An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2900 Replies
  • 292679 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #250 on: 10/06/2011 14:48:51 »
In fact, my own definition of what we call a 'time dilation' makes a he* of a lot more sense than the one I gave at first. Although it is not wrong it assumes one whole common 'SpaceTime', in where we all play our part. In my universe I'm alone, as you're in yours. What connects yours and mine is the arrow. That one lends its definition, as I see it, from radiation ('c' as defined by lights speed in a vacuum.), which makes us into a 'universe of light' :) As those new age poets like to describe it. Your 'multiverses' are already here, sort of.
==

Maybe I should stop calling it radiation and just refer to 'c'?
Any which way you like it, it's what I think defines 'durations' here.
==

You need to see that with my definition I don't really need to twist any geometry, in the travelers 'frame', as observed by him, to define a 'time dilation'. Although Earth will observe a distortion of 'room time', and the traveler observe a changed 'SpaceTime', I can allow both to keep their own geometries, instead define it as a result of slightly changed (distorted) relations between 'frames of reference' under the time traveled. It taste so much better to me, as well as becoming simpler.

But I agree, it's a hard one to melt.
Still, I like it :)
==
« Last Edit: 11/06/2011 12:21:09 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #251 on: 10/06/2011 23:45:33 »
So, in my hypothetical universe gravity should be 'space'. What Einstein called 'the metric' of space. So we have this bubble with all those gravitational potentials/gradients smoothly disappearing/joining into each other.

They all form 'geodesics' which matter, as well as light, seems to follow. They seem to be defined from the matter we see, and possibly also from energy. Then there is accelerations too, of course. Why I find the definition of light being able to describe an added restmass is primary through the idea of how our universe came to be. Because that first Big Bang should have been energy, and the purest carrier of 'energy' we know are photons/radiation.

But if that is true, how can the geometry matter for it having or not having a mass? That one is quite confusing, it's easier to imagine it being of the same principle as a compression (Black Hole).

Assume that you have a time reversed Black Hole. Also called White Hole, expanding in a burst. Would it need some sort of 'light geometry' to create a gravity, and so a 'space' to burst into?

And how could it create that geometry without a 'gravity' (space) to start in?

ah well, it's kind'a weird, isn't it? :)
« Last Edit: 10/06/2011 23:48:12 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #252 on: 11/06/2011 12:16:28 »
To make it work we first better assume that to 'become' a universe there must be some 'point'. That point must be coupled to gravity, if I would assume that the 'real thingie' doesn't have any restrictions then the point would be some sort of breach in that equilibrium. I'm just guessing here :)

So we have a breach in the equilibrium that 'is' whatever that 'is', some sort of focus. Why that focus can come to be? Don't know, but if we draw it down to its simplest definition is will be some sort of causality, as a assumption. Or it could be no causality at all but some other principle we never see inside here. Still, shouldn't it have a equivalence to causality?

The real assumption I make is that just as we are a breach in something, a Black hole is the way back to whatever it is 'holding us'. But it's not a direction in the usual manner, not as I think of it. To me it should have to do with 'sizes', and with the arrow of time breaking down in its center.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #253 on: 11/06/2011 12:26:46 »
Thinking of it, everything we see seem to fall back to symmetries. Think about earths view of that light clock on the travelers ship. As he sees the 'light-corn' take a steeper and longer path as the ships acceleration increase, defining the arrow as 'slower' taking more 'place' in SpaceTime, the simultaneous 'contraction' will decrease the ships size. Another weird result of relativity.

So as something contract, does the 'frames of reference' for it equalize?
And is the contraction valid from both point of views?
==

According to the definition I have? I'm not sure, that the arrow stays the same I'm sure of, but the 'contraction' is a very weird result. From Earth the contraction will involve the ship, not the SpaceTime. From the Spaceship the contraction will involve the SpaceTime, not itself.

But both will see 'distance' shrink.
==

So where is the symmetry? If I define the symmetry as a balance, between times arrow and the room, then there isn't one, not from the travelers point of view. Because my definition state that 'times arrow' stays the same, doesn't it? So why would he see the universe 'contract'?

Now, you can see this as a proof of my view of your personal 'frame of reference' never changing its arrow of time being wrong, or you can see it as a proof of a equilibrium getting disturbed. I suspect it to be a equilibrium upset.
==

Maybe that one should be reformulated. A geodesic doesn't upset SpaceTime, does it? And all geodesics are equivalent in a 'black room scenario', as we all know. so what 'upsets' if I now should use that word(?) should be the acceleration. That is also expending 'energy', all following 'uniform motion' from that state will not upset any 'equilibrium'. But the Lorentz contraction and time dilation will still be there, as far as I can see. So? I don't know, we can at least define it as a change, and possibly as something altering your former equilibrium to a new one. Then again, we have the equivalence to consider, and as that one is a 'absolute' to me? Maybe I better avoid this definition for now instead moving to the next description hereunder.

But 'energy expended' is a very weird state.
==

There is naturally another point of view possible in where we get another definition. It will be in that the traveler sees the universe 'speed up' relative the formerly known rate of change relative his timepiece. So there is a symmetry to the universe as observed from the traveler, balanced against the representation he presents to the earth bound observer. A symmetry as I think of it. But it doesn't answer the question why the travelers time never lose its durations.

But you could use it as a proof for my assumption of every 'observer' being unique, having a 'same temporal duration', no matter from where, or how, he measures it, inside his own frame of reference. But as we know from the atomic clocks, this definition is somewhat 'fuzzy', and related to the way we perceive the arrow of time as coherent over a generalized common area.

It depends on how we see it, as compared to what those clocks show us.
==

First of all, looking out at a whole universe, how do you define it? As one single 'frame of reference' communicating with the observer, or as a infinite amount of 'frames', all communicating through its radiation?

It must be one 'frame' to me, a curtain of radiation informing you at all 'instants' or 'nows'. And in it we have a simple definition of equilibrium. it's no energy expended, aka 'geodesics'.

Why?

Well, it's about my definition of us all being 'unique'. If that is a 'truth' then all other frames must present a coherence relative your own unique 'frame of reference'. If it wasn't that way we should all perceive sharing a 'same frame' (Earth) as inconsistent, and split up. But we don't, we all find us being in the same 'frame of reference' no matter that those frames, from my point of view, change in every point of 'SpaceTime'.
==

If 'c' is the clock ticking for you, then all information you receive is 'now', having the same duration from the perspective of your own 'frame of reference'. For that assumption it has no importance of what its source can be seen as. The light from the end of our visible universe is still 'now', as it present itself for your observation.

And the information you receive is in one form. Radiation, of whatever kind. Then we have invariant mass, but for this we will assume that, just as that football coming at you is defined from radiation, so any interaction between 'rest mass' will be defined by its 'force carriers', which I then define as 'photons'.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 00:41:21 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #254 on: 11/06/2011 18:04:18 »
This is a headache formulating consistently, and at times I reread it and find a better way of expressing it. So whatever you read here, it's only temporally speaking. It can, and will, change as I find a simpler definition that makes sense (to me that is:). So maybe you should wait a little with reading it, as I'm one of the uncrowned masters of rewriting :)
« Last Edit: 11/06/2011 18:06:44 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #255 on: 11/06/2011 18:27:37 »
So what is this universe? I say it's something defined in 'interactions'. The interactions are defined by the observer. The observer defines it as a causality chain. The causality chain is 'timed' by 'c'. All observables we have find their limit at 'c'. Radiation, gravity, matter. Space is defined from gravity, even when that gravity is immeasurable.

So what is a observer in this universe?

I don't know, once more it depends on your definitions. Can there be a SpaceTime without consciousness? Is it the act of 'measuring/observing' that creates the causality? Or is it so that even without anyone 'conscious' observing, the universe will exist?

I tentatively will define anything made of matter as a 'observer', but I'm not sure.
=

Light then?

Well, as I see it that's our clock, becoming the 'descriptions' of anything we observe. What would happen with the 'clock' if it could exist without invariant mass? Can it exist without becoming 'mass' or 'gravity'?
==

And then we have 'motion'. Let's define its prerequisites.

It needs a 'space'.
(That means that, to me, it needs 'gravity')

It needs a 'clock'
(And the clock should then, to me, be 'c' aka radiation)

It needs 'something' we can define as moving.
(and for me that is invariant mass aka matter.)

Possibly it also need a 'observer' to exist?
( That's a really, really, weird one :)
« Last Edit: 11/06/2011 18:45:19 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #256 on: 12/06/2011 00:51:44 »
Then we have accelerations. They are the trickiest part to define for me. They distort SpaceTime, giving it a new representation relative the traveler. They create 'gravity' without invariant mass, but nota bene, they need a invariant mass to express it. If it wasn't so any photon traveling at 'c' should be represented by a 'Black Hole', assuming a propagation for that. You could use the same logic with invariant mass too, but only at 'c'. Anything under 'c' can't produce it, and as invariant mass can't reach that 'speed' as far as I can see? And as my definition of light 'not propagating' must present you the same exact effects as if it was, I will use it for mine definition too.

Because the game is 'logical', it incorporate causality and motion even though the effects become really strange at relativistic speeds or near 'infinite mass'.
==

So now we have a new good question. How much 'invariant mass' do you need for getting one earth-gravity accelerating?

Doesn't matter what invariant mass you start with as I understands it. One gram or a thousand tonnes, to 'gravity' they are equivalent (in a sense).

(Ah, it will matter, no pun, but so little that I think I will ignore it for now)

=

You better reread the whole page if you came back now to see what new things sprouting.
I'm fickle ::)) And yes, I will probably rewrite this one later as it is fuzzy/incorrect. But there is a point to it.
=

You need a invariant mass to create gravity, and it doesn't matter what I start with, I can get one gravity with a space ship massing one gram, or a thousand tonnes.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 01:15:42 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #257 on: 12/06/2011 01:35:04 »
So we have proved that invariant mass must be coupled to gravity. But is a invariant mass gravity then?

Not as I see it. If it was then that gram, now giving you one earth gravity in its constant acceleration, should have its atoms, molecules etc, vibrating at near relativistic speeds at some time, vaporising as pure energy at some stage if it could hold together that long. But it doesn't. So the idea of potential energy is one that disturbs me, not in that it is 'potential' as in not there, but in the way people assume it to 'exist' without an interaction.

The cosmos must have a way to keep count, otherwise we wouldn't be able to grade collisions at all, but that potential energy you expect to build from a gravity/acceleration. Where does it go as you turn of your engines? Can you measure it in the hull? Will the spacecrafts light bulbs blueshift?

So gravity is coupled to accelerations and invariant mass, but they are not 'gravity'.
==

And no, I don't think Einstein would be that upset with me, after all, he introduced the 'stress energy tensor' :)
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 01:54:30 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #258 on: 12/06/2011 13:40:32 »
The point there is that I see the potential energy and gravity, and accelerations as three expressions of the same thing here, expending energy. (Although 'potential energy' can be used for defining invariant mass too, we can define that mass as 'gravitationally accelerating' for this.) And then we have earth of course, always gravitationally accelerating at one gravity? So is that one gravity acceleration we do on that one gram equivalent to Earths?

If we define it as Einstein did, it is. He used a thought up 'Earth lab' and 'space lab' and stipulated that there was no experiments you could do in those labs that would tell you if you were on our one gram spaceship or on Earth.

But there is one difference, to get one type of acceleration you expend energy, to get the other you only need a lot of invariant mass. So? What is that about?

Motion, isn't it? So does that one gravity created locally have the same SpaceTime geometry as earth, that is, does SpaceTime 'bend' to a equivalent degree? No, and as I see it, it shouldn't. One is a lot of invariant mass, the other is one gram, but locally they both influence our experiments the same. If gravity is 'space', meaning that you won't have one without it. Why can you then find that same gravity from two different SpaceTime geometries?

That one I think I formulated right though :)
==

Although this is a assumption I make, I'm not entirely sure of this one?

There is the possibility that the 'one gram' do distort SpaceTime to a equivalent degree, although I have trouble seeing how, you might assume that it has to do with 'energy stored', in the relation it has relative all other frames, or one frame called SpaceTime.
==

Einstein did not define gravity as a intrinsic part of anything, he defined it as coupled which is another thing to me. And motion, as seen from his perspective, becomes three things, or more.

1. all motion will in SpaceTime (3D & time) take you from A to B.
2. All uniform motion is equivalent, unable to define it from being 'at rest'.
3. all constant uniform accelerations are 'gravity', unable to define as 'motion'.
4. The only acceleration able to define as not being a 'planetary gravity' is a non constant acceleration. and that only as we know in our bones that there exist no planets that change their gravitational potential as fast over 'time'.

So why not accept it?
Then you have only one definition of motion, a non constant acceleration.
But we still get from A to B, using any of them.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 15:40:50 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #259 on: 12/06/2011 13:58:44 »
It seems as everything we do and measure comes back to 'locally', have you noticed that? I think that is how Einstein saw it too, as a thought. And I think it is the only thing that will be true, 'locality'. It has to do with all our measurements, the conclusions we draw from finding SpaceTime to differ between 'frames of reference' is nothing more than our insight that if we want SpaceTime to be the exact same in all directions, giving us the same outcomes, then we will need to define why that unchanging 'locality' can be perceived as differing, when conceptually comparing 'frames'.

So we put it down to the relations between 'frames of reference'. If we do so we will need the 'stress energy tensor' as the room and time becomes inexhaustibly connected to whatever 'frame of references' you look at. But we have a 'gold standard' as I see it. Our own.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 14:11:05 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #260 on: 12/06/2011 14:47:04 »
So what do you think gravitation should be? Particles as in the Higgs boson, or a 'field' (Higg field)? Most seem to expect it to be a field I think, although QM want it to be particles, quanta of some kind.

We know one thing though. Whatever it is, its 'dynamic'. It change to motion and mass. If you imagine it as 'dips and heights' they move, they are not 'constant' in a positional system either, they all go into each other and change the gravitational potential there. So motion and mass. There is also 'energy', defined as able to introduce/influence 'gravity' at some positional space. You can either see it as a property of SpaceTime, meaning that it need all those things to exist, and that without it it has no own 'existence'? Or you can see it as only coupled to them, able to 'exist' very well on its own, thank you :)

In one definition, 'gravity' becomes something that is a property solely. In the other 'gravity' becomes something, that even though it defines our 'space', isn't locked to SpaceTime. And if you think that way, what would 'energy' become? It has the same mystical property of existing 'everywhere' without being able to measure, except in its interactions.

If radiation is 'not propagating', what does that state about energy?
And, if the geometry of a 'system' containing radiation can introduce a 'gravity'?
Why, and how?

Is it all geometry?
But then it has to be a very weird one, doesn't it.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 14:57:54 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #261 on: 12/06/2011 15:16:32 »
Motion can negate 'gravity'. Any geodesic does it.
Accelerations on the other hand will introduce it.

Motion will also change the SpaceTime you observe, but not your own frame.

If your own frame, where ever that might be, always is 'unchanging', what does that make the SpaceTime you observe? A 'curtain of light'? Everything becoming 'plastic', or do you expect those planets to stay as they was before your acceleration, unaltered by your motion? There is only one way to make sense of that one. Well, if you believe in that a Lorentz contraction and 'Time dilation' is a real effect, as I do.

SpaceTime is the frame you mirror yourself against, it do not change, but the relations you find to it do, with your motion, mass and 'energy'. So you are unique, unchanging, and the universe 'rotate' relative you. And any 'distance' measured will only exist relative your mass and motion (& 'energy').

Instead of Earth being the center of the universe, you will be it.
As me.
==

the other possibility is to include a whole SpaceTime per 'observer'. But as I define radiation as the communication between 'observers', and 'observers' as invariant mass (tentatively, for now, this is) then I prefer the first one. The other one leads to inconsistencies, as it will be the same for all 'observers', assuming that we all exist on 'our own' if you see what I mean.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 15:22:12 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #262 on: 12/06/2011 15:30:24 »
So now I will define a geodesic as a 'null motion'. Because that is what I think it is :) And if that didn't make your headache worse? How about defining all gravity as 'accelerations'?

That should do it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #263 on: 12/06/2011 16:17:22 »
Everything is a communication. The grandfather paradox as defined from my perspective is also a communication. You 'go back in time' and shoot your grandfather, as a thought experiment. Does it differ with my definition? Not as I can see, SpaceTime is here, it exist. But, it's a 'relational SpaceTime' to me. But how do 'time' express it. Can I 'go back' in time with my definition?

If the 'clock' we have is coupled to 'c', will that allow a time reversibility?
No, I don't think so myself, but it is also a question of size. When you go 'down in size' you will meet a point where 'c' breaks down, becoming 'undefinable', and that I think of as where Planck size comes in. It's not that nothing can 'exist' beyond those parameters, it's just that we can no longer measure it or if you like, make sense of what it should be.

The 'time reversibility' we define at QM might be explainable from radiation not 'propagating'. If radiation is the 'clock ticks' then nothing 'moves', not from our usual definition of motion at least. On the other hand every 'tick' present us with a new changed 'frame of existence' to compare ourselves too.

And radiation, if so, should then be the whole smooth presentation of reality, meaning that even though we define a 'speed' to it, assuming 'distances' between photons, they from that perspective will be a phenomena without 'distance'. Because if that would be right? Then 'times arrow' should only exist with light signals existing. That is, the dichotomy we see between light and darkness disappear, leaving us with only light signals as the arrow.

And that one really make my head ache. It becomes increasingly weird to think about this one, doesn't it :) I'm not sure of it of course, but it seems logical to assume that if light are the 'ticks' they from our perspective has a 'distance' between them, but from the perspective of light itself there can be no 'distance' between it.
==

So now you might want to say. "Hah, what about entanglements and tunnelings then? Do they communicate too?" Well no, I don't think so, they are just signs telling us that 'distance' on the whole is a rather 'blown up/over valued' proof of 'reality'. It breaks down from both directions, relativistic speeds as well as Quantum mechanically.
==

There is of course the possibility of defining it as if the 'clock' is light signals, and if they are 'non propagating', it all becomes a question of changing 'SpaceTime geometries'? And so the 'arrow' becomes fuzzy for me, like a stack of 'frames'. But I don't know how to express that one, maybe there is some way?
==

This is not me defining any reality btw.
I'm just speculating, and when you do, you will get on thin ice, sooner or later.
And I'm constantly wobbling there :)

But I may find something useful from it, later.

One can always hope.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 18:10:44 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #264 on: 14/06/2011 13:07:10 »
So can we build a picture for the idea of locality? I don't know but to me it makes the most sense. Using locality you can explain the concept of a time dilation. Using locality you can find how 'c' and the arrow of time is equivalent. I'm using the word locality, but it's also the observer. And that makes a certain 'sense' doesn't it. What I'm doing more, defining us all as 'alone', is just that I take it to its logical conclusion.

Because if 'reality' is observer dependent, and if all of the measurements you do only can rest upon your own values in SpaceTime, as the arrow of time, or 'c' (locally), as well as all measurements of 'distance', then this must be true.  I read such a lovely description of it recently. I'll share it with you.

" Magnetic Fields.

Students of physics receive a shock when they realize that magnetic fields do not have the same observer independent basis in reality that other objects in physics do. Usually the demonstration is by means of a thought experiment. If one imagines a stream of electrons flowing near a point, then this will constitute a current that will generate a magnetic field at that point. However, what would an observer traveling along side the stream of electrons and at the same velocity as the electrons see at that same point? No moving charges, hence no magnetic field.

The lesson is that even a physical quantity like magnetic field strength is observer dependent. The same is also true for the length of an object or the length of a time interval. For two space-time points that are not causally connected even the time ordering of the points depends on the observer."

So how can we ever find ourselves in a same 'frame of reference'? Because that is a definition we use, isn't it? All of us on Earth being in 'the same frame of reference'. We have this curtain of light joining us, together in all kind of ways. In a way you could see it as if photons/waves have an existence of its own. Whereas we are defined by a position in time and space, radiation have no such limits. In one kind or another it's expected to be 'everywhere'. and if you use my definition of its 'not propagating' then the difference between 'virtual particles/photons' and 'real particles/photons' only becomes one of the arrow, and you of course.


"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #265 on: 14/06/2011 14:35:31 »
There are some things that I have trouble understanding, amongst them our ability to make sense of a universe where nothing is as it seems. Even if assuming that light 'c' is a 'clock' where do we get our own macroscopic sense of 'time' from. That every new 'interaction', as light-signals annihilating, in a way will bring you a new 'frame of reference' is possible to understand, but the way we bind it into a arrow isn't.

There was something else too I was thinking of, and as usual it seems that I've forgotten it. Most of my most interesting ideas (to me that is:) just seems to pop up and the leave? I hate that, leaving me with this vague feeling that this idea was really cool, if I just could remember it :)

Actually I forgot it as soon as I started to write " I would like to take you on another journey ", and when finishing the line realizing that I didn't know squat where that journey was meant to go any longer ::)) Typical, you can blame it on a, all too early senility, if you like. If I stop thinking of it maybe?

But the clock we have is weird on many planes, myself I think it should be biological even though taking its clue from 'c', and so be 'entropic', as defined by 'systems'. The problem with that is that 'entropy' has no clear limitations of a open system, as I understands it? And we are all 'open ended systems' to me. To get all of those different definitions into one logical conclusion is he* on wheels :) and I don't think I understand it good enough to even dare.

Chaos theory is something that I think tells us a lot about 'time'. To me the arrow is one thing, giving us the direction, and 'time'? Chaos theory, and what I call its repeating patterns, is maybe another principle? Think of time as the box you're in, with the floor constantly moving upwards with you. You don't see that floor, you see a line defined by your position in space, and times arrow.

The 'floor' doesn't move, although I define it as such from our point of view, it's the same at all times (yeah, slightly wacky, isn't it:) but as we have this illusion of the arrow (well, in a way it is, as I see it, in another it's our reality.) we only notice it as a causality chain. But then 'Chaos theory' knocks on the door, saying that there are phenomena that even though included in that causality chain, still comes without explanation, unable to predefine from interactions, and unable to backtrack to a original 'start'? And that might be a result of that floor 'co moving' with you, but unable for us to perceive other than 'statistically' (sort of).

=
That's a really bad description.

Maybe it is more about 'dimensions'? Like a 'static universe' in where the arrow gives us an illusion of moving? Or as you being the definition of the 'universe' by your observations, with light being both the arrow and the joiner of our 'metaverses'? But I'm vary when it comes to 'dimensions', as you might have noticed before. In my universe it seems as if we all are isolated, and all containing a 'reality' defined by our observations inside our 'arrow' (3-D + times arrow), but simultaneously by another 'reality', described by a greater 'static' dimensionality. Our 'dimensions' combined with the arrow give us a positional system that we use to make sense of it, defining distance, clocks, and 'speeds/motion' but that is our 'jello' inside that greater 'reality/dimension(s)'

If that now makes more sense?

That reminds me of the 'grandfather paradox';

If you by shooting your grandfather breaks a continuum, forcing it to bifurcate (split) then you now have two 'realities' conceptually. In my version it becomes fuzzy as I define you as a singular definition of 'reality', do you see it? You exist on your own and breaking that line should then break it for you only. Then the question becomes how you then can 'lift in' a whole new 'metaverse' in one of those lines, assuming a 'original time line'?  If you can it makes you a 'God', doesn't it? You create a universe from 'nothing' actually. But there is other possibilities, amongst them that in my universe you would instead annihilate yourself, and your 'time-line' without including ours, as we now define all observers as 'isolated', joined by radiation. And there is one other definition I think, but that one I have to wait on.

Well, it builds on a 'static universe'. If it would be so that 'everything' is here simultaneously, where our 'free choices' being what creates a 'causality direction' in it (using our arrow) then we have the 'box' again. In it you might shoot a 'grandfather' but you don't 'create' anything. The amount of 'whatever there is' outside our Jello will then be a constant, so what you do is to break a causality chain, introducing either one 'new reality' without you, or two 'realties', bifurcating by your interaction. But you will no longer create anything out of 'nothing', you will just split one 'stream' into two.

And that makes 'metaverses' possible as coexisting in every interaction. The 'splits' made will then just be necessary 'patterns' each one believing itself to be unique. They are not created, they are all there in this version, statically coexisting, but from the point of being inside each 'jello' having their own 'existence'. And that one you really need to understand. In this description the 'box' will be all about 'patterns' where the arrow becomes the 'stream' defining one or another into its own unique jello, but all coexisting in that 'static box'. In it there can be no past, now or future. They are only meaningful inside a jello, losing all definition outside it. And the thing creating a jello will then be light, at least it will define a 'clock' and a temporal direction with your observations, and choices, defining it for you.

And that one I actually like, if it now makes sense :)

Thinking some more, I'm not really happy with the version where 'realities split' on the atomic plane, as that to me goes to 'infinity' almost immediately, spawning new 'metaverse' at every interaction, into oblivion. And so I will prefer the version where you erase yourself in going back to shoot your grandfather, it leaves us with fewer patterns to keep count of, or maybe not :) but it at least keeps it a little tidier. That won't stop you from creating a new pattern by shooting, but it will be one without you, so to speak. But if so, what happened to the pattern that was there? Think of it as the streams mirroring themselves in the water, they go into each other and they change, they're not static although the bottom never change from your point of view at the bank looking down at it. The whole question of a arrow, and linearity, can only exist where there is clocks. We could see ourselves as 'mystical attractors' maybe, each one of us creating a slightly different stream in our interactions/observations.

As I think of it now at least :)
==
 
When I think of HUP it becomes something both defining a limitation of observation, as well as something that you actually can make 'sense' of, statistically. And there you better ask yourself why? How can it be both? Well, maybe it rests on that 'floor' I was talking about, and there we find no 'arrow', but we will find connections, patterns and symmetries as I believe.

Don't take this as more than thoughts though.
« Last Edit: 15/06/2011 00:56:22 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #266 on: 18/06/2011 08:59:40 »
So I got stuck on 'Inertia', again :)

If inertia is a property only expected of mass, then gravity should be mass too, as they both go together. If inertia isn't a property of mass, then it is a property of gravity, and then gravity is not mass. If inertia is expected to exist 'everywhere', and not being mass, then space is gravity.

But then we expect 'energy' to create a mass, and gravity too? So 'energy', would that be what creates 'space' too? There is of course a possibility of inertia to exist on its own? Or maybe be a negation of our idea of 'potential energy', its symmetry so to speak?

It's a 'resistance' to change, isn't it? We might assume, at least I will assume, that it exist everywhere. If it does, then can it exist without 'gravity'. Think of the expansion and the way it fills in 'space points', is there a 'instant gravity' there or does it propagate to those points at light speed? We would assume that there should be a 'instant inertia' at least, wouldn't we? As seen from that point of view the Higg field makes a lot of sense in defining 'something' that exist everywhere and sort of clings to mass, but not bosons.

But then we have chilled BECs (Bose Einstein condensates). What happens to a particle chilled? It stops 'jiggling', doesn't it? And it is the spin that defines if you can use it as 'pretend boson' isn't it? if it stops 'jiggling', does it lose its mass? Isn't this the same as changing it into a Boson? Only depending on temperature, and that we can't seem to reach that state of utter 'rest' for it? What does that state about the difference between 'rest mass' and bosons? And is there a equivalence somewhere there to high energies where we get our pair production, a symmetry? I don't see that, do you?

Why I put it that way is just a question of the energy needed for creating those phenomena. Pair production takes a he* of a lot more energy than Bec's, as it seems to me, but I can be wrong there.

And is there a importance to it being Helium? One of the first elements created as we think? There must be a importance to that fact.
==

I'll need to see what I can find on Inertia, it's such a weird phenomena, and as I see it the primary pointer to a Higgs field. Ah well. Strange, seems as the Higg field may need an additional mechanism to explain Inertia? Let's see how I would define what makes a inertia.

Whatever it is I will assume it 'everywhere'. I will also assume it coupled to gravity, as I have severe troubles imagining gravity without inertia, so not mass but 'gravity'. If we take a new look at the 'expansion' we now have to decide which possibility you think rule. Either 'gravity' propagates to those new points at 'c' in which case we now have defined the possibility of a 'space' existing without gravity. Or we define it as Einstein, 'gravity' is that 'new space', or maybe that is me :) Einstein defined it as the 'metric' of space which may be a subtle difference. But I'll go with 'instant' as that is the best explanation. To introduce 'Lego' into how 'space' becomes makes no sense to me, SpaceTime is a whole process, there are no singular 'knittings' to be seen as I know of?
==

'Instant' just mean that 'gravity & inertia' is 'space'. The propagation of gravitational 'signals' should still propagate at 'c' as that seems to be the constant around all 'motion' circumnavigates, well, sort of.

« Last Edit: 18/06/2011 10:27:35 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #267 on: 18/06/2011 10:18:20 »
Anyone heard of Bosenova implosions/explosions? It's a state of a Bec where "the BEC discovery team at JILA produced a new rubidium-85 BEC. While an electromagnetic field was applied to cause a stronger attraction among the BEC atoms, the BEC started to shrink and then exploded like a supernova. The result was a release of particles in various streams, leaving behind a much smaller BEC remnant. The thermal energy released was greater than the energy in the BEC and about half of all the thousands of atoms of the rubidium-85 disappeared. The effect was at first nicknamed the bosenova, and still a total puzzle to this day."

Some see this as a actual 'micro black hole' gets created, explaining where the missing atoms went. Although Dr. Eric A. Cornell and Dr. Carl E. Wieman explicitly state that micro black holes can't be created from gravitational forces that exist with laboratory created Bose-Einstein Condensates.

But if we assume 'gravity' to be a state of its own? What will a Black Hole be then? I suggest a discontinuity of SpaceTime, locally defined to us by its Event Horizon. From that point of view, what do you need for a micro black hole? Is those Bec 'bosons/fermions' balancing on a delimitation of SpaceTime? We have near 'c', and we have Bec's.
==

Gravity is just as 'magnetism' observer dependent, have you thought of that? A geodesic has no gravity. But Inertia isn't. Inertia will always be there.
« Last Edit: 18/06/2011 10:35:55 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #268 on: 19/06/2011 19:27:50 »
You know, assuming that light doesn't 'propagate' it all becomes a function of the arrow of time. Then that arrow is what organize it into 'functions' we define as motion and Lorentz contractions, etc. A preposterous thought isn't it :)

But then again, so is lights duality, and the Copenhagen interpretation of it. Or Wheeler, or Feynman, or Bekenstein, Einstein, a.s.o ..

And then what we see all is connected, the causality of it becoming our observations inside a arrow. This one might be interesting considering such a notion. quantum mechanical tunneling and chemistry.
==

What I mean by 'connected' could be considered from two views, the 'observers' and 'what possibly is conceptually'. The observer could then, as a first suggestion, then always be defined by 'locality', meaning that it is the observers 'unending locality' that gives 'him' his notion of those unchanging macroscopic causality chains making sense.

Considered conceptually we find another 'reality' that has little to do with our definitions. In that one there is no 'motion' but an arrow. And that one combined with consciousness construct our SpaceTime, maybe? It is preposterous, isn't it :)
==

Okay, another idea I'm willing to explore. The observer dependence of magnetism and gravity.
Assume that they both define 'something' similar.

Inertia?
« Last Edit: 19/06/2011 19:54:00 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #269 on: 20/06/2011 04:14:53 »
So let's make some wild conjecture :)

Gravity and Magnetism is equivalences.

Inertia exist everywhere in SpaceTime.
Inertia is a property coupled to gravity.
In fact they are a symmetry. Different sides of a coin so to speak.

Then we are looking for something that exist on 'its own'. Exist everywhere we can find a 'space', explaining how this phenomena allow an 'expansion' instantly, as it then must be what defines a space. Space's 'metric' as Einstein once called it.

So where does it come from? The expansion, and 'gravity/inertia'.
And why can it act on us?

The Higg field, which is a hypothesis that I kind of think is correct, even if it may need to be 'tweaked' to work talks about 'particles/bosons' that just 'is' everywhere and then 'compacts' in the presence of 'motion'. But motion is a very weird idea nowadays, isn't it :) So to get it to 'work', don't we have to fit it to the way a Lorentz contraction express itself, for example?

If you assume that a Lorentz contraction is as real as any other measurement you can do, that means that the distance you measure is the 'real distance' for you, doesn't it?

How can we set a standard for 'motion'? Depending on your motion relative lights 'blue shift' (as a thought up objective definition of 'absolute motion'?  Can we use that for defining a motion? All motion is a relative definition, although an non uniform acceleration will be definable. So, can the blue shift (hard radiation) tell you if your universe in general is going through a 'time dilation' relative you? That a blue shift disappear inside the ship when you you close your engines (black box scenario) to 'drift' (uniform motion) doesn't define that the universe's blue shift relative your motion has to do the same, does it?

Think of Earth, I read somewhere that it moves (approximately) at a million mph relative the CMB (Cosmic background radiation). And it's in a uniform motion. Do we observe a blueshift relative the stars due to that fact? So in a uniform motion there can be no 'blue shift', relative anything in fact?

Which then only would leave us accelerations to define a motion from. And there we have the fact that according to Einsteins definition of a uniform constant acceleration, it becomes inseparable from a 'gravity', just as all uniform motions becomes inseparable form any other 'uniform motion' no matter how you define it as a 'speed' comparing it to some origin..

I need to think about that one, we can see a blueshift relative the CMB, and if we can see that we can see a blueshift relative the stars too, depending on where they are moving relative us. We are free to define ourselves as 'standing still', and so we can use the CMB as a definition of a 'original state' possibly?

But it's not correct, there are no frame of reference we can prove to stand still. But we have proved that there must be a 'blue shift' relative the universe even in a 'uniform motion'. So we can use it.
==

Took me some time to reason that one out, didn't it :) But I think it's correct, we will have a blue shift relative the universe in a uniform motion, even if it disappears inside our ship, measuring that light bulb inside a 'black room scenario'.

So the universe has a way to define motion from, and that is what I've expected it to have before too. there must be 'null state' relative the universe, and light defines it. But, inside your own 'frame of reference' (locally) all uniform motions are the exact same, inseparable from each other, and inseparable from being 'at rest' with gravity.
==

There is one snag to it though.

The expansion, that one will redshift a object, no matter if it is coming towards you or from you. So to use red and blue shift as a 'universal speed holder' we need to find out how the universe treat a expansion. But then again, that's not about 'relative motion' is it? It's more of a universal 'fact' acting on 'space' between galaxies. I really need to get my head around that one, but as it also has to do with the whole concept of 'distance', that we already know to change with relative motion? It's a quagmire.

Can you see what I'm trying to point out?
Motion becomes a very weird phenomena in my world.
And locality defines your 'time' ('c')
« Last Edit: 26/06/2011 04:16:52 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #270 on: 20/06/2011 04:50:01 »
If 'locality' defines your 'time' what parts of the universe does it 'cover'?

All parts, isn't it :) There are no light coming at you, measured locally, that ever have another 'speed'. But 'distance'  change with motion. and 'motion' has one gold standard to compare itself to. The blueshift you measure locally versus the CMB will tell you if you are moving as it is isotropic and approximately homogeneous, even though it has slight variations.

But you can't use a star, as the blueshift always will be a relation, and even the CMB can be questioned, as we can't state if it and us are moving together in some preferred direction, although with variations that we then experience as our 'motion' relative it. But assuming that the CMB is the remains of a origin, and assuming that the CMB then is another definition or delimitation, with gravity/inertia, of our SpaceTime, we should be able to use it, I think? :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #271 on: 20/06/2011 05:09:13 »
Even though I suggest the CMB as our 'gold standard', the real 'gold standard' must be all stars etc, meaning all light, acting against each other. And that one no computer can count on i think, but apparently the universe can. You see what I mean? The 'null state' is that all light together, I'm sure that if we could find a way to measure it we would find it to take itself out. It's another thing that must be 'symmetric', the apparent motion we measure becoming 'null' from the universe. And now I'm taking you on a real journey, ain't I :)

I really like that one.
Can't really prove it, but it has to do with symmetries and the universe are big on those. Motion versus 'null motion', as defined locally, relative 'conceptually' (universally)
==

You can see that one several ways. Either as vectors taking each other out 'universally' assuming light propagating (or not, as I do:), which sound rather wrong at a first glance, but which I suspect to be true anyway. Or you can look at 'motion' locally and see where the symmetry should be if so. That as I prefer that way for simplicity, and the symmetry should be there from that perspective too. But then I can't use the 'conceptual' way of defining it anymore, instead having to treat it another way. Because 'locally' light becomes a 'clock' defining interactions. And as all interactions in my universe are defined by something 'not propagating' they instead of having 'distance and motion' becomes patterns. And the 'patterns' are timed by the 'clock'. Yeah, I know, that one is a hard nut to crack. And I'm testing it as a proposition. At the same time as it solves some problems, it introduces new ones :)
=

But it's all about 'turning ones head', to see if there are other ways to look at it.
« Last Edit: 20/06/2011 06:38:46 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #272 on: 20/06/2011 07:10:04 »
Thinking of it, I may be wrong about the speed we are moving, it was just something I had a vague memory of. But the definition we have of a 'speed' comes from measurements made from a U2 actually :). George Smoot was looking for small variations in the CMB, as it was one of the prerequisites expected for the Big bang, but without finding it. Before this they mostly used high altitude balloons, same as we have for measuring weather/climate today. But searching for those small variations in the CMB he instead found a slight blue and red shift, balancing itself out, proofing that we had a motion relative the CMB. The exact number seems to be 370 km/sec (827 666 mph) relative our Universe and the correct term describing it is dipole anisotropy. There were some guys before him that also defined a dipole using balloons, but somehow he got the whole glory from it? Probably because his was the most exact?

But he wasn't the first to discover it. And it's kind of weird that the CMB has a direction as one might assume that it should be without a preferred vector, a little like the isotropy we see with the galaxies around us. I'm not sure of that one in fact, it's somewhat confusing.

Here you have a history and description of the CMB Dipole: The Most Recent Measurement And Some History (4 Sep 1996) by Charles H. Lineweaver. 
« Last Edit: 20/06/2011 07:36:41 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #273 on: 25/06/2011 17:29:51 »
I've always had a lot of trouble with 'metaverses'. They seem questionable from so many angles. You need to decide where to start with them (origin) you need to define where and how they should be assumed to bifurcate, and depending of what level, and assuming that all bifurcations will act the same as the origin you will end up with something to go to 'infinity' in a whiff. because every bifurcation opens for new ones, for example, you have 1 2 4 8, but also for each of them, causing infinity to seem rather small suddenly :)

But that also has to do with how you will define 'time' and its arrow. Assuming, for example, that the arrow is nothing more than a static pattern, with our choices being the definitions of 'bifurcations' in it, you can get a easier acceptance of it. And to be correct you also need to see that Einsteins definition of 'frames of reference', combined with how each observer will have a different description of 'time' and 'distance', unique from all perspectives, then there can be no agreement around a 'universal time'. Although we can find a agreement about 'durations' assuming that they all are the same on some 'ground level'. And that one is defined as being in the same 'frame of reference' so I will presume that one to exist, even though being a same 'frame' only can be conceptual from fermionic definitions (matter). Only bosons can be super imposed on each other after all. So your 'metaverses' are already around you, well, as I see it

So recently I've started to reevaluate the concept of 'metaverses' from my new understanding of what I call patterns. And a 'pattern' is from this perspective highly speculative and conceptual. You might see it as a imprint consciousness leave on a static reality, leaving us jellos of 'SpaceTime' in where we 'exist'. A crazy thought, huh :) but it would allow me to melt the idea of constant and 'infinite' 'bifurcations' in a better way, for me that is.

'Reality' is weird.

From that (local) perspective you're already inside a 'pattern'. The SpaceTime you observe is that pattern. What connect you to it, and make you certain of its reality is radiation. That radiation is from your local definition of reality always of one 'duration' or 'speed' if you like. The same goes for your arrow, it never changes for you. If you assume that your life is one span full, then that span will be emptied as fast on the Event horizon of a Black Hole, as it will be on Earth.

And that is the real truth of it. When people think of time dilations they seem to assume that it somehow 'stretch out' their life. That is not true, it's just changing your relation to the universal 'frame of reference' we all meet. That frame is consistent of all 'objects' existing, mediated by light. The ball you catch, and whose path you have been following as it traveled in the air, is also mediated by light. This description is not so much a new 'reality', but Einsteins old one, as interpreted if you go out from 'locality'.

And to be realistic, how can you do it any other way? All measurements you make goes out from it too. All conclusions we have build on our interpretations from those local observations too. People have an unfortunate ability to mix their 'conceptual truths' with those that actually 'exist' locally. Einstein did not do that, that's what 'frames of reference' is all about as I see it. He treated reality 'locally'.
==

But then we have the question of how I can catch that ball? And keep it in my room, waking up to find it being in the same place I left it, etc. And that one goes back to how we define choices and probabilities. In a 'SpaceTime' that is a 'whole thing, you included' it becomes weird. But consider the same if we define 'SpaceTime' as a place, where although being 'a whole', also is a description, only definable relative (your) 'locality'?

Think about it, I know that I will :)
==

Take the definition of 'locality' versus 'non locality' for example. In a old description that one presumes that we all share some same positional description & time. If you use my definition that can't be true. Although we all can define each other relative our own 'locality' we do not 'share' it. The definition I will have of you is my own unique one, just as your definition of me will be yours unique, as defined from your intrinsic locality.

There is only locality in my definition, you can't define it otherwise and be true to reality. And what I'm wondering about here is how to describe all 'non local' effects, as 'local'? Because that will explain a lot. There must be a way to describe a entanglement that makes sense from my definition of a 'local' approach. And that one will discuss our concept of 'distance'.
« Last Edit: 25/06/2011 17:53:32 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #274 on: 26/06/2011 02:53:07 »
I made a slight detour today checking up on Smolins Loop Quantum gravity. The reason was that in some forms of this theory a small difference of speed is expected to be possible coupled to the energy of the photon. The idea was first presented somewhere around around 2005-6 and have since that been debated.

As I like to think of light/radiation as a 'clock' and as a constant, it would have made it a little problematic to find that it have different 'beats', even if only over incredibly small 'distances' and even if it kept to the macroscopic observer dependent effects of the theory of relativity. As far as I could see, all evidence found so far, studying possible differences between observed photons/energy and 'speeds' points to that there is no difference measurable. Which sort of fits my idea, at least keeps it simpler. Gamma ray test shows that GR is still right.. And for those of you seriously interested in how they thought, start here.

Don't get me wrong, I like Smolin a lot, even though I don't like the idea of a grainy origin (quanta). but then, on the other hand, I have serious problems imagine a 'one dimensional graininess' consisting of 'loops and strings' too. Don't take this that I don't think it possible, everything is possible as far as I'm concerned, if it keeps the theory of relativity intact and stop trying to nag bits of it. It's the best theory I've seen so far, and tested experimentally countless times. Not to forget that it's the one describing gravity best too. If there ever will be a a quantum theory that fit, it will be the one I will look at seriously. And Smolin tries to define it so that relativity will fit, which makes him very interesting to me.
==

And as I'm already making detours, let's discuss 'energy'. the universe is expected to be/have a 'symmetry'. Remember that I commented on 'matter waves' somewhere? And asked if you could consider matter to be red and blue shifted too? well, cosmology seems to do just that. and it is quite cool, until we consider a possible expansion. What that does is to 'stretch' a wave. Now this is a seriously weird effect as it will be the one independent of the observer. Normally you can describe all red and blue shifts as a result of the relation between you, and what you observes. It goes away from you (or you from it:) There's your 'red shift' It comes towards you (or you to it) There's your 'blue shift'.

But what about matter? And how about particles drifting far away from the galaxies, do they too change? If you want to define their 'speed' relative some receding galaxy its 'momentum' must change with the increased velocities measured against those particles, but that one is still a relation and so not disturbing to me. but the idea of a particle being 'matter waves' also describes something possible, at least theoretically, to change its wavelength?

Then we have the question of 'conservation of energy'. If the expansion 'steals' energy/momentum from a particle, where is it conserved? There are some possible ways around this. One is to define motion as something being a relation, that meaning that it in my universe :) it is a 'illusion' created by radiation. Well, in my universe only 'locality' counts, remember? And if so, everything you take for given will be a result of radiation communicating with you. Another might be to assume that the universe have a way to define a 'speed' exempting red and blue shifts. But that one will lead to that the universe has a universal 'rest frame' hidden, and even if possible, then also question the theory of relativity. Then we have a possibility of energy not being conserved too. This last one one is possible, from several points of view. One is that if we accept a 'inflation' and 'expansion' with 'instant space/gravity', then that already is a violation of the concept of 'conservation of energy', to me at least. And then we have the whole shebang with defining what 'energy' really, and I mean really, is?

We only see it in interactions, don't we?
« Last Edit: 26/06/2011 03:47:02 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #275 on: 26/06/2011 04:01:50 »
You can consider it this way.

When it comes to a possible 'universal symmetry' then that is not threatened by a 'expansion' as long as the balance between what new space/gravity/energy still keep its 'universal quota'. but from a conservation point of view it seems to me that 'energy from nowhere' as that new space can be described from a QM perspective ('zero energy') should violate it? There has to be a symmetry to a conservation law too, doesn't it? You can't just say that as long as the 'energy' never leaves, only transforms from usable to unusable, it is okay if our universe 'inflates'?

Or maybe you can? Distance becomes weird in Einsteins universe. Expending a lot of energy 'locally' will change it. So, how about it? If I travel infinitely near light, my universe contracted. Will its possible 'energy'  stay the same? But now described as a point? How can all that 'energy', in a whole universe, be compressed into a point, as from the travelers perspective? And shouldn't that energy be forced to react as it 'compress'?

I'm not really sure how to formulate that one. Although I think I have some ideas there. As always.. Maybe we could define motion as we do energy. As potential, I better sleep on it, huh :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #276 on: 26/06/2011 04:18:01 »
They are not correct in their view of the energy at the Planck Length:

http://www.douban.com/group/topic/8577816/

First correction, the LHC has a maximum useful energy of about 14 TeV. Secondly, the Planck Mass-energy is about 12.2 x 10^15 TeV... They are far, to say the least, from it...

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #277 on: 26/06/2011 04:26:39 »
CPT, that link was to "Scientists studying radiation from a distant gamma-ray burst have found that the speed of light does not vary with wavelength down to distance scales below that of the Planck length. They say that this disfavours certain theories of quantum gravity that postulate the violation of Lorentz invariance." which then include the one I discussed. For a more recent discussion of it, with papers you should try the other link, coming after it.

And as it is a theory still, not anchored in any experimental results I will define 'c' as 'c', and only 'c', so help me Einstein :) For my essay.

Maybe you saw LHC discussed in the comments?
==

Ah, okay, is it "It is not possible to test physics at the Planck length directly because this length corresponds to an energy of around 1019 gigaelectronvolts – way beyond the reach of particle accelerators (the most powerful of which, CERN's Large Hadron Collider, will generate collision energies of around 104 gigaelectronvolts)." ?

As far as I know that is correct, the LHC can not produce the energy needed to prove or disprove the idea. Rechecking I found several definitions of the possible energies of the LHC, ranging from 700 gigaelectronvolts to, possibly a 1,000  gigaelectronvolts in the end of this year with it possibly ? Getting up to a possible 1.2 teraelectronvolts (TeV), or more?
==

But rereading you, I realize that you agree :)
You just pointed out that they gave the wrong numbers. I think they meant 1019 gigaelectronvolts, not 1019, which then corresponds to a Planck length of 10-33 cm.

As you say, they are far from it.
« Last Edit: 26/06/2011 10:48:21 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #278 on: 26/06/2011 04:39:36 »
ok, i understand... But they can't measure gamma rays of 2πLp, they are very far from it...

http://www.atlas-canada.ca/whatislhc.html

In my theory, there is no deformation before the Planck length.

Now, I shut up... :o)
« Last Edit: 26/06/2011 05:33:20 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #279 on: 03/07/2011 17:25:57 »
So what is this space? That's one thing that confuse me seriously. Lorentz contractions, tunneling, entanglements, 'standing waves' (particles possibly:) and spherical waves (photons sort of, or if you like all particles). We really have only two things that 'matter' and that is matter and space. Without a space no matter, so maybe we should define it as 'one thing' 'space?'. What is a 'space'?

It's a distance, it should (in SpaceTime, not theoretically now) be in 3D, and then we have its 'propulsion' which is times arrow pointing in one direction. Can a 'space' exist without a 'time'? Why can 'particles' act as if there was no 'space' between them, and why can they ignore matter?

You have two choices I see it, either you define it as a function of what you believe yourself to observe, or you define it as a function of what we call 'space'. This goes back to why I would like light not to propagate. Even if it doesn't it will still be our 'clock' and a constant. But if it doesn't propagate it has to be in every point creating that cosmic beat. It would be similar to frozen frames that updates at the 'speed of light in a vacuum'. But then we have 'motion', free will, allowing change and ..?

One of the things I like with it, is because, if so, then 'space' is a function of those updates. You don't have a 'space' where it comes from at all.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #280 on: 03/07/2011 20:07:45 »
So what about a gravitational acceleration? I like to define SpaceTime by if it expends energy or not, and whereas a uniform constant acceleration has a defined local entry of expending 'energy' accelerating, a 'gravitationally accelerating' photon does not expend any energy. So is they the same? They do have a equivalence, and that one is 'gravity', which in the photons case is translated to 'energy'. This 'energy' is a observer dependent relation in the case of our photon though, whereas in the case of something uniformly constantly accelerating we know that the 'gravity' expressed is a solely local phenomena, disappearing as soon as the engines close, and a uniform motion becomes. So a uniform constant acceleration is not observer dependent, but a uniform motion, as well as a 'gravitational acceleration', will be.

And that is weird. But Einstein is right in that gravity is acceleration, so where do we differ it? The constant uniform acceleration is local. The constant uniform gravitational acceleration is observer dependent. And there is one more thing, a constant uniform acceleration expends 'energy', a 'constant uniform gravitational acceleration' does not.
« Last Edit: 03/07/2011 23:57:13 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #281 on: 04/07/2011 09:36:01 »
Some more about space. Ever heard of the Fractional Quantum Hall (FQH) Effect? It's a really strange effect where if you pass a electric current through a wire, having a magnetic field perpendicular on the wire, the electrons inside that wire suddenly deflects sideways. Now pointing to the surface of the wire, generating a voltage across the wire's width. and that's called the 'Hall effect'. So, how can electrons behave this way?

Well, it seems the answer lies in that they combines into a new kind of 'particle', called anyons. Anyons are somewhere in between fermions (normal matter, like electrons:) and bosons (photons and gluons for example). Fermions prefer to have a reserved seat in space (Pauli exclusion principle & Fermi–Dirac statistics). Bosons, on the other hand, can happily all join into one big superposition, in where they all together take no place at all (Bose–Einstein statistics). But 'anyons' is a third state which are neither bosons, nor fermions, and as the electrons 'clump together' to create this state they also suddenly begets fractional charges, called the FQH effect.

Sure but how do they do it, and why? A very understandable explanation I saw discussed it from the point of 'folds'. There are some definitely weird things about our 'ordinary electrons' too btw. One electron can in certain circumstances be positioned in two places simultaneously, but, there is also the possibility of two electrons only taking one 'place', 'standing on top of each other', and it is this effect we will discuss now. The reason they can do so has to do with that there are two quantum states possible for each 'reserved place' in space. So the 'space' we discuss here becomes a double-folded, three dimensional, space.

Did it hurt your head? I liked it a lot, to me it has to do with how I should see 'dimensions'. Remember those very small 'rolled up' dimensions that string theory speaks about? Add to that the idea of dimensions, as in our SpaceTime where we have eight 'corners', so 1 2 4  8 (ours)  16 32 ~. So is that it? Or is this another description of what a 'dimension' could be seen as? This idea also takes a fair shot at explaining why you have to 'turn' a electron 720 degrees to give it a 'full turn'. Can you see why? It has to do with those two 'folds' it exist in, turn it a full 'circle' (360 degrees) and you will have 'moved' it in its 'interior fold' to a start position of its 'exterior fold', another 360 degrees will give you the original start position back in its 'interior fold', all as I understands it.

I'm fascinated by the idea. It's a simplification naturally, as the mathematics describes it, well, mathematically. But it opens for another way to look at 'dimensions' to me. And it has also to do with how I'm starting to see the 'many world interpretation' of QM. I wrote the following somewhere else, but I will cite myself anyway :)

=Quote

As for what 'patterns' should be :)

Maybe you could call it 'everything'. Think of it (SpaceTime) as a box of jello, containing a infinite amount of possible connections between what makes up that jello. Then pretend that you by casting a light on it could light up certain connections, but not others. Each color you throw into that jello could then represent a 'SpaceTime' made visible. But it's also about the arrow and the way it changes things constantly. We call it interactions when that happens, and the color representing your 'SpaceTime' would then be created in your constant choices, or 'not choices'.

You might assume that in all of those meataverses we meet the (approximately) same guys, more or less, with some differences depending on 'choices', and the same SpaceTime obeying the same laws. If that was true then the bifurcations (splits) become infinite, as we all already would be defined as having each one a unique reality by our relation to the rest of 'SpaceTime'. Which, according to my definition of Einsteins relativity is all about 'locality'.

As I said I found the idea of 'metaverses' quite confusing before as I had problems with accepting the idea of whole new universes created out of your choices, or particles interactions. In mine definition you have one 'box', and what we call 'metaverses' is how different 'colors' moves inside the box of jello, depending on interactions and choices. So I don't have to question where all that new 'energy' should come from etc, as it already is there, just made 'visible' in our interactions. That also means as with a flashlight in a dark room, the only thing that will exist for you is what is 'lighted up' by your choices defining your arrow and relation to all others choices. And what join them into something 'whole' is that radiation. You never touch anything for example, there is always a very small distance between what you 'touch' and your invariant mass. Not that we notice, but it is a fact. And that is mediated by radiation, and 'mediated' could be translated as 'acting as a intermediary between ***'
=EofQ_

And that one makes sense to me, the one, 'metaverses', where 'new energy/universes' just popped up as you (or the particle) made a 'choice' did not though. A metaverse and its bifurcations then becomes something shadowy, where it's the pattern, 'choice' and 'arrow', that defines what is 'real' for you. It may allow for those other meataverses to exist on 'their own', but you can as likely interpret it as they are just 'shadows', patterns that even if existing in that choice, dies out as your arrow takes you forward. A little like Feynman's definition of 'interference' when it came to HUP. And, if doing that, you might even question if there really is needed to be a bigger box of 'jello', to keep those 'colors' in?
« Last Edit: 04/07/2011 10:09:48 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #282 on: 04/07/2011 17:29:38 »
So how does locality 'work' in this 'space'? Well, you start with yourself. You're the center of the universe, literally the center. That's from where you will make all definitions and observations possible. We have this idea that if something is true then it has to be reproducible for others. That's a very good definition, but seen my way you now will find that this is where the mystery starts. Because we could as easily be described as totally isolated, joined by our 'clock', that also is the radiation we live in and through. A speck of consciousness also defining your meta philosophical 'frame of reference'. The one that we use to define those frames needed to be Lorentz transformed to 'fit' each other. And then what we call 'space' becomes something malleable, not 'there' at all, defined in the way radiation 'creates' it. And that one should hurt your head :)

We have a beat, that beat combined with what we perceive as 'distance' creates 'speeds'. Those speeds does fit, but becomes microscopically and relativistically doubtful. Weird, isn't it? And not very understandable from the reality we know of day to day either. Still, I don't see it as wrong, and it gives us yet another way to define a 'space' from. Because then it becomes a definition of radiation, 'density' and distance, as defined from that beat. But I don't know, it give one an idea, but still doesn't define what makes the difference between a 'space' and a 'particle' possible.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #283 on: 05/07/2011 05:11:55 »
Why are all geodesics the same?
Why do space 'contract' in a motion?


There is a symmetry in this.
Light is 'c'.

When you measure something at the size of lights 'speed', one 'beat', times arrow disappear. What is a dimension when you have no clock?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #284 on: 05/07/2011 05:23:57 »
If I assume that I move uniformly, very close to light, I will still find the light inside that ship to come at me at 'c', so will all light outside that ship come at me too. But what you call the universes 'dimensions' will all be contracted relative me. Why can't you get to 'c'? Because that would stop that beat, and accelerations can't stop the arrow.

But a geodesic can. Assuming that we can penetrate/measure that size experimentally in some way, you will do it in a geodesic, not in a acceleration. All accelerations expend energy, a uniform motion does not. If the universe isn't what we think, in three dimensions and a arrow, instead having to do with a symmetry? Then it must be some sort of a fractal.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #285 on: 05/07/2011 05:32:12 »
A BEC must be the answer to how we reach that state where one beat stops. But we can't stop it our own 'frame of reference', as we would need to do to see for ourselves. 'Frames of reference' must be a dynamic description, changing for you in your accelerations. Uniform motion is the only place where you ever will have a same frame of reference. To see what I mean you need to accept that all mass is a 'gravitational acceleration'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #286 on: 05/07/2011 05:36:31 »
There is no such thing as a same 'frame of reference' for mass. Only 'pure' Bosons have access to it, as radiation. And all radiation is uniformly moving. Mass can't move uniformly.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #287 on: 05/07/2011 05:46:47 »
It has to do with our presumptions. We think that we can measure in a same 'frame of reference', and that we by doing so can verify a truth. But it must be a 'approximate truth', not a absolute truth. It's like my idea of parallel lines. Conceptually I'm very sure that the concept is true. That if you have a pair of parallel ideal lines stretching out, they should not meet in a point. But inside SpaceTime it is different. And if it is a fractal, then I don't know how that would express itself? Would they constantly meet in contractions, or how would it express itself? Ouch :) I don't know what type of fractal that best would describe SpaceTime, if it is one, that is.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #288 on: 05/07/2011 05:50:18 »
What we can do is to define it, so that when measuring, what we measure have a same 'frame of reference' relative us measuring. And as I think of it, ideally that can only be by experimenting with light, mass must be much trickier to define a absolute same 'frame of reference' too, relative you experimenting. The only thing that to me seems as a 'absolute truth' is the idea of geodesics, for the moment. And that needs to be understood as those parallel lines, as a type of 'ideal state' where everything is the same in a 'black room scenario'. But where my parallel lines only exist conceptually, geodesics exist everywhere and light describes them.

Gravity is not a 'pressure'.
=

But if all mass is a acceleration, then gravity must be a response to this acceleration. And although all geodesics are the same in our black room scenario, they are it out of the definition I gave above. Read the first lines (in this post) and see if you can see what I mean. It's about how we prove a 'state' relative us measuring
==

And that light must be a constant ('c'). You will not define it any other way, ever. Also that radiation must be massless and without a arrow intrinsically.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2011 06:47:43 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #289 on: 05/07/2011 06:27:50 »
Maybe one could define accelerations/mass as a 'inverted pressure' though? I don't know there. Mass and accelerations are the absolute same, that I'm sure of. And all geodesics must be the same no matter your 'speed' relative something, as long as we define it as a boson that is, and bosons only have one 'speed'. But we can 'somewhat loosely' use the same definition for mass too. That as we all 'work' from a ideal 'frame of reference', so when you imagine yourself moving uniformly you don't define your frame of reference other that conceptually, if you see how I think there. I think this must have been how Einstein thought of it too. As a 'ideal description' when he defined accelerations as mass, or vice versa.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #290 on: 05/07/2011 06:35:49 »
So an 'absolute rest' is a geodesic. That is a ground-state of the universe in where no energy is expended. As soon as energy is expended it can't be a (loosely defined) 'uniform state'. Can you see how I think of space here? And that is 'dimension' too. A ground-state of 'dimension', even though I still try to see what the he* I mean by that :) But it should be. It has to be coupled to our idea of dimension(s).
« Last Edit: 05/07/2011 06:38:39 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #291 on: 05/07/2011 17:41:40 »
I'm going to lift in this to my essay so I don't forget it. My mind have this unfortunate habit (ability?) of wandering away, and even question if what I did was 'thoughts' at all, at times :)

But as it has a relevance to 'gravity' I will place it here too as I otherwise will have to search for it at some other time. So..

How does a Higg field (boson) explain that all geodesics are the same? That means that every time you stop accelerating you will find a 'geodesic'. What kind of 'resistance' ignores relative motion, and how? Higgs is a way to define inertia to me, not geodesics?
=

Eh, that mean, although the Higg may define Inertia it does not define 'gravity'. Also it split 'gravity' from Inertia as I see it, and so it becomes a definition where you now have two explanations for 'gravity' and 'inertia'. Don't like that. And that means (dar* I see I have to explain my thoughts again) that gravity is explained by Einsteins GR, and Inertia then would be explained by Higgs? So, do the universe need to split what obviously is a sort of symmetry? Inertia is to gravity as the recoil is to the photons annihilation to me.
==

And defining the recoil is a principle, conservation of momentum. as I understands it, not a boson. 'Principles' and 'constants' (and most importantly, symmetry's) define SpaceTime.
====

JP, I'll take a chance here (opportunism ahoy:), and lend that one from you, it's concise and nice.. "Inertial mass and gravitational mass are different concepts.  The Higgs field only explains inertial mass.  For all objects we've tested, it appears that inertial and gravitational mass are the same.  Indeed, general relativity relies on that as a postulate.  But so far as I know, there's no explanation of why they have to be the same aside from the fact that they seem to be for all cases we've checked."
==

And to that I will add that, as far as I see, a inertial mass is a measurement of the 'unwillingness' of matter to accelerate. That's not exactly right, because a uniform motion contain 'inertia' too, but any deviation of that 'uniform motion', except a head on head collision, can be seen as a acceleration, and I'm not sure how to see that 'head on head collision' as actually? It's a deceleration and ..)? Gravity is a description of accelerations, gravitational like Earths or 'motion wise' as from 'A' to 'B', as measured in some positional system, and time.

If you turn it around you now will find that accelerations is gravity. Uniform motion on the other hand measured by the absence of gravity locally ('black room scenarios' all of it)

So if all uniform motions are equal inside that room, how can you state that you 'move'? There is no way I know of without using a outside frame of reference. And that is what motion is, a comparison between frames. 'A' and 'B' is two different frames of reference here, you 'moving' is the third, using them as a definition of a 'distance'. And the 'distance' you define uses a constant 'c', defining durations, aka a 'clock'.

So, do motion exist? Well, it must, as everything we do (and are) involve 'motion' in some way. But what is it, really?
==

Remember what we call water becoming ice, good, because I don't :)
That's 'inertia' maybe, a transitionally state defining a demarcation between two other states. Uniform motion to -> acceleration -> and back.
==

By Marcus;

=Quote

"When something is moving it has a "longitudinal" inertia and a sideways or "transverse" inertia. But it no longer has a mass, because mass is a directionless quantity. So the custom is to assign to each object the "invariant" mass which is the inertia it WOULD have if it were sitting still. Lorentz discovered this ambiguity of inertia of a moving object back in 1904 even before Einstein.. .

The equations (GR) that model gravity do not have mass in them they have *energy density* and related pressures. Energy is what causes gravity in GR. Energy tells space how to curve and curved space tells energy how to move...

When something is moving it has a different "longitudinal" inertia from its sideways or "transverse" inertia. It takes more force (measured in the lab frame) to produce a given acceleration vector in the direction of motion than the same acceleration sideways. It is harder to speed a moving body up than it is to deflect it---even if the observer at rest can see that the size of the acceleration vectors are the same. People used sometimes to talk about the "transverse mass" (gamma m) as opposed to the "longitudinal mass" (gamma3 m). But nowadays most physicists when they say mass just mean "rest mass"----there is no other kind. But if you google with keywords "longitudinal mass" and "transverse mass" you can still find these gamma formulas and some discussion of these things.

The factor gamma = (1 - beta2 )-1/2 can be quite large for beta near one. So there can be a big difference between gamma and (gamma3 ! The difference between forwards inertia and sideways inertia can be very large. Like, if gamma is 2, then the thing is 4 times more resistant to speeding up than it is to deflection (where the same size acceleration is to be produced) Or if gamma is 10, the thing is 100 times more resistant to speeding up than to deflection. Nowadays the use of the term "relativistic mass" is more of an endearing eccentricity than anything else. Like wearing a sword, or having suits of armor in one's livingroom. For a moving body, the "relativistic mass" is essentially the same as transverse"------inertia measured as resistance to deflection-----and the formula for it is gamma m."

= End of quote

So if we look at Marcus definition we can see what I think differs a 'gravitational mass' from a 'inertial mass'. But it's also a question of if you think that something can be 'at rest' in this universe. It's those 'ideal parallel lines' again I guess :). But as 'inertias' definition of what it measure is the invariant mass of something being 'at rest' we seem to assume that it exist? That one is easy to test. You just need to measure how hard it is to push something, not moving, on a table. Try it from all directions, in the tables 'plane (of course:) and if you find its 'resistance' to motion symmetric we have a definition of being 'at rest' that will differ from the "longitudinal", in the direction of relative motion, and sideways, or "transverse" inertia. Then you give it a motion relative the table and measure the inertia again, and there you will find a difference between being at rest relative the table plane, and 'moving' relative the table plane. Easier to move sideways than in, or against, its 'propagation' as I think of it.


If we find a symmetry on that table, inertia as when defining motion, versus being 'at rest' should differ? But that one becomes somewhat of a headache, doesn't it. A easier way of defining it is using geodesics, all geodesics are the same, but the inertia isn't. And depending on your, so called, invariant mass and relative motion you will find a different inertia. But when it comes to 'gravity' it will be 'gone'. Loosely defined here as there always will be a gravity associated to the matter itself. I'm starting to understand the need for defining it 'ideally' to make it precise.

Phieew :)
==

And that we can find the inertia varying with motion and mass, I use as a definition of a gravity always existing, even when unmeasurable, as in a uniform motion. But you could also use it to define inertia as one thing, and gravity as another, possibly, if defining it such as there can be portions of 'space' without gravity, but with inertia? But then you have taken away the metric of space, which to me is gravity.

In that case Inertia would define all sorts of motion, and mass (invariant) whereas gravity would define a ideal state of invariant mass being at rest, all as it seems to me? But then we have accelerations that according to Einsteins principle of equivalence is 'gravity'. That one is true, you will be unable to differ a acceleration from a gravity inside that black room scenario. So if Inertia would be all kind of 'motions'? How can a acceleration be 'gravity'? As well as a uniform motion is without 'gravity'?
« Last Edit: 06/07/2011 03:48:51 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #292 on: 05/07/2011 22:35:49 »
So, let's define some things.

Motion is relative.
Accelerations are local definitions, and absolutely equivalent to 'gravity'.
Inertia is the definition the universe use for defining all motion.
Uniform motion is a absence of local gravity (invariant mass being a acceleration)

And then we come to 'energy'.
Accelerations always expend 'energy'.
Uniform motion does not expend 'energy'.

Does 'inertia' expend energy?
It does, doesn't it.

So inertia resembles a acceleration more than a uniform motion. Think of the universe as being a flat plane, that plane is represented of uniform moving. The uniformly moving objects in that plane made of mass are all 'gravitationally accelerating' distorting the ideal plane. Add to that accelerations.
==

Although? Can matter in itself be said to expend 'energy'? Not really, so there our symmetry breaks. Even though matter is a equivalence of 'energy' it's not 'pure energy' itself. What differ 'dead matter' from living? The rate of interactions? And those are a function of our arrow.
=

If you accelerate a rocket at a steady (constant) one gravity, will its impact gravitationally on the surrounding space be the same as Earths? It can't be. So even though the gravity, locally, will be the exact same, the SpaceTime distortion won't. So a constant accelerating invariant mass do not express the same 'gravity' on the surrounding space as Earth, although it will do so 'locally'.
==

How can a constant uniform acceleration define the same gravity locally (inside that rocket) as Earth does without acting on the space surrounding it equivalently? Although I still think mass and accelerations are 'the same' the proportions they express is different, relative the surrounding space. On the other hand, that SpaceTime distortion could also be defined as a conceptual definition between 'frames of reference'. So mass and accelerations can be the same locally, without expressing themselves equivalently relative other frames of reference.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2011 23:01:48 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #293 on: 06/07/2011 00:02:36 »
So what is mass? Inertia and mass share 'gravity'. If you weight twice the amount of before, your inertia (unwillingness to change of 'motion') will be twice what you had, and the gravity will act upon you with twice the force of before. But that does not hold true in a geodesic, there you will weight nothing, but the inertia will still act upon you as if you did.

So we can forget weight. But not mass, and that was defined as 'the inertia it WOULD have if it were sitting still' right? So where do we sit still in this universe? The only time we sit still is in a comparison to something else, isn't it? Like that box on the table being still relative the table. But then we have uniform motion, does that change something? Well, it do change your 'weight' but what about your 'mass'. I can define you as being still relative your rocket, both moving uniformly in space. Where would that mass be then? And, do you still find a inertia?

(in fact I can now define you as being 'at rest' relative gravity too, as I see it. And if I do that, could I use that as definition of that untouchable invariant part of you, same in all frames possible, we call your 'invariant mass'?)

Sure you do, inertia will be waiting for you. The problem, as I see it, is that all uniform motions, no matter your 'speed' relative something is the exact same. You can't differ it in that black room. But the inertia must differ with your relative speed, don't you agree? The faster you go the more G-forces will you experience, when changing direction. Else we have a definition that state that all uniform 'speeds' will be the same inertia-wise, as you change direction in deep space, maybe only relating to the angular momentum you create in that 'acceleration'' your course-change defines

So where exactly are you 'at rest', defining that 'invariant mass'? It can't be in a geodesic, can it? You are at rest with gravity there, locally having no way to define it. So how about that table then, and the box on it. Will the box inertia differ if we send them away, moving uniformly? Relative what?
==

Do you think gravity is the metric defining a space?

If you do you have a frame that inertia can be measured against. You will also have a frame that although differing in strength, depending on motion, mass and 'energy', still must exist, even when unmeasurable. So, if that metric defines space, is that what inertia would define itself against, with your angular momentum, or do you think it only will be that angular momentum?
==

That is, if gravity isn't there locally as defined from that 'black box' (you 'coasting away'), will inertia still act as if it could 'measure' it?

And there is one thing more, the stress energy tensor that Einstein created. Do you think that 'space' store the 'energy' your relative 'uniform motion' create? How? Your motion, as defined by some origin? Why should that matter if all uniform motions are the same inside that 'black room'? And even if you look out you can arbitrarily define any 'frame of reference' as the one you will measure that motion against. And if/when you do so you're still free to define who is moving relative whom.

What exactly is it that Space store, the 'distortion'? As in that time dilation/Lorentz contraction? Then 'SpaceTime' has a definition of motion, don't you agree? So even though you find it relative, does SpaceTime see it that way? But it has to be a dynamic definition, and it has to be a symmetry globally. And that one really makes my head spin around, as it imply that no matter when, or where, I decide to turn on that speed, expending energy, SpaceTime somehow must know how to compensate and adjust for it, in some for me unknown way, that is, if I'm thinking right here. I'll look at this tomorrow :) Probably change it too.
==

I'm stupid, it's radiation, no it isn't?
The blue shift is taken out by the redshift, or is it? If you have a uniform motion that's really really quick, what will the proportions blue shift, relative red shift be, as observed by you? And it's also a question of 'locality' to me as I define all objects/points as 'unique' I really need to let this go for a while..
« Last Edit: 06/07/2011 04:44:48 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #294 on: 06/07/2011 04:03:50 »
I've been using mass as equivalent to a acceleration a lot here, you might not agree with that, but when Einstein defined the idea of mass as a 'constant acceleration' he must have realized what he did :) If we follow in his footsteps we now have -Acceleration = 'a Constant Uniform Acceleration/mass' = Gravity- and then we have -Inertia-, that to me is a immediate state between the idea of uniform motion & acceleration. And both types of motion, uniform motion as well as accelerations/mass, do the same for you. They contract 'SpaceTime'. But they do not time dilate you. Instead I define it as what is 'distorted' is the relation between you, and what you observe, in this case SpaceTime in general. You had no problem watching those two atomic clocks on the table getting timedilated relative each other, and yourself too in fact, as one was lifted to the floor. In fact, everything you ever see around you should be ever so slightly 'time dilated' relative everything else, as I think of it. And if that is so, then the Lorentz contractions must be there too.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2011 04:08:39 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #295 on: 06/07/2011 16:54:51 »
So what is a gravity? It's extremely weak, not that we notice, to us it's a strong force, having all kind of implications if you fall :) The 'force' of gravity (g), in a acceleration, depends on the mass (M) of the body and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance (r)..  g= GM/r2 .. Gravity acts between pairs of bodies and is proportional to their masses, meaning double your mass double the gravity. The constant of proportionality is called the universal constant of gravitation, or 'big (G)', and has a value of 6.67 x 10-11 N.m2.kg-2 .. (Or 3.kg-1.s-2) ... It goes back to Newtons Apple, and builds on him observing that things accelerate in a gravitation, and from there extrapolate the 'force' of gravity at different heights. Then you need to find out the mass of what 'acts' on other masses too of course, to make it into a 'constant'. We don't know if it really is constant as we can't test the universe as such, but we assume that it is, as nothing we've seen contradict it.

So that's the math, not that difficult although the notation can give you a headache, if you're not a mathematician or scientist that is. How about describing it topology wise then? Then we have a plane, the plane we decide to call null gravity. We allow it to stretch out for this, and call it the universe. Then we place objects of mass in it and watch how the plane deforms as those objects act upon each other.

But where did the plane come from? Was it there before the objects, or did the objects 'create' it? Einsteins universe is a whole thing, so in that universe everything follows of each other. It's not really a discussion of what came first in his universe as it all, in some weird way, seems to have been 'lifted in' together, to work the way it does.

But that is me ignoring the arrow of time. We live in a arrow defining us, from the cradle to our death, and so we use the arrow to back-track the universe. Doing so we find a Big Bang, some 'state' of a universe where it 'starts'. But as I said, all of this is assuming a arrow, and a (linear) causality chain. You could also look at it from Chaos theory and fractals, or topology, or any number of possible definitions, and they all give you a slightly different approach. What we noticed recently is that there is a non-linearity inside linearity inside non-linearity a.s.o.

That just mean that it somehow gives us irregularities and unclear definitions from a mathematical sense. We like to be able to get a clear answer from our math. That builds also on our ideal ideas, which are axioms or archetypes. You pick up one stone in each hand, how many have you got? That's a axiom. Parallel lines is a geometric axiom that defines those line as never meeting (intersecting) in a plane, as you drawing them on a (infinite) paper. But the universe is non-linear both macroscopically/relativistically and microscopically. We live somewhere in the middle there, finding it possible to get clear answers to most of the questions we need answered on Earth, also ignoring those that don't give us that answer, instead building on 'experience' (our histories) which is what probability is all about.

But we need a way of finding that causality chain making sense now, incorporating both linearity and non-linearity. Feynman and Einstein both, doubted that nature really was that complicated. Both assumed that there had to be some sort of simple order to what 'particles' did, and to the macroscopic phenomena too.
==

So that's the real challenge, none of the theories and hypothesis's really are that simple. That you always can find someone that spent much of his life learning and defining some idea(s) into a 'universe and then finally finds them 'simple' is not a truth just because he finds it so. Einsteins universe is simple, if you use 'locality' to describe it, very complicated if you conceptually join all 'frames of reference' and keep them together into your mind. So it also has to do with how to look at something, 'turning your head' the right way. And that's a really neat trick when you find a good way to do so, as Feynman did with 'interference' and HUP.
=

« Last Edit: 06/07/2011 20:40:40 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 275
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #296 on: 06/07/2011 18:30:27 »
The speculations do run wild in this subforum. :)

But asides all that, I have a question for Yor On.

You note that g=GM/r2, are you defining g as the general relativistic metric with GM/r = φ where g is being replaced for φ?

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #297 on: 06/07/2011 18:54:38 »
I think what Yoron means is the acceleration due to gravity (I would put a minus sign in there - but what the hell) - it's the universal law of gravitation and f=ma. 

NB the force of gravity (ie rather than the acceleration) as Yoron well knows depends on the product of the masses - a slip of the pen
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #298 on: 06/07/2011 19:22:24 »
Yep, you're right Imatfaal , and I should have reread it. Sometimes I don't see what I write until much later, because you have it thought out, missing that what you write comes out differently than what you mean. Just like you fill in all those missing small words 'gluing together' a sentence, never observing that they're missing. Thanks for pointing it out.
=

As for the formula I was thinking of Newton as I wrote it. Hmm, are you asking me if I think gravity is instantaneous :) He* no, I think it's propagating at 'c', except possibly in one case, and that is the question if it would be the 'metric' of space, as Einstein once described it.

If it is, and I do find it logical to assume so, then I would expect a expansion to come with gravity 'instantaneously', but that is not the same thing to me. And once established that gravity, if so, should have a propagation at 'c' as all other gravitational waves, well, as I think of it now that is :)

And why I think so is the idea of singular dimensions, I'm finding trouble with seeing it in SpaceTime, and assuming that the space indeed are what it seems to be 3D, then you will have a '3D space' in those new patches too, and that might be 'instantaneous' or take some extremely short time, but the gravity will be there instantaneously as we notice it, if that now make sense.
=

The other way to think about it is to assume that you have singular dimensions 'meshing up' that new space into 3D, with 'gravity' coming into them (the new patches) at 'c'. But then I don't now what a distance is any longer as we now assume that 'new patches' neither need a 3D representation inside SpaceTime, nor space's metric 'gravity' to present us with a 'distance'. I prefer the way I look at it, with those new patches being 'ready made' for use. Then they should show the same gravitational 'slope' as what is around them too, possibly? :)
==

Also it opens for the question if dimensions have a 'speed'? The inflation had one, didn't it? Or did it? Not if my definition makes sense. That we see a speed for the expansion doesn't tell us that new patches grows with that speed locally, SpaceTime do it, but as for the patches in themselves?
« Last Edit: 07/07/2011 02:09:21 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #299 on: 07/07/2011 01:09:11 »
This is my particle free definition of gravity of course :) If we assume that space is a field of 'bosons' of various types fluctuating, we still have a space without granularity. That as a boson have a wave particle duality, and I expect that to be true outside Planck scale too. So introducing such a definition and then expect it to be 'quanta' solely will not be correct as I see it.

And then it seems, to me that is, to be at a straight angle at Einsteins definitions if you define it as 'quanta'. I actually prefer the duality there too. Then everyone can feel free to find their truth :) Well, sort of?
« Last Edit: 07/07/2011 01:10:51 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."