radiated to space. Both reflectivity and emissivity of all bodies is wavelength dependent.
The temperature determines the wavelength distribution of the electromagnetic radiation as limited in intensity by Planck’s law of black-body radiation.
---End of quote---------------
Hey, didn’t I say that we won’t ever measure radiation as containing gaps of ‘space’ between it? And here it states that there is gaps? I still say that I expect us unable to measure any gaps in a continuos energy/radiation . The gaps we’re speaking of here is related to the way the radiation builds from a black body… It’s like jumps of ‘strength,’ not relating to any gaps in the continuos ‘flow’ of each level of radiation we receive at a detector. The same way as the orbits of electrons is not in a continuos flow of ‘distances/orbits’ from a atoms ‘center’ but instead is seen to make discreet jumps into higher and lower ‘orbits’ depending on the electrons energy levels leaving some ‘distances’ empty. As far as I understand? I really need to check it up some more when I get on the net.. But then again, as the levels recede/advance they will do so in discrete ‘jumps’ leaving gaps between the ‘energy levels’. So it is strange, why is it so? Why is some ‘distances’ forbidden? “ Ah, ‘distances’, was it?
But if a electron isn’t really there. Is a ‘matter’ of probability, relating to, in fact needing, your observation to become ‘visible’ just as our photon becomes defined in its impact? Then what are those ‘distances it ‘jumps’ ‘orbiting’ that atom. Isn’t this a kind of fractal behavior? Self-descriptive, coming again? And again. And what we call those ‘distances’ will be the SpaceTime canvas it uses to express itself on? So from another point of view we might only have one ‘electron’. But expressing itself through our arrow of time as several at different ‘distances’. But if so then a ‘electron’ is something more extended than we think, and either ‘chopped up’ by our arrow, or something that don’t really care for ‘distance’ at all. Or it could be several ‘disturbances’ emerging at several points in SpaceTime constructing our ‘electrons’. And if that was true what then would be its ‘vibrations’? And why would ‘heat/energy’ multiply those? What happens when we heat up something to very high energies, like putting it in a black hole? It ‘disappears’ from our arrow of time, doesn’t it? it becomes pure energy, photons. And those are mass-less, distance-less intrinsically as they are without ‘time’.
So? Could I say that when you heat up something you create a state where it ‘flickers’ more, ‘out and in’ of SpaceTime, as seen from inside our arrow of time? But why would that give SpaceTime more energy as seen from that ‘electrons’ point of view? Isn’t it us expending that ‘energy’ first, and then getting it back as ‘flickering/vibrations’. Can it be made to ‘vibrate’ more without any ‘touching’ by SpaceTime? I don’t know, but I know that virtual particles spontaneously can create ‘particles’ even though they seem to exist for a very short period of time before disappearing. So probably not, and even if it can it will be for such short periods (Planck time?) that it won’t make any difference to SpaceTime. But then again, virtual particles make a difference even though they are outside Planck time? So?
Considering , if I’m correct, that this distance-less state will have no arrow of time couldn’t particles then be able to express ithemselves as ‘flickering’ and be able to ‘jump’ ‘spontaneously’. As I believe that this timeless experience can express itself everywhere inside SpaceTime. And if certain distances are forbidden, could it have something to do with the Planck length? As those seems very ‘universal’ inside SpaceTime?
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #15 on:
20/09/2009 17:28:03 »
Anyway, it was Albert Einstein who was the first to really understand the consequences of this idea when he formulated the photoelectric effect. “ The electromagnetic field can be understood as a stream of corpuscular bodies to be called photons that make up the electromagnetic field. The revolutionary aspect of this idea was that a stream of particles also could behave as a wave, and there was a lot of opposition to the idea from many established scientists of the day. It was not until 1923 when Arthur Compton experimentally showed that a light quanta could deflect an electron just like a corpuscular body would do it, that this debate was over.” In fact there are several experiments done where scientists have used ‘photons', that is defined ‘objects’ having a spatial definition in SpaceTime interacting with atoms as some sort of ‘electrons’
Check out “Physicists discover a new form of optical nonlinearity” f ex where they interact “one atom and one photon – (It) has been observed in several experiments. The main interest now lies in the configuration of one atom and two photons, because the two photons are predicted to interact by obeying a specific set of rules from quantum theory. As Dr Karim Murr explains: 'We can naively picture this in the following: if we have one atom and only one photon, the atom would just absorb and emit the photon several times. If now we have one atom and two photons, the atom would have to make a choice because it can absorb only one photon at the time. The big issue for the atom is the difficulty of the choice, because the two photons are exactly identical. So we can always say that the atom absorbs and emits each photon several times, but it is impossible to tell which photon is absorbed or which photon is emitted.' The result can be seen as an effective interaction between the two photons, an interaction mediated by the atom…
In the experiment, a vapor of atoms at ambient temperature is first cooled, so that the atoms become very slow. The scientists then isolate just one atom from the rest and guide it to a very specific region in space. The second step is to trap light, which is done by reflecting the light between two concave mirrors facing each other. The mirrors are separated by a distance as small as one tenth of a millimeter, and now enclose the atom. This tiny region is the heart of the experiment.. Such a small region comes with a big gift: by confining the light into a small region, the density of the light field becomes so strong that already one quantum of light is sufficient to perturb the atom. The perturbation is so large that the system behaves like a new molecule, but, intriguingly, such a molecule is made of matter and light. This molecule possesses an infinite number of possible configurations: one atom and one photon, one atom and two photons, one atom and three photons, and so on. All these configurations have distinct energies and can therefore be identified in the spectrum of the molecule. This prediction feeds theorists in quantum optics since half a century.”
As you can see it builds on the photo electrical effect explained by Einstein. But one tenth of a millimeter? Calling that a ‘small region’ compared to an atom, and saying that light then becomes a ‘defined’ photon? Ah, Okay ? But it sure sounds cool .. and I can accept that light bouncing there will affect that atom. Somehow this seems to imply that by bouncing a photon in a small enough area you will ‘strengthen’ its perturbation which then should be seen as? Becoming more ‘energy’ per distance? Why? Where does it get it from? Even if it was ‘interacting’ with itself as it perhaps could be seen too, if looked upon as a wave, why should it then be able to enforce its ‘energy’, or is it the momentum? It’s strange , it also seems to me as if those distances is too big but then again, if you really have defined where that ‘slow’ atom must be? And considering the next experiment? What happens there should happen here too? They should become entangled, right? If it becomes a ‘system’ interacting with one photon it should be entangled, right? And with two it must be the same??
And then to measure it
As in the spectroscopy of conventional atoms and molecules, the atom-light molecule is excited by shining laser light onto it and by detecting the light emitted by it. The scientist Ingrid Schuster and her colleagues have performed two experiments. In a first experiment they varied continuously the colour of the laser light. At low laser intensity the energy spectrum of the molecule is that of one atom and one photon, a spectrum known for more than a decade. At higher intensity, however, they observe a second pronounced resonance in the spectrum for energies which are only consistent with the energy of one atom coupled to two photons. To excite this resonance, two laser photons have to be absorbed by the molecule at the same time. This effect has further been studied in a second experiment: the researchers found a trick to steer the coupled system in such a way that the state of one atom and one photon cannot be created at all. At low laser intensities, almost no light is transmitted, because photons from the laser arrive one by one, and these are rejected by the molecule. At higher intensities, however, the rate of laser photon pairs grows, so that the state of one atom and two photons is populated more and more rapidly. This leads to a nonlinear response in very good agreement with theoretical predictions.
--------------End of quote..
So they entangle it too, right?
There is more
“Quantum Memory for Light”. Another experiment asks ‘if given an unknown input state of light, can it be stored with high precision in atoms? And the answer is.. yes.’
“The quantum memory protocol runs as follows: 1. An unknown input state of light is sent to the atoms. The strength and phase of this light is not exactly defined which is symbolized by the thickness of the line in the drawing of the light wave. 2. When light passes the atomic sample there is an exchange of information between light and atoms. A part of the light is stored in atoms (e.g. the phase information). At the same time the atoms act back on the outgoing light. In this process light and atoms become entangled. 3. The outgoing light is detected (e.g. the amplitude part). The obtained result both carries information about the incoming light amplitude and information about atoms. 4. With a feedback system the atoms are rotated by an amount conditioned on the measurement result. From the beginning the atoms contained quantum noise just as the input light, but the fact that light and atoms became entangled in step 2 enables us to cancel the information about atoms in the outgoing light with the initial quantum noise of atoms. The result is a storage of the incoming light state in the atomic system.”
“How’s your headache?” “Just fine thank you”
Didn’t that photoelectric effect build on that there needed to be certain ‘strengths’, the same or stronger than the electron to be able to interact with it? “ If a photon has an energy at least as big as the ‘work function’, the photon energy can be transferred to the electron and the electron will have enough energy to escape from the metal. And a photon with an energy less than the ‘work function’ will never be able to eject electrons.” But here they talk about an ‘unknown input state of light that is sent to the atoms’ interacting with it , but not defining exactly with what, the ‘system’ of that atom carrying out information about it too, as light? Through ‘entanglement’, no less… And if it gets out (reflects) then it has ‘interacted’, that I will agree on
The probability of finding a particle at a particular location, is related to the wave associated with the particle. The larger the amplitude (intensity) of the wave at a particular point, the larger is the probability that the particle will be found there. And the smaller that amplitude is the smaller the probability will be of finding it. And the probability of it is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the wave. But the atom acted back by changing the outgoing lights amplitude, right. And that we will perceive as weaker or stronger light, and if it was the frequency we measured instead it would express itself as a color-shift. So if I get it straight they reflect a beam and then use the amplitude (intensity) reflected to rotate the atom by some degree proportional to that amplitude which now, as they say, contains both the information of the original light sent in as well as the reflected information from the interaction with the atom and therefore now is ‘entangled’. That’s okay with me but I can’t see how they ‘cancel the information about atoms in the outgoing light with the initial quantum noise of atoms’ without knowing that original quantum noise before? Can you? Or do they mean that they already had a ‘standard’ for that?
The first experiment was considering light as photons, the next light as waves. So. Does light consist of unvarying light-quanta or not? Does it interact, even when its not interfering with any electrons? It seems so, doesn’t it?. As both seems to work out just fine even though I couldn’t get how
? Somewhat like my headache then? Could that also be considered an entanglement?
(what ‘entanglements’ is I discuss at the end of the ‘essay’.)
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #16 on:
20/09/2009 17:29:07 »
So what Planck did with his idea that a blackbody radiation came from of a bunch of oscillating atoms, and that the energy of each oscillating atom was quantized was to give us the ground work for what later became ‘photons’, particles as well as waves. Before this light was thought to consist as waves only. Newton and Huygens seems to have been the first to discover that light travels as waves (late 17th century). Their research was followed up by Maxwells equations 1865, that finally unified the concepts of electricity and magnetism into one whole theory of electromagnetism. In it the force is mediated by the electromagnetic field and the various derivatives of this field lead to the electric and the magnetic fields, respectively. “ The quantum black-body radiation formula, being the very first piece of quantum mechanics, appeared Sunday evening October 7, 1900, in a so-called back-of-the-envelope calculation by Planck. It was based on a report by Rubens (visiting with his wife) of the very latest experimental findings in the infrared. Later that evening, Planck sent the formula on a postcard, which Rubens received the following morning. A couple of days later, he informed Planck that it worked perfectly. At first, it was just a fit to the data; only later did it turn out to enforce quantization.”
Einstein won the Nobel Prize for Physics not for his work on relativity, but for explaining the photoelectric effect. He proposed that light is made up of packets of energy called photons. Photons have no mass, but they have momentum and they have an energy given by: Energy of a photon : E = hf ..So this also seem to point to light having different ‘light quanta’ not one commonly defined, but different levels of ‘energy’ contained to each photon?
But if ‘virtual photons’ also can add ‘restmass’ from momentum, then I expect that you will need to consider that ‘energy’ existing outside Planck-length/time too, as being part of our ‘reality’? Otherwise you will need to find another ‘mediator of force’ more ‘inside’ our arrow of time it seems to me? And wouldn’t that be downright, ah, difficult? But, outside of SpaceTimes boundaries, where ever those virtual photons rests and laugh, will that same ‘law’ that I believed to be true for SpaceTime exist? That the final count of ‘it all’ will come to be ‘zero’? I’m not sure but I would guess so, it could very well be so that our bubble of SpaceTime is a restricted case ‘blown up’ to a certain balance having found a equilibrium with what’s outside Plancktime/length etc (Entropy???). And that seems to imply that this ‘outside’ also is of a ‘restricted’ proportion of ‘whatever’ it is. But your guess is as good as mine, that one is truly irritating as it seems to create even more boundaries depending on your view of such… But hey, let’s not give up yet
By the way, what the he* is Plank length?
" The Planck length is related to Planck energy by the uncertainty principle. At this scale, the concepts of size and distance break down, as quantum indeterminacy becomes virtually absolute. Because the Compton wavelength is roughly equal to the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole at the Planck scale, a photon with sufficient energy to probe this realm would yield no information whatsoever. Any photon energetic enough to precisely measure a Planck-sized object could actually create a particle of that dimension, but it would be massive enough to immediately become a black hole (a.k.a Planck particle), thus completely distorting that region of space, and swallowing the photon. This is the most extreme example possible of the uncertainty principle, and explains why only a quantum gravity theory reconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics will allow us to understand the dynamics of space-time at this scale.
Planck scale dynamics is important for cosmology because if we trace the evolution of the cosmos back to the very beginning, at some very early stage the universe should have been so hot that processes involving energies as high as the Planck energy (corresponding to distances as short as the Planck length) may have occurred. This period is therefore called the Planck era or Planck epoch. " " In particle physics and physical cosmology, the Planck scale is an energy scale around 1.22 × 1028 eV (which corresponds by the mass–energy equivalence to the Planck mass 2.17645 × 10−8 kg) at which quantum effects of gravity become strong. At this scale, the description of sub-atomic particle interactions in terms of quantum field theory breaks down (due to the non-renormalizability of gravity).”
That is; although physicists have a fairly good understanding of the other fundamental interactions or forces on the quantum level, gravity is problematic, and cannot be integrated with quantum mechanics (at high energies) using the usual framework of quantum field theory. "
What this says to me is that we have a definition about the shortest possible limit discernable in our three dimensions + time. It does not state that the scale upward must be defined in Planck lengths or whole multiples of a Planck length though. Would you agree with that? Think of three Plank lengths as a ‘distance’, then take a plank of two planck lengths and push it over those three. At some time this plank will be ‘displaced’ between those three Planck lengths not covering it in even ‘spaces’. And if 'time' is a relation between the observer and what (s)he observes and not a intrinsically true 'object' existing on its own merit then what we see as distance and motion also seems questionable to me. That as the only true measurement we can make of distance and motion is through the use of 'time' as our arbiter. An example of that idea could be that…
it has been known for decades that quantum mechanics predicts certain phenomena that seem paradoxical. For example, electrons and other particles behave as if they can be in two or more places at the same time. Experiments have been performed that suggest "backward causality," where the changing of the parameters of a detector after the particles to be detected are already in flight affects the behavior of those particles, even though they cannot be reached without sending a superluminal signal (signal traveling faster than the speed of light, violating Einstein's theory of special relativity). This is taken as evidence for nonlocality in quantum mechanics, in which two events separated in space are still connected despite the fact that no signal can pass between them without going faster than the speed of light.
Time-reversibility offers a possible explanation for these observations. For example, an electron can be seen to appear at two places at the same time when one uses the picture introduced by Feynman (Feynman diagrams). An electron moving through space can be turned back in time by a collision with a photon. Normally this is simply viewed as the production of an electron-positron pair. However, we can view the positron as an electron going backward in time. If, in the "past," it is reversed again by a collision with a photon, it can proceed forward in time again, thus appearing two places at once.
Another thing I wonder about is matter and geometry. We say f ex. that we get energy from our food. That food when broken down into molecules consists of three dimensional geometric shapes that fits receptors in f ex. our tongue. Depending on those shapes geometry you will identify them as being sweet, sour,
bitter etc. The definitions/taste our brain creates comes from the way your brain interpret their shape, not from any mysterious inherent 'taste' in them. The same can be said of color-perception and our definitions of the same. How do we succeed in agreeing on what is 'red' for example? Also, what 'energy' is it that is transferred between those 'food' molecules and the larger biological system that is me. Why do I get 'energy' from certain geometrical 'shapes' but not from others. And how come we seem to experience the same 'taste' sweet-sugar etc. Is it inscribed in our brain from birth? How do one inscribe something genetically making you relating 'instantly' to objects you've never seen before and relating to them in a way meaningful to people on the other side of the planet? You tell me. So what we seem to have is three dimensions and time. That is what allows us to comprehend geometric formations as atom's, molecules, mass and distance/space, uniform motion and acceleration. Do you agree? But if time is a property created by comparison between 'frames of reference' where does it all end? At the photon??
We say that all photons is intrinsically timeless, I always thought that this must have to do with them being without mass and therefore not restricted by SpaceTime. We also say that you can superimpose all photons there ever have been, and is, upon each other and that they then still won't take any place in SpaceTime, that to me seems yet another proof of photons being 'unrestricted' by SpaceTimes geometry. You might see their 'timelessness' in two ways. One as seen from their 'inside time-sphere' in where no ‘time’ exist, the other is from the observers macroscopic viewpoint where we define certain objects as being 'sources' of photons, f ex our Sun. From our Sun to the Earth we expect the photon to need a certain time, around eight minutes I believe it to be. So when looking at it this way every photon will produce its own 'time' between source and sink as observed by us depending on distance. Think about it for a moment, as far as we can observe the photon does move. It must ‘move’ as we clearly can observe its sources (Suns) as well as its sinks (observer/detector/eye etc) and those at spatially different locations.
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #17 on:
20/09/2009 17:30:01 »
But photons also contains 'no time', that photon coming from Sirius to hit your retina has in itself experienced the exact same amount of '(no) time' as the photon that came from your flashlight. But they still traveled different amounts of distance in 'space/time' according to our observations and are of different 'age' to us. To make both views come together as one seems impossible to me as long as we expect our definitions to be three-dimensional (+ time). But if time is a relation, and that is the key point for me, a relation, not any chain of 'events' and neither a 'flow'. (Relation.. An abstraction belonging to or characteristic of two entities or parts together) then it makes more sense. And if so, couldn't we propose a smallest definition of that relation to be the photon, and its opposite? A Black Hole? What would you say about defining it as a Black hole, well, for now that is? We know that Black holes seem to come in different magnitudes though just like mathematical infinities so that definition might not be so simple? But what all Black Holes seem to hold true no matter their relative 'size' is an Event Horizon, defined as the limit for any light to bounce back to our observer outside the Black Hole.
There is that question if you by traveling fast enough could become a Black Hole. As far as I’ve understood a Black hole craves all radiation from it to become enclosed, not able to leave the EV. And no ‘matter’ how fast you travel you will send out light, won’t you? So I don’t think any ‘infinite’ Speed nearing ‘C’ by your rocket and Black Holes can coexist as the same descriptions. But then you have the displaced gravity well behind your rocket too, could that then become something alike a . .? But enough of that, let’s play a little with what a Black Hole might be. And I’m doing what you can’t here, peeping inside the Event Horizon. That’s a strict ‘nono’ as there is a ‘infinity’ resting inside, forbidding us to ever learn anything and take it back to our ‘arrow of time’. But what is life without speculation? So, what we might have is that particle of restmass passing the EV, from there it disappears from our observations, assume that we have a non rotating black hole to keep it easy for me. Now I will guess that the particle, if observed inside, would be seen as picking up 'speed' as it moved down the gravity well, accelerating. The further down it will be the more 'mass/inertia?/kinetic energy/momentum' it will contain and the slower its inherent 'time sphere/clock ticking' should become according to anyone observing it, no matter if they were outside the EV or inside it, as long as they not are moving with it, or being closer to the core than it. At the proximity of the center I might expect this 'particle' to act as a boson, with the same state of 'no time' as a photon if observed by us, but containing a ‘infinite’ energy/mass coming from its former restmass accelerated to lights speed or as near as to be indistinguishable. Remember that this is nothing I can know, I’m just imagining.
So that particle can’t be able to bounce back, and in fact it will break down into photons/energy or 'virtual particles' somewhere on its way long before that, due to the gravitational tidal force(s). If we now take a photon instead, already existing without 'mass' and see it as containing some sort of boundary defining it and pass it through the Event Horizon it too will 'speed' up as it follows gravity's geodesic path. And just as the particle it will collect momentum and energy although not as fast as a particle. That it's already is without intrinsical time doesn't matter as it is the relation with the observers pace of 'time' that changes. But there is one difference. If you could lift out that first 'real' particle and compare it to the observers universe its 'aging' would have slowed down immensely as compared to the outside universe. But our photon have no intrinsical clock (arrow of time) to compare against the outside and it can’t really break down into anything else than what it already is, a photon. Otherwise both will act the same and from a observers point of view behave similarly, and none will bounce. But the particle will interact with the outside as long as it exists as restmass and the photon won’t. To that one can add the idea of 'warped' space existing inside that EV. If that is correct the ‘space’ inside the Event Horizon has very little resemblance to what the outside observer will see if he measured the Black Holes apparent circumference.
The inside of the EV is expected to be much 'larger' than its outside is, depending on the Black Holes ‘mass’ possibly infinite. The reason for that I understand to rest in the relation of mass/time/space. As the mass nears the ‘infinite’ the space around it will expand and time slow down. For an outside observer this will be seen as a ‘shrinking’ of whatever objects that travels through the EV, just the same as that ruler shrunk as those two rockets near ‘c’ passed each other. This is a real effect and not a ‘viewing distortion’ or mirage just as its ‘time’ slowing down relative a outside observer. But for a observer inside the EV he would measure himself to be the same as always, finding that it was the space surrounding him that would have ‘expanded’ as to become ‘infinite’. This ‘dilation’ also creates another effect, as the ‘space’ inside is seen to ‘expand’ so other forces will shrink, as the electromagnetic f ex. That should possibly include gravitation too? As space ‘expands’ as seen inside? So the mass or charge you expect something to have, as measured before sending it through the EV into the Black Hole, will adapt itself to the ‘increased’ space and so from the outsiders view become less. If so that should be an added effect for those 'objects' passing the EV making it impossible for them to ever reach that cores absolute center. This effect is also a clear indication of time/mass creates what I call ‘distances’ a.k.a. dimensions.
Here we will have two ‘sizes’ it seems. Both ‘real’ too, how can space behave like that? If you think about it you might agree with me that if it is a question of ‘shrinking’ then the space inside must be ‘denser’ too? As seen from an outside observer I mean, then it should follow that this space must be more filled with virtual particles per cubic cm ‘space’, perhaps the double, or why not that magical number ‘four’ times the concentration as observed by us. Now, if that was true where did those x:tra virtual particles came from? ‘Stored’ in the black hole? Or from the ‘space’ itself? And if we have ‘two’ measurements of what space is then which one is the ‘correct’ one? . Under what circumstances would you accept this? I suggest, when ‘distance’ only is a relation, would you agree? Another question is how this space might behave. Would it be so that the ‘distances’ are largest closest to the center? And then that space folds out near mass petering out, fading near the EV? And if we to that add the Kerr metric relating to rotating Black Holes we should see those objects taking a rotating path as they move in to that core making the distances incredibly vast. As all Black Holes I heard of seems to rotate, their frame-dragging must be enormous with some of them rotating near the speed of light. The frame-dragging in itself consists of the space outside the EV that gets ‘dragged’ along with the Black holes rotation and so ‘wrapped’ around expanded into itself, somewhat like a rubber-band rotating around an axle will stretch out. And as seen from the inside it would only add to the 'distances' you would perceive.
That is if we assume/pretend that you wouldn't be 'stretched' into pieces by its ‘tidal forces’. Another effect of the spinning is that those Black Holes is ‘alive’ and in fact generates and delivers energy to the outside EV, somewhat like the generator connected to the wheel of your bicycle did before the battery-driven lights came into play. I don’t see this as a ‘two way’ interaction with the Black Hole though, to me it’s SpaceTime itself interacting with that ‘distance less’ reality hiding behind us even though the interaction is created through a ‘singularity’. If you like you could see it as both the Black Hole and ‘Space’ here had one arrow each. The Black holes directed inward towards its ‘core’ in a spiral fashion, with the ‘Space’ around its EV becoming infinitely larger as it is influenced by both the rotational ‘gravity’ as well as by the infinite gravity resting behind that EV. Neither the rotation, nor the core of that Black Hole ‘communicates’ with our SpaceTime ‘information wise’ but the ‘distance less reality’ may do it. You might say that it is one way communications mediated by that hidden reality that somehow balances it out, creating energy from ‘nothing’ a.k.a. Space through ‘virtual photons/particles’, well, in ‘my universe’ that is. Which to me then indicate a ‘rift’ in SpaceTime. I would guess that the possible space hiding behind those Events Horizons might be infinite. That as that space experienced inside will be created both from how space transforms inside our first description of a non-spinning Black Hole. As well as coming from the Black hole spin at near light speed. It will slow down objects immensely as its mere rotation will slow time, and the space outside the EV expanding to with in-falling objects following its gyrating frame-dragging path into the core. I said that I could see the path of the photon as a straightest shortest line no matter how it bends to gravity as defined from our 'outside' observations. This twisting path objects will take in a spinning Black Holes might then to my eyes also be seen as a straight line when observed from the inside. Another fun idea is that the time dilation caused by its spinning at times might be as strong around the edge of the EV as at its core, becoming less as you come in between the EV and the core. And if space becomes infinite near the core? What would that do the ‘gravity’. Yep, I've lost whatever marbles I had left now
---Quote—from ‘basic gravity’ by firstname.lastname@example.org
“A descriptive way of putting it is that mass generates the space it needs to exist. If the universe had only a few kilograms in it, it would be tiny. The reason it is the size it is, is the presence of its mass.”
Another way of describing it is that when a object falls in through the EV it not only compresses according to us outside the EV. It might at some ‘time’ become a Black Hole in itself as it compresses down as observed by our ‘imaginary’ observer. The question then falls to if that ‘space’, as seen from the inside of our original BH growing, will balance this out or not. If it doesn’t you might have more and more Black Holes created inside that Black Hole, each one with their own EV (or possibly ‘bare’ without a EV) created after our original one. And with all of them interacting with each other, with the original one being the ‘strongest infinity’. Does that makes your head hurt? Good, then I’m not alone
What that seems to imply is also that they might never be able to fall into themselves creating those new Black Holes as the gravitation from that original Black hole might hinder our new objects gravitational forces to reach that ‘Schwarzchild radius’ that a Black hole demands, defined as that ‘radius for a given mass where, if that mass could be compressed to fit within that radius, no force could stop it from continuing to collapse’ into a zero size hole which then would be the beginning of a new Black Hole. Also we have all those ‘expanding spaces’. Those ‘expanding spaces’ will be all over that original Black Hole in some scenarios it seems
So either you see that expanding space as an ‘optical illusion’ and then define all rulers as shrinking, or you decide that the ruler in fact keeps its size and that that the growing space is a true phenomena, or you accept both of course, myself I tend to the last one, expressing itself different depending on circumstances. If you do like me there intuitively seems some chance that those effects will work themselves out, allowing our black hole to treat the in-falling objects as objects still and not as Black Holes in themselves. Thus simplifying my understanding of it. on the third tentacle? Even if they are constantly ‘stopped’ becoming Black Holes shouldn’t they still attract each other inside that Black Hole? And if we then decides that the ‘expanded space’ inside the original EV being just an ‘optical illusion’ from our point of view, they would need to reduce their size immensely as to not come into contact with each other, and so create even larger aggregates of “Black hole wannabe’s’? And that seems to imply that they will need to become Black Holes to hinder it? But if space really ‘grows’ on the inside then it may level itself out? Then there could be a mechanism securing that the closer you come to the core the more immense would space become and the further away would that core be from the perspective of that object, remember that as all other forces 'shrunk’, perhaps gravity too will adapt itself to the greater space and become more ‘friendly’ to that object. Then it would mean that no objects ever, can reach that core? But that seems to contradict the idea of no light bouncing, doesn’t it? You might of course see it as light can bounce inside that space but due to the interaction of gravitational ‘force’ and the ‘distances’ created it won’t ever be able to ‘travel’ back. All of this is from the perspective of being inside, from the outside we will see the object as ‘stopping’, unable to move due to the time dilation created between us and the Black Hole. Some say that nothing will reach past the EV before our universe dies as that is where the transition from our universe to that singularity becomes. So perhaps a Black Hole could be habitable as seen from the inside? We will never know though
Another question is of course where its EV would be seen to appear from the in-falling objects frame of reference. If I get it right some propose that you won’t ever reach that Event-Horizon, at least not as seen from the observer. And seen from the in-falling object space would ‘grow’ the closer it got to the Event-Horizon making the EV constantly receding as seen from the in-falling object. As for how that later argument would play itself out I doubt it. It depends on how rigidly you expect a ‘singularity’ to be. Either no information is allowed in and out, but how would it ‘grow’ if so? Virtual particles only? Nah, I believe mass has to reach past the EV in measurable ‘time’ as seen from its own, and the objects, perspective. And if we then state that the observer won’t see it we seem to imply that our universe will be ‘dead’ before it reaches it which also makes no sense to me. Then you would have a ‘entropically’ dead universe on one side and breathing black holes on the other releasing hawking energy, simultaneously in SpaceTime? ”The event horizon is exactly at the Schwarzchild radius. When an object above the Chandresekhar limit starts to collapse, at time zero it has an event horizon radius of zero” and the Chandrasekhar limit is defined as the maximum mass possible for a white dwarf star supported by electron degeneracy pressure, approximately 1.44 times the mass of the Sun and with its lower size around 4 km if I got it right. and anything shrinking into itself further than that will then pass the barrier for a Black Hole reaching that zero size and then start to grow a event horizon as it got feed, creating that expanded space inside it. Yep that’s my headache knocking on my door now, yours too, you say? Well, hallo neighbor.
How about hawking radiation then. Well as far as I found out that is a phenomenon relating to what we call virtual particles. And as they move outside space times restrictions (HUP) they are allowed to be just about anywhere they want, in other terms their 'time span' is to short to impede on our 'reality' except in a 'second hand' manner. And that is what that radiation should be, if so, a second hand reaction. A virtual particle is a description of something possibly existing outside Planck time (and our macroscopic arrow of time) interacting/mediating between all other particles creating the forces and principles we observe acting on invariant mass/rest mass. This it can do with the help of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) allowing it to be existent without it being possible to pinpoint all its properties simultaneously.
Back in 1974, Stephen Hawking showed that black holes shine. According to quantum field theory, pairs of particles constantly pop into existence, recombine and disappear again. These "virtual" particles live on borrowed energy, and they can't exist for very long. But if the particle pair happens to be born just above the event horizon of a black hole, gravity can rip the pair apart. One of the particles falls into the hole while the other half gains some energy, allowing it to zoom off into the cosmos.
Last Edit: 03/10/2009 20:15:55 by yoron
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #18 on:
20/09/2009 17:31:47 »
If that is correct I wonder how one should see that radiation, expressed in that form of ‘information’?
As it is produced by those ‘virtual particles/photons’ that isn’t a part of our arrow of time? For any information exchange to take place, doesn’t it need a localized ‘cause and effect’ exchange inside SpaceTime? If you look at QM and those Feynman diagrams they still share a ‘locality’ inside our SpaceTime, don’t they? No matter which way you interpret them. Of course one could argue that so do this phenomena as those ‘virtual particles’ created ‘products’ are inside SpaceTime as ‘localized phenomena’. But my point here is that then you’re not referring to ‘what’ created the ‘products’, but to the ‘products’ themselves. On the other tentacle, one can as easily question if the idea of ‘locality’ is what is needed to make SpaceTime ‘do work’ considering the idea of ‘virtual photons’ acting as mediators between all forces. That is, from a viewpoint where you consider those ‘mediators’ exchanging ‘information’ between objects. As they can’t really be counted as existing under our arrow of time if I understands it right? And if they don’t ‘exist’ they can not be said to have a ‘locality’ inside it either if you see my drift. Which they don’t seem to care very much about btw. Which also fits nicely in with my current view of '‘non locality'’ a.k.a. ‘no distances' being what we have in ‘reality’. And last but not least, if I’m correct in assuming that all processes goes from the simple to the complex? I’m doing it here in my argumentation, but I won’t swear to it. I can see a possibility of things having a ‘pattern’ telling us one thing at the same ‘time’ as they from another point of view will behave otherwise but still consist of a ‘whole’ like some ‘cause and effect scheme’ but not relating to any known arrow of time, neither two-way or one way. But to keep it simple for me I will argue as if we have. ‘No-way, two-way and then finally our arrow, one-way. ( As my headache otherwise will reach cosmic proportions
But if so, then ‘information’ is an idea resting on something outside our ‘arrow of time’, wouldn’t you agree?
And now for some other weird questions. Maybe Black Holes and photons share the same properties of 'time-less-ness', at least at the core? But then we also have the fact that a Black hole have an ‘infinite’ mass and are the most massive objects existing in our universe as compared to a photon without 'restmass'. How can those definitions exist simultaneously? Having an infinite mass and no time? What the hell is an ‘infinite’ mass anyway? A mass so big it has no end, nothing to limit it? Can that exist inside SpaceTimes arrow? And if the photon and the Black Holes is one possible 'smallest' end-station of 'time' does that mean that this time-relation will express itself differently as it 'grows' spatially to quarks, leptons and electrons, atoms and molecules and... If so 'time' seems to loop doesn't it. We started with a photons 'time-less-ness' and then packed particles together into a black hole to reach the same state of 'time-less-ness'. I think the 'time relations' do change as mass 'grows', a good description of that is a Feynman diagram (sum over histories) in which 'time' can be seen as going both 'backward' and 'forward' when following particles reactions as studied in quantum mechanics. And as a relation 'time' will be a result of the interaction between those, which takes me back to 'energy' and 'geometry'. If I assume that distances and motion is questionable ideas then what is geometry. A definition I found states that it is 'The pure mathematics of points and lines and curves and surfaces'. But without distance can there be a geometry? Well, how about five dimensional geometry, mathematically we can create it and even though I have no idea how a five dimensional chair would look like in 'real life' I believe that they can exist mathematically.
So what then is a dimension? Magnitude or extent...The physical units of a quantity expressed in terms of fundamental quantities like time, mass and length. Take velocity f ex. It has a speed creating a length in time as well as an unwavering direction spatially... Or it can be described as one of three Cartesian coordinates that determine a position in space (length, width, height, XYZ (+ time)).. Those are all definitions of the same object, dimension(s). Can we take away two and leave just one to be the origin? String theory seems to believe so as far as I have understood it, although it is impossible for me to imagine a one-dimensional object. A two-dimensional object I would expect me to be able to see though, from some angles but not from others inside our three-dimensional reality. Like if it contained f ex. 'Height and width' but no length, think about it and you will see what I mean. So what defines dimensions?
Well, how do we express them in SpaceTime. That's right, as length, width and height. And taken each one by itself what does they describe? Yep, distances. But if a dimension is equivalent to a distance, and furthermore if I suggest that distance to me seems a questionable property, then where does that leave dimensions? If 'time' can be seen as a result 'relation' of 'comparisons' between 'frames of reference' can one do the same perhaps with dimensions? As distance is a measure of time and time to me only is a 'relation', neither a flow nor events. And what we experience as microscopically or macroscopically is all aspects of those 'time relations' or if you like, observations between different frames of reference. Which brings me to another point, the observer. To observe...Discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of...To perceive with a special effort of the sense or the mind. Observation's according to some physicists seems to be able to influence outcomes. Strange, isn't it. But what creates the differences we perceive spatially, space and mass and their different seizes. I believe Chaos theory to be a good guide to that, fractals seems to me as good descriptions for how complexity may come out of simple iterations. Also you have what is called bifurcation's in chaos math, that's where a mathematical 'path' suddenly forks into two and you choose one that in its turn suddenly splits into two, of which you choose one that... ad infinitum. In fact that also have a nice resemblance to what we call 'the arrow of time' being the sum of choices or actions or events made.
As far as I know you can't 'backtrack' bifurcation's to their origin after 'n' iterations, they fork at 'random' even though there seems to be certain mathematical constants describing/containing them statistically. 'Times arrow' reminds me of this too, in our impossibility of traversing it backward that is. Now, to me there are at least two ways to look at this. One is seeing 'time' and its 'arrow' as the 'constructor' of occurrences and 'events' in which case we have three dimensions, space and mass, with time being the universes solitary arbiter. Another way could be to see all occurrences and events as already there, and instead of times arrow talk about consciousness as the searchlight lightening them up. Think of SpaceTime as a block of black fluid glass, inside this monolith all that ever was, could be and ever will be is situated, the order of it I will leave aside for the 'moment'. So consciousness could be the 'searchlight', or if you like, a 'fire fly' inside it lightening up its vistas thereby creating this monolith's 'arrow of time'. Or there might be an interaction between consciousness and 'it' giving that 'black glass' a fluid adaptability in which what we call 'now' always will be brought to the forefront of our observation.
Kind of weird I freely admit, and it doesn't explain the commonality of times arrow, the way we all seem to observe the same events taking place. That brings me back to the question of 'taste' and color-perception, what makes us able to agree on 'red' being 'red' and how can geometric shapes (restmass) in SpaceTime like molecules confer 'energy'? We can break down 'red' to a certain 'wavelength' but that doesn't answer how we observe it to be of that certain quality to us, 'redness' if you like, that seems to be the same for us, no matter where you are born or whom you are. If it is our brain that assign a meaning to all those sensations and if we all are unique beings shouldn't those sensations be 'unique 'too? That is, different in perception as it is my unique
mind filtering them. You need to think about this if you want to follow my reasoning here, as that is somewhat of a cornerstone to my wondering. It seems as humans no matter their birth or location still experience the world as being much the same, that we do so to me imply that our individual 'uniqueness' have certain guidelines laid down before them, even before the start of interpreting the 'world'. What this in its turn seems to imply is that there is a 'homogeneity' of perception laid down before our minds get the chance to rationalize 'reality', and that this creates our interpretation of our minds beholdings/impressions'. In fact I believe we need our minds to be structured in just this way to ever be able to observe a 'objective' reality similar for us all that we can agree on.
Consider how it would be if all impressions were of a unique kind, its quality and definition differing in each mind relative that unique minds definitions and interpretations. Then all communications could be expected to break down as no individuals 'inner language/map/perceptions' would be the same. 'Red' to me would be something different from what 'red' would seem to you, no matter its defined 'wavelength'. If so only those kinds of standards would be able to give us a cohesive image to agree around. It would be interesting to know if there has been any research on people that are blind relating to what type of dreams they experience, also if there have been any research done on the perceptions of blind begetting sight. What I do know about it experiments done with f ex. glasses turning the world up side down for the wearer. The eyes actually do so by its very construction from birth but your brain turns it back for you. In those experiments, after wearing the glasses for some days, suddenly the world turned back to 'normal' for those participating but when then removing those glasses they found the world to be up side down again.
Another experiment used mirrors to fool the brain that the right hand was the left and letting the person see a inanimate object ending where his (false) left hand seemed to be. They then tickled that inanimate object with a feather as well as the persons (real) left hand. All of them reported after some time feeling as if this inanimate object belonged to their arm. The brain, on reacting at its visual input decided that the inanimate object truly was a part of its body. That may go to some length explaining how some people 'flies by their pants' as the saying goes and other feats where people seem to intimately associate themselves with the inanimate objects they use. I am thinking of archetypes here and perception. We might say that it all belongs to the quality of our senses being limited by common biological standards making our perceptions similar in quality but I'm still wondering where that ends and 'instinct' takes over. If you see what I'm aiming at you must admit to the strangeness of us all being able to communicate, including all types of communication, words, gestures, mimicking etc etc. And this communication we have is not limited to our own 'kind' solely, we can and will communicate over the 'species borders', our domestic cats and dogs are good examples of that. That most cultures state that animals is somehow inherently different than us human animals is to me just another falsification of reality, probably constructed as we use them as 'things' making the materials for our shoes, filling our plates, etc.
Much of what we seem to know build on inherited 'archetypes', definitions of perception that seem to be laid down before our conscious awareness, and before us starting to manipulating the same. One example of that I know of is a experiment done with newly born babies in where they watch a ball move. Observing (filming) their eye-movements it was found that if you changed the motion of that ball to one breaking the laws of gravity (Going up or suddenly moving horizontally f ex.) their eyes still moved to the expected position where it should be if it had obeyed gravity. It would be interesting to do the same experiment with other animals, puppies
But, I will jump into the unknown here and postulate that there is a common groundwork laid out defining and modifying our perceptions into one mould, before 'intelligence' or 'awareness' etc comes into play making us able to communicate. So how do you 'code' all that information into DNA and the ribonucleic acid? This question also brings me to the definitions we have of mass and space, what is this 'space'? If 'time' is the common nominator of all distances and 'time' change with speed and mass then distance/space is just another relation to 'time'. And mass must belong to it too, 'mass' seems to me more of a geometric definition of a coherence in time, a density observed, perceived to be the same over periods of 'arrow of time' keeping certain qualities to it, agreed on by all before any conscious interpretation ever being made. And we perceive the absence of 'mass' as 'space' which then is a quality of its own, existing as some geometric 'opposite' of 'mass'.
Last Edit: 20/09/2009 21:37:23 by yoron
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #19 on:
20/09/2009 17:32:43 »
When we discuss those relations it also seems to me that one need to see that it's not enough defining ‘A’ relative ‘B’. There is a wider relation hiding in those two, namely the underlying relation of 'SpaceTime' itself. I find it hard to see how we ever isolate ‘A’ meeting ‘B’ without using another 'frame' as a 'background'. You could make a analogue to a paper containing two 'dots' ‘A ‘and ‘B’, then we allow the dots to move on that paper. If they move then the background must be 'unique' right? To expect it otherwise you need to proof that the 'background' belongs to either ‘A’ or ‘B’ and how would you do that? By referring to another 'background' as you would need that to show the 'paper' moving with ‘A’ or ‘B’. What I’m aiming on here is my questioning if there are isolated 'frames' to be defined in 'SpaceTime', or if we when doing so use a 'mind-trick' consisting of arbitrary choosing one definition before another. I don’t say that it is wrong to do so, just that if I want to see SpaceTime as a ‘whole’ then the idea of lifting forward isolated objects from it and acting only on them can be questioned.
SpaceTime seems more like relations of time to me. This brings me to the question of objectiveness. Some say that everything is relative in SpaceTime and while I agree on that to a certain degree I still believe that there is underlying frames of 'coherence' to it. To see how I think here we first need to consider the idea of 'objectivity' (Judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices). Does 'objectivity' exist? Let us consider our perceptions of taste and color. We seem to agree on them being the same, no matter where we were brought up, or religion, or, well, ‘taste’
Is that the same as defining those perceptions as being 'objective'? I don't think so, the most we can say is that there seem to be a set of 'rules' defining and restricting our 'consciousness', before we even start to 'manipulate' the same. And now it sounds as I'm contradicting myself ( So what, I contain a multitude
but I withhold that I expect a collective coherence to SpaceTime making it a 'whole', instead of just being a infinity of 'frames' coexisting. As I see it, to name something truly 'objective' it should be needed to be observed existing totally on its own without any relation to anything else. That is, it needs to be proven to exist in that specific way having those emanations/properties even while no one is observing it, that to me is when it is unknowable. In that motto ‘objectivity', to me at least, only seems to rest in the vicinity of the realm of Gods. The judgements you make just by the way you set up your experiment/observe will influence the outcome. So, to me 'objectivity' is a most difficult concept.
But we mortals still distinguish 'rules' of SpaceTime, like the one relating to 'sequences'. If you have a certain order of events in SpaceTime as observed from two different frames of reference ‘A’ and ‘B’. Then ‘A’ might perceive one event as happening before another and ‘B’ will observe the opposite happening from its frame of reference. Both ‘A’ and ‘B’ agrees on the event(s) happening but not on their consecutive order. This is a result of different 'time' frames of reference for ‘A’ and ‘B’ relative the events (and their background), but there will still be a 'gold standard' hidden behind it helping them to adjust their observations to one 'objectively timed' sequence only. So SpaceTime does not fall out to only being (time)frames coexisting but to something 'whole' wherein we have our direction (arrow of time). Something similar can be observed when considering the photons intrinsical 'timelessness' and the simultaneous fact that they still are expected to move in 'time' coming from 'source' to 'sink'. So defining 'time' as a relation is the most logical way I can think of for the moment. Now consider the idea of a photon having no time 'inside' its 'logical boarder', can that tell me something about reality. I seem to think that 'time' is a relation, doesn't I. Let's take that white paper once more and make a dot on it. The dot will represent a 'photon', that mythical being. The paper will be our 'background' and you will be the 'observer'. Paper (SpaceTime), dot, and you. If all comes down to relations between 'objects/frames of reference' then what rules?
If we could blow up one 'photon' and allow it to represent the whole paper, what are its inherent relations? As far as I understand there can be none at all. That, as it is without time intrinsically. And as it has no 'time’ interacting inside it, it can have no 'size' either according to my views, To have a certain 'size/geometric definiteness' as observed by a observer you need the concept of 'time' working on it, there will be needed to be interactions created by our arrow of time. So if it doesn't have this 'arrow' working inside it, then there can be no 'distance' to it either. But that opens the question of how we can observe 'photons' at all? One possible approach would be to differ between a 'object' itself, on its own, and possible interactions creating an ‘object’ as the observer/detector 'observes' it. Objects existing ‘on their own’ could then be those that you trust to be there tomorrow too, like invariant mass. Matter have this ‘arrow of time’ for us interacting with it and even on a quantum mechanical level there is a coherence to it in its ‘cause and effect chains’. Then again, couldn't everything we 'know' be seen as a result of 'interactions' and nothing be said to exist solely on its own? No not really, not for us at least, there must be ‘something’ creating what we deem the most probable outcome, like if you send a laser beam directed to a detector I will expect that coherent, very narrowly defined beam of photons to have a limited ‘locality’ spatially and finally impact on the detector.
And it will, if we would place detectors spatially ‘otherwise’ they will not ‘detect’ it. So even if I say that there is nothing existing, except as a ‘probability’ between source and sink, and furthermore not existing even though we can limit/narrow it down ever so much, as we did by using a laser beam. I still have to consider what this ‘something’ is limiting that beams ‘path’. Playing with concepts I might say that this photon to me seems more like a 'hole' in SpaceTime than something truly 'there'. But if time is relations between objects what is those objects then? One opposite I might call photons and 'rest mass’ Why I didn't name it space and mass this time? that goes back to my ideas of distances, space has it, photons doesn't. Inside SpaceTime space and matter do seem like opposite ‘objects’ but when considering something as ‘foreign’ as photons? Then mass and space becomes much the same to me. And space has a higher 'probability' of interactions spatially in time than our photon ever will have. That is what makes space something 'physical', even though 'immaterial', as I see it and possible to traverse by us. Photons are mass-less, point-like ‘particles’ intrinsically without size and without time. 'Empty' space on the other hand seems seething with virtual particles and energy, constantly creating 'mass' out of 'nothing' and disappearing it again and containing 'distances'.
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #20 on:
20/09/2009 17:33:25 »
But there is a strangeness to our photon. Having no time intrinsically, still observed in time. Without acceleration, still moving 'fastest' of all. Having no size, yet possible to define inside the observers 'time' as singular 'objects'. And as a wave, everywhere at the same 'time'.
So, what do you think?
Does a 'perfect vacuum' contain 'something'?
I say it contain what we call 'distances'?
Will it continue to contain that when we stop observing?
To my knowledge it will, as we can find them the same between measurements/observations.
A photon then, does it exist without our observing?
Well, we are basing them on sources and sinks, ain't we?
And if they have a source (Sun) and a sink (you) shouldn’t they be able to exist even between them?
So there you have something containing no 'distance' in itself, existing without 'time', agelessly if you like, but still possible to define as singular 'objects' as soon as we take notice of them. Let me ask you, how can something without 'distance' in itself be said to 'move'?
Take a paper, let's say one light-year large
Put that photon on its furthest edge.
Use your imaginary billiard cue to give it that 'push'.
How long will it take to move the whole paper?
A light-year you say?
But if it has no size.
How can it be said to move at all?
And if we jump into its 'timeless' state intrinsically.
How long would it take, as seen from that photons perspective, to 'move' over that paper?
No 'time' at all I say.
In fact I would describe that photon from its own perspective to be everywhere in SpaceTime at all observable 'time'. Or nowhere as that would be as true.
So have it really 'moved'?
And does it really have a 'boundary'?
Or maybe the right question should be.
When does it have a 'boundary'?
Also I need to point out that all definition I use, ever so loosely for particles and photons becomes even worse when defined mathematically. That as they all build on a statistical interpretations as I understands it, created from the observers approximations made for the task at hand. To know one particle you would need more information than what you can find and it also seems closely related to the idea of entropy.
Knowing a particular electron intimately is infinitely precious. A pure state of an electron is defined by its wave function (up to a phase). Thus knowing all about an electron requires in the traditional interpretation to know all about this wave function an infinite amount of information.
How is this notion of information related to information in terms of
Informally, entropy is often equated with information, but this is not
correct - entropy is _missing_ information!
More precisely, in the statistical interpretation, the state belongs
not to a single particle but to an ensemble of particles.
Entropy measures the amount of information missing for a complete
probabilistic description of a system.
Entropy is the mean number of binary questions that must be asked in
an optimal decision strategy to determine the state of a particular
realization given the state of the ensemble to which it belongs.
------------End quote---A theoretical physics FAQ--
Seen so what I’m doing here might easily be a travesty and assault on the concept of ‘information’. On the other hand, as I avoid knowing almost all of that information needed and then generalize my views building on generalizations made before me? I just might steer right according to that ancient principle ‘two wrongs make one right’. Or was it ‘two wrongs won’t make one right’?
The question I might ask here is this. If you can’t ever know all parameters for any given system, not even such a ‘small’ one as a particle, are we sure we are defining them right? I’m wondering if they exist in fact? In a way they must do, just like that ‘photon/wave’ but when trying to observe them we looses sight of them, and the closer we try to come defining them, the more information seems to be missing. On the other hand, we all know that there are no such thing as a ‘simple’ particle. HUP and mathematical ‘infinities’ makes sure of that. I don’t need theoretical physics to see that one. If there would be a 'law' steering the ‘simple’ toward the ‘complex ‘then that law also would need to rest inside 'time'. On the other hand this universe to me seems more and more to in ‘reality’ working just the opposite way. What we call ‘small’ like those particles is infinite in their possible variations but when they add up to ‘invariant mass’ they become much less ‘fuzzy’, do you agree? So maybe we have it backwards, why would the ‘picture’ become clearer to us as more ‘restmass’ is added to a object, or SpaceTime? Well, up to the point of a Black Holes, that is?
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #21 on:
20/09/2009 17:34:34 »
Do you remember that I wondered what a electron was, and its ‘vibrations’.
A bare electron is the formal entity discussed in textbooks when they do perturbative quantum electrodynamics. The intuitive picture generally given is that a bare electron is surrounded
by a cloud of virtual photons and virtual electron-positron pairs to make up a physical, 'dressed' electron. Only the latter is real and observable. The former is a formal caricature of the latter,
with paradoxical properties (infinite mass, etc.).
On a more substantial level, the observable electrons are produced from the bare electrons by a process called renormalization, which modifies the propagators by self-energy terms and the currents by form factors. As the name says, the latter define the 'form' of a particle. (In the above picture, it would correspond
to the shape of the virtual cloud, though it is better to avoid giving the virtual particles too much of meaning.)
The dressed object is the renormalized, physical object, described perturbatively as the bare object 'clothed' by the cloud of virtual particles. The dressed interaction is the 'screened' physical interaction between these dress objects.
To draw an analogy in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics think of nuclei as bare atoms, electrons as virtual particles, atoms as dressed nuclei and the residual interaction between atoms, computed in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, as the dressed interaction. Thus, for Argon atoms, the dressed interaction is
something close to a Lennard-Jones potential, while the bare interaction is Coulomb repulsion. This is the situation physicists had in mind when they invented the notions of bare and dressed particles.
---------End of quote---A theoretical physics FAQ-
The point here is that word ‘renormalization’. What it states is that we need to make approximations, adapting all our information to fit an already defined form as I see it. And the reason we do it is that we then get a easier ‘understood’ physical reality, more seamlessly fitting as I understands it? Do we really need that?
In quantum field theory, the statistical mechanics of fields, and the theory of self-similar geometric structures, renormalization refers to a collection of techniques used to take a continuum limit.
When describing space and time as a continuum, certain statistical and quantum mechanical constructions are ill defined. In order to define them, the continuum limit has to be taken carefully.
Renormalization determines the relationship between parameters in the theory, when the parameters describing large distance scales differ from the parameters describing small distances. Renormalization was first developed in quantum electrodynamics (QED) to make sense of infinite integrals in perturbation theory. Initially viewed as a suspect, provisional procedure by some of its originators, renormalization eventually was embraced as an important and self-consistent tool in several fields of physics and mathematics.
To give any meaning at all to a quantum field theory one must first regulate it, by in effect removing from the theory all states having energies much larger than some cutoff . With a cutoff in place one is no longer plagued by infinities in calculations of the scattering amplitudes and other properties of the theory. For example, integrals over loop momenta in perturbation theory are cut off around and thus are well defined. However the cutoff seems very artificial. The use of a cutoff apparently contradicts the notion, developed above, that the short-distance structure of the theory is important to the long-distance behavior; with the cutoff one is throwing away the short-distance structure. Furthermore it’s a new and artificial parameter in the theory. Thus it is traditional to remove the cutoff by taking it to infinity at the end of any calculation. This last step is the source of much of the mystery in the renormalization procedure, and it now appears likely that this last step is also a wrong step in the non perturbative analysis of many theories, including QED.
------What is Renormalization? By G.Peter Lepage----
Here is a somewhat more intricate explanation.
Early in the history of quantum field theory, it was found that many seemingly innocuous calculations, such as the perturbative shift in the energy of an electron due to the presence of the electromagnetic field, give infinite results. The reason is that the perturbation theory for the shift in an energy involves a sum over all other energy levels, and there are infinitely many levels at short distances which each give a finite contribution.
Many of these problems are related to failures in classical electrodynamics that were identified but unsolved in the 19th century, and they basically stem from the fact that many of the supposedly "intrinsic" properties of an electron are tied to the electromagnetic field which it carries around with it. The energy carried by a single electron—its self energy—is not simply the bare value, but also includes the energy contained in its electromagnetic field, its attendant cloud of photons. The energy in a field of a spherical source diverges in both classical and quantum mechanics, but as discovered by Weisskopf, in quantum mechanics the divergence is much milder, going only as the logarithm of the radius of the sphere.
The solution to the problem, presciently suggested by Stueckelberg, independently by Bethe after the crucial experiment by Lamb, implemented at one loop by Schwinger, and systematically extended to all loops by Feynman and Dyson, with converging work by Tomonaga in isolated postwar Japan, is called renormalization. The technique of renormalization recognizes that the problem is essentially purely mathematical, that extremely short distances are at fault. In order to define a theory on a continuum, first place a cutoff on the fields, by postulating that quanta cannot have energies above some extremely high value. This has the effect of replacing continuous space by a structure where very short wavelengths do not exist, as on a lattice. Lattices break rotational symmetry, and one of the crucial contributions made by Feynman, Pauli and Villars, and modernized by 't Hooft and Veltman, is a symmetry preserving cutoff for perturbation theory. There is no known symmetrical cutoff outside of perturbation theory, so for rigorous or numerical work people often use an actual lattice.
On a lattice, every quantity is finite but depends on the spacing. When taking the limit of zero spacing, we make sure that the physically-observable quantities like the observed electron mass stay fixed, which means that the constants in the Lagrangian defining the theory depend on the spacing. Hopefully, by allowing the constants to vary with the lattice spacing, all the results at long distances become insensitive to the lattice, defining a continuum limit.
The renormalization procedure only works for a certain class of quantum field theories, called renormalizable quantum field theories. A theory is perturbatively renormalizable when the constants in the Lagrangian only diverge at worst as logarithms of the lattice spacing for very short spacings.
--------End of quote---
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #22 on:
20/09/2009 17:35:39 »
Do you remember that I wondered before about Planck length?
In that quote there came that line stating
" In particle physics and physical cosmology, the Planck scale is an energy scale around 1.22 × 1028 eV (which corresponds by the mass–energy equivalence to the Planck mass 2.17645 × 10−8 kg) at which quantum effects of gravity become strong. At this scale, the description of sub-atomic particle interactions in terms of quantum field theory breaks down (due to the non-renormalizability of gravity).
So you can’t ‘renormalize’ Gravity, interesting
And renormlization came from QED (quantum electrodynamics) right?
Which then is " the statistical mechanics of fields, and the theory of self-similar geometric structures, renormalization refers to a collection of techniques used to take a continuum limit. When describing space and time as a continuum, certain statistical and quantum mechanical constructions are ill defined. In order to define them, the continuum limit has to be taken carefully. "
Ok, so we set 'judicial self-elected brakes ' (Sounds nice) on physical processes to make those become finite (view/defin-able?), instead of infinite if I got that right, right
" The problem of infinities first arose in the classical electrodynamics of point particles "
Where the equations made showed that the outcome of mass-energy inside a electrostatic field of mass created by a charged particle would become smaller than the Compton wavelength of the electron.
Now, what the heck is a 'Compton wave length'?
" The Compton wavelength can be thought of as a fundamental limitation on measuring the position of a particle, taking quantum mechanics and special relativity into account. This depends on the mass m \ of the particle. To see this, note that we can measure the position of a particle by bouncing light off it - but measuring the position accurately requires light of short wavelength. Light with a short wavelength consists of photons of high energy. If the energy of these photons exceeds mc^2 \ , when one hits the particle whose position is being measured the collision may have enough energy to create a new particle of the same type. This renders moot the question of the original particle's location. This argument also shows that the Compton wavelength is the cutoff below which quantum field theory– which can describe particle creation and annihilation – becomes important. "
Ok I can see that below the Compton wave length we fall down the hole of Quantum Field Theory
Where " photons are not thought of as 'little billiard balls', they are considered to be field quanta - necessarily chunked ripples in a field that 'look like' particles. Fermions, like the electron, can also be described as ripples in a field, where each kind of fermion has its own field. In summary, the classical visualization of "everything is particles and fields", in quantum field theory, resolves into "everything is particles", which then resolves into "everything is fields". In the end, particles are regarded as excited states of a field (field quanta). "
So here there will be only fields with 'ripples' according to this idea?
And where does our ‘arrow of time’ fit?
How does it grow from that ‘field ripples’?
And what are its ‘distances/dimensions’?
- - Quote--
Physicist Johan Prins, from the University of Pretoria, South Africa, says that both prior to, and after, the introduction of quantum mechanics, a fundamental problem has persisted. “Classical electrodynamics required that the electron should be modeled as a point-particle, but when they tried to model the electron as a particle with a radius, inconsistencies arose,” explains Prins. Niggling problems with electrons are nothing new, and Feynman himself acknowledged this in The Feynman Lectures on Physics II. One of the biggest problems, says Prins, is that: “today’s electron-electron scattering experiments indicate that the electron’s radius could be infinitesimally small, which causes the energy of the electric field around the electron to be infinitely large.” So in order to avoid completely nonsensical answers, a mathematical procedure called renormalization was introduced to remove infinity from equations, so that scientists could find a workable answer to their calculations rather than what amounted to gibberish. Prins states that this: “procedure has become such an inherent part of all quantum field theories, that at present the ‘renormalizability of a theory’ is accepted as proof that the theory is realistic.”
Prins believes that renormalization provides a distorted view of reality, which is worrying, as physicists have relied on renormalization to inform much of their research, including attempts to reconcile the quantum and classical worlds in order to arrive at the coveted Theory of Everything (TOE). According to Prins, it is not the mathematics that is wrong with quantum mechanics, nor quantum mechanics itself. Rather, it is what physicists assume they are analyzing and measuring that is erroneous. “The electron is not a particle with uncertainties in position and momentum, but a holistic wave that occupies space,” argues Prins. “The uncertainties describe the size of the wave in position and wave-vector spaces. These sizes can morph instantaneously when the boundary conditions change. Furthermore, a photon can merge with such a wave [entangle] to form another electron-wave with a higher energy. It is such instantaneous entanglement that corresponds to a quantum jump.” So, according to Prins, an electron is a wave; not a particle, or even a particle with wave-duality. “There are only waves which can instantaneously morph to occupy a large space [delocalize] or a smaller space [localize] and then act as if it is a particle owing to Gauss' law being applicable,” he said.
Now, here we find another approach to reality
Calling that wave ‘holistic’ being everywhere at the same time defining itself at our observation or as its ‘boundary conditions change’. I like the idea of it being ‘indeterminable’ as that fits right into my view too, and boundary conditions is a very nice way of putting it relating to my question of ‘observers’ for me. But my point-like ? point
though, differing from this is that you can’t have any objects defined, ever. What we have is more like a kind of ‘shadow play’ where that dimensionless ‘times’ smallest? constituents will act upon ‘stimuli’ creating geometrical forms and distances to us, but not through anything resembling our arrow of time. So I take it one ‘crazy step’ further I guess
On the other hand this ‘holistic’ idea seems quite near a ‘distance less’ universe. And I’m agreeing to questioning the idea of renormalization. A TOE built on generalizing information to make it fit seems like a dangerous choice to make as it either says that to much information is a bad thing, even though I can agree on that at times, or that the information ‘not fitting’ then somehow must be wrong. Of course it could be a problem resting on your choice of mathematical interpretation too, like those parallel lines that always will meet in the end, according to that faultless theorem. So what we describe mathematically by our renormalization may be our exact universe but as we are using a subtly wrong math for it, if followed describing a universe where nothing ‘stops’ and all seems to go to infinities of possibilities sooner or later, we then are forced to ‘limit’ our possibilities. Or it could be so that the math without that renormalization is the perfect correct one for this SpaceTime and it’s us that misses out on the meal, so to speak, not seeing the reality of it at all. Feynman is told to have expressed it this way: "Renormalization is like having a toilet in your house. Everyone knows it's there, but you don't talk about it."
As for needing to ‘dress’ electrons?
What we have is something existing defined as being part of a larger ‘system’ called an atom. It need the properties we give it to explain the properties of that system and its/their possible interactions with other systems growing as we work our way up macroscopically, but not to a more complex view, rather a more unified with clear ‘edges’ macroscopically. If what we have is instant continuos ‘materialization’s’ or ‘disturbances’ of our space creating what we see as part of a ‘rest mass’ (electron) then I would expect that we will find it ill-defined, it may not be a part of our ‘arrow of time’, perhaps its ‘transitions’ lies on that scale just over virtual particles? And so ‘flickers’ and behaves ‘indeterminate’ containing infinities of definitions. It can’t be defined as a particle mathematically as it won’t adapt to having any ‘still’ ‘edges/contour’ to it though it to us should have just that, as we see it as a part of invariant mass. If my idea makes sense then I expect objects ‘edges’ to become simpler and clearer to define as they grow macroscopically. And our Black holes is where macroscopic objects breaks down into ‘infinities’ again. But how can a ‘relation’ become mass, doesn't it need something 'material' producing it? In chaos-math there is this idea of 'the mystical attractor' which consists of a consistent area in the observers time containing nothing in itself yet attracting all 'events' around it, or if you like, defined as ‘something’ observable due to the agitation (events) surrounding and defining it. That 'attractor' seems to me similar to my idea of 'time-relations' creating what we call 'mass' and photons, and creating the 'boundaries' defining them. By excluding the idea of 'mass' as something on its own and instead describe it as interactions of time meeting time, creating boundaries, density and geometry as observed by us I come to a much stranger image of our world but, hopefully so that is, a more coherent one.
But it doesn't explain free will and its consequences, like you deciding that 'I
won't read a word more of this freewheeling BS ... Ah hmm, well..
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #23 on:
20/09/2009 17:36:34 »
One simple description I found illuminating this is that of a photon, either moving vertically towards an object of mass like our Earth, or horizontally passing it by. It is proved that the photons 'relative mass' will be roughly twice as large for the horizontally passing photon as when compared to it going 'down' vertically impacting on Earth. This is due to the fact that the gravitational attraction between two relativistic bodies is not related to their 'energy contents' solely but also to their energy-momentum tensors. (It is this 'factor of two' that gives the correct 'deflection angle' for starlight passing, bending themselves around our sun). This also illuminates the concept of 'mass' as something not necessarily intrinsical in the object but better described as being a 'relation'. I know that some might see the 'photon' as having an intrinsic 'rest mass', but I don't, I see it as a 'momentum' created by the rule of its 'movement' and differ between momentum and rest mass. Another point that need to be made here is that even though I believe photons to be mass-less it seems that they still can 'transfer' what we define as invariant mass or rest mass. As long as the receiving end of that photons momentum is massive enough so that its kinetic recoil becomes negligible. If that is true somehow the interference by something outside our 'arrow of time' (virtual photons?) will mediate’ momentum’ to something measurable inside our 'arrow of time’. Remember that it is 'relations' we are discussing here created by different 'frames', as observed by you. So if you have two objects 'A' and 'B' attracting or repulsing each other as observed by you, where exactly is this strange thing that I name the 'relation'. Can we say that the force(s) belong to 'A' or 'B' or should we say that it/they belongs to both? Or to neither??
In physics there is a word used to arbitrary define objects and relations as a ‘whole’, ‘unified concept’. It's called a 'system', can we define ‘A’ and ‘B’ and their, ah, insidious relation(s) as being a 'system' observed by you? I think we can even though I find the idea of 'systems' very vague to me. Probably there exist a definition that make more sense than what I have made here
as I feel that my notion(s) of it still doesn't pinpoint what a ‘system’ really is. As it is now though I would like to look at it, when defined as a 'system', as if those relations takes place at all 'points' in what ever ‘system’ we have defined, in various degrees depending on what the forces acting between the objects is and the 'distances' involved. In fact I would like to suggest that this is what all relations is, something taking place to various degrees between two different 'frames/objects' as observed by a ‘observer’. I will discuss the concept of ‘observers’ and how I see that concept later. A ‘relation’ is very like a mysterious attractor in chaos math, there without one being able to 'pinpoint' to its location at any stage. As we all know if having a relation
Another way to see it is to incorporate HUP in it (Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle). HUP states that it will be impossible for any observer to measure both energy and time (or position and momentum) completely accurately at the same time for any frame/object in SpaceTime.
And I would expect it to have far-reaching consequences if HUP would be seen as a general rule applying to all objects, subatomic as well as macroscopic, if believing some physicists ongoing research. But as a object gains 'size' the uncertainty of its constituents momentum's and simultaneous positions doesn't add up and increase as I might expect thinking of all that inherent fuzziness, instead they seem to take each other out, with what we finally observe becoming quite ‘sharp’ and easy to define spatially. Take some time to ponder how our SpaceTime might look if uncertainties instead did 'add up' macroscopically, why , my teacup might be situated at my navel instead of my mouth if so, or worse, at both locations simultaneously. But if that macroscopic object (teacup) constituents would be observed at a quantum level its momentum's/positions still wouldn't be possible to define simultaneously, no matter how sharp your instruments are, ever. Some want to believe this theory (HUP) to be hanging on the impossibility of creating 'instruments' good/sharp enough to observe both at the same time, but that, as far as I know, is wrong. There is, and always will be, an impossibility of pertaining both information's at the exact same position in space and time, with the possible exception of when they are observed macroscopically at which 'time' that fuzziness seems to become unobservable.
But turn it around, what does this say about what ‘really’ builds itself up to us? Doesn’t that phenomena need to ‘see’ what it is doing? There should be some way to relate to it. Somehow all ‘forces’ we have defined works, right. They are consistent and repeatable, even when not observable more than as theories, renormalized or not. This states to me that if it can be built it should be able to pick apart somehow. Even if what we find on that ‘level’ to be nothing we can know, we should still be able to see its ‘principles’ of building. And that is what I think we should try for. So what do HUP tell me about distance and the possibility of 'pinpointing' anything? That it's all about relations and 'sliding realities', no 'objective' truths involved. And if you can't isolate/pinpoint a object in SpaceTime without its outlines/geometry becoming fuzzy/doubtful it must mean something.
Going back to our own universe we have photons quarks leptons like electrons atoms molecules at all times interacting, each one I assume to having their own 'time density' showing itself by what and how you choose to observe and 'restrict' your 'system'. Think about it, you as a person have one defined 'time density/ clock tick' even though the 'time density/clock tick' for your molecules quarks etc should be otherwise depending on size, relative speed and your focus of observation. Then it may also be so that when we are on those holy grounds of quarks electrons etc that they don’t interact as we expect at all. As seems to be the case with the electron. And if so perhaps my idea of Plank size being the border for observable ‘restmass’ was a little to hasty. If it is the cause that all particles in that atom needs to be renormalized? Then maybe all of them rests on that indeterminate border of ‘infinities’ or as I see it, on that ‘distance less’ ‘dimension’. To describe a wave as something without any specific location can be seen two ways it seems, for me. You can accept this universe to be really really big
and then those waves as being as big or ‘bigger’ Or you might see it as size don’t ‘exist’ as all waves might rest super imposed on our universe, according to Johan Prins from the University of Pretoria. To me the later example makes more sense. I told you I was. . ., didn’t I?
Why, well it fits my universe, to me it seems more a matter of questioning the idea of ‘distance’ and its constant companion ‘arrow of time’ to turn things right. I choose to do it using time as the common nominator as I see that arrow of time as what creates a living universe. Mass alone can’t do it as ‘mass’ won’t exist without our ‘arrow of time’, neither can space. But when I introduce my idea of ‘distances’ as being something questionable I also need to ask myself what would allow something without ‘distance’ to be able to act ‘everywhere’ in SpaceTime. If distance doesn’t exist then his idea of a wave imposed on a whole universe seems like some ‘mirrored’ description to me. Making as much sense as my idea although as I understands it not discussing the same ‘predecessors’ as I choose. But as I’m a layman to me things need to make ‘sense’ even without the math if I want to understand it. And so to suffice my curiosity I might have to question the way I’ve tried to describe it as two, more or less, separate ‘reality’s’ communicating here. Perhaps that would be wrong then perhaps it is ‘one’, not two realities, and perhaps ‘distance’ ‘cut us of’ from that true experience. I’m almost religious now, ain’t I? To me it’s still a play with concepts so don’t worry, yet. Could there be some ‘rule’ covering both particles and photons, allowing them this ‘step through’ from nothingness to SpaceTime? As it seems to crave one for us, merely living inside that ‘arrow of time’. And as I said before, I hope? That what I see as creating those different ‘realities, ‘sizes’ and complexities’ to be something similar to a ‘fractal behavior’.
There you are, all problems solved. Send me that Nobel prize.. Sorry, another bad joke.. But I believe that it is our arrow that creates a ‘time direction’ creating a possibility for those ‘shimmering’ indeterminate particles and photons to maintain a continuity and clotting into ‘restmass’, then growing into ‘invariant mass’ creating what we see as distances in the process, ending with creating evermore complexity like the idea of life and from there the idea of Ethics, ‘right and wrong’ and ‘God(s)’. If that would be right it truly is a ‘information space’ opening itself, unfolding into ever more complexity. One more crazy thought, what if the ‘end process’ would be ‘SpaceTime’ admiring itself? And then also, according to this view having done so at all ‘times’ as at on that ‘strata’ what we see as our ‘times arrow’ has no meaning. That one is disturbing though as it seems to imply a ‘clock-work’ predefined for us, so it’s probably wrong. Or it might be that it’s ‘admiring’ all possible outcomes simultaneously in which case ‘many paths’ is what we have? Forget it, just me wondering
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #24 on:
20/09/2009 17:38:03 »
Another thing, if you would see this as ‘information’ then I might as easily ask you if that space inside the Black Hole then will contain more information as it has ‘grown’ as seen from the inside and in fact from the outside too, if you accept that your ‘shrinking’ ruler will be restored when lifted out from inside that EV. You might ask if this ‘growing space’, if it is a result of ‘invariant mass’ then somehow will have used ‘information’ from the Black Hole itself? Is that possible? Shouldn’t everything have only one direction here, pointing to the Black holes core? As ‘information’ seemed to be locked to our ‘arrow of time’ when we considered photons and FTL. So if that space has ‘grown’ it cant be because of what we deem as any normal type of ‘energy’ can it? Contained in our arrow of time, but ‘virtual photons’ are still outside it, right? But gravity in itself will point the same way as the objects traveling its geodesics? Or am I getting this backwards? Do gravity walk one way and energy and restmass the other? But if it all comes from something without ‘distances’ expressing itself in every ‘point’ of our ‘macroscopic SpaceTime’? And the rules then as a effect of some fractal behavior? And ‘distances’ a ‘lie’?
I told you I was. . .
If that was right whatever decisions we make will become even more important it seems to me. What we define our ‘free will’ will then be the ‘searchlight’ through times ‘monolith’ creating our art. Ethics becomes incomparably important then to me, you might wonder if the idea of this ‘beholding’ the universe might be indulging itself in have some importance. I don’t know, but I would prefer that ‘art’ we create to be something I can feel relaxed with, all said and done, not refugee camps and starving, concentration camps and genocide, but something more pleasing to the eye and senses.
Maybe that ‘monolith’ contains all chains of cause and effect as well as all ‘time’? If that is correct then all possible outcomes exist, and what you think you lost might still be there. And our ‘arrow of time’ also create a coherence to our individual ‘free will ‘as we all are bound to the same ‘arrow of time’. This ‘stream’ if you will, taking us in with it, not excluding that other streams might exist. And the problem of which ‘arrow of time’ then should be seen as ‘most right’ is simple. The one I’m in of course
Why? Well that’s the one I will know, ain’t it? It reminds me of ‘many paths’ scenarios in which all ‘acts/actions/processes’ should ‘bifurcate/split’ into different universes, constantly creating new ones. But it could as easy be so that this ‘monolith’, although containing all possible acts and consequences, only realize the time-line we actualize.
Like before consciousness coming, purposely choosing one action before another, SpaceTime just was a ‘mechanical universe’ going through interactions but not really ‘splitting’ up, like a still image containing it all but not ‘realizing’ any of it. I’m not sure I’m expressing this right though. Think of it as a holographic image containing everything but having no need to present a different view until you start to move .And if that’s the fact then our ‘art’ of living won’t be able to find the consolation that on that other ‘time-line’ everything went ‘well’. And if that is true, your choice of living becomes even more important, well, if you like good art
That is.. And as your 'time density' is more or less the same as mine. And as our planet share a 'time density' with the solar system and that with our galaxies, ad infinitum. They all seem to exist there simultaneously seamlessly, giving different answers depending on your resolution and choice of comparison. But we change SpaceTime by our choices.
So you think I’m weird do you
Can’t blame you.
Take a look at this though. And remember, it all started with HUP..
In 1976 Leggett left Sussex on teaching exchange to the University of Science and Technology in Kumasi, the second largest city in Ghana. For the first time in many years, he had free time to really think, but the university's library was woefully out of date. Leggett decided to work on an idea that didn't require literature because few had thought about it since David Bohm: nonlocal hidden variables theories. He found a result, filed the paper in a drawer, and didn't think about it again until the early 2000s.
Leggett doesn't believe quantum mechanics is correct, and there are few places for a person of such disbelief to now turn. But Leggett decided to find out what believing in quantum mechanics might require. He worked out what would happen if one took the idea of nonlocality in quantum mechanics seriously, by allowing for just about any possible outside influences on a detector set to register polarizations of light. Any unknown event might change what is measured. The only assumption Leggett made was that a natural form of realism hold true; photons should have measurable polarizations that exist before they are measured. With this he laboriously derived a new set of hidden variables theorems and inequalities as Bell once had. But whereas Bell's work could not distinguish between realism and locality, Leggett's did. The two could be tested.
When Aspelmeyer returned to Vienna, he grabbed the nearest theorist he could find, Tomasz Paterek, whom everyone calls "Tomek." Tomek was at the IQOQI on fellowship from his native Poland and together, they enlisted Simon Gröblacher, Aspelmeyer's student. With Leggett's assistance, the three spent six months painfully checking his calculations. They even found a small error. Then they set about recasting the idea, with a few of the other resident theorists, into a form they could test. When they were done, they went to visit Anton Zeilinger. The experiment wouldn't be too difficult, but understanding it would. It took them months to reach their tentative conclusion: If quantum mechanics described the data, then the lights' polarizations didn't exist before being measured. Realism in quantum mechanics would be untenable.
---------End of quote-------------
Yeah? So what??
Well, the question asked in this experiment is stated as.. Do we create the world just by looking at it? Is there a ‘objective reality’ existing before your experiments or are they ‘created’ by the way you look at them. And the reasoning behind it all goes like this..
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #25 on:
20/09/2009 17:38:46 »
According to Bohr every measuring device affects what it is used to observe. The quantum world is discrete and so there can never be absolute precision during a measurement. To know about quantum mechanics, we rely on classical devices. To Bohr this implied that the hierarchy between observer and observed had no meaning; they were nonseparable. Concepts once thought to be mutually exclusive, such as waves and particles, were also complements. The difference was only language.
By contrast Einstein was a realist who believed in a world independent of the way it is measured. During a set of conferences at the Hotel Metropole in Brussels, he and Bohr argued famously over the validity of quantum mechanics and Einstein presented a number of thought experiments intended to show the theory incorrect. But when Bohr used Einstein's own theory of relativity to evade one of these thought experiments, Einstein was so stung he never tried to disprove quantum mechanics again, though he continued to criticize it.
In 1935, from an idyllic corner of New Jersey, Einstein and two young collaborators began a different assault on quantum mechanics. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) did not question the theory's correctness, but rather its completeness. More than the notion that god might play dice, what most bothered Einstein were quantum mechanics' implications for reality. As Einstein prosaically inquired once of a walking companion, "Do you really believe that the moon exists only when you look at it?"
The EPR paper begins by asserting that there's a real world outside theories. "Any serious consideration of a physical theory must take into account the distinction between the objective reality, which is independent of any theory, and the physical concepts with which the theory operates." If quantum mechanics is complete, then "every element of physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory." EPR argued that objects must have preexisting values for measurable quantities and that this implied that certain elements of reality could not be determined by quantum mechanics.
They claim that given a specific experiment, in which the outcome of a measurement could be known before the measurement takes place, there must exist something in the real world, an "element of reality", which determines the measurement outcome. They postulate that these elements of reality are local, in the sense that they belong to a certain point in spacetime. This element may only be influenced by events which are located in the backward light cone of this point in spacetime. Even though these claims sound reasonable and convincing, they are founded on assumptions about nature which constitute what is now known as local realism.
----end of quote-)
Einstein and his colleagues imagined two electrons that collide and fly apart. After the collision the electrons exist in a state of superposition of the possible values for their momenta. Mathematically and physically, it makes no sense to say that either electron has a definite momentum independent of the other before measurement; they are "entangled." But when one electron's momentum is measured, the value of the other's is instantly known and the superpositions collapse. Once the momentum is known for a particle, we cannot measure its position. This element of reality is denied us by the uncertainty principle. Even stranger is that this occurs even when the electrons fly vast distances apart before measurement. Quantum mechanics still describes the electrons as a single system across space. Einstein could never stomach that an experiment at one electron would instantaneously affect the other.
(Yep, that’s right, without believing in it they defined/discovered ‘entanglement’:)
In Copenhagen Bohr began an immediate response. It didn't matter if particles might affect one another over vast distances, or that particles had no observable properties before they are observed. As Bohr later said, "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description." Physicists' discourse on reality began just as the world slid inexorably toward war. During WWII physicists once interested in philosophy worried about other issues. David Bohm, however, did worry. After the war Bohm was a professor at Princeton, where he wrote a famous textbook on quantum mechanics. Einstein thought it was the best presentation of quantum mechanics he had read, and when Bohm began to challenge the theory, Einstein said, "If anyone can do it, then it will be Bohm."
In 1952, during the Red Scare, Bohm moved to Brazil. There he discovered a theory in which a particle's position was determined by a "hidden variable" even when its momentum was absolutely known. To Bohm reality was important, and so to preserve it, he was willing to abandon locality and accept that entangled particles influenced one another over vast distances. However, Bohm's hidden variables theory made the same predictions as quantum mechanics, which already worked.
In America Bohm's theory was ignored. But when the Irishman John Bell read Bohm's idea, he said, "I saw the impossible done." Bell thought hidden variables might show quantum mechanics incomplete. Starting from Bohm's work, Bell derived another kind of hidden variables theory that could make predictions different from those of quantum mechanics. The theories could be tested against one another in an EPR-type experiment. But Bell made two assumptions that quantum mechanics does not; the world is local (no distant influences) and real (preexisting properties). If quantum mechanics were correct, one or both of these assumptions were false, though Bell's theorem could not determine which.
Bell's work on local hidden variables theory stirred little interest until the 1970s, when groups lead by John Clauser, Abner Shimony, and others devised experimental schemes in which the idea could be tested with light's polarizations instead of electrons' momentum. Then in 1982 a young Frenchman named Alain Aspect performed a rigorous test of Bell's theory on which most physicists finally agreed. Quantum mechanics was correct, and either locality or realism was fundamentally wrong.
------------End of quote------------
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #26 on:
20/09/2009 17:40:00 »
It’s from a very nice text, called ‘the reality tests’ by Joshua Roebke.
Get it to your ‘E-library’. I like it, a lot, and the experiment if stringently asked should be long underway now. The question I ask, if I assume that we do have a effect on what we’re ‘touching’ and that ‘distance’ is both ‘true and false’, must then become if we all are in some way ‘entangled’? But we only relate it to some effects right, and only on a QM level as yet? But I see this experiment as questioning that. As if this was correct then the ‘macroscopic’ you affect the outcomes? Then again, that ‘you’ is a matter of particles too…
You could of course define time as being of a different 'dimension' to explain it but that doesn't simplify anything. But to me 'time' is a relation acting on the focus of a observer. So that would just make my headache grow again just as I thought that I’d succeeded in explaining the concept of dimensions / distances / time to my satisfaction. What a relation is? You say you don’t know? That young, huh? Well thinking of it, I’m not that sure either. A definition I found states that a relation is 'an abstraction belonging to, or characteristic of, two entities or parts together'. That seems to me to state that without preceding parts existing there can be no relations. So my question here might be if it would be possible to consider it the ‘other way around’, with the ‘relations’ creating the ‘parts’. Why we use the opposite definition is quite simple to understand, that is the way we perceive our reality through our 'arrow of time'. Macroscopically no effect I know of can precede the events creating it. Although quantum mechanics seem to point to reactions/relations being possible to exist with time walking 'backwards' the objects creating it must still be there at both 'ends' and seen graphically the relation still will be firmly placed between the objects as a 'relation/reaction' created by their proximity ‘ (cause and effect). But then again, what about our Big Bang? How did we come to be? Maybe we only can come to be outside of ‘times arrow’. Even though the end processes show themselves inside it to us. And maybe ‘energy’ is getting properties inside that arrow that it does not have outside it. (Emergence)
Mass seems to me to be what nowadays is called 'invariant/rest/ - mass'. That is the kind of 'mass' remaining unchanged no matter what particular transformation is applied to it (like moving it near to a Black Hole f ex.). And with all other kinds of 'mass' more resembling what we call momentum to me. So if we create a uniformly moving system at keeping at 99.999999~ 'c' and compare it to another system moving at only a fraction of that speed, at a measly .1 'c', what differs between them. In this case we can be very sure at what speeds those two systems are relative us observing, that is as we accelerated both, So in that motto we might want to define our observing point as being 'point zero'. Of ‘zero speed’ relative those two objects, of course one could expect it to be possible to measure it inside those uniformly moving systems too, like you using a laser gun inside that 'fast 99.9999~' ship. With you studying that lights syrupy motion as it moves toward the nosecone trying to catch up to the ships near light speed. There is only one problem with that, the light doesn't care for your ships motion at all, it will move at the exact same light speed inside that ship relative its ‘frame of reference’ (Which is the ship in this case) as it will do for us observing it from 'point zero'. That is 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum and remember that it doesn't care about its 'starting position/objects' relative speed as it leaves the muzzle, to it all other speeds are as if nonexistent. So here we have a light beam moving at 'c' treating our ship as if it was immobile standing still, but we observing this from 'point zero' still know that we have accelerated that ship to 99.9999~ 'c' relative us? Does that mean, assuming the ship was made of glass, ah, thinking of it maybe this ones name should be Cinderella instead, that we from point zero would observe that laser-beam moving near 2'c'? That as it yet moves at 1 'c' (not caring for the ships already existing speed of 99.9999~ 'c') according to the observer on the ship?
No it doesn't, what we would observe though is that this beam would be of a weaker energy-content than what the observer inside the ship would see. Why? Remember that the ship is moving away from us as well as its beam, the reflected light of that beam would express itself as losing 'energy'. But then you might
say, what if he turned the laser around shooting towards the rear, directly at us? Wouldn’t it then become more energetic as observed by us? Shouldn’t it in fact almost ‘stand still’ relative us leaving us an imense time to wait until it reached us and if so, shouldn’t that first example never be seen by us as both the beam and the ship was moving with the beam then at double ‘c’ relative us. Yep, it should countermand the ships velocity at least shouldn’t it? And then it would be traveling to us very slowly, syrupy sort of, as there is nothing forbidding light to slow down
Wrrrongggg. It will still move at ‘c’ according to us outside observers, but of a weaker ‘energy content’ even though I would expect it to be stronger than when the beam was directed with the ships velocity. The rule about ‘c’ slowing down is only applicable in different densities but here we have the same density, a vacuum. That is crazy, really crazy, that light will treat all other speeds as if they doesn’t exist, don’t you agree? But it does. But it respects ‘distance’, and mass. And another thing worth considering. When light moves inside ‘invariant mass’ it is seen as to move via interactions with the ‘rest mass’ virtual photons as I understand it. That is, it ‘dies’ and gets ‘resurrected’ constantly until out of that densities ‘boundaries’ a little like a bullet constantly rebounding. But changing to a ‘new bullet’ at each rebound if I got it right? But if seen as a wave then? I’m not sure, there is this explanation though. “In a classical wave picture, the slowing can be explained by the light inducing electric polarization in the matter, the polarized matter radiating new light, and the new light interfering with the original light wave to form a ‘delayed’ wave.” Maybe? Then it sounds remarkably like the bullet, doesn’t it? It ‘dies’ which in a way is how it should be if they are ‘moving’ the same way.
How can that be, two persons observing the same phenomena experiencing two totally different things. It only seems possible if we accept it as ‘relations’ and not as any 'objects' in them self. Although this universe exist and it do contain objects of inherent values as seen by the discussion on light quanta and invariant mass, my question now is where they come from and how they exist. Let us take another look on my idea of defining that ‘point zero’ as being of ‘zero speed’. Can I really do so? I said that I believe that I can’t tell the ‘real speed’ of anything before, right? Except as a arbitrarily made comparison with something else. So how can I swear to that this point zero ain’t uniformly moving at 99.99~ ‘c’ whatever as it is. Well, I guess we could measure its relative motion against our universes background radiation (CBR)? Depending on our motion /speed that radiation should be red or blue shifted. That won’t guarantee anything, as far as I know, but it seems the best ‘ruler’ for measuring relative ‘uniform motion’ in SpaceTime as it is expected to cover all known ‘areas’ and seems much the same, even though there are some ‘discrepancies’ to it. It’s still just a comparison of course. Ah, thinking of discrepancies
Ever heard of CP violations?
If we take the entire universe and move it over by 100 meters, we say it has undergone a spatial transformation of 100 meters. Now imagine inverting space, that is, reflecting every point to the opposite side of a fixed (but arbitrary) center. This is known as a parity transformation, and is designated by the symbol P. Another possible transformation of the physical world is to take every single particle and turn it into its antiparticle. This is known as the charge conjugation transformation, and we refer to it using the symbol C.
If the universe would remain unchanged after being through a transformation, we say that it is symmetric, or invariant, under that transformation. In any physical model of the universe, the laws are represented by equations, and we can prove invariance under any given transformation by performing the transformation on the equations and seeing if the resulting equations are equivalent to the original ones. For example, the universe is invariant under spatial transformations - the laws are the same at any location, and it's impossible to tell whether the universe has undergone a spatial transformation.
If we consider a universe with no particles or interactions, the physical laws are also invariant under both P and C transformations. What we find if we introduce interactions is that some that exist in our universe would not exist in a P-transformed universe, and vice versa, in other words, the universe is NOT invariant under P. In pretty much the same way, we find it is not invariant under C. Amazingly, invariance is regained (almost) if we consider not just P or C, but the combined transformation CP.
The intriguing and maddening observation is that the laws are not-quite-invariant under CP transformations. In other words, we have CP violation.
It seems that this violation is what creates our Universe, if matter and antimatter was CP invariant then they would take each other out as I understands it (according to those mathematical ‘transformations/equations’.) We create experiments testing our observations. It seems that we can do that theoretically/mathematically too. That is, build a chain of ‘cause and effect’ on paper mathematically which we can ‘grow’ until we find something we believe to be testable physically
And then search for the evidence of our computations physically inside our SpaceTime. A very clever way of creating and testing a hypothesis, and one of the reasons I believe mathematics to be ‘the language of choice’ describing SpaceTime. Which also include all ‘universes’ we never will observe of course, all though we can give them credibility mathematically. One mathematical definition made (sometime in the end of eighteen hundred?) described a Universe where parallel lines always would meet in the end and according to what I read it was in itself perfectly consistent and provable mathematically. The question then becomes, do that universe exist ‘somewhere’?
Is all mathematics describing a ‘truth’? even if not fitting exactly our SpaceTime. I don’t know, I would guess that Math can be ‘wrong’ too though, creating ‘possibilities’ that never have been before we put in on print. But I’m not sure so I won’t swear to it. But it makes me wonder if it is possible to create a equation/transformation describing something ‘invariant’ without distances involved, that will have it when ‘turned around’? Probably not, then on the other hand our Universe is not ‘invariant’ meaning ‘the exact same/unchanged/symmetric’ under those transformations so the ‘trick’ might be to find that equation that can jump from ‘no distances’ to something containing them and fitting up to the descriptions we already have found defined doing those CP transformations? But if there is an in-equivalence in the SpaceTime we have there seems to me that there should be a ‘rest’ even when doing that transformation. But then again, I’m not thinking that there is ‘nothing’ left when the distances is gone. Something has to be there it seems, to create what we experience. When I say ‘nothing’ I’m thinking of our concept of dimensions meaning that they as well as any arrow of time then will be non-existent. But it seems that ‘pure math as well as hup shares the ‘unknowable’…
In 1931, Kurt Godel dropped a bomb on the mathematical world, as follows:
To every w-consistent recursive class k of formulae there correspond recursive class-signs r such that neither v Gen r nor Neg (v Gen r) belongs to Flg (k) (where v is the free variable of r).
Did you understand that? Good. I didn't expect you to either. In English, it essentially says that "All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions" (Hofstadter D., Godel, Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, p.17). So how do we interpret that? A consistent system is one where it is impossible for a statement and its negation to be true simultaneously. In other words, "2 + 2 equals 4" and "2 + 2 is not equal to 4" cannot both be true. If they are both true, the system is inconsistent. So if we have a consistent system, it is possible to write a statement that is true, but cannot be proven.
Godel's genuis was to discover that by encoding the symbols of number theory into numbers themselves, and creating rules to manipulate those numbers, it is possible to write statements of number theory that have two meanings. The first is the literal meaning of the symbols themselves. However, if the numbers have been properly manipulated, there is a second "meta-meaning" to the statement, which can be obtained by reversing the encoding. Using this scheme, Godel was able to construct a statement (G) which had the meta-meaning "G has no proof". Since statement G was constructed using the proper formalisms and encoding on the literal level, the meta-meaning must be true. So it is possible to construct a statement which is true, but has no proof. Therefore in the mathematical world, there are unknowables as well.
Welcome to the ‘magic Universe’
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #27 on:
20/09/2009 17:41:05 »
It doesn’t ‘invalidate’ 2+2 becoming 4, it just relates it to its proper ‘sphere’ it seems? (SpaceTime). Just like my concept of thingies inside our arrow of time, intermediate to our arrow of time, and those ‘outside’ our arrow of time.. Can I see something ‘symmetric’ here?
If we assume our universe of time again with no geometric order existing except by that possibly found inside times 'density's', if you allow me my play with words, then what spatial coordinates would you expect from it. What did we say about the photon? It was intrinsically timeless and possible to superimpose without
taking any physical place at all. Our ‘real’ universe do have 'time', it's filled with 'time' or at least all possible relations coming out of 'time'. But to have a size it seems to me that there needs to be a boundary outlining and defining, at least the ‘object’ in it. Consider the geometry of all geometry's superimposed, if we could break/make them into quantum super-positions like photons are said to be able to. Doing so would break down everything we call distance or events, that as all ‘distances’ would contain all events, and all events would be superimposed everywhere. In that kind of universe the 'arrow of time' would lose all coherence and order. Somewhere I read that a ‘quantization’ of general relativity will lead to a superposition of all geometry's quantum-wise .
What I still haven't touched upon though, is that 'arrow of time' in itself. Is there such a thing and how does it comes to be? We have what we call entropy, that is as I see it a direct result from our ‘arrow’ but according to entropy all 'energies' will 'level out' as I understands it, in the end becoming unusable for any 'work done'. Does that mean that 'times arrow' will disappear too? Not if it is relating to mass I think. This is worth some thought though, mass change the time expressed with it, as seen from an observer outside, but does that time relation 'tagging down/weakening', if you like, have defined 'edges/jumps' to it or is it more of a smooth transition 'seamlessly watered out' as 'distance' grows to its original 'source'. Also, what is it that ‘ticks/vibrates’ giving us that linear ‘beat’? Let's go back to the first question. Why is there such a thing like the 'arrow of time'. There is one answer that I find quite simple even if somewhat roundabout.
What would the universe look without that arrow? Biological systems needs a certain direction in time and so needs a universe, would any growth from simplicity to complexity be possible without our arrow of time? Would a Big Bang exist? I think not. Could a universe with all events 'super imposed' contain 'life'? So there I present the simplest reason I can think of, we can only exist in such a universe, without that 'arrow' nothing biologically 'fractal' could evolve, and by saying 'fractal' I'm thinking of all processes that grows from something relatively simple to the most complex. So that arrow is a must for any 'growth' and should have existed before the idea of mass. And without it the question would be moot as there would be no one reflecting over it. But what is that arrow? If time would be seen as relations between objects, as well as the objects themselves, How does the 'arrow of time' come into play, isn't that a contradiction of terms? So does 'times arrow' exist? Definitely as long as invariant mass does I think, but in a universe without mass then? That takes us to the idea of a 'perfect vacuum'. Does a perfect vacuum contain mass? How about the hidden energy contained in it, how about all those virtual particles. All of them exist in any 'space' you can define. But down there time becomes very much chains of ‘cause and effect’ without any single ‘time arrow’ pointing in only one direction when expressed inside SpaceTime. A little like as if the canvas we can ‘see’ (space) only is a ‘cause and effect’ area down at its smallest Planck filled size. The question might also be what is needed to formulate/create a 'space' containing 'distances'. Would it be enough with virtual particles (Hidden energy)? Or does 'space' need invariant mass (restmass) to coagulate, well, it seems so to me? But photons then? They also have energy, but with neither size nor mass related to them. A universe of photons, Can it have an arrow of time? Not as I see it, I don’t expect them to belong even to a ‘cause and effect’ chain in themselves, even though they do it as observed from us. Does a photon vibrate? Nah, wouldn’t that violate its intrinsical timelessness and sizelessness? But if it was somewhat like a ‘hole in space’, could space vibrate around that hole? I see no reason why it couldn’t, space is filled with energy, isn’t it? Wouldn’t it want to ‘close’ it? As it would be a ‘break’ in its ‘equilibrium’?
Let me speculate some more about time and space. What would be the necessity for 'time'? Matter? Space seems to be a direct effect of matter though. As some see it time is expressed through what we call 'clocks'. There are a lot of definitions for what a 'clock' is, something that measure events, which presents a 'coherence' holding a time-like ‘direction/arrow’ for the observer. The coherence here would be our 'arrow of time' macroscopically and if broken down further our binding ‘event-chains’ in Quantum Mechanics. We know that this times arrow seems to break down at Quantum mechanical 'distances' and that 'time' there becomes something more similar to connected events but without any specific 'arrow pointing in only one ‘direction’. The main point that I would like to lift forward here is that the ‘events’ seen in QM still have a 'coherence' to them, which means that they still makes sense to us, and so, even without that defined arrow of 'time', still are able to create a 'logical' chain of cause and effect for us observing. So isn’t 'cause and effect' a better description for that than 'times arrow'?
Time with that arrow we experience is an expression belonging to our macroscopic universe, not any 'universal truth' but 'cause and effect' seems to belong to both QM and SpaceTime. If time needs to be 'measured' to exist, or expressed otherwise, if time needs a 'clock' to proof itself. What then would you see as its smallest common nominator? Matter, nah, matter is a clock but a macroscopic one, suitable only for our known arrow. Energy then? Can we use energy as a measure of time. To me, I think so, as long as we give up on the macroscopic arrow and possibly QM:s ‘double arrow’ too. Can a clock exist without a ‘arrow of time’? That’s the question. Turn it around. What gives it ‘two results’ in QM? And what makes those virtual particles create themselves out of nothing spontaneously?
Virtual particles is a very nice description of 'energy'. They 'work' both ways as they do have an observable effect at our macroscopic SpaceTime somehow mediating ‘work done’ by their existence to and following our 'arrow of time', at the same time as they as a 'cause' exist outside of any such ‘arrow/event/description' and also loses nothing themselves in the process. So seen like this we have something, 'virtual' that without expending any 'work done' in itself, as its total effect/effort/expression is null, still influences and change the outcome of observable events inside our own arrow of time (SpaceTime). Another name for describing something suddenly changing its behavior and properties is 'emergence', somewhat alike water turning into ice and so begetting new properties.
There is one thing that I want to ‘press on a little more before we move on again. When I say that I think that ‘energy’ is the smallest common nominator I don’t mean that it will have a ‘clock’ as we are used to describe them. ‘clocks’ as we see them macroscopically have the arrow of time guiding them and at a QM level ‘cause and effect’, with which I mean a ‘to us understandable chain of events’, guiding even without that ‘one single arrow’. That on the other hand don’t invalidate the concept of ‘clocks’. It just questions if a ‘clock’ or ‘chains of events’ is a most correct description. Perhaps there are a more hidden mechanism working to create both those ‘realities’ acting as a ‘counting’ too, but not in any easily recognizable way to us. Can we have a ‘beat’ not measuring? Without distances nothing ‘ticks’, yet we will get processes out of that ‘nothing’ unfolding in SpaceTime?
And that takes me back to that smallest common nominator, energy. Could 'energy' be a ‘smallest’ expression of time? If that would be true then the question whether 'time' consists of 'events' stringed together or a seamless 'flow' steering only one way disappears. And that’s a relief to me
Time might then better be described as a kind of 'field' existing and permeating all, and then 'time' in itself have no need for an 'arrow' to exist, it will be us that 'needs' it. Is it mass that creates space? And Mass is a clock, so what are the smallest ‘clocks’ we know of? Particles right? Or is it waves? Can we say that the wave in itself can be a clock? Is clocks a relation, I mean if particles would be seen as some smallest ‘clock’ can we use the ‘vibration’ from an electron as a time counter? But then the electron is not the answer is it, its what we call its ‘vibration’ that is the time measuring, and those seems even ‘smaller’ than the electron? But they need the relation to mass to materialize as a ‘clock’. This vibration? Can it be there without restmass involved? But any ‘clock’ we use seem to be a combination of a restmass and waves?
All systems seems to order themselves from the simple to the complex. That’s one rule I believe to be. Also that the 'jumps/bifurcations' a system makes won't be recognized by our measuring as the transitions taking place are outside of our macroscopic 'arrow of time'. And there is where that fractal behaviour we observe seems to fit, ah, to me that is.
The Wheeler-Feynman model, called the "absorber theory of radiation," makes electromagnetism a two-way street as far as the time dimension is concerned. They based their time-symmetric theory on the assumption that every light wave emitted by an atom must be absorbed by another atom and that these two events, light emission plus light absorption, should be considered as a single inseparable process. In it they see ‘time’ as going backward from the sink (your eye), which is cases allowed by both Dirac's equation and Maxwell's wave equation for light, as well as it goes forward in time from the source (sun). As a result any light observed will need both factors to exist (Source and sink)
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #28 on:
20/09/2009 17:41:53 »
Like Dirac's equation, Maxwell's wave equation for light has two solutions, the so-called "retarded solution" that describes a wave traveling forward in time and the "advanced solution" that describes a light wave traveling backward in time. Both of these waves travel at the same speed-the speed of light in vacuum-- but in opposite temporal directions. The retarded wave travels in the normal direction -- from past to future -- while the advanced wave goes the other way -- from the future into the past...
--- And how Radiation occurs according to The Wheeler-Feynman model.
First atom A emits, without recoiling (no self-interaction), a half-sized (retarded) wave that travels forward in time at a speed of 186,000 mps to the absorber atom B. Atom B recoils as it takes up this light's momentum. Then, stimulated by its recoil motion, atom B emits a half-sized (advanced) wave that travels backward in time at a speed of 186,000 mps to atom A. Atom A recoils as it takes up this advanced wave's momentum.
The timing of the emission and absorption events guarantees that at any moment the half-sized advanced wave sent back in time from the absorber always finds itself at the same position in space as the half-sized retarded wave sent forward in time from the emitter. Thus the two waves fuse together to form a single full-sized wave which appears to have been sent from the emitter and received by the absorber.
Because of this exact superposition of advanced and retarded waves, the Wheeler-Feynman model produces the same apparent wave motion as conventional radiation theory. The two theories give the same result but propose radically different models of what is actually happening. Conventional radiation theory is a simple matter of cause and effect. Wheeler-Feynman theory involves a handshaking procedure much like data exchanged between two computers in which a data transfer initiated by one computer is not completed until the exchange has been acknowledged by a message sent back from the second computer.
...in order for light to be emitted it must be connected to some future absorber by a two-way retarded-advanced wave handshake process. Because of the need for the presence of absorbers, the absorber theory predicts that if there are none in a particular direction in space, then light will refuse to shine in that particular direction!
That we haven’t ever observed any ‘advanced waves’ seems easily explained by the fact that both sink and source, according to this theory, need to be ‘present’ for any light to occur. That idea seems similar to mine though I suggest time to be ‘all’ there is and so not restricted in any spatial or ‘time (size) induced’ direction. As I see it that ‘source’ and your ‘sink’ and what happens between them is just another expression of time relations, with no distance involved in fact. ( And as we all know, there needs at least two ‘something’ for any relation to work
The main thing here is not the universe itself but the ‘beholding’ of it. Without anything ‘observing’ there will be no interactions. We need to work from the idea of ‘observing’ in itself to make sense of SpaceTime. To do that we need to decide what makes an ‘observer’ There seems to be a difference between ‘virtual particles/energy’ and what we deem ‘ordinary light/energy’ but if we question ‘times arrow’ I believe we will find them to be the same. And the difference between them being that ‘arrow of time’ taking us from ‘A’ to ‘B’ macroscopically. Which takes us to the strange effect of ‘distance’ or ‘dimensions’. Both have one ting in common, they need ‘size’ to exist. When the size is to small the arrow becomes indeterminable although existing (QM). When we go further down to what creates virtual particles we pass the Planck length and there ‘size’ as well as any ‘arrows’ indeterminate or not, cease to exist. There I believe you will find the dimension less ‘field’ that allows ‘size/distance’ to exist.
But even if you accept this we still need to understand Consciousness, ‘Observers ‘and Size. (Distance)
If I suggested that what governs SpaceTime to be a combination of the ‘distances’, of the observation and time itself I still haven’t touched what it is questioning it. And that would be very stupid of me as without the ‘observer’ nothing can exist. There will be no experiment made, ever, that can have a defined outcome if no one is there to ‘observe’ it, no matter how you see it. Consciousness seems to be a prerequisite for anything to happen too. You might laugh at that and insist that things work even as we sleep, or are in a coma, and the planets will move, but it’s still a truth. Without a beholder there will be nothing to behold. It seems though that what we do with SpaceTime that differs it from all other non thinking/living ‘detectors/observers’ is that we actively manipulate it. Furthermore, according to my view ‘intelligence/consciousness ’ is required to exist at some state, all other things just being the ground laid out for it as the ‘simple’ unfolds into the ‘complex’. But the objection is still valid, the question then becomes to define what a ‘observer’ can be. Should we split consciousness from ‘Observers’? To me that seems reasonable. That as if the SpaceTime created from our ‘arrow of time’ is a matter of ‘size’ then all things over a certain size (Planck size? ) will be ‘observers’ and ‘sources and sinks’ simultaneously, perhaps communicating through those ‘virtual particles/photons’. So where should we place Consciousness as we know it then? As a matter of ‘size’ too perhaps? Or maybe the word should be ‘complexity’ or ‘Emergence’. As water becomes ice (Emergence) and change its properties so also we may be the direct result of ‘time acting upon itself. .
Here under you will find my approach to the question of ‘right living’, ‘reality’ and climate. As for if I’m right or not I can’t be sure, even though when it comes to the question of climate I’m afraid I just might be, as for my ‘philosophy’? Well, I prefer it before the so called ‘behaviouristic approach’ to life, in where you by painting your factory’s walls in some new color will beget a better ‘working effort’ short time. In a behaviouristic ‘approach to reality’ we are all ‘Pavlov’s dogs’, salivating as that bell rings, and the only thing to hope for in such a society is that you are ‘led’ by hopefully enlightened ‘leaders. That ideology of out-view also include those ‘leading’ naturally, even though they may manipulate you through its dogmas. (Sometimes those folk’s seems to miss that?
. To me that idea more seems to signify all self-expressed ‘Elite’s’ need to simplify those ‘under’ them as being somehow less, so to place themselves ‘above’, if you get my drift. Another statement of ‘humanity’ to me. Not that it won’t work though, we humans contain a multitude, all to often contradictorily in nature, and, when all is said and done, it’s you (and me) accepting this behaviouristic approach that makes it so.
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #29 on:
20/09/2009 17:43:50 »
-------- And now some late coming words from my moral sponsor, the Conscience. ---------
We may be intelligent but we’re not ‘wise’. If we would, would we then have all those small arms wars, 'global warming' and plastic wastes, presumably the size of one to two Texas, gathered by streams and winds into a heap drifting in the oceans, dissolving into molecules, poisoning the marine life and thereby us? Anybody noticed that impact on, ah, Saturn? Jupiter was it? Any which way, making a hole the size of an Earth on whatever planet it was, and in our own ‘backyard’ too. Seems to me like someone gave us a warning shoot right over our bow there. Better thy ways human, or else. I saw that there was a new book on the market putting the ‘Gaia idea’ against a new one called ‘the Medea.’ The idea there seems to be that ‘Gaia’ should be seen as nurturing and healing, that she always will do her best for us, no matter our moral and ethical incompetence. ‘Medea’ on the other hand is the princess of Colchis who insanely killed her own offspring. And as the author seems to state, a better representation for what we are. Well, I don’t know. My idea of ‘Gaia’ is more neutral, she do her best to create a living sphere for all life, but once there, they’re on their own. Quite simple, but I can see how he got ‘Medea’ .
Take a look yourself and see what you find. It’s quite healthy to do so now and then. Behind our ‘social surfaces’ the predator still lurks and he trusts no one, and its his! Everything is, by conquest or social manipulation, and he is the best ‘liar’ there is, as he’s lying to himself, yeah that’s you! Supporting your ‘righteousness’ and pushing your egos ‘beliefs’ as truths. Seen that way we do smell a little.
But that’s how we is. Bio-mass, fighting our way up. And perhaps, that’s the way we’re going to expire too? Bio-mass, cells dividing until they take up the whole substrate and then die. Myself, I’ve never enjoyed those ‘social ‘surfaces’’ we present for ourselves and others. And as I see it we have a obligation towards the rest of the life on this planet, mostly because we’re the ones killing it. So either you grow, and that’s up to you, no one else. Or you stay an little predator, proud over your tiny conquests in life, pompous over your skills in social engineering and manipulation, trusting that promises is deeds and to take action is to say and vote the ‘right thing’. And before all, I’m not fond of ‘politics’. That’s one of the saddest statements of humanity, that we can’t manage our life’s without them, We need ‘surfaces’ hiding all intents, even to ourselves. That’s what your politician stands to service you with, the excuses and half-truths the ‘social surfaces’ craves, to let us glide against each other as friction less as possible, just like those economists and fortunetellers, protecting our ego’s right to greed and consume. Don’t tell me I’m making it up. Take a look around on child-soldiering, prostitution, slavery, mass-rapes, ethnical cleansing, ‘Kyoto treaties’, the way industries can run over any rights, any war you ‘like’, and any ‘peace’ you remember. By now I think, we all need to grow up… Fast.
I’m hoping you can.
Ghoulish? Yep, that‘s me
If anyone want to drag the ideas of politics or 'ideals' into it we are on very unstable ground. The only thing I would like to put to notice there is that we seem to have two choices. One is expecting morality, ethics and all other 'ideas' of humanity to be just another expression of 'cause and effect' without any 'right or wrong' prevalent to it, more than the biological survival of the 'strongest prevalent' amount/group(s) of bio-mass acting. If you see it so concentration camps becomes just another statement of 'humanity' not involving any concepts of 'right and wrong'.. On the other hand, If you followed my reasoning before, there might be a 'hidden truth' to life where the concept of 'ethics' and 'right and wrong' do exist as something inherently true at a more complex plane. As the universe seems to come from ‘simplicity’ to an ever-growing complexity with us as its ‘loftiest peak’ intelligence-wise. And what does that definition make of you behaviorists supporting only the ‘bio-mass’ concept? I would like to see myself and you as an expression of that later definition but I can't be sure, and neither can you. Still, the world becomes what you make of it, doesn't it. You, as our diversified 'books of wisdom' like to express it, have choices to make, all of them circling around what you deem as your 'free will'. Seen so it may not matter which of those concepts you believe true, as long as you make your choices 'wisely'. Although I will freely admit to finding it rather a bore if life was proofed to be just another concept of 'bio-mass reproducing'. I’m not sure where dreams end and life starts but without them life becomes boring indeed. So, seen this way, that may be what 'living' is all about? Creating that 'moral ground' from where we can uplift our newfangled concepts of Ethics, 'Right and Wrong' into SpaceTime as 'realities' guiding our growth. Who knows, I certainly don’t. Looking at it that way I wonder though.
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #30 on:
20/09/2009 17:44:45 »
As far as I understand there have been an ever rising spiral of civilian non-combatant’s dying, in all wars since the second world war, including Americas. But you will have difficulties confirming this, as no war waging nation would like to admit to it. It’s very bad ‘publicity’ indeed in this day and time. Remember Genghis Kahn? I believe he would have found it counterproductive to hide any deaths, he liked to leave pyramids of skulls from his enemies heads , not bothering to sort them into ‘farmers’ artisans’ ‘warriors’, just to remind his foes about the realities of warring with him.. To day we want it both ways, don’t we. Ruthlessly ‘scare the sh1t’ out of our opponent, but hide the true numbers of civilians killed, so not to seem ‘uncivilized’. But you can only die one time, as long as you’re not taken prisoner of course, under which conditions you find yourself totally defenseless. And that I see as a truth to any army, barbaric or civilized. So if I may, ‘killing by proxy’ involving no men (long distance weaponry, guided missiles etc.) is no guarantee of victory, as long as your foe is ready to die physically for his point of view. To him your new ideas of ‘unmanned wars’ might just be a proof of a cowardliness and yes, unmanliness, waiting to be manipulated, as you then seem to miss that ‘moral commitment’ they see as ‘inherent’ in their own cause. That modern warfare may hide or move the civilian deaths under, or to, other ‘attributes/labels’ is no proof otherwise either. Then again, if you’re ruthless enough, a nuke or two is a simple way to try to solve any ‘discussion’ or war. And that’s the real threat held behind the back, ain’t it. But it opens ‘Pandora’s box’ and in there we find all sorts of biological, chemical as well as nuclear weapons waiting. We don’t really need any Hell in any hereafter, we seem to do just as good without it.
What we offer each other today is not only death, but total oblivion of any human society, be it ever so primitive. So to my reckoning there is nothing especially fantastic about our lives today that differs them from more primitive times. Cruelty, ignorance and avarice is still there, just hidden under its new glove of ‘civilization’. But to lift forward any older ‘civilization’ as being a ‘nobler thing’ seems even more incompetent to me. In medieval times the idea of European fun might be to throw a cat into the fire to watch it burn alive, In ancient Rome the slaughters of slaves called gladiators, thousands of them with the ‘games’ going on continuously for a hundred days leaving new corpses every day, littered all over the arena. As well as constant wars of course. We as a species is to be pitied more than glorified to me, and the way we treat life is under all critique. We’ve been acting as predatory animals until we almost have extinguished all life there is, except those we have a use for, our shoes, clothes and food, although recently we seem to be trying for them too? No, I’m not meaning that you need to become a vegetarian to change, we’re meat-eaters too. And if vegetarianism was the ‘meaning of life’ why would there be lions, and mosquitoes?
Humankind’s inherent aggressiveness and greed was ‘acceptable’ as long as the world could accommodate it by sheer size and possibility of exploitation, but lately we seem to have run out of room. Ideas I’ve seen on the net lifting forward the Arctic’s loss of its ice-sheet and its consequent ruining of krill, plankton, its marine-life, polar-bears etc as a new opportunity for ‘progress’ must be one of the dumbest things I’ve read. As well as it is killing off the first order of life we ‘stand on’. Ever wondered what krill and plankton are good for? " Krill numbers may have dropped by as much as 80% since the 1970's - so today's stocks are a mere 1/5th of what they were only 30 years ago " Ever heard about the concept of ‘food-chains’? Goggle and be educated. At times I’m stupefied that we made it this far, but then again, that world was ‘bigger’ to us, and we didn’t have this new kind of biological and nuclear ‘mass destruction’ in our hands either.
With global warming fast becoming a reality all nations will have to prove their ‘moral mettle’ soon enough, as the number of ‘uninhabitable’ areas grows , especially in countries already renown for their poverty. We already see the European Community closing their door to such refugees fleeing from Africa. And America is strengthening their borders. But I promise you that it will become worse, as well as more degrading, for all sides . And I consider most wars to be fought over ‘resources’. ‘Ethnic cleansing’ or the ‘Evilness’ of the opponent becoming the ‘label of choice’ at times, but I still say that most wars will be started over resources, not ideas, even though religion have played a major role in most. The type of warring we see between Islamic and Christian interests is nowadays so hopelessly intermixed politically as well as geographically that as for trying to give them a ‘unity label’ becomes quite difficult. But when wars becomes to numerous to keep straight in your head religious labels still work. So then all of the Islamic interests can talk about the Jihad, not caring for if they fight Russians or Americans.
But the opposite definition is still not true for us, when we look at Caucasus and Chechenia for example we see it as a specific Russian problem, of their own creation too. And when we look at Iraq we see a ‘American first/Western then’ problem, and for who’s to ‘blame’ there? (He was one ugly customer that Saddam Hussein, he nerve-gassed a whole village just because they were Kurd’s, didn’t he?) But it’s still a powderkeg waiting to ‘blow’ over there, years after the ‘real’ war is supposed to have ended. Why? For me it’s a question of resources. Oil, land, mineral, why else would we be there, although it seems as we are giving up somewhat, the logistics of ‘keeping Iraq western minded’ is just to difficult, as well as expensive.. Islamic ‘Jihad warriors’ though I expect to see it differently, as a overall ‘Christian/Western’ oppressive religious problem, even though they’re very well aware of the importance of land and resources (Agrarian societies). But by labeling it ‘religious’ it becomes the same everywhere with ‘them against us’ with their ‘true religion’ as the banner, and them being the ‘liberators’ naturally. But perhaps some Countries are ‘planning ahead’ in certain ways. ‘Realpolitik’. “USA Russia and Nato should consider joining their ‘rocket shield’ defenses immediately, considering ‘mutual problems’” said the Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmusen recently. Against what? Aliens? The Jihadic movements? China? And so comes ‘unequal democracies’ once more together. Anybody remembering the upstart to WW2? Or are we all weaned of history books those days? If we take away the layer of politics and religion most of the problems will be one of resources, and human rights. And we all know how Russia looks at ‘human rights’ today, don’t we?
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #31 on:
20/09/2009 17:45:56 »
As for the ‘Jihadic’ movement? I doubt they even believe there to be any such notion as ‘human rights’. All ‘agrarian’ societies have, through history, primarily been involved in the principles of ‘owning’, from land to people, and that western newfangled notion of some ‘objective’ right for all, based on everyones equal worth as human beings? What? “Typical westerners”.. Then again. Looking at it, do we really trust in those ideas ourselves? We put those ideals aside so easily when playing our ‘real politics’’. So I guess we won’t ‘gear down’ to adapt to the Climates demands then? Instead ‘gear up’ for a war perhaps? Hoping that this will magically ‘solve’ CO2, Methane, overpopulation, and a untold number of other problems destroying our living-sphere? And in a war no one will have time to see any pollution’s effects, right. And industries can ‘walk’ wherever they please without problems, exploiting oceanic gas-fields, the Arctic, everywhere in perpetuity while ‘doing their best’ for our ‘war-effort’. And after it? If we survive I mean. Rebuilding? Well, we had to defend our ‘ideals’, didn’t we? And what problems we face then will seem smaller than that ‘war’ was, won’t they? And what the industries already done will then just be another shortsighted ‘fact’, won’t it? Even if those ‘facts’ lead us to..? But won’t a war open ‘Pandora’s Box’? Well, that’s the chance we took if so, right? So this is were our notions of ‘owning’, greed, politics and religion will lead us. And hey, forget about any ‘human rights’ when it start. Those notions are like industries poorly geographically placed. In case of a economic decline the very first to go up in smoke. Now you might get the idea here that I’m some kind of flower-whipping hippie praying for peace? No, not that I mind hippies though. To me fighting is acceptable, as when you’re attacked by that bully, or for a nation when attacked by an aggressor. That’s only self-defense and quite proper too. As long as we act as we do, that is, we all need a defense. But to act the aggressor, and to plan like a bully or aggressor hiding that long stick behind your back, that’s gotta end, this planet is just to small. We will need other solutions for our ‘visions of power’. Define better ideas of what makes a man a man than his ability to kill off all living. If you talk with truly tough guys, as we all have been known to do on occasions, what strikes me is not their ability to inflict harm. To be a really ‘tough guy’ it’s not enough to stop caring for the consequences, that’s in fact something most of us can learn, depending on circumstances. The real trick is when you realize how hard it will become for you to live honorably, once you learnt where your uncompromising nature takes you, and how you solve it. So you might think you’re a ‘hardass’ but until you’ve been where I’m talking about, you still got some way to go. And there is in fact a ‘way of the warrior’ but it is more spiritual than physical, it’s more about commitment to a goal or dream than to beat the living daylight out of all you meet. So, maybe war is in our ‘genes’? I say we still need to find a better outlet than what we have today.
So ‘labels’ unify where logic can’t?
It’s only Human, isn’t it? How about your own television, a known pacifier as well as a ‘unifier’.. And before that, your radio.. Or your work (and mates)? Doesn’t that ‘unify’ too? And why does advertising work so well? And in a slightly more ‘primitive’ agrarian surrounding, what’s better than ‘religion’? We use it too, look at Bosnia and Serbia for a recent example? So what, really? What, do you think will happen if Earth’s resources shrinks drastically? “- But isn’t that what we have our politicians for?” You might ask yourself slightly cynical, “To take those really bad tasting decisions away, and hide them amongst all other decisions I don’t want to be ‘bothered’ with.” “ I mean, we are a Democracy, okay, a representative Democracy but still a ‘Democracy’, let the ‘chosen ones’ take care of that..” Like here in Sweden me reading how the police now seems allowed to ‘DNA brand’ shoplifters, you know taking saliva test of them to be able to track them if they later on do other crimes. It’s true, any crime able to, in a ‘worst case scenario’, lead to a prison sentence seems to give the Swedish state that ‘right’ now? So lets get those kids, as we all know shop lifting is a true ‘gate’ opening to all other criminality, just like stealing those apples from your neighbor’s backyard was in earlier days. Only joking. To me it seems to give all Swedish police work a big fat ‘incompetence stamp’ as they apparently need this kind of ‘branding’ to find out ‘who did what’. “Yep, we just need to wait until the crime is done. Then my friend, then, we’ll ‘track those bastards down.”. Kind’a make me feel all warm and fuzzy, protected like. . But then again. My kind of mentality and protests seems all comes down to “if you’re protesting then, you gotta be ‘one of them’ “. Which is a good even if somewhat roundabout argument used under a lot of circumstances, having had both Stalin and Hitler as ‘avid supporter’s’.
Think about a society populated by people marked out from birth by those kind of ‘standards’, then ask yourself if you can find a surer, more subtle way of conserving any states power/ideology. And hiding this kind of ‘DNA-management’ under a stamp of ‘democracy’ is a very clever way of eating the cookie as you keeps it, ah, where it ‘belongs’. But every nation gets the ‘management’ they prefer, don’t they. I mean, how many years have India’s ‘caste mentality’ survived? Shouldn’t they love it? Well, those ‘on top’ might, but the others? Goggle and be educated. And then you can ask yourself what you think would have happened to any form of ‘resistance’ if this type of tracking techniques were found under a war, combined with a ‘national citizens data register’ naturally. . My guess is that any resistance mounted would need to see the war push pass most moral limits, perhaps with resistance becoming as strong a urge as for those inside that WW2 ghetto of Warsaw, having no choice left but ‘revolt /and/ die’. The psychological inertia built into the realization of you and your kin’s vulnerability is a monumental steppingstone, knowing that you would be traced by rudimental scrapes of skin, blood or a dropped piece of hair left. Of course it would work best in modern societies where we already have it all ‘organized’. Like Sweden? So what do this kind of systems do to your right of free speech you think? Like free thinking, speech, and all your ‘democratic rights’ in peacetime? Nothing, you say? ..If you just behave, right? Like they just are there for ‘show’, just another brand-label maybe? “ Be the first to be really free, now with seventy percent more ‘spruce’ to it.” Do you know how many that died, believing and fighting for those kind of rights to exist? But you’re borne to it, so you don’t need to know, right. It’s easier remembering the one that hurt you than the one that did you a good turn. Only normal, but says a lot about human nature. When someone cares for you, you take it for granted “because you deserve it” right, but if they do you harm? Let them beware.. If you ask me you would be better off with those that do you good instead, and learn from that. But that would make you think independently and actively, wouldn’t it? For evil to succeed it’s perfectly sufficient with you turning your head away, easy and safely passive.
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #32 on:
20/09/2009 17:46:38 »
And that’s where I usually give up. If you’re of that, ah, bovine, temperament maybe it’s your birthright after all? But then, on the fifty first testicle, didn’t we outlaw slavery? On the other tentacle, is sheer stupidity really entitled to liberty? Well yes, it seems to, doesn’t it? Ever read “The Master and Margarita” by Mikhail Bulgakov ? It’s a cool book, when I read it that first time I had no idea that it was supposed to be ‘controversial’ but, even so, there seems to be a ‘hidden’ message in it. When it first came out in Russia, by the monthly magazine ‘Moskva’ 1966 its 150,000 copies sold out within hours. Not because it was a fantastic tale in itself, still rated among the best I’ve read. Just because nobody believed that anyone would be allowed to write anything like that in Russia. Yeah, Bulgakow was dead by then, he had spent the years from 1928 to his death 1940 writing and rewriting it, even burning it once as he was so scared by what Stalin might do. It’s a story about magic, freedom, social ‘surfaces’ and the state. To me as a western reader it presents me with a cool and lovely tale, extremely easy to read although not ‘revolutionary’ in any sense, just extremely imaginative. But to that Russian buying the ‘Moskva’, twenty-six years after his death it still was ‘Revolutionary’. I warmly recommend it to anyone capable to read more than the newspaper. Read it and try to understand why it was revolutionary. Then ask yourself if you would like to live in a society where a book like that would be ‘burned’.
Not only the Swedish police are ‘incompetence declaring’ themselves by the way? There seems to be a lot of ‘democratic’ police forces hailing this technique as being the ‘new way of future police work’, not all of them finding the need to ‘brand’ shop lifters as ‘hardened criminals’ though. For a unsavory comparison, the Nazis ‘branded’ those enforced to prostitution with a big ‘H’ in the forehead, in their camps. Now it seems we have a more sophisticated method for getting the exact same result, ‘branded individuals’. And this time a skin transplant won’t clear it for you. That said I can agree to this kind of DNA-technique being useable for those we find to commit the worst kinds of crimes, like serial killing, grave assault/ rapes/ murders and robbery’s, and those really ugly crimes involving children. That meaning those unable to trust in whichever society they exist in, but then it should be done after the fact, not before, searching those evidence at the crime-scene. And using that DNA to test against those suspected. And not ‘keeping’ the irrelevant DNA begotten under such procedures. The police have to use their brains like the rest of us, and, as I expect, do have them when allowed to create the right kind of competence and structure. In Sweden we’ve had our individual ‘birth numbers’ following us a long time. And to good results too, when used as statistics. Our population statistics is a treasure for all wanting to se how substances, food, pollution etc influence health and/or age over large populations. But there is an abyss greater than Hell between those ‘birth-numbers’ and this new ‘genetic branding’ of individuals. We’ve had a slightly moronic right wing coalition for some time now. You know, the kind with - Deep -Leader -Visions-Of –Honor-and-Prosperity - And –No- Ugly Income Tax-. (Although not that good at defining for whom those tax-reductions really are meant). Not that our opposite number, ‘The Socialdemocrats’, have had that much clearer vision lately. But the real reason for such laws to pass must lie deeper than that I think. A moral Inertia perhaps? People believing that freedom is a thing of the genes, or, of the past? “-You know, with the right genes everything is possible.” says the optimist, “Premature dementia too?” asks he…
(Drugs in the water system you say? Hmmm, ah, no. . . well, thinking of it again? . – you’re sure? )
There are still some statements that seems truer than others. Like ‘The only thing needed for evil to reign is for a good man to look away’ and that other. ‘Any society ready to give up a little liberty to earn some security will deserve neither, and loose both.’ Isn’t that what we all are doing today? Exchanging those rights for ‘security’? We are the only one paying more than lip-service to those ideals, well, at least we used too. “Not only is life a bitch, now she’s dropping puppies too.” Kind of to the point I think. And please, don’t see this last as a sexist remark. It would sound downright silly if I changed ‘bitch’ to ‘male dog’ and ‘she’ to ‘he’. I’m afraid it would lose all kind of, ah, ‘moral coherence?
If you don’t agree, consider the McCarthy era in the fifties. How many was it that refused to name others as ‘communist sympathizers’ there? One? Ten? A hundred? The question you might ask yourself is under what circumstances you will want to stand by your choices, or non-choices, to yourself and to your kids and kin. Do you really want to be in that position? Explaining how you found it best to do nothing? And if you find this ‘self questioning’ a moot idea then I will feel free to suspect that you’ve joined what Stalin used to see as ‘useable dupes’. Similar to those believing that ‘communism’ and ‘Stalinism’, or for that case the whole era of Soviet rule, stood for the exact same ‘ideals’. Or that only ‘pure capitalism and the free market’ can lead to a ‘free society’? ‘Democracy’ on the other hand I find a good start, but as we can see by that DNA-example, no real guarantee of anything. It all comes down your complacency with yourself, your ‘social stature’ and what you define as ‘freedom’? Your ‘Freedom of greed’ or ‘Freedom of speech’? ‘Freedom of greed’ may be a subset of ‘Freedom of Speech’, but I doubt that the opposite is true. To that you can add those ‘weapons’ drifting through countries and hands I never wanted or expected to see them in. Heard about that Russian boat bordered in Swedish waters by masked men, presenting themselves as ‘police’? Wonder why and what that was about? Nuclear, biological, chemical? What made it that important to stop? Or was it a hijack? Only rockets. . right?
And my discussion won’t consider what psychological and moral lasting effects this kind of ‘reclusive strategy’ relative third world countries will have on us residing on the ‘sunny side’, ah, not that good choice, ‘industrial side’ then? Also, to put the shoe on the right foot, it was after all us ‘rich’ countries that is the major ‘delinquents’ creating the pollution we see today, not that we knew before. Today former ‘third world’ countries like China, India, Asia, Africa, South America,, Muslim countries etc, are doing their very best (read worst) to come up to, or even surpass our pollution levels. Like told last year, in China building a coal-driven power plant every nine days. Can you hear a clock ticking somewhere? And South Africa? 95 % coal powered, and India. You think those countries will accept to dismantle their energy production so not to dirty the environment more than we already did? Well, I guess the devil have massive laughing fits reading that..
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #33 on:
20/09/2009 17:49:06 »
I’m also tired of those hugely ‘brained’ economic thinkers, so incredibly far from reality. Our firmest sages, and high priests of the ‘economy’. I think we’re just like the climate, unpredictable, ever heard that butterfly’s wings flap? You did recently when your ‘economy’ took a dive. And believing that you can ‘scheme’ against nature, pipes to the seas and pipes in to the land and factories, taking up CO2, burying it down deep in earth ‘sinks’? A little like we dream to do with our radioactive wastes, but now at your every corner. ‘Idiot proof’ you say? Idiotic I say. A whole Earth of burying? To much Jules Verne as a youngster perhaps? And what billions of billions this will cost I don’t know, I saw a number nearing ten million million dollars as a estimate on what it had cost just to buffer the economy this time (BBC) at our recent recession, most of it from us taxpayers (State) guaranteeing the institutions continuos ‘profit’. And recent economic ‘statements’ I’ve seen seem to compare the economy to some disease, ‘stable for now’? I could write a book on how banks ‘secure’ themselves using each other to present you new ‘securities’ blindfolding the public, but I guess most of you know it already. It’s just another example of ‘faith’ and the ‘the Emperors new clothes’ (H. C. Andersen). But I know that you are looking at it all the wrong way here. It’s not about money anymore, it’s a ‘turnabout’ for all countries. And some industries will die, and good riddance to them says I, and new ones will come. It’s a whole world of change for the better.
Want another example of how your ‘economy’ will be saved today? Ever heard about Australia? Yeah, down under mate. Well they’ve just had their warmest winter ever, not even one mm of rain for the first eight months this year 2009. Outside Australia (ocean) there are natural Gas deposits waiting for the picking. To transport this gas you either need pipelines or you will need to freeze it to around -161 C. The project ‘Gorgon’, sat in motion by Chevron, plans do to do just that with Exxon and Shell jumping on the train. So now you have super tankers on the seas with ‘super-cooled, super-concentrated natural gas’ (That’s what happens when it gets frozen. The density of a gas goes really up, way way up when it becomes a liquid..) . It is a disaster scenario waiting to happen. The leaks only need to be miniscule for the gas to start leak. But if we do it at sea, no one will notice, and Australians don’t care, right mate? That gas won’t hurt you? If anything happens it will go straight up, won’t it, warmed by the air, disappearing like? Remember those oilfields burning? Congratulations. As well as that probably is the better scenario than allowing the methane getting loose without it burning itself into CO2. Now, if you had a grain of common sense left in what’s commonly called our most important muscle, ah, above the navel that is. You might ask yourself. Why don’t they take it from North Carolina?
“All the energy America needs for the next 100 years lies under the sea off the coast of South Carolina.”
Just one problem: Digging it out might cause a global climate disaster.”
Methane is the principal component of natural gas, and massive amounts of it are trapped in reservoirs beneath the sea floor and under a layer of the ice-like substance. The scale of the resource is spectacular. By some estimates, methane hydrates contain more energy content than all other known fossil fuels combined.
Two small areas located roughly 200 miles off the coast of Charleston, S.C., contain enough methane to meet the country's gas needs for more than a century. And this is only one of at least two dozen similar reservoirs discovered in U.S. coastal waters since the early 1970s.
The paradox is that while gas can be extracted from methane hydrates, doing so poses potentially catastrophic risks. Methane hydrates are frozen water molecules that trap methane gas molecules in a crystalline, lattice-like structure known as a hydrate. Unlike normal ice, hydrate ice literally burns — light a match and it goes up in flames. As temperatures rise or pressure rates fall, the hydrate disintegrates and the water releases the gas. A substantial amount of evidence suggests that weakening the lattice-like structure of gas hydrates has triggered underwater landslides on the continental margin. In other words, the extraction process, if done improperly, could cause sudden disruptions on the ocean floor, reducing ocean pressure rates and releasing methane gas from hydrates.
A mass release of methane into the sea and atmosphere could have catastrophic consequences on the pace of climate change. More than 50 million years ago, undersea landslides resulted in the release of methane gas from methane hydrate, which contributed to global warming that lasted tens of thousands of years. "Methane hydrate was a key cause of the global warming that led to one of the largest extinctions in the earth's history," Ryo Matsumoto, a professor at the University of Tokyo who has spent 20 years researching the subject, told Bloomberg in December.
---End of quote---
So why don’t Chevron pooh it in its own ‘backyard’? As well as Exxon and Shell. To ‘difficult’? Or not so ‘popular’ perhaps? It’s easier in the oceans outside Australia, is it? More ‘private’ like? We already found methane running wild in the Arctic, and frankly, it scares the sh1t out of me. But let’s assume we’ll keep walking this path.. Short Time Survival.. As your kids grow old, and then their kids possibly too. (around one hundred years.. Btw: You Aussies are hoping for that sweet Sheila and some noisy kids too, right, well most of us do
By then the writing on the wall will become all too clear, and your time all too late. Australia will then be one of the numerous places people migrates from to survive. So, to me there are no ‘compromises’ available. The estimates of sold cars for 2009 seems to be around fifty million new cars. And the amount of new CO2 we will get then? Don’t know, neither do I know how many of the old cars that went to the dump? twenty percent perhaps? Seven? Less? A lot of them that should have gone there here in Europe seems to have been sold by unscrupulous car dealers to East-Europe, and other places. So if I seem to hear that voice… “Earth-mother tired, wants you to repent… NOW!” would that be understandable? Yep, I’m rather, ah, frustrated? There has never before been anything done by humans that have changed the whole ecosystem in such a short time (Around some 200-250 years), except our pollution. And at that, all that could happily joined forces in spewing it out, and still do. So now we expect us to reverse the same in? What, fifty? A hundred years,? By more worthless ‘Kyoto treaties’ or? At the same time keeping all our industries viable and our consuming, that meaning.. Economy, the same, or bigger? Hoping that we are in time? Like building CO2-leading pipelines everywhere?.. Hey, now I know where they got that idea from, them absolute geniuses, oh yes
Watching that ‘screen saver’ on their computer of course, you know the one with pipelines getting drawn all the time. And all of those loudmouths guaranteeing you, the consumer, ‘Your God-Given Right To Consume’.. Come on. If you find my views strange, what do you then find those dreamers to be? Aliens?
“WE Have Come To Save You” Ah, that explains it..
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #34 on:
20/09/2009 17:50:26 »
" China’s problem has become the world’s problem. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides spewed by China’s coal-fired power plants fall as acid rain on Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo. Much of the particulate pollution over Los Angeles originates in China, according to the Journal of Geophysical Research. " And according to Greenpeace "China's reliance on cheap coal to fuel its economy cost a hidden $248 billion last year (2007) through damage to the environment, strain on the health care system and manipulation of the commodity's price." And please understand that this study doesn't concern itself with the hidden costs pertaining the environmental impacts (climate changes) here. And it doesn’t help my mood much reading what those mighty brains of economical thinkers see. China ‘helping’ the world economy to stabilize. Although, we didn’t ‘plan’ this global warming, we just did what we thought we had to do to create better ‘living standards’, right? Well, greed and guns might have helped show us the fastest ‘ways’ but it did ‘uplift’ our standard of living . And so acts China today. In fact they seem to be walking in our exact footsteps, don’t they. And we like to tell China as well as India that this is a ‘bad bad’ thing, don’t we
But do they thank us I ask? Do they? Those rapscallious, ah, rascals?
They too feel the pressure and expectations mounting from their teeming masses I guess, everyone want that fridge, and that car, and that new telly, and mobile, and.. Their ‘leaders’ don’t really have a choice I think, especially in China with its closed hierarchic society and wide spread corruption, its either that or more and more civil insurrections to come. I have more hope for India there in fact, at least they have a democracy working for them. But we ‘smart western people’ make real sure to lock up all energy saving technology in strong patents don’t we, cheap efficient technology and biological, genetic ‘innovations’. Doing gene research but not even caring for stopping malaria as there is no ‘real market’ for it. Instead we look for the genes for overweight, don’t we. As being the real ‘threat to society’
And in America they can ‘patent’ your genes too, so stop thinking they are yours just because you’re born with them, better cough up that ‘rental money’ or . . “We’ll have your lungs, boy.” I mean, how else can we ever come out ‘on top’? Giving them patents away, what a preposterous thought. “You want to lead us to ruin?” “Nay, from the edge.” Said he.
In all scenarios made people will starve as the warming gets worse and the ‘deserts’ picks up their pace. Lands will stop producing, and when enough people starve and starts to migrate then that ‘former similarity of outlook’ shared with us might go unheeded by those surviving. Imagine ‘Palestinian’ refugee camps inhabited by the tens of millions instead. I’m thinking that those folks might not remember us too fondly. Instead I fear that they might, just might, blame it as originating from.. You know, like wanting to.. Get even? Especially as we already have started to close them out from our lands, Countries, life’s, trade treaty’s etc, ‘protecting’ ourselves and our trades, in the process creating an even worse situation for them . Ever read the old testament? It’s in the first half of the Christian bible and I tend to think that it describes that primeval human ‘motivation’ quite well. How did it go? ‘An eye for an eye’. I understand why we don’t want to face this problem though. It’s both impersonal, meaning difficult to relate to and just too friggin’ big. It’s the whole planet that’s gone haywire if you think the same as me. And the way some papers suggest you to give ‘new years eves’ promises’ of starting to ‘sort garbage’ to limit global warming? Ah, those, excuse my wording here folks, jackasses makes it even worse to realize the seriousness of our situation as it now seems to come out to planning your wardrobe better with natural fibers, buy a newer car, recycle more, etc, etc. And then everything will become well. . Sure, and Santa is waiting at the North-pole.. Having a vodka on the rocks with his reindeers. No, he can’t be, can he?. . I mean, the ice, won’t it be gone? .
“Hell, can’t he take it straight then, like a real man?”
Soon we’ll know for sure.
Is Santa is Finnish or not?
Will he ‘straighten it out’, or will he migrate south?
Will he then introduce polar bears there? Or only reindeers?
And what are the legal limits for vodka drinking when driving reindeer carriages, air-wise?
For Santa & Rudolph? (the red nosed reindeer, a seriously bad sign that nose.)
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #35 on:
20/09/2009 17:51:19 »
Some scattered proofs for global warming ‘really’ taking place.
1. According to 3,146 scientists in a recent U.S. survey a "vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
[Links inactive - To make links active and clickable,
click here to register]
2. According to a study "by the U.S. Geological Survey and involving the University of Colorado at Boulder and Oregon State University as well as other research institutes indicates tree deaths in the West's old-growth forests have more than doubled in recent decades, likely from regional warming and related drought conditions. And according to another study the “forests in the pacific northwest are dying twice as fast as they were 17 years ago”
But we still have our tropical rainforest's, don't we. Here is some good guess work about the importance of them. "Tropical forest trees are absorbing about 18 percent of the CO2 added to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels, substantially buffering the rate of climate change." But on the other hand. "If deforestation continues at current rates, scientists estimate nearly 80 to 90 percent of tropical rainforest ecosystems will be destroyed by the year 2020. This destruction is the main force driving a species extinction rate unmatched in 65 million years." And as all other things those numbers is leaning to the optimistic side.
And.. " Pollution filled brown clouds may be causing as much warming as greenhouse gasses over southern Asia and threatening the water supply of Ganga, the Yangtze, and Indus with major adverse impact on the areas the rivers serve, researchers say. In a study supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), researchers found that the clouds of aerosol particle are contributing to the potentially devastating effects of retreating Himalayan glaciers. "The rapid melting of these glaciers, the third-largest ice mass on the planet, if it becomes widespread and continues for several more decades, will have unprecedented downstream effects on Southern and Eastern Asia," the study concludes.
"This is a big topic of conversation in India. Much of the water supply of north and central India is from major rivers fed by glaciers in the Himalayas and the supply would be adversely impacted if the retreat of glacier continues," the author of the study David Winker of the Nasa Langley Research Center in Virginia said. The hope lies in reducing this pollution, which, combined with the heating effect of greenhouse gases, is enough to account for the retreat of Himalayan glaciers observed in the past half century, with serious implications for such famed rivers as the Ganga, Yangtze and Indus, the chief water supply for billions of people in India, China and other South Asian countries, the study notes." As well as Greenland, and the Arctic losing ice at a ever increasing pace. Btw: Antarctica have started too. It’s measurable now and that, my friend, that’s a very bad sign for us all. You do know that waves in the ocean moves faster now? Due to the accumulated heat from the CO2 warming the oceans. And that hurricanes is worse, all storms will be, everywhere. The weather will become very unpredictable as the atmosphere constantly is pushed up to new energy (heat) levels, snow where you don’t expect it, extremely rainy summers in other places with clouds lowering the average temperature, drought and famish in others. And it won’t be to the better, no matter what tropical fantasies you might have. Those clouds won’t stop any global warming, and the desert will finally migrate to your place too, but then again. I don’t expect us to be there to see it.
( And no, it’s not ‘solar warming’ even though the sun cycles /spots do have a effect..
It would be real strange if the sun didn’t have a effect, wouldn’t you agree.
I mean, wherever did you think ‘summer’ came from? )
And finally, a look at the real ‘killer of life’.
"Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System where temperatures are low and water ice is common. Significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth. "
“We had a hectic finishing of the sampling programme yesterday and this past night," said Dr Gustafsson from the Russian research ship Jacob Smirnitskyi. "An extensive area of intense methane release was found. At earlier sites we had found elevated levels of dissolved methane. Yesterday, for the first time, we documented a field where the release was so intense that the methane did not have time to dissolve into the seawater but was rising as methane bubbles to the sea surface. These 'methane chimneys' were documented on echo sounder and with seismic [instruments]." At some locations, methane concentrations reached 100 times background levels. These anomalies have been seen in the East Siberian Sea and the Laptev Sea, covering several tens of thousands of square kilometers, amounting to millions of tons of methane, said Dr Gustafsson. "This may be of the same magnitude as presently estimated from the global ocean," he said. "Nobody knows how many more such areas exist on the extensive East Siberian continental shelves."
------End of quote--
You see, as we ‘speak’ the methane in the Siberian tundra and various other arctic cold water deposits is already being released in our atmosphere, yep, we’re there measuring it. This ‘methane bomb’ is primed and its fuse is smoking. So the new question becomes twofold. How big are those deposits, ‘big enough’ that they in their turn will warm up the other oceans deeper methane deposits too? And If so, how can we stop it? Methane have already been observed released in deep waters. One off the coast of Norway, one off the coast of North Carolina, and probably elsewhere too. And remember that methane producing bacterias exist in the Perma frost on land too. As well as hydrates under the ground. Hydrates will be created by the combination of a low temperature (around 0 C) and pressure, depending on the pressure surrounding it can remain stable at up to 18 C. So take away the pressure and it will rise but not as oil do.
Remember that the 'permeability' of a gas is higher than that of water (water’s denser). It will find 'ways' out everywhere, land as sea. In fact, estimates are that more than 10% of the world’s hydrates are located on-shore in arctic permafrost; and a sizable — although not quantified — amount are in relatively shallow arctic seas. These are susceptible to melting from warming. And as we know, the polar regions are warming faster and will get hotter than the global average. So a sizable amount of the methane trapped in hydrates is vulnerable to release by warming.
---Quote---Arctic Methane TimeBomb ready to go off---
Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 60-70 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a twenty-year
period (or 25 times over a hundred-year period). Human-caused methane emissions are currently
contributing some 20-30% of the observed global warming effects. These include: Energy,
Landfills, Ruminants (Livestock), Waste treatment, and Biomass burning.
However, there are two additional sources of methane that are just now bubbling to the surface.
One source is the methane hydrates (also called clathrates) that have been frozen since the last ice
age in the permafrost lands of Russia, Alaska and Canada, but are now being released as the
permafrost melts. In addition, the methane hydrates, which have been long stored in the cold Arctic
Ocean seabed, are now being released as the ocean temperature rises.
Estimates of the land based hydrates estimates range from 0.8 to 1 gigaton, for the sea-based
hydrates in the Arctic total 1.5 gigatons of carbon, Recent research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tons of methane being released, apparently through perforations in the seabed permafrost, with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times normal. Most of the thawing is believed to be due to the greatly increased volumes of meltwater being discharged from the Siberian rivers flowing north. Current Arctic methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5 Megatons (500 000 tons) per year, but now it appears to be increasing rapidly. Shakhova et al (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 gigatons of Carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks.
They conclude that "release of up to 50 gigatons (fifty thousand millions ton) of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve, which is equivalent in greenhouse effect to a doubling in the current level of CO2.
----------End Quote…..By Jim Stewart, PhD, October 6, 2008,-----
Add to that a possible ‘convection-cycle’, up and down in the atmosphere of at least fifty years (An optimistic ‘best guess’).That means that what ever we ‘push up’ today is ‘earmarked’ to come down and ‘help us breath’ for at least the next fifty years. So even if all stopped today we probably wouldn’t see any reclining effects for something like thirty years (my guess only) and, we’re not even sure how long this cycle can be, some people speaks about a hundred years for CO2 in the atmosphere. There is also the fact that as our ‘heat-sinks’ like oceans and land get saturated (filled up) with CO2 its ‘residence time’ in the atmosphere will increase, to even become infinite if our heat-sinks turn to sources, letting of their accumulated CO2 as the warming get worse. Did you get that? We would be as doomed even if we tried that insane scheme of drawing CO2 pipe-lines into Earth to hide our wastes? Am I getting through here? What it states is that we must stop the CO2 sources, not try to bury them after producing it. I’m sure that you and me both wonder what that sub/arctic methane might do the clathrates frozen under the rest of our ‘ever warming’ oceans? When our mean (average) temperature jumps up due to arctic and tundra methane. To Antarctica and to our already fragile marine life, plankton, krill, reefs, and in fact to.. You.
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #36 on:
20/09/2009 17:52:20 »
And the oceans is one of our primary ‘sinks’ of heat created by that CO2 and methane pollution. But now they’re starting to get ‘satiated’ (filled up) The oceans near Antarctica are thought to have one of the healthiest appetites for greenhouse gases. Their surface waters can guzzle around 15 percent of all the carbon dioxide produced by people, which comes mostly from industry and automobile emissions. The new study found the oceans are mopping up only about 10 percent of carbon- oxide, requiring projections for future levels of greenhouse gases to be bumped up accordingly. " (from 2007) And what do you think will happen as the ice disappears from Greenland and the Arctic, leaving bare land to act as heat-sinks, not reflecting the heat away from Earth anymore.
And then we have Antarctica. It have started to loose ice too “Researchers used satellites to plot changes in the Earth's gravity in the Antarctic during the period 2002-2005. Writing in the journal Science, they conclude that the continent is losing 152 cubic km of ice each year, with most loss in the west”. And a study conducted by scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder, uses a technique which has not been tried before: measuring gravity over Antarctica. “ When they fly over regions where there is lots of material below, such as mountain ranges, or where crustal rocks are more dense, they will register an increase in the Earth's gravity - tiny, but measurable.” (from 2006)
"Their orbits have a very large inclination, of 89 degrees in fact, so you get very good coverage over the Antarctic," said Isabella Velicogna, one of the Colorado team. "We see the entire ice sheet and measure the mass change of the entire ice sheet; then we look at the east and west separately," she told the BBC News website. Overall, Dr Velicogna's group found an annual decrease in ice sheet mass of 152 cubic km. There is a clear loss in the west, whereas the mass of the East Antarctic sheet appears to be constant. This loss of ice equates to an annual rise in the global average sea level of 0.4mm; by contrast, the total rise, due mainly to thermal expansion of seawater, is estimated at about 1.8mm per year. "With increasing temperatures you get increased precipitation, so what may happen is that ice in the interior grows and then at the coast you have mass loss. So what we found is that for the continent as a whole, the balance between the two is negative." The Colorado team plans to continue observations and analysis of Grace data until the mission ends, probably in 2009.
---------End of quote---
Now I will expect you to use that muscle between your ears.
West Antarctica was it? Loosing the most ice???
Read this excerpt from an old study (1997). One of the most ‘uncomfortable’ I know of.
In fact, as I have the link at hand why not read it all. It’s nicely written and easy to understand.
(Sea Level, Ice, and Greenhouses' a FAQ by Robert Grumbine.)
[Links inactive - To make links active and clickable,
click here to register]
That West Antarctica can collapse much faster than Greenland relies on another oddity of the West Antarctic geometry. Most of the ice sheet base rests well below sea level (500 - 1000 meters below). The important oddity is that as you move further inward, the land is further below sea level. So, consider a point near the grounding line (the point on land where the ice shelf meets the ice sheet). Ice flows from the grounded part into the floating part. The rate of flow increases as the slope (elevation difference) between the two sections increases. Extra mass loss in the ice shelf means that the shelf becomes thinner (and lower) so more ice flows in from the ice sheet. This makes the ice sheet just a little thinner. _But_ at the grounding line, the ice sheet had just enough mass to displace sufficient water to reach the sea floor. Without that mass, what used to be ice sheet begins to float. Since the sea floor slopes down inland of the grounding line, the area of ice sheet that turns into ice shelf increases rapidly. More ice shelf means more chance for ice to be melted by the ocean.
The collapse mechanism has a mirror-image advance mechanism. Should there be net accumulation, the ice sheet/shelf can ground out to the continental shelf edge. Go back to near the grounding point. This time add some excess mass to the ice sheet/shelf. This thickens the system to ground ice shelf. The grounded ice shelf takes area away from the ocean ablation zone, which makes the mass balance even more in favor of accumulation. So the advance can also be a self- accelerating process. "
-------------End of quote---------------
Nope, there’s no Gym around, teaching you how to beat the sh1t out of it either. But you can try of course.
And you can forget any mean global “two degree C. raise of temperature” at the end of our century. I would start counting on, five. And believing that you, due to any degree in a school of whatever sort, are better adapted to ‘understand’ this problem will only leave you delusional. There is no one able to see what waits for us. Earth is like a ‘stable system’ balancing on a edge today. We are pushing her over that edge. When she goes, she will in time find a new ‘balance’. But that balance won’t be ours..
Some pollution (CO2) statistics today (2009)
(G77 consists of 130 developing countries.)
China 6 103 metric tons spread per 1339 ..million inhabitants
USA 5 752 metric tons spread per 307 ….million inhabitants
G77 4 569 metric tons spread per 2464 ..million inhabitants
EEC 3 914 metric tons spread per 492 …million inhabitants
India 1 510 metric tons spread per 1166 ..million inhabitants
Canada 545 metric tons spread per 34 …..million inhabitants.
Mexico 436 metric tons spread per 111 ..million inhabitants
Brazil 436 metric tons spread per 199 ...million inhabitants
Australia 372 metric tons spread per 21 ..million 0000 inhabitants
Japan 127 metric tons spread per 127 ….million inhabitants
Okay, but who consumes the highest percentage fossil fuels/year then? (CO2)
China 93 %
India 92 %
Mexico 92 %
USA 85 %
Japan 82 %
Brazil 60 %
EEC 58 %
(and South Africa of course, a 95% coal driven economy.)
Last Edit: 20/09/2009 18:00:27 by yoron
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #37 on:
20/09/2009 17:53:11 »
As for Eastern Europe? I don’t really know. But as we can see USA, Australia and Canada comes out on top in this list if you count per inhabitant. And Japan and the G77 countries seems to be the countries that spreads the least CO2 per inhabitant. China who wasn’t expected to pass USA pollution-wise for at least ten years is recently racing to the top followed by India that expect to triple its pollution to 2031. But it’s not a race anymore, it’s a countdown to your extinction. And as I see it, if you won’t face it then you’re the one killing your offspring, shouldn’t that mean ‘something’ for you? Killing your kids? But if so? If we don’t care even for that? Maybe it’s all for the good then, maybe we should leave place for a species that will treat Earth right. You don’t really need to build a spaceship to find that inhabitable planet to survive on. You’re already on it, the biggest and best spaceship you ever will travel in. But it seems as we can’t even learn how to flush its toilets? By the way? Which countries do you expect to take the first ‘hit’ from this pollution? My uneducated guess, first the G77 countries (we already can see it there). And then shortly thereafter Australia, India, Pakistan ( near laying countries) and parts of China. Then us.
Another thing, thinking of it. Most people tend to ‘associate themselves’ with what they’re paid too, be that for good or bad. That makes most of ‘the papers’ exclamations rather dubious to me, as they are owned by interests who might not enjoy to much exposure of this problem. As all ‘Owners’ want their ‘portfolios’ to be arranged to order, in secure investments making them ‘money’, it’s so sickeningly human. And it may make the same papers present a slightly colored ‘truth’, also not wanting to ‘scare the public’ of course. Also the ‘Owners’ might feel that urgent need to arrange new secure ‘portfolios’ first, adapted to the ‘changing’ situation, before it’s to ‘late’... And to that we also can add the ‘politics’ of it, coloring what’s in reality is a problem containing no politics at all. If you’re drowning you don’t care for your lifeguards political views, do you? But in global warming here there seems to be an awful deal of political exposure. I’m not sure our changing climate will care for that though?
The problem we can do something about directly is CO2. And by that also delaying methane releases, and in the best scenario, stop it from happening. And as that old human adage say, ‘let’s do it to them before they do it to us.’
If it was my choice I would tell you to put your car away, but now.
And to stop all coal-based activities, industries etc, but now.
And stop using chemical fertilizers, but now.
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #38 on:
20/09/2009 17:53:55 »
In fact there are a lot of things humanity could do, even today, that we won’t.
Because that would ‘hurt’ our ‘God-given right to be greedy and progress’
(couldn’t help myself:)
We seem as kids, stymied by short-time egotism. And just like unruly kids we refuse to accept when ‘Mother’ have had enough. The worst as well as most ironic thing though, to me that is, is what we seem prepared to die for. A symbol, not a resource, just a symbol we find convenient.
Money is sacred, if it will ‘cost’ then nobody wants it. If it means that some industries will suffer then it’s wrong. If it mean that my paycheck/stocks will go down
I don’t want it. And if it mean I won’t have a job? No way… On the other tentacle, it do represent something ‘real’. Earth’s natural resources. Fertile soil, wild life, oil, minerals, the rainforests, marine life, drinkable water, diverse fragile ecology’s etc. And all of this is disappearing, every day, every minute of your life.
You are getting robbed.
And you’re the one robbing your kids.
Protecting ‘money’ we kill its foundations. Finding out ‘real resources’ is disappearing we go into a ‘feeding frenzy’. Grabbing what resources there be left, exploiting to protect, what else, our sacred ‘economy’…
And your holy right to over-consume of course. The eleventhy-elevetnh amendment to all ‘constitutions’ on Earth today, be they dictatorships or ‘Democratic’.
Trusting any ‘free market’ seems sheer stupidity in this case. And I’m not that sure about the government(s) and the UN, EEC either. We could use ‘one man/one voice- democracy’ here, not the ‘representative’ kind. No friggin ‘Superheroes’ that tells me what to think, or who tells me that ‘this is what you meant by voting me in’. Nope, that’s not what I meant. Why not try common sense for a change. As we could, using the internet as our platform voting. So that’s a hope, that we use the net as it could be used. But we seem to restrict it instead. It’s dangerous, isn’t it? Just as China treats it, policing its use to keep all the ‘right thoughts’ lined up. But in the ‘Western democracies’ it’s the ‘industry’s’ that keeps on pushing for it.
“- Leave such a ‘resource’ in the hands of the public! What a waste.”
“- Regulate it I say, think of our innocent kids. And remember, our profits is your profit (Big sincere smile).”
And with the governments one tiny step behind?
Let me see, ‘representative Democracy’, was it?
So now I’m an ‘errand boy’ for the industry, am I?
And from their point of view I guess the Internet is ‘dangerous’. How will any Emperor ever be expected to keep ‘any new clothes’ on with so many ‘peeping toms’ out there? All screaming that he’s naked. And what kind of ‘government’ would it be if a common man could ‘rule’ directly on national, or international, decisions?
“Hell, they can’t even knit their shoelaces. . .”
Nope. We need good laws protecting the individual. We need a working bureaucracy, populated by intelligent beings that cares for those rights. And we need to make sure that nobody sits to long at any nexus of power. We need the law, the ideas of freedom, but all the ‘stuffing’ building it today? We can make without that. As long as we all have the same vote.. Instead of a assembly of politicians we could have a system where you had to do certain ‘governmental jury duties’ over a year or two of your life. A citizens duty if you like. And yes, you would need to be updated on the issues in question so a lot would hang on those doing research and presenting it to you, that’s where the bureaucracy would come in and their integrity would be tested, and your internet too. And you would be paid, not like a football-star but a decent wage for your work. Same as politics work today too, well, except for the wages perhaps. And no, we could make a system where you have several groups working on the issues, and then use only some (representative:) part of the voters, randomly chosen. That should minimize the probability of ‘pressures’ by ‘interested parties’. What we wouldn’t have in such a system would be all those ‘secret handshakes/deals’ between ‘powerbrokers’ and all that money ‘greasing the wheels’. Most of the questions is about common sense anyway as I see it, and you would learn a lot doing it. And I guess my view here is a nightmare to all collecting ‘power’, of any kind, be it ‘democratic’ or totalitarian. I’ve been hoping for people to see the possibilities for quite some time now? We have Secure cryptography (open and closed ‘keys’) and that combined with ‘one vote - one man’ and the Internet? It’s actually simple, if we would use it. Yes, you would need a computer, a decent web-camera and some software. And if you didn’t have it I guess the state could offer you one as a job-perk. It’s all solvable, and you know what. I think it would be democratic too. And on big issues we would need a larger representation of voters, on some all would be required to vote. That’s what real freedom is, giving you the possibility to make a difference, not your ‘representative’. It’s strange how fast ‘elite’s’ incompetence-declare all others. If you have a vote, it should be yours.
“Hell, he can’t even knit his shoelaces. . .”
“Wha’da’ya’mean, …Could too?”
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #39 on:
20/09/2009 17:54:49 »
And then what? If we still didn’t care even after such a ‘vote’? Well, we’ve made our decision ‘democratic’ for real, at least. And noticed too I presume. Blaming ignorance or the governments unwillingness to face the ‘truth’ shouldn’t be a excuse anymore, by anyone, be it industries or you. “Hey, nobody told me..” Some real ‘disturbed ones’ may even expect that the ‘rich side’ of the world just have to ‘hunker down and wait it out’. I don’t expect that to work, even though the poor countries will be the ones taking the first hits. If the methane gets loose under our oceans we’re all ‘dead meat’. I’m not joking this time, I guarantee that humans will be gone from this planet if that happens. A lot of people studying geology and Earth’s history says it too. At the Permian-Triassic extinction event . (Around 280 to 230 million years ago) and at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (63-40 millions years ago), the beginning of what life we know today, this scenario seems to have happened twice already.
Or turn it the other way around. Our vote there said ‘Stop’. Some countries rulers says ‘No’. Well, then we’ll be at each others throats just that tiny bit faster,. Nice slogan btw. ‘Say no, save the species.’ And the ‘opposite’ ‘Say no to save the Species’ You better choose your sign now
That last one is for you doubters, you can get it both ways there, depending on how you read it.
At the Permian-Triassic extinction around 96 percent of all sea life and 70 percent of Earth’s land animals died, To be gone , never, ever, coming back, and furthermore, it is also the only known mass extinction of insects. 57% of all families and around 83% of all related gene groups/materials were killed. And we’re still paying our dues for that one in a poorer Earth, reduced genetic materials etc, although it happened a quarter of a billion years ago. And they had an abundance of life to spend, we don’t, due to our exploitation of natural resources. So, what do you prefer? Go down stating ‘my car is my castle’ or learn how to treat Earth in a sustainable manner? That meaning that we in some ways will have to back up our so called ‘progress’ when it comes to the more environmental damaging processes. Even live on ‘rations’ for a time until we’ve given Earth some chance to restore our ‘larder’. And perhaps stop ‘making’ more people than our Earth can feed. One human, one kid. Non negotiable. For some ten, twenty generations at least, that should help too. As Ban Ki-Moon (UN general secretary) expressed it at a speech in Geneva recently (freely translated from a Swedish source). ‘With one foot on the accelerator we are making our way to the abyss’. Kind of catchy, don’t you think. But hey, ain’t that guy boring? He’s certainly not very charismatic as that brilliant Norwegian diplomat, ever so graciously, informed us.
“ Well lady, I don’t give a flying sh* about that.
I do care about if he’s right though. You should too, thinking about it.”
Then again. What was it that’s making Norway so rich in this day and time?
Brains or Oil? Go figure…
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #40 on:
20/09/2009 17:55:35 »
But acting as I expect we will, with ‘short-time solutions’ sending what ‘relief help’ we’re ready to afford and then righteously ask ourselves ‘what more could we do?’ It will soon enough become like planning for how to ‘defend’ yourself from ‘suicide-bombers’. Quite difficult and leaving an extremely bad taste in your mouth, ethically as well as morally. Festung (that’s Bulwark for you:) Europe and Festung America, and you my friend as ‘Super/wo/man’ proudly defending our western civilization. Ask any ‘normal’ Israeli how (s)he fell about the restrictions forced upon them, and then try asking those not belonging, it’s a ugly unhappy situation for all involved. On the other tentacle, I’m sure that there already are ‘think-tanks’ looking at this, as well as how to best present the Arctic catastrophe as something ‘good for you, the ‘consumer’ And Santa too. “Yes Santa, the South-pole is soo roomy, you will like it there. Don’t you worry about your vodka, there’s still ice.” .. Did I hear someone call us myopic? ..
Of course, there is also that really good chance that it will lead to all out wars between nations as everyone’s living room shrinks. Can I blame those ‘poor nations’ taking to arms? They don’t have a choice, do they? Except to stay where they are, and lie down to die.. Perhaps they will ‘fight it out’ with each other before coming to us.. Don't rightly know there? If we’re ruthless enough, it may very well be us that keeps ‘feeding’ them with cheap arms, or even give them away to ‘simplify’ the ‘cleansing’ of mass migrations between poor countries. And to stop that further ‘polluting’ by those finding themselves without other means to keep warm and feed. You know, turning that blind eye to our armament industries. Don’t you give me that innocent look buster, we already do it, only depending on what ‘values’ we believe in for the moment. It’s just another tiny step for us. It even has its own name.. ‘Realpolitik ‘ (or ‘cannon boat politics’)
Still, if there is enough able and willing to make that stand for ethics and those newfangled ideas of ours, like ‘moral values’ and ‘sharing’, there might be some slight chance for us all, and if not? Well, good riddance to it all. Earth’s time-count is definitely not ours, she can ‘wait’ fifty thousand years, or a million, before starting anew, creating that concept of ‘intelligence’, preferably incorporating the concept of ‘wisdom’ too that time. And you know what, to her you’re not really that ‘unique’, and she don’t care for your nationality either, furthermore, she has a sharp sense of humor. Don’t you too find that somewhat embarrassing? The way she gets rid of us I mean. Death by ‘farting’? It’s kind of hilarious, fitting perhaps considering over-consuming, but hilarious in a slightly sick way.. And while you’re out there ‘consuming’, do try to remember what ‘economy’ really stands for, rich as poor. Some clothes, somewhere to sleep, food for today, and food for tomorrow. It’s really that simple, it’s only us forgetting it, repeatedly. And seen so, how much do you need?
.. Ah well, my views, --- Enough of Doomsday Prophesies.—
And. Yes, I do have the sources for all citations I’ve done. Most of the links I’ve stated in ‘Global health’. Or if you look at what I wrote earlier on this site. As I said I’m ‘out of net’ for the moment so it’s a real hassle linking you. And the sources are ‘reputable ones’, by all ‘standards’. I’m too aware of the ‘paid debunking’ done on the Internet to risk my sources to be ‘only green ones’ That’s, if I may add, a real pain in the posterior with you American debunkers. Everything seems to turn into ‘politics’ for you.
“And then Sir, he came back out from that Black Hole Sir, holding the blueprints for a perpetual machine!”
“So? be more pertinent to the real issues involved here Sir. Was he, or was he not I ask, a Liberal?”
Politics may be a good thing at times, but some things, like survival, is not, really, a ‘political’ issue.
As Death and his scythe doesn’t, really, care for your political views.
( “No I say, go away, I’m a voting Democrat, go find you one of them Liberal’s.”
----------------------End of Conscience, well, sort of----------------
Btw: I reckon he’s Finnish..
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #41 on:
20/09/2009 17:56:48 »
My idea of 'time' is that everything is 'time' and that all we can observe is what happens after those 'transitions' expressing themselves as 'events' or 'causes and effects'. As the transitions takes place in themselves without any observers 'arrow of time' existing for the transitions, they can't be defined as other than 'indeterminate/nonexistent' to that observer. And that's what HUP seems to say to me. And it sounds quite weird to me too
But, hey. What about one dimensional strings ? Maybe those are the mathematical foundations of what I think of as being ‘energy/time’? As for proving that all is 'time' I'm not sure on what type of experiments could show it, as all we can do is anchored through our 'arrow of time'. The only way I can think of, is observing what we can and draw conclusions through that deduced as 'missing'. In one way you might say that we, and the universe, is an expression of 'ideas' more than any secluded 'reality' that comes to be through that macroscopic arrow of time. On the other hand, what will it make of the concept of 'development' and 'free will' etc. if those assumptions were correct?
To me they would stand as we always assumed them to be, realities of our world rather than 'ideas without form'. That goes back to my view stating that there is constant 'jumps' outside of our arrow of time creating what we observe. We exist –inside-> that arrow, and the observations we make as well as the arrow itself is the only thing 'valid' for our existence. That there might be other and wider explanations to us existing won’t change a thing about that. We are somewhat like goldfishes in a bowl. It doesn't matter that there are other stuff outside that bowl, they doesn't change the bowl. If it is so entanglements might just be a cause of something working behind that 'arrow' hiding its true process for us. Even at a quantum mechanical level without that timely arrow we still observe chains of events, those we can understand as they relate to our world of reason, and those that won't. A Feynman-diagram is still a worldly description making sense to us as you can see the chain creating that 'final effect' no matter which way you read it, and no matter what effect you choose to see as being the last.
Entanglement consists of the property of spin or polarization of two particles being connected, due to them consisting as one originally, but split by the use of a so called ‘beamsplitter’ f ex, a prism or a mirror reflecting half of the light falling in on it simultaneously allowing half to pass through, splitting the light .
And spin refers to the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle and the direction of its velocity. If the spin is aligned with the velocity it’s seen as having "positive helicity." If the spin is anti-parallel (oppositely directed) to the particles velocity (speed and direction) the particle will have a "negative helicity." If used on photons we instead talk about its polarization as all light is polarized, that’s why your sunglasses is ‘polarized’. To stop approximately half of the sunlight if I remember right. You can test it by having two polarized glasses rotating against each other. At some point of rotation no light will be able to pass through.
The spin of a particle is quantized, so when we make a measurement at any specific angle we get only one of the two results UP or DOWN. This was shown by the famous Stern/Gerlach experiment, in which a beam of particles (atoms of silver) was passed through an oriented magnetic field, and it was found that the beam split into two beams, one deflected UP (relative to the direction of the magnetic field) and the other deflected DOWN, with about half of the particles in each. This behavior implies that the state-vector for spin has just two components, vUP and vDOWN, for any given direction v. These components are weighted and the sum of the squares of the weights equals 1. (The overall state-vector for the particle can be decomposed into the product of a non-spin vector times the spin vector.) The observable "spin" then corresponds to three operators that are proportional to the Pauli spin matrices:
Photons too have quantum spin (they are spin-1 particles), but since photons travel at the speed c, the "spin axis" of a photon is always parallel to its direction of motion, pointing either forward or backward. These two states correspond to left-handed and right-handed photons. Whenever a photon is absorbed by an object, an angular momentum of either +h/2p or -h/2p is imparted to the object. Each photon "in transit" may be considered to possess, in addition to its phase, a certain propensity to exhibit each of the two possible states of spin when it interacts with an object, and a beam of light can be characterized by the spin propensities (polarization) and phase relations of its constituent photons. Polarization behaves in a way that is formally very similar to the spin of massive particles. In a sense, the Schrodinger wave of a photon corresponds to the electro-magnetic wave of light, and this wave is governed by Maxwell's equations, which tell us that the electric and magnetic fields oscillate transversely in the plane normal to the direction of motion (and perpendicular to each other).
It may be worth noting that light polarization and photon spin, although intimately related, are not precisely synonymous. The photon's spin axis is always parallel to the direction of travel, whereas the polarization axis of a wave of light is perpendicular to the direction of travel. It happens that the polarization affects the behavior of photons in a formally similar way to the effect of spin on the behavior of massive particles. Polarization itself is often not regarded as a quantum phenomenon, and it takes on quantum behavior only because light is quantized into photons.
--------End of quote-------------
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #42 on:
20/09/2009 17:57:39 »
There are other more ‘obscure’ ideas of how to create a ‘split’, but the ‘idea’ hovering behind it all I believe to be as described here. That as that as soon as you measure the spin/polarization of one of those ‘split’ particles the other particle will ‘fall out’ to begetting the opposite spin/polarization. How can it know this ‘twins’ choice? What really bugs people is the proofs showing this phenomena happening ‘instantly’, no matter how far apart they are. In other words, ‘distance’ becomes a meaningless factor having no relevance to the phenomena. As we know that light have a ‘barrier’ for its ‘speed’ this phenomena questions the concept of SpaceTimes arrow. There are few things known to be ‘instant’. One I know of is the supposed ‘instant’ acceleration of photons which in fact is a statement saying that there is no ‘acceleration’ at all. The other I know of is entanglement, and a third I presume to be quantum tunneling, although there I’m not sure. To me entanglement and the photons ‘instant’ acceleration is two signs pointing the same way. They both question or ideas of ‘distance’ and their combination ‘dimensions’ creating SpaceTime’. But there is another interesting question to my eyes, If I consider a light wave (photon) and an entanglement as needing to be containing ‘information’ to be said to be part of our arrow of time? What do that make to the part of a light beam going ‘FTL’? And to that ‘distant’ part of the entanglement that only will ‘fall out’ under our observation of the near entanglement. They are there even without our observation as being ‘real phenomena’ inside SpaceTime. Or is SpaceTime some blend of ‘information’ and ‘non-information’? Remember that I defined SpaceTime as the part where you have that definition of ‘work being done’ for this question. Do SpaceTime then contain both? Can it have parts of it that in fact doesn’t fall under ‘cause and effect’ and not are doing any ‘work’ under our arrow of time, but exist observable to us never the less? Why?
It is after all our 'arrow of time' that creates what we experience as 'distance'. And keeps it true even in QM, no matter your choice of reading that 'time-line' (beginning and end). Take the veil of cause and effect away from your eyes and what have you left. Disjointed 'processes' superimposed on each other without beginning and end? And that is what’s on that ‘dimension less’ level hiding behind space. Everything’s there and we achieving what’s called our free will, freedom of choices, constantly constructing our ‘future’ through them. And I don’t expect us to proof it other than ‘negatively’ by observing what’s ‘not’ there in our experiments. I have always considered gravity to be a ‘field’ of sorts but not the other ‘forces’ we had, but now I’m starting to wonder as all ‘propagating’, if seen like I do here, becomes..? That as it consist of something outside observable ‘time’ like a thinly woven gauze covering all ‘distances’ made to vibrate with what ‘propagation’ we observe inside our ‘arrow of time being those ‘waves/gravitons etc’.’ In fact already existing at all points even though not ‘there’ for us until we somehow ‘disturb’ it. And so it may be with all propagation of force if so. Being all there and at all ‘times’ but without ‘distances/sizes’ being involved. And as for how it utter itself to involve/create ‘distance’ and a resemblance of order?
Yep, that one freaks me out too..
The only thing coming to mind is those processes that seems to go from the simple to the complex.
And to create a ‘linear process acting from ‘A’ to ‘B’’ from such ideas I think you first need to decide that time can’t have a arrow, although we observe it otherwise in our ‘closed case?’. It’s possibly possible
to define mathematically, either if you see it as a more ‘complex’ process falling out into a simplified reaction to create ‘distance’ and ‘propagate tracks’ in SpaceTime, or if you see it as a inherently simple ‘timeless’ process, acting increasingly more complex until it resolve itself inside our ‘arrow’ as something to us comprehended as ‘moving’. As all ‘growth’ I know of seems to make that statement, but then again, that’s like my view of a photons choosing the ‘straightest/shortest line’ ‘traversing’ SpaceTime, isn’t it? It’s all a matter of interpretation. And thinking of all small movements I do in my daily life it boggles my mind how something without ‘distance’ can coordinate it all into such a seamless experience for me. But I can’t see a ‘simpler’ explanation, for now that is
And whatever your idea is, it will have to consider all of mine ‘congestion’s’ too. Like mass, time, consciousness, distance (dimensions), ‘living’ and ‘dead’ things, virtual photons etc. And then relate it in a comprehensible way to you moving in your daily life experiencing ‘reality’. As it otherwise won’t be a TOE (theory of everything) to me. As for how to see the Universe, if thinking like this, I would call this the ‘real dimensions’ existing. Not our 3D + times arrow (distances) but the idea of something existing without ‘distances’ at all unfolding into our ‘dimensions’, and more? I also think that the border from where all ‘distances’ evolves lies somewhere around Planck size for us, or perhaps ‘particle size’ is the right word? So to travel faster than light you just have to accept that at one level you already are ‘everywhere’, the same as everything else existing in SpaceTime. And one question then will be how to define what it is that creates the ‘sub-set’s’(?)’ of SpaceTime. If we found out what creates distance perhaps we could find some way to manipulate it. Probably not to ‘teleport’ humans or even , ah, cats? Well, perhaps Schroedinger’s then, but no more I say.
. . .Maybe ‘information’?
And if that is right, there ‘already’ ..is.. ‘messages’ waiting for us there.
We just need to learn how to read them, as for who’s sending them?
You? God? The ‘future’?
That loses its definition if so, doesn’t it.
And if everything will be ‘there’ when/if we succeeds in communicating, maybe we won’t succeed, ever.
Or maybe there will be some ‘rule’ disallowing us to read it all.
To sum it up, If distance is gone so is dimensions. without it time cease its arrows.
Then a photon takes up a whole universe and what you surmise to be life will be, just your divine madness
And ‘time’ will always be ‘now’. . .
(Don’t confuse that ‘now’ with the one some see to exist in SpaceTime though.
SpaceTime to me can’t have a ‘observable’ ‘now’ . Instead it have what’s called its ‘time cone’, like a flashlights light-cone, turned backwards from your future, growing bigger through its ‘history’. But its not you holding that flash-light, you’re always inside that light-cone and the ‘time’ you realize the ‘moment’ it’s already your ‘history’. The nearest we can come to a ‘now’ is the idea of it, never the significance of observing it. We do have a ‘future’ waiting, as well as our ‘history’ unfolding behind us but no consciousness can hold the ‘now’. We’re just not built for it, nothing ‘biological’ is
( Maybe one could see photons as champions of ‘now’, as they always are ‘there’?
We have another thing. Our ‘expectation/planning’ for the future, that always ‘push the envelope’ of SpaceTime. Molding it into our ‘likeness’, if you like. But, what we can’t ever observe, does it really exist? We tend to build Science on the idea of ‘observable and repeatable’ don’t we? So what if its not ‘observable’ even though you find it to be ‘repeatable’ Like that abstraction, the ‘future’, always coming at you, but never the same. Coming until your ‘best of, date’ expires.
And my final question.
If ‘times arrow’, according to my thoughts, don’t really exist?
What is it that makes it not so.
How, and why?
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #43 on:
20/09/2009 17:58:34 »
If you’re looking for something more ‘sane’.
There is also ..That Idea.. that possibly is.. The ..Answer.. To it all..
Might it, I mean, could it possibly be
I've seen it presented in several works of great scientific value.
Defiantly better than mine
Yes my friend, I've seen it proved..
Have a look at this.
- - - - - -
Pick a number between ten and a thousand.
Don't tell me what it is.
Add the digits together.
[5+7+5 = 17]
Add them again.
Subtract this from the original number.
[575-11 = 564]
Add the digits together.
Find the remainder left when you divide by nine.
(15 modulo 9 equals 6)
[6*6 = 36]
"And the number in your head is ... 42?"
Now, you don't have to agree to anything of this.
Well, except 42 that is.
Let me prove it otherwise..
4/2*2= that's right.. 4Too, and correctly expressed in mathematical notation.. 42
In fact, I'm not that sure of what I’ve written either. Some of it I really hope to be wrong, but I doubt it is. Then again, I find myself being of two minds almost daylily. Does that make me a flaming schizophrenic? Nope, just twice as good, bad? ..Ah, whatever.. As that actor going politician said. “There will be time’ or was it “I’ll be back”?
Ps: I do like comments, and if you keep them concise it will help.
And no, “Buthead” won’t cut it with me.
And as I have a extremely bad internet connectivity.
And as it take me ‘quite some time’ to see what you wrote.
And as it takes me even longer to deliver that reply you then so rightly deserve.
So, don’t count on me answering in time
Last Edit: 20/09/2009 18:11:47 by yoron
Naked Science Forum King!
Thanked: 2 times
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #44 on:
21/09/2009 02:42:33 »
Information cannot be lost. Stephen Hawking finally retracted his statement on the information paradox, saying that black holes in fact tunnel the energy back into our own space and time.
Google it. I'm sure you will find plenty on the subject.
''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''
̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪•)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿
Naked Science Forum GOD!
Thanked: 10 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #45 on:
25/09/2009 18:01:27 »
Well, it all depends on how you see it I guess? To my eyes we have two kinds of communication in SpaceTime. One where we 'interact' inside SpaceTime, the other one is what I deem to be 'one-way' only. And a black hole or a entanglement is both nice descriptions of that last idea
As the 'communication' Stephen Hawking refers to is a 'happening' outside or at the edge of the EV (event horizon) I still see it as a interaction with space more than with a Black Hole itself. It's a local effect not a 'far' effect if you see my drift? A singularity will not allow (two way) communication. If it does it will no longer be a singularity. To me it seems that one have to differ between what I see as 'sources' of a disturbance of 'equilibrium' and what acts on it. We both agree on that it is the Black Hole creating it though, but if you look at it as a 'rift' in SpaceTime having a one-way --> communication then that Black Hole will still be a 'singularity' and what we deem as 'communicating' should be searched for inside SpaceTime. So I'll keep to this, for now
Last Edit: 25/09/2009 19:49:03 by yor_on
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Naked Science Forum GOD!
Thanked: 10 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #46 on:
25/09/2009 18:24:40 »
Here is some more material. As usual I can’t give you the direct link but it’s from a pdf with the caption “All Matter Instantaneously Senses All Other Matter in the Universe”. And no author(s) in it which sort of P*es me off
Again.. Because it’s just that kind of ‘essay’ that I love to read, well written and argumentative with interesting thought experiments.. So I’m condensing most of it and afterwards comes my questions and ideas. And no, I’m still without any internet which makes it quite hard to ‘argue’ comprehensible with you. So It’s still just an ‘essay’ I’m afraid. And as I said in the beginning, thoughts, not certainties. Yes, I will include my view on Global warming there too, even though it to me seem all to ‘true’, as well as late. (((Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read them though
At the very least it will give you some ‘direction’ in life
) Getting miffed and all. . Just follow that yellow brick road.
Let us continue with taking a historical look at ‘action over a distance’. Aristotle as well as later Galileo didn’t think that this phenomena could exist (Far action), and Galileo was very disappointed at Kepler who, due to his interest in magnetism, thought otherwise. “But among all the great men who have philosophized about this remarkable effect (the attraction between celestial masses), I am more astonished at Kepler than any other. Despite his open and acute mind, and though he had at his fingertips the motions attributed to the earth, he has nevertheless lent his ear and his assent to the moon’s dominium over the waters (tides) and to occult properties, and such puerilities.” With Einstein as another disciple of Aristotle. His EPR experiment tried to refute the idea, but as we read, it opened for ‘entanglements’ instead.
But this question is still not decided. Take a look at this experiment.
We have two horseshoe magnets sticking to the vertical sides of a copper plate. The magnets are held up, against the pull of gravity, by their attraction to each other and friction on the copper plate. If we wish to explain the attraction with modern physics, we have to call upon quantum electrodynamics (QED). One of the originators of QED, Richard Feynman [1.4], claimed it explains everything except gravitation and nuclear forces. Hence it ought to cover the attraction of two magnets. In QED, forces between particles of matter are mediated by the collision of photons with electrons and the accompanying momentum transfer. So streams of photons must leave each of the two magnets of figure 1.2, spontaneously and forever, and then pass through a copper plate, finally colliding with electrons at the surface and deep inside the opposite horseshoe magnets. A simple collision between two particles produces repulsion, therefore in order to generate attraction between the magnets, the photons must navigate around the magnets, turn and strike them in the back.
(The ‘horseshoes’ are placed against each other N-S and S-N with a thin copperplate between them and the ‘QED photon trajectory’ will then leave one horseshoe, somehow travel outside the opposite horseshoe to turn and strike it from its back to create the needed attraction between them.)
This mechanism is so ludicrous that it will not be found discussed in textbooks. Nor will most professors mention it to a class of students.”
-------End of quote---
Now, think of that ‘Newtonian apple’ falling towards the center of Earth’s gravity. How did it know where that Earths-center was? Could it feel all those atoms creating Earth and from there locate the ‘center’? According to Newton it seems it should? On the other hand, in a ‘Einstenian’ universe the Aristotle’s principle stating that ‘matter can not act where it is not’ will still be true. The path that apple takes to the ground will be due to its geodesic path in a curved SpaceTime following the Newtonian forces of gravitation and inertia, also called ‘Einstein’s theory of local action’. So, looking at it this way we find two ‘visions of reality’ colliding. In the Newtonian universe the ‘spooky attraction of particles’ exists. In our ‘Einstenian’ it won’t. ‘Far action’ or ‘Local action’? Which one is ‘real’?
To my eyes both are correct. As I see it, if we have a distance-less background to all phenomena we can observe, then you will find Newton’s idea correct, but as we also inside our ‘arrow of time’ have the curved SpaceTime as described by Einstein then he too is correct and the apple will follow the effects he describes, and both do place the apple at the center of that mass. The main difference as I see it being that Newton’s idea of a unchanging ‘inelastic’ speed of light being wrong inside SpaceTime. That he never considered the possibility that light both could have a ‘true speed’ at the same time that it would be observed to keep to that speed no matter the relative motion of frames measuring it is nothing particularly strange, to make that sort of ‘jump’ without any pointers to build it on? So what some people like to see as a ‘statement’ of certainty from Newton is more a case of ‘missing information’ to me. And if we have a SpaceTime where both far and local action exist then the differences seems more to relate to ideas we haven’t defined yet, for example how entanglement is supposed to work no matter its distance? Although I’m not sure how to test that statement about entanglements ‘limitless distances’ experimentally, I have assumed it to be true in my essay, and so I will find ‘far action’ to be true for our apple, and the idea of it and Earth’s Atoms ‘interacting’ or as I say ‘observe’ each other. On the other hand Einstein’s concept of curved space and how mass /time /motion /distance interacts is also true and have a clearer definition inside SpaceTime than our Newtonian description which even though being ‘non-local’ to its nature still is found to be ‘most true locally’, as on Earth, if you see my drift.
To me both ideas seems closely related to my idea of ‘observers’ with Newton defining them as being without ‘distance’ as they communicate/interact directly and Einstein defining them as needing to follow SpaceTime geodesics, but in both cases we find them needing to exist inside our ‘SpaceTime’ to interact, then again you will have phenomena like entanglement that can ‘communicate’ over great distances instantly but without being able to transmit what we call ‘information’. So my ‘observers’ needs then also to be defined by the information they interchange, and that’s why a Black Hole shouldn’t be a part of those ‘observers’ to me. If you somehow could prove that the ‘information’ coming from the possible hawking radiation wasn’t a product of interactions with ‘virtual particles’ inside SpaceTime, that is, outside or on the ‘edge’ of that EV, and instead becoming from the inside of that EV, now that would imply some sort of ‘two way communication’. But as long as it’s only a result created inside SpaceTime, no matter what you see as the ‘instigator’ (Black Hole:) then that Black Hole will be closed to me containing a ‘one way arrow’ only. SpaceTime thrives on interactions, defined as two way communications here. As soon as you find a ‘one way’ you will find some sort of ‘singularity’ waiting there. The way to ‘communicate’ with those will not go through applying and receiving ‘information’ as that only seems correct inside SpaceTime. You will have to look at the way they ‘builds/emerges’ instead and then read the information holistically as a pattern, not as ‘information’ having a interactivity with SpaceTime, and probably also keep it out from any known ‘cause and effect chain’ that we might relate them to? Also the ideas seem to relate to ‘magnitudes’ or ‘fractal behavior’ to me. Einstein described SpaceTime, Newton described Earth and the solar-system, doing so both went out from what they knew and made huge ‘imaginative jumps’ that they then backed up with experiments and mathematics. So when it comes to SpaceTime and its ‘elasticity’ time-wise I think Einstein is correct, and the’ absolute time underlying the space-time continuum’ that Newton trusted to I believe to be wrong. But when it comes to the way he saw everything ‘communicating’ inside SpaceTime I believe that to be true, with those exceptions defined as ‘singularities’ that just as the photon is a integrated part of SpaceTime but still seems to be ‘outside’ of it . And if we want to talk about really ‘far action’ behavior I believe we see it clearest at a Quantum mechanical level where we notice such phenomena as ‘black body radiation’ with its unexplainable ‘jumps’ creating the need for particle like ‘photons’ to explain it, as well as the ‘infinities of information’ needed for describing QM correctly and tunneling, entanglement, etc.
As for using Entanglement to send and receive information inside SpaceTime? I don’t think so, I’ve seen really weird statements from IBM amongst others suggesting that you might use entanglements to ‘teleport’ information, or other things.
In brief, they found a way to scan out part of the information from an object A, which one wishes to teleport, while causing the remaining, unscanned, part of the information to pass, via the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect, into another object C which has never been in contact with A. Later, by applying to C a treatment depending on the scanned-out information, it is possible to maneuver C into exactly the same state as A was in before it was scanned. A itself is no longer in that state, having been thoroughly disrupted by the scanning, so what has been achieved is teleportation, not replication.
---end of quote-------
I ‘know’ we entangle light. You know that ethereal thing without mass, size or ‘localization’ except when ‘impacting’. That we do through its polarization as mentioned above. But be awake when reading this please “ Photons too have quantum spin (they are spin-1 particles), but since photons travel at the speed c, the "spin axis" of a photon is always parallel to its direction of motion, pointing either forward or backward. These two states correspond to left-handed and right-handed photons. . Each photon "in transit" may be considered to possess, in addition to its phase, a certain propensity to exhibit each of the two possible states of spin when it interacts with an object, and a beam of light can be characterized by the spin propensities (polarization) and phase relations of its constituent photons.” But when it comes to particles of ‘restmass’ we only talk about its ‘spin’ as I understands it.. Spin is a intrinsic property of a particle “described using a family of objects known as spinors. There are subtle differences between the behavior of spinors and vectors under coordinate rotations. Rotating a spin-1/2 particle by 360 degrees does not bring it back to the same quantum state, but to the state with the opposite quantum phase; this is detectable, in principle, with interference experiments. To return the particle to its exact original state, one needs a 720 degree rotation”. Why is that? Why do you need a double rotation to bring it back to its ‘original state’? there must be something defining it even at that level for us to be able to draw that conclusion. But the ‘geometry’ seems not as ours. And if you have a different geometry, and if that geometry is defined by the way your ‘arrow(s:) of time’ defines you, would you then say that we have more or less ‘distances’ being involved in it? Remember that ‘space ball’ I played with who had its axis of ‘distances’ going out everywhere infinitely? Would that be enough to explain this? Does it ‘translate’ up into more ‘dimensions’ than my ‘space ball’ or can you translate it ‘down’ to fewer ‘dimensions’ or ‘distances’ and get this result? Like if I keep ‘width’ and ‘length’ and look at what that would do with a ball, but then again is that a correct description? When we speak of dimensions we deem SpaceTime spatially as being of three ‘dimensions’, right? From that I can imagine/create this ‘space ball ‘which have an infinite amount of different axis’s to it creating ‘distances’, if I now take away one of them ‘dimensions’ what happens to my ‘space ball’? I’m left with a two-dimensional figure with a suddenly extremely limited amount of ‘distances’ to it, even if possible to define as ‘limitless’ too they still would belong to a ‘smaller infinity’, wouldn’t you agree?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Naked Science Forum GOD!
Thanked: 10 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #47 on:
25/09/2009 18:26:53 »
But what more am I doing when I do like this? That’s right, I’m acting as if the ‘arrow of time’ still is there, same as in our three-dimensional SpaceTime and with the same ‘rules’ defining it. If I had a two-dimensional circle/space ball but no ‘arrow of time’ would that change its properties? Sure would, without the arrow you can’t expect any ‘distance’ to exist. And if the arrow instead would point ‘both ways’ as it seems to do in QM? Would you then have a object that is there but not there at the same ‘time’ fluctuating sort of? And furthermore, if I would treat the idea of ‘time’ as I do distances and say that it also in itself have an infinite amount of axis’s time-wise ‘originally’, then limited by it’s possible ‘emergence(s)’ why wouldn’t that ‘time’ if ‘down sized’ then act differently as we change the ‘dimensions’, or as I like to see it, ‘distances’. The difference between what I call ‘distances’ and ‘dimensions seems to me to be that our three ‘distances’ is the smallest ‘dimensionality’ I need to create a infinite amount of axis’s from every point of ‘origin’ in SpaceTime, creating that ‘space/distances’ within our arrow of time. So if you now lay one more ‘distance’ to those ‘three’ you trust in? If you laid it into my ‘space ball’ I wouldn’t expect it to be noticed at all, the various ‘distances’ going out from that ‘point’ are already limitless. But If you treat it as solely ‘dimensions’ instead, defined as three (+ time)? Well, then I guess you will need to step out of SpaceTime spatially? And there I feel stymied, I have great trouble imagining that universe. And also it seems to imply that if I was correct in my thought experiment about ‘space balls’ you can’t have what you call a ‘two-dimensionality’ in SpaceTime, as that then would invalidate it. But a universe of ‘ space balls’
combined with ‘time balls’ I would expect to be able to produce almost any combination of effects that we observe, yep, as a guess of course, nothing more. And of course, you can call me a ‘odd ball’ if you like
Anyway, let’s go back to IBM and their ‘teleportation’ scheme above. Let us say I create two ‘particles’ from one through a beamsplitter. Now I want you tell which one is the ‘original’ object? Can you? The spin of those two will fall out to the opposite of each other as soon as I observe one of them, but I can’t tell you which ‘spin’ it will have before observing it. To teleport something I assume that you mean that it will be an exact replica, and that a entanglement is not. A entanglement is a mirrored representation of something you only will have the knowledge of as you observe it. Assuming that they are ‘identical’ even if mirrored you still haven’t transferred any known information. The statement above is very doubtful to me, that you can ‘scan out part of the information from an object A’. What exactly do they mean by that? Does it mean that you would be able to know the spin of any particle sent through that beamsplitter, just by observing the ‘original’ before sending it? And if that were true you would also have some way to know which one was the original ‘particle’ as that will be the one with the ‘known’ spin. Clearly strange? And what are the information ‘scanned out’ from the original? Its ‘spin’ perhaps? and that you then apply to C, now defining C to be as A was before? Well, maybe I could call that a ‘exact replica’ but I can’t break ‘the speed of information’ inside SpaceTime with it, as I will need to apply that ‘information’ on C manually. So it’s not a teleportation, to me it seems a manipulation inside ‘the speed of light in a vacuum’ a.k.a. inside our SpaceTime creating two ‘identical’ particles from one through an inter mediator. Entanglements are to me ‘one-way’ communications, therefore similar to singularities and not able to ‘interact’ inside SpaceTime, that means sharing a two-way communication inside it. ‘Teleportations’ obeying ‘c’ is what you have when you send your text to several locations ‘simultaneously’ if so, as long as you then destroy your 'original' in the process? They will be the exact same, containing the same ‘information’ to you no matter where you read them, but to me teleportation should be ‘instantly’ just like that entanglement seems to be. But the real problem is to define what ‘information’ is here. As we saw ‘entanglements’ does not contain any applicable information for you when just watching one end of it, as you can’t know the spin before observing it. That you know that the opposite spin falls out for the mirrored twin as soon as you observed it does not tell you what spin your particle will have before? If you could find a way to know that first spin without observing it, then you would have a way to send superluminal information, with the addendum that you still would need a way to inform your counterpart on Sirius what ‘spin’ you defined as being ‘informative’, but that you could decide together as before he left Earth. The point being here that as far as I understand you’ll never know a spin or polarization without observing it first. If you would be able to do so then you also would be able to instantly ‘know it all’ as neither time nor distance would be a hindrance for ‘information’ inside SpaceTime any longer. Can you see what I mean?
If we go back to the idea of what renormalization is. When you look at those ‘infinities’ describing our electron another way to see it might be to say that you have a infinite amount of statements defining the same thing, all true but never ending. To me it implies that what we have done as a first step, using renormalizability, limiting the outcomes, is not wrong, just as neither Newton or Einstein is wrong. But to me it’s still a ‘limiting case’ wherein we try to circle in ‘reality’ from a quantum mechanical point of view, just as Newton did from a more macroscopic point of view, and then Einstein. The real question to me will be if we can use mathematics to describe what I believe to be that ‘distance-less point of origin’ unfolding into us. I hope we can but I’m not sure. Is there a possibility of defining something without times arrow(s) constantly mirroring/expressing QM and SpaceTime. How do you explain times arrow ‘emerging’? That it is a ‘flow’ for us may be explainable as it come from something without ‘distances’, and you can’t divide null, can you? On the other hand it might be a slightly flawed null, if we look to CP-violations? The question then might become if you can have something without size but unsymmetrical? Or maybe something that won’t be able to find a equilibrium without our SpaceTime? The time and space like direction(s) it expresses through its ‘emergence(s)’ may be more complicated to define, even though we can see its relation to invariant mass/space inside our macroscopic universe.
And if ‘energy’ as I suspect is a ‘local SpaceTime definition’ expressing itself through time as disturbances of equilibrium’s then that too may be what I call ‘time without arrows’ emerging due to symmetry breakings. And that seems to imply that ‘time’ and ‘clocks’ is not the same. SpacetTime is to me like that fountain coming from a single size-less ‘spot’ unfolding itself into clocks and mass, space and distances. So, what do you think? Do you remember that I was asking about what inertia was? Well I said that I believed it to be bound to invariant mass, didn’t I and momentum to be something not bound to anything at all, well sort of. Could momentum be seen as an expression of the geometry of SpaceTime in a Einstenian universe? Like the heights and troughs of space with momentum becoming in our straining of the same by acceleration, although in the fact of a later ‘uniform motion’ it will be integrated in SpaceTime as it no longer ‘strains’? And the consequences of that only will be seen as it once more apply a strain by for example by colliding with ‘something’ or otherwise disturb SpaceTime ‘equilibrium’. But inertia then?
It can be generalised as a force which counteracts any acceleration of an object with respect to the frame that Mach described, in which the bodies of the distant universe are observed to be at rest. This instantaneous force appears to be related to the mass of the object and its acceleration with respect to the Machian frame. An interaction between an observed object on earth and one in the distant universe must be a non-local interaction. The stars in our galaxy are far enough away from us that however fast they are moving, they form a virtually fixed background upon which we measure the motion of our much closer planetary companions. In the same way the relative motion between the galaxies other than our own also can be considered a fixed background relative to which we can measure acceleration. Further, since the laws of
inertia appear to be the same for all directions of motion, then we can assume that the parts of the universe that significantly contribute to the inertia force are distributed uniformly in all directions. This is called an isotropic distribution.
The most familiar manifestation of the force of inertia is the linear resistance to acceleration. This is the force that appears whenever an object is subjected to an applied force either by contact or by gravity, electrostatics or electromagnetism. The inertia force precisely opposes the applied force in such a manner as to allow a finite and predictable acceleration. It is the reason that all objects fall toward the earth with the same acceleration regardless of their mass. If this force did not exist, then any applied force would produce an infinite acceleration and the universe would have collapsed long ago due to the force of gravity. If however, a force is applied to an object which is already moving perpendicular to the direction of the applied force, then the inertial opposition becomes known as a centrifugal force. This is the force that stretches and sometimes breaks a string used to swing a weight around our head. It is also the force that pushes a race car off a high speed corner and most importantly prevents the earth from falling into the sun. Possibly due to the fact that the inertia forces are so uniform and also that a search for their source implies the currently unfashionable non-local interaction principle, they have been treated differently from the other forces in modern physics textbooks and are often only described as “pseudo-forces”.. .
If indeed, objects are directly pushed and pulled by all of the bodies in the universe, then a perfect demonstration of these forces is the space compass, better known as a gyroscope. Once the axis of a flywheel is aligned to point from one fixed galaxy to another and is held in gimballed bearings which are secured to a space capsule, it will point in this direction forever, whatever maneuvers the space ship will perform, so long as the gyroscope is kept rotating and no electric, magnetic, or contact forces can apply a torque to the axis of rotation. The atoms simply feel where the fixed stars are and are pushed and pulled by them. It is not the inertial or gravitational interaction with the nearby stars that stabilizes the gyroscope alignment. It has to be other isotropically distributed matter arranged in an unchanging way with
respect to our galaxy. Every time we become aware that we are accelerating, it is because the distant universe noticed it and has pushed us.
-------End of quote---------
Newton describes inertia in Newton's First Law of Motion as: "An object that is not subject to any outside forces moves at a constant velocity, covering equal distances in equal times along a straight-line path." Or ‘stays’ if not ‘moving’. Inertia is ‘disguised’ by friction on Earth, which is why Aristotle believed that objects moved only as long a force was being applied to them. So is ‘Inertia’ ‘instantaneous’ or is it the result of a gravitational ‘field’ interacting with invariant mass? A.k.a. ‘far action’ as it will react at every point in SpaceTime, making me look at it as ‘space’ observing ‘space’. Do you remember that I spoke about ‘tunneling’ before as one of those ‘possibly instantaneous thingies’.
Chiao's group at Berkeley, Dr. Aephraim M. Steinberg at the University of Toronto and others are investigating the strange properties of tunneling, which was one of the subjects explored last month by scientists attending the Nobel Symposium on quantum physics in Sweden.
"We find," Chiao said, "that a barrier placed in the path of a tunneling particle does not slow it down. In fact, we detect particles on the other side of the barrier that have made the trip in less time than it would take the particle to traverse an equal distance without a barrier -- in other words, the tunneling speed apparently greatly exceeds the speed of light. Moreover, if you increase the thickness of the barrier the tunneling speed increases, as high as you please.
"This is another great mystery of quantum mechanics."
---End of quote---
Well, doesn’t that point to ‘instantaneous displacement’?
As we see it ‘go up in ‘speed’’ with thickness?
Never mind no matter
if what I read above is correct then Inertia seems much as I thought, something specifically bound to invariant mass, versus that ‘momentum’ that then have no such demands ‘resting’ on it. The Newtonian universe makes sense to me, as well as the Einsteinian, although Einstein’s SpaceTime is the one I trust to describe it best macroscopically. The problem with our understanding seems our need to relate what we know to how we observe our SpaceTime working with our ‘forces’ acting. Which I presume to make our observations slightly flawed as they rest on what I expect to be ‘partial truths’. That won’t hinder that there may be one ‘truth’ existing outside our ‘arrow of time’ containing all the ‘truths’ we observe inside it, but to manipulate that ‘truth’ as we do with our ‘forces’, well, I doubt it as that ‘reality’ will not be ours. And just as it is with ‘flows’ and ‘events’ both can be seen as ‘truths’ from an observers perspective, depending on his choice of observation, although in the case f flow versus events I still lean to a ‘flow’ myself being what ‘time’ really is. Not that I expect it to ‘flow’ behind that veil. To me ‘time’ is more like that ‘monolith’ we all are immersed in, and from where SpaceTime becomes as a ‘partial truth’, even though being the only one directly observable for us. So if you think as me it may be time for us to stop looking at SpaceTime as a solely ‘mechanical’ being working by/on the ‘forces’ we deem to exist. So why not start to look on how objects ‘emerge’ and what ‘laws’ we might deduct from that. Well, that’s my view, as crazy as it might be. And I prefer it as it allows for both ‘theories’, with a few exceptions, as Newton’s ‘inelastic’ time won’t ‘do’ inside SpaceTime. As well as it, to me that is, makes sense of us emerging as ‘intelligent beings’, creating ideas and concepts as ‘Ethics’ and ‘morals, right and wrongs’, as that then could be seen as the next step in a unfolding ‘information space’ where we at the end might find ‘problems’ with defining what’s ‘really real’, and which is where we rightly belong as conceptual tinkers. Us and our ‘forces’ will then be something relating to, and inside, SpaceTime, but for what will be waiting ‘behind/outside it’? That should be really interesting to see. Hope I haven’t made to big an ass out of myself here, as I said it’s thoughts, and possibly hypothesizes, created from my needs to get a slightly less headache, not any holy grail. Anyhow, I hope I made my views clear enough to get a grip? As for finding a ‘nexus’ to waves in this case? I don’t know, I don’t think so though, not if we look at those properties of light as ‘emerging’. On the other tentacle, it do makes ‘photons’ seem questionable too
Another thing that’s interesting to me is the question when ‘time’ might get this arrow. As I said before I expect it to involve what we call Planck-distances.
Last Edit: 25/09/2009 20:27:35 by yor_on
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Naked Science Forum GOD!
Thanked: 10 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #48 on:
25/09/2009 18:27:43 »
On the scale of the Planck length, it's possible that the structure of spacetime becomes quite different from the four-dimensional manifold we know and love. Spacetime itself becomes a foam (according to Wheeler) or a bucket of dust (according to Wheeler) or a bubbling sea of virtual black holes (according to Hawking) or a weave of knots or tangles (according to Ashtekar, Rovelli, and Smolin). In short, it's weird, but beyond that nobody really knows. To be more precise, the Planck length is the length scale at which quantum mechanics, gravity and relativity all interact very strongly. Thus it depends on hbar, c, and Newton's gravitational constant G. …
----End of quote--
So you might loosely say that is a definition of where our SpaceTime ends
But there are other ways to search for times shortest ‘arrow’ too.
“The only fundamental theory that picks out a preferred direction of time is the second law of thermodynamics, which asserts that the entropy of the Universe increases as time flows toward the future. This provides an orientation, or arrow of time, and it is generally believed that all other time symmetries, such as our sense that future and past are different, are a direct consequence of this thermodynamic arrow.”
In their study, Feng and Crooks have developed a method to accurately measure “time asymmetry” (which refers to our intuitive concept of time, that the past differs from the future, in contrast with time symmetry, where there is no distinction between past and future). They began by investigating the increase in energy dissipation, or entropy, in various arrangements. Feng and Crooks wanted their new measurement method to explain how time can move forward even at points when entropy is decreasing. To do this, they analyzed the folding and unfolding of a single RNA molecule attached to two tiny beads. By controlling the distance between one bead and an adjacent optical laser trap, the scientists could stretch and compress the RNA molecule. Initially, the RNA starts in thermal equilibrium, but, as it’s alternately stretched and compressed, the total entropy of the RNA and the surrounding bath increases on average. “We use an ensemble, or large number, of RNA trajectories to measure the time asymmetry,” Feng explained to PhysOrg.com. “Using work measurements for both forward and reverse experiments, we simply plug these measurements into an expression for A, or time asymmetry, in the paper. Assuming we know the free energy change, this gives the square of the length of time's arrow.”
--End of quote---
What I think they are doing is treating entropy as a measure of when times arrow becomes fuzzy, like we see in QM.
“We use an ensemble, or large number, of RNA trajectories to measure the time asymmetry,” Feng explained to PhysOrg.com. “Using work measurements for both forward and reverse experiments, we simply plug these measurements into an expression for A, or time asymmetry, in the paper. Assuming we know the free energy change, this gives the square of the length of time's arrow.” To measure time asymmetry in this arrangement, an observer watching the RNA’s trajectory of unfolding and folding should be able to tell if the trajectory was generated by stretching or compressing. The scientists quantify this observation in terms of the “Jensen-Shannon divergence,” a probability which gives a “0” if stretching and compressing are identical, a “1” if they are distinguishable at every moment, and some fraction of one if they overlap occasionally. This probability, Feng and Crooks explain, can more accurately describe time asymmetry than a simple measurement of average entropy, since the average entropy is sensitive to unusual events. For example, if the RNA becomes tangled, it resists being unfolded when the beads expand. Because the tangled RNA is pulled apart very slowly, the process is essentially time-symmetric. The scientists show that a model of this process has large average dissipation, or entropy increase, but small time asymmetry, as one intuitively expects due to the slow pulling.
-------End of quote---Feng, Edward H. and Crooks, Gavin E. “Length of Time’s Arrow.” Physical Review
Letters 101, 090602 (2008).
It’s strangely interesting to me. It hasn’t anything to do with whether time is a flow or events though. To me it seems as a statistical approach to measuring when we first can see a ‘distinctive’ arrow emerge from ‘nothing’. Also they wanted to see how time can move ‘forward’ when you see entropy decrease, as it seem to be able to do in very small systems momentarily. Macroscopically though, entropy constantly is seen to increase as ‘times arrow’ moves SpaceTime into the ‘future’. So to see it as a smallest ‘times arrow’ might be true, as defined inside SpaceTime. But it won’t be a ‘shortest time segment’ we will see, only its arrow taking shape.
As a environmental sidekick
Here’s how I understand how Earth’s ‘radiation’ works discussing H2O and CO2. (And I’m not discussing ‘convection cycles’ now.)
Think of Earth as a ‘black body’, I absolutely refuse to go into the mathematics of it
but just as that black body Earth radiates. The heat Earth frees from the sun’s warming and its own inherent heat goes up in the atmosphere as infrared radiation, to eventually disappear in space. That infrared radiation will be taken up by all molecules (air) between space and Earth, with them radiating it back again in all directions, down as well as up and sideways. The higher in the atmosphere you come the less density there will be, that means fewer molecules to take up that radiation. So what happens when we add ‘man made’ CO2 (carbon dioxide)? Well the concentration/addition of molecules will get our atmosphere to become denser or thicker if you like, that in its turn will push that releasing ‘edge/surface’ where that heat finally leave our atmosphere upwards to even colder layers, higher up. As those is colder they do not radiate heat as well as those layers that already is becoming ‘satiated’ by heat. And the whole time we have a constant creation of more manmade CO2 joining the atmosphere that we are ‘creating / transforming’ into CO2 from the Earth’s hidden/buried ‘sinks’ in form of coal and oil and natural gas (methane) . You’re with me so far? Each ‘layer’ of air in our atmosphere will reach ever new equilibrium’s of warmth as the heat and molecules radiates / get freed from Earth, that as molecules in each layer also warm each other as they radiate.
As this is happening Earth will slowly become a place where the radiation from those molecules, reflected in all directions, will cause the Earth to start conserving this energy by building up ‘heat’ in the air layers as the heat gets more and more ‘trapped’ by our new molecules. - And - - This ‘imbalance’ creating evermore warmer layers will keep on, until the highest level of our atmosphere is so ‘warmed up’ that it reflects as much heat in space as the planet is receiving from the sun and ..Us. - That as it is only in that highest layer Earth can regulate its temperature through radiating out in space -. Did you know that before we started our industrial era we were actually in a slowly cooling period on Earth? As for water-vapor it is well known that the higher up you come the ‘dryer’ the air will be, that means that most of the water-vapor falls out as rain further down. As the Co2 and H2O molecules drifts upward their mode of absorption changes. At a sea level the absorption is concentrated into discrete spikes with narrow gaps between the spikes and ‘shallow’ valleys. The ‘spikes’ we’re talking about is light (heat) absorbed in very specific wavelengths shown as dark lines in a spectrum. When the molecules are at the higher layers this absorption will change as the air-pressure goes down. Then their ‘spikes’ becomes much more defined and closer together (more heat absorbed per molecule) And CO2 won’t fall out as water vapor does (H2O-humidity-rain) at those lower altitudes, instead it will stay mixed no matter the height even though it will ‘thin out’ the higher we come just as our atmosphere. That’s why climate scientists talk about amount of heat conserved in different molecules and of global warming potential (GWP).
“Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 60-70 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a twenty-year period (or 25 times over a hundred-year period). “ And that’s why methane is a ‘killer of life’ even in small quantities. Also you should know that CO2 when taken up by the oceans create acidity in them, creating a marine environment where our fishes, reefs, etc starts to die. And as I wrote earlier, they are already becoming saturated. "A study published in the journal Science revealed that since 1981, the Southern Ocean has been taking up less carbon dioxide - five to 30 per cent less per decade - than researchers had predicted previously. At the same time carbon dioxide emissions rose by 40 per cent, the study found. The reason for the slowdown is more winds over the Southern Ocean since 1958, caused by human-produced greenhouse gases and ozone depletion. " http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1926488.htm
[Links inactive - To make links active and clickable,
click here to register]
“Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise. . Changes in precipitation and evaporation over the oceans are suggested by freshening of mid and high latitude waters together with increased salinity in low latitude waters. Mid-latitude westerly winds have strengthened in both hemispheres since the 1960s. More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. Increased drying linked with higher temperatures and decreased precipitation have contributed to changes in drought. Changes in sea surface temperatures (SST), wind patterns, and decreased snowpack and snow cover have also been linked to droughts. "
And now I will quote myself from 2007 in ‘global health’ “Now I'll make a wild guess
) In five to ten years we will start to see a accelerating release of Methane into the Atmosphere, and the linear thinking of how the climate works will break down (again
Earth ain't linear. Earth is a dynamic nonlinear system, and even if mostly stable , we are throwing a big monkey wrench into its cyclic gears. When a nonlinear system change 'state' it can do so very quickly.”
Ice cores provide evidence for variation in greenhouse gas concentrations over the past 800,000 years. Both CO2 and CH4 vary between glacial and interglacial phases, and concentrations of these gases correlate strongly with temperature. Before the ice core record, direct measurements do not exist. .
Measurements from Antarctic ice cores show that just before industrial emissions started, atmospheric CO2 levels were about 280 parts per million by volume. From the same ice cores it appears that CO2 concentrations stayed between 260 and 280 ppm (Parts per million) during the preceding 10,000 years. However, because of the way air is trapped in ice and the time period represented in each ice sample analyzed, these figures are long term averages not annual levels. . .
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the concentrations of many of the greenhouse gases have increased. The concentration of CO2 has increased by about 100 ppm (i.e., from 280 ppm to 380 ppm).
The first 50 ppm increase took place in about 200 years, from the start of the Industrial Revolution to around 1973.
The next 50 ppm increase took place in about 33 years, from 1973 to 2006.
--End of quote--
If I look at the worlds coal consumption 2008 of 3 300 million ton, then 2 000 million ton was consumed by Asia. And you know what, we are coming out from our recession now says our ‘economists’. So now we can start all over again. The steel production is up as from August 2009 to 106.5 millions ton according to ‘World Steel’. And China have in ten years gone from 124 millions tons, to now over 500 millions ton steel yearly. And its coal consumption have raised from 1998, 652 million tons to over 1400 millions tons last year according to the oil company BP energy-statistics. And sixty eight percent of the worlds electric power is generated by fossil fuels today, mostly coal and ‘natural gas’ (methane).
Now? - Anybody want to guess how long it will take for the next 50 Parts Per Million (PPM)?
---Quote—Lisa Moore, Ph.D., scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense.--
Here's a table showing a selection of greenhouse gases, their global warming potential (GWP), and their lifetimes:
Greenhouse Gas . . . . . . . . .Lifetime years . . (100-Year GWP)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) . . …. . . . hundreds .. .. . .1
Methane (CH4) . . . . . . …. . . .. . . 1 . . . . . . .25
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) . . . . . . . . . .114 . . . . . . .298
Hydrofluorocarbon-23 (CHF3) . . . .264 . . . .. . .14,800
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) . . . . ..3,200. . . . .22,800
PFC-14 (CF4) . . . . . . . .. . . . . .50,000 . . . . .7,390
Notice that the carbon dioxide lifetime is "hundreds of years", rather than a specific number. The IPCC ‘Third Assessment Report’ defines a gas's lifetime as the amount of the gas in the atmosphere divided by the rate at which it is removed from the atmosphere. That sounds simple enough, except that not all gases are removed by just one (or mainly one) process. Ironically, the gas that accounts for the greatest proportion of global warming, carbon dioxide (CO2), is the hardest to pin down. When CO2 is released into the atmosphere, about three-quarters of it dissolves into the ocean over a few decades (- Acidity -). The rest is neutralized by a variety of longer-term geological processes, which can take thousands of years.
From IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.
From U.S Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reports: (CO2) Atmospheric lifetime: 50-200 years. No single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes.
From RealClimate: “My model indicates that about 7% of carbon released today will still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years. I calculate a mean lifetime, from the sum of all the processes, of about 30,000 years. That's a deceptive number, because it is so strongly influenced by the immense longevity of that long tail. If one is forced to simplify reality into a single number for popular discussion, several hundred years is a sensible number to choose, because it tells three-quarters of the story, and the part of the story which applies to our own lifetimes.” ("How long will global warming last?")
For other gases, a meaningful lifetime is easier to calculate because one process dominates their removal from the atmosphere:
* Methane is mostly scrubbed from the atmosphere by hydroxyl radicals (a chemical reaction).
* Nitrous oxide is destroyed by photolytic reactions (chemical reactions involving photons or light) in the stratosphere.
As you can see from the chart, some gases have extraordinarily long lifetimes. Because emission rates are vastly higher than removal rates, greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere and will affect climate for generations to come.
----End of Quote----
high time we create something better than this.
Last Edit: 25/09/2009 19:32:49 by yor_on
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Naked Science Forum GOD!
Thanked: 10 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
Reply #49 on:
28/09/2009 18:45:31 »
As a thought experiment in ‘teleportation’ . Assume that you will be ‘teleported’ somewhere as an exact ‘copy’ of your ‘original’. To me it doesn’t really have an importance if there will be two of you inside SpaceTime, not in this experiment. Will the new you and your original have the same thoughts? No way, you will have two different ‘realties’ surrounding you and so your experiences/thoughts will differ. So? Can there be a ‘exact copy’? Of dead matter, yes. But of living? But if you then become ‘entangled’ in the process? How will that show itself? opposite spins? How about thoughts?
Let us discuss the idea of virtual particles and our idea of restmass some more. Let us first look at those ‘virtual ones’. In a way they do not exist, they are a metaphorical ambiguous descriptions of something that somehow ‘craves to exist’, as we see results inside SpaceTime that have no other known explanations, as far as I understand. One interesting example of virtual particles and energy is the how the presence of Casimir plates can affect the fluctuations, so that the ‘negative energy’ density between extremely close plates when compared to the ‘positive energy’ outside the plates leads to a measurable effect. We have a definition of energy as coming from ‘zero’ energy and rising inside spaceTime, but this ‘negative energy’ mentioned, what is that? “To understand how energy can be negative, set aside the classical interpretation of empty space, which is a vacuum with zero energy density. Instead, think of the vacuum as having only an average energy density of zero, in deference to the statistical fluctuations quantum mechanics says underlie fields. Given those vacuum fluctuations, zero energy is no longer the lowest energy state possible. Why? Because in order to average out to nothing, sometimes the vacuum must have tiny amounts of positive, and other times tiny amounts of negative, energy. “
And “ the Casimir effect has been posited as a force produced solely by activity in the vacuum. The Casimir force is also very powerful at small distances. Besides being independent of temperature, it is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance between the plates! Therefore, as the plates are brought closer, the virtual particles outside the plates increasingly overpower the decreasing quantity of virtual particles appearing between the plates with an exponentially increasing force.” This leads to some speculation about the possibility of get ‘free energy’ through it. “ Physicist Robert Forward, working at the Hughes Research Laboratory at the time, published a paper in 1984 with a clever thought experiment that demonstrated the conceptual possibility of extracting such vacuum energy from the zero-point field using the Casimir Force but with a slight twist: using electrically charged plates. Charging the plates will not affect the Casimir force, but doing that will provide a way to derive energy from the force which is pushing the plates together. If the two plates are given the same polarity charge, they will electrostatically repel each other. Adjust the charge so that the electrostatic repulsion and the Casimir attraction almost precisely balance, but always let the former be slightly smaller than the latter. In this way the Casimir force will slowly push the plates together, thus doing work against the electrostatic force and thereby adding energy to the electric field between the plates. This build-up of energy is at the expense of the zero-point field. Since the zero-point field is enormous, this energy is never missed. It just flows back almost instantaneously. It is like taking a bucket of water from the ocean. Forward’s "vacuum fluctuations battery" will not provide useful energy because to make the energy extraction happen a second time, you have to pull the plates apart, and that takes at least as much energy (because of frictional losses, actually slightly more) as the original gain. So as conceived, the experiment has no practical use. But its conceptual importance is clear. It demonstrates that in principle there are ways of extracting energy from the vacuum. What is missing is the engineering to do so. “
So that is a very optimistic statement. Then again, as I see it as another ‘reality’ outside our arrow of time I personally don’t believe it, as it then would violate ‘emergence’ and allow ‘a two way information’ to flow between something outside our ‘arrow of time’ and SpaceTime. There is support for my view in the experiments done by Noah Graham and Ken Olum ‘trying to optimize the possibility of ‘negative energy’’. Apparently there seems to be a ‘hidden principle’ now named as AENC (Averaged Null Energy Condition) hindering this. And that is as it should be in ‘my universe’
---Quote----from “Charting the river of time” by Ken Olum ---
The ANEC (Averaged Null Energy Condition) essentially says that, though you can borrow a little negative energy on your route through space-time, you wind up paying it back with the positive type. Exotic phenomena are unlikely because they require some form of energy with a density that violates the ANEC “they require that the total energy density be negative when we add up all the contributions over the complete path of the light ray,” as Olum describes it. Which is to say, a little trading in the energy margins is fine, but the end result will still be positive—or at least not negative enough, for long enough, over a large enough region to make any difference.. ..
Along with Noah Graham, a Junior Faculty Fellow at Middlebury College, Olum has already shown that the ANEC still obtains between Casimir plates, even if you put holes in the plates so a photon can pass through in the most negative energy-friendly direction. “What we found was the striking result that the region near the hole always contributed enough positive energy to overwhelm the ANEC violation,” said Graham. “This result could be a coincidence of this particular system, but it certainly suggests there is a deeper principle
at work.” With Fewster and Pfenning, Olum showed that there is such a principle at work in flat space, a finding confirmed by his work with Graham. If it applies to more complex systems as well, that principle
may be the barrier to time travel. “No collection of Casimir-type systems in flat space can violate the ANEC,” Olum said. “This we succeeded in showing. So the next thing to do is to try this for interacting fields, and curved space.” Olum is skeptical of any exotic outcomes, however. There is no free negative energy lunch in the special case and, he suspects, there isn’t going to be one in the general case. “I have tried to construct these exotic things before, using what seemed to be promising ideas, and I have not been able to construct them. So I think that it’s impossible. And I have good reasons to think that it’s impossible,” he said. “Without constructing the proof, though,” he added, “one can’t be certain.”
----End of quote--------------
Restmass then? Well let’s consider that Electron once more. “ For example, all electrons are identical, a situation for which there is no macroscopic parallel. To say that two electrons are present at a given moment may therefore be indistinguishable from saying that the same electron is present in two locations. Further, an electron moving backward in time would from one perspective be equivalent to a positron moving forward (Feynman diagrams). Indeed, decades ago, such considerations motivated the theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler to wonder whether all electrons may in fact be the same particle, hopping endlessly about in space and time. Resolving temporal paradoxes at the quantum level may thus turn out only to be a matter of choosing a suitable frame of reference.”
So what is not possible macroscopically becomes possible at a quantum mechanic scale? But can we ‘transfer it’ to the macroscopic scale? In ‘my universe’ I expect that to be impossible. Why? Well, if it was possible we should already have ‘time-travel’, also it would violate my idea of ‘one-way’ and ‘two-way’ communication as I see ‘virtual particles’ as being as much a ‘singularity’ as our ‘Black Holes’, the difference here being that ‘virtual particles’ arrow is directed towards SpaceTime versus a Black Holes arrow being directed from SpaceTime, towards its own ‘singularity’. There are more things to say about this but let us jump to my next question first. What would you call the ‘origin’ of mass? Let’s start with how we once thought of it
---Quote—Frank Wilczek- -The origin of mass--
The concept of mass is one of the first things we discuss in my freshman mechanics class. Classical mechanics is, literally, unthinkable without it. Newton’s second law of motion says that the acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. So a body without mass wouldn’t know how to move, because you’d be dividing by zero. Also, in Newton’s law of gravity, the mass of an object governs the strength of the force it exerts. One cannot build up an object that gravitates, out of material that does not, so you can’t get rid of mass without getting rid of gravity. Finally, the most basic feature of mass in classical mechanics is that it is conserved. For example, when you bring together two bodies, the total mass is just the sum of the individual masses. This assumption is so deeply ingrained that it was not even explicitly formulated as a law. (Though I teach it as Newton’s Zeroth Law.) Altogether, in the Newtonian framework it is difficult to imagine what would constitute an “origin of mass,’’ or even what this phrase could possibly mean. In that framework mass just is what it is a primary concept. Later developments in physics make the concept of mass seem less irreducible. Einstein’s famous equation of special relativity theory, written in that way, betrays the prejudice that we should express energy in terms of mass. But we can write the same equation in the alternative form . When expressed in this form, it suggests the possibility of explaining mass in terms of energy. Einstein was aware of this possibility from the beginning. Indeed, his original 1905 paper is entitled, “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on Its Energy Content?”
---End of quote---
If I remember right I have already discussed the ideas describing Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and its ‘offspring’ Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD) somewhere on this site. ---
“The full description of the electromagnetic force between elementary particles was formulated by Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Richard Feynman and Julian Schwinger in independent works in the 1940's. They formulated Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED). This is a theory that takes full account of quantum physics and special relativity (which is the underlying symmetry of Maxwell's Equations). It is very elegantly formulated by so-called Feynman diagrams, where the elementary particles exchange photons as was described above and where each diagram constitutes a certain mathematical expression that can be obtained from some basic rules for the propagation of virtual particles and from the interaction vertices. The simplest diagram for the interaction between two electrons is electrons interaction. This diagram in fact leads to Coulomb's law.
Feynman now instructs us that we can combine any line for a propagating electron (or when it travels backwards, the positron) and any line for a propagating photon tied together with the vertex where an electron line emits a photon to make up new diagrams. Every other diagram differing from the one above constitutes quantum corrections to the basic force. It was through the work of the three scientists above that it was shown that every such diagram can be made to make sense to give finite answers. It is said that QED is renormalisable. The strength of the force as in Coulomb's law is governed by the magnitude of the vertex which is the electric charge e in QED and for the diagram above it is proportional to the square of e and is the Fine Structure Constant = 1/137. Since this is a small number it makes sense to write the amplitude in a series of terms with higher and higher powers of since that factor will be smaller and smaller for ever increasing complexity of the diagram. The higher order terms are higher quantum corrections and the perturbation expansion that we have defined will have smaller and smaller terms as we go to higher quantum corrections.”
“The strong Nuclear force is explained by Quantum ChromoDynamics, or the colour interaction. The colour interaction, QCD, is such that there are three colour charges, red, green, and blue, and a proper interaction only occurs between all three when they are together.(There are no actual inherent colours and in fact they are always changing, its just that the sum of three results in neutrality)
Even more interesting, however, is that the colour force gets stronger with distance. If one were to try and extend particles interacting through QCD, he or she would find that the force between said particles would increase to infinity. This poses a problem for those scientists who want to observe quarks, which interact through a colour charge. The quarks cannot actually be separated. The solution to this is to observe the quarks when they are very close together. Thus the force between them shall be weak. Using this principle, scientists were able to rattle protons and neutrons to observe their constituent quarks.”
“At this most primitive level QCD is a lot like QED, but bigger. The diagrams look similar, and the rules for evaluating them are similar, but there are more kinds of sticks and hubs. More precisely, while there is just one kind of charge in QED —namely, electric charge— QCD has three different kinds of charge. They are called colors, for no good reason. We could label them red, white, and blue; or alternatively, if we want to make drawing easier, and to avoid the colors of the French flag, we can use red, green, and blue. Every quark has one unit of one of the color charges. In addition, quarks come in different “flavors.” The only ones that play a role in ordinary matter are two flavors called u and d, for up and down.
(Of course, quark “flavors” have nothing to do with how anything tastes. And, these names for u and d don’t imply that there’s any real connection between flavors and directions. Don’t blame me; when I get the chance, I give particles dignified scientific-sounding names like axion and anyon.)
There are u quarks with a unit of red charge, d quarks with a unit of green charge, and so forth, for six different possibilities altogether. And instead of one photon that responds to electric charge, QCD has eight color gluons that can either respond to different color charges or change one into another. So there is quite a large variety of sticks, and there are also many different kinds of hubs that connect them. It seems like things could get terribly complicated and messy. And so they would, were it not for the overwhelming symmetry of the theory. If you interchange red with blue everywhere, for example, you must still get the same rules. The more complete symmetry allows you to mix the colors continuously, forming blends, and the rules must come out the same for blends as for pure colors. I won’t be able to do justice to the mathematics here, of course. But the final result is noteworthy, and easy to convey: there is one and only one way to assign rules to all the possible hubs so that the theory comes out fully symmetric. Intricate it may be, but messy it is not!
-----End of quotes---
As for why their exact ‘colors’ was chosen? If I remember right it had to do with the way they ‘neutralized’ each other color-wise just as our color charts do?
[Links inactive - To make links active and clickable,
click here to register]
These aren’t real colors visible to the eye, of course, but they do exhibit a similar bit of behavior—one blue, one green, and one red quark add up to be colorless, just as equal parts of blue, green, and red light add up to white light. All observable particles—your protons, neutrons, pions, kaons, and what have you—are color-neutral. And just as all particles, including quarks, have antiparticles, colors have anticolors: antiblue (yellow), antigreen (magenta), and antired (cyan). A bound pair of a color and its anticolor is also color-neutral. To make things really interesting, every gluon carries two units of color charge—a color and a (generally different) anticolor—and when quarks trade gluons, they usually change color as well. By analogy with quantum electrodynamics, which explains electromagnetism on a quantum level, Gell-Mann christened this Trading Spaces nightmare quantum chromodynamics, or QCD.
-------------------End of quote-----
So what does those theories say about mass? Do they explain the phenomena? They give us good and detailed theories for how the interactions seems to work, but, do they give me an understanding for what matter is? Nah, not really. So, what is matter? That invariant mass we see all around us, living and dead. I see it as an ‘emergence’ through distances, like disturbances in a field that due to ‘laws’ getting created by their emerging/appearance draws them together, ‘coagulates’ them inside SpaceTime. But here a really infuriating problem exists. If I have something without ‘distances’ creating this ‘disturbance’, well that’s one thing, but when we ‘move’? How the he* does that ‘work’? And to up that problem further, why not also add those of us with ‘a free will’ choosing our direction in SpaceTime ‘independently’? Could I look at it as a ‘law’ from the simple to the complex perhaps? Could I also look at is if what we see as ‘forces needed’ is only applicable in SpaceTime? I mean, it would simplify my headache enormously if I could assume that when certain preconditions is fulfilled outside what we know, then a so called ‘emergence’ take place, creating a ‘SpaceTime’ with its own rules. Then SpaceTime even if directly connected to this ‘distance-less’ reality will have a life of it’s own, not needed to coordinate what we see as ‘motion’ to its ‘parent reality’. Can you see how I think here? Like if what we see if seen from that original point of view only is an ‘illusion’. Inside SpaceTime it’s not, naturally, just as the ‘distances’ created by a Black Hole will be all to real if you were there. But it would simplify life for me, as I otherwise would have to expect that, if I’m right, all motion inside SpaceTime will be directly ‘interacting’ and coordinated with/to a ‘dimension less point’. And that, that would really make my headache jump up and down in excitement and destroy all ‘one and two way-communication’. So yes, I think what we see as ‘asymmetric freedom’ inside SpaceTime only is valid inside it, even if bound to ‘distance-less-ness’. So maybe we are everywhere? If seen through Alice’s mirror. But as we can’t traverse to that side we won’t know.
Last Edit: 07/01/2010 10:26:58 by yor_on
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
There was an error while thanking