[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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?

[yor_on]

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')

[yor_on]

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?

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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. 

[yor_on]

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'.

[yor_on]

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?

[yor_on]

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

[CPT ArkAngel]

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...

[yor_on]

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.

[CPT ArkAngel]

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... )

[yor_on]

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.