An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2900 Replies
  • 292620 Views

0 Members and 2 Guests 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 #300 on: 07/07/2011 16:07:10 »
SpaceTime -> Closed?
Gravity -> Space?

'Energy' -> 'Gravity'?

Can you use gravity to gain energy? Sure you can, you just need to place yourself at a slope. But getting there will cost you some energy, which is why you can't make perpetuum mobile. You will have to get back up to gain more of that 'slope energy'. And that's what potential energy is, a way to define how you by placing yourself in some motion, or relative some 'potential' can use it, for gaining 'energy', or not.

SpaceTime as a system of points can be described as 'potentials'. But as gravity is coupled to energy, mass and motion it's a dynamic representation, ever changing. It's also observer dependent in that your 'motion' position etc defines what 'energy' and 'gravity' you see. Think of a uniform motion (geodesic) to see what I mean there.

So where do 'gravity' come from? Is it a state defining our room? If it is, is it 'energy'? Well, nobody has a definition for 'pure energy' that I know, except possibly in 'photons', and nobody have lifted up a ounce of 'gravity' to show me either.

Either 'gravity' is a function of a closed 'system/SpaceTime' or it is a representation that 'exist' in and out of that 'closed system'. To see that you will need to think about patterns and then if it is possible for something to be defined as 'closed', at the same time as it is 'open' from another description.

If that is possible, what do you think would limit our perception of this 'open system' in which we might be a part?

Times arrow?
=

And yes, it's about 'dimensions'.

« Last Edit: 07/07/2011 16:12:01 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 #301 on: 09/07/2011 05:16:05 »
Okay, Mach principle and SpaceTime.

There exist solutions to Einsteins theory of relativity in where you can have a SpaceTime without matter. That confuses me :) Not too difficult to do, but still. What exactly would this SpaceTime without matter be? 'energy'? vacuum fluctuations? Exactly what is it?

And yes, it's me trying to pinpoint the idea of a dimension. You see, to me a SpaceTime without matter would be like a 'point', there might be 'energy', or not be 'energy', something should be there, but it would still be a point, or a flat 'surface'. And when I say flat I mean really, really, flat. So flat as if you leaned over its edge it wouldn't be there at all. Maybe more like our idea of a one dimensional string than anything else? And why I think so is because of 'gravity'.

Now, that may actually be the definition of a 'matter less' universe, I haven't checked it up yet but, if so, its meaningless. For us it is. Why should I care about ideas that have no meaning? Well, it's about what a dimension is, isn't it? Let us just for fun define 3D as 'gravity'. What happens to all those other 'dimensions' if that is true? Can they exist? Depends on how you define that 'gravity'. Do you think it radiates from 'energy' 'mass' and 'motion'? Or do you think it 'exist' as a field of some kind? Where does it come from? A property of SpaceTime? Oh yes, it has to be a property, but as a lot of other things, is 'gravity' a transformation of something else? 'Energy' perhaps? And 'energy' is that scarlet pimpernel expressing itself in 'work' isn't it? Showing up in transformations.

Gravity is what defines this universe, it gives it 'dimensions' and it obeys our arrow. All other thing you see obeys 'gravity' but without the arrow nothing would be there. Without 'gravity' there would be no 'dimensions' to discuss. So how can 'gravity' fold into itself? Or become 'one dimensional'. Without matter it may be able too.
"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 #302 on: 09/07/2011 05:23:22 »
All of this has a relation to what we call 'size'. There is something very strange in how things gets defined by their size, size of time, size of, well, size. There is a relation between what we see as macroscopically true, and probability and it comes down to 'size'. So why do the fuzziness disappear as things get bigger? Is 'size' a absolute thing or a relative? It should be the same as a 'distance', shouldn't it? Are distances absolute, or observer dependent?
==

Another connection is 'time'. Time is always the same for you, and so are the distances inside your own 'frame of reference'. But others time, as well as distances, are mutable according to you. And the same will your friend find as he watches you 'speed away'. Is that a geometric trick or is it reality? If you think it is reality, where is the 'gold standard'. It's like a fractal to me, defined by locality. Your locality, mine locality, they are all the same. If we were bosons we could share the same 'frame of reference', but we're not bosons, we're fermions, separated by the Pauli exclusion principle. That means that there is no way we ever will be in a exact same frame of reference, ever. That's also one of the things allowing us a 'space' to exist in as I see it. It gives us the dichotomy between space and matter.

We have already seen that a 'time dilation' is a definition between 'frames of reference'. So how about 'distance'?
===

One more thing. Do gravity 'obey' the arrow, or does it just adapt?
« Last Edit: 09/07/2011 05:42:08 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 #303 on: 09/07/2011 05:58:22 »
What differ a vacuum from bosons?

Bosons are sizeless.
Vacuum has distance (gravity).

Bosons has 'energy'.
Vacuum is classically empty.

Bosons are intrinsically timeless.
Vacuum?

Both Vacuum and Bosons 'transform' under the arrow of time, vacuum gravitationally /observer dependent, and Bosons recoil/annihilation red/blueshift /observer dependent.

What happens when you compress a vacuum?
you can't.

What happens if you compress light :)
You can't.

But if you go down in 'size' then?
Where does a vacuum becomes 'quanta'?

As a function of 'time size'?
Or just 'size'?

"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 #304 on: 09/07/2011 15:48:06 »
So, is 'size' the same as 'distance'?

SpaceTime is 3D (4D)
Distance is observer dependent.
Vacuum may have a 'distance' but it do not have particles.
Do particles has a 'distance' (size)?

Where does they get it from?
The arrow?

Vacuum fluctuations. As if it wasn't enough with 'dimensions' :) We also have the idea of how 'sizes' will open for another 'reality'. Those two stand side by side but as far as I can see we treat them differently. To that we can add the idea of particles 'folding'.
"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 #305 on: 09/07/2011 16:02:25 »
Mathematically SpaceTime is defined by how many 'positions' you need to define it. So SpaceTime needs four. Length, width, height and time. Is that several 'dimensions', or is it just 'one'? Einstein treated SpaceTime as 'one', not four. Think about it, if they were separated why do we expect them to slide into each other when 'pushed'. Then you can look at the arrow. Is that something coming with the other three, or do you think it is something existing on its own?

How about 'two'? A jello in time, ahem?

First of all, let's define times arrow. To me it is transformations, it's also more or less 'linear', meaning that we can see a logic to those transformations. They happened before I was born, they will continue to happen when I'm dead. We don't discuss 'energy' for this. Times arrow will exist without me. Assuming that 'locality' is all, that fact is telling me something. I'm making the presumption that I'm not talking to myself here :) We all 'exist' and we all define that 'existence' from 'locality'. Turn it around and you will see that SpaceTime adapts to you. But the arrow doesn't. You're not immortal, no motion will grant you immortality, no mass.
"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 #306 on: 09/07/2011 16:24:52 »
Is it the Jello that defines a arrow? We have 'gravity', 'energy' and the 'arrow'. None of them existing on their own inside SpaceTime. All of them adapting if you look at it conceptually, comparing frames of reference. If you look at from locality, the arrow never change though, the 'gravity'? Well, it's not the same, it change with position. 'Energy'? If we define it as transformations then it always are changing.

Those are the big three unknown. The arrow, 'energy' and 'gravity', they all 'move'. Then we have where they 'move', we call that 'dimensions'. The place where they 'move' do not stay the same with those parameters changing. It adapts, and depending on how you define it, from locality, or from comparing frames of reference, you get different answers. From locality you have one constant 'c'. From frames of reference? Tell me, do you think you live at all places simultaneously? As you live in a 'mind space' where you define reality from 'frames of reference'? The razor tells me that I'm here, not spread out in SpaceTime, but here. So locality must be the best definition.
"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 #307 on: 09/07/2011 16:41:11 »
And it is, that's from where all experiments done get interpreted. That's the place from where the 'frames of reference' first was observed. And that's where you can define QM. From 'locality' QM is not indeterministic. As long as we agree on that it is your observations that defines reality. The problem with QM is no different from what we meet when comparing 'frames of reference'. Both becomes fluid and uncertain if you stay in the 'mind space' but as long as you go out from locality, and your observations, QM is no more 'uncertain' than relativity is.

A simple approach is to define reality as what you can see happen (locally). That's also where 'weak measurements' come from. It's a definition using histories to define a 'future'.

But it doesn't answer what happens when we do not look.
==

What allows histories to exist?
« Last Edit: 09/07/2011 16:47:53 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 #308 on: 09/07/2011 16:55:28 »
This is all guesswork of course, me trying to find something that fit.

Histories is what we've always used to define reality. Modern man at least, animals do not seem to use that way of conceptualizing. They live in the 'now' mostly, even thought they too can remember, they do not arrange it in a conceptual causality the same way we do.

There are two ways to look at reality. One is from a 'mind space', the other is from 'locality'. Both can be used to arrange histories into a pattern, but where 'locality' give you a strict definition of your reality, doing it from the 'mind space' becomes fluid and dependent on the 'observer'.
"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 #309 on: 10/07/2011 23:35:26 »
Can you connect 'gravity' to energy? Depends on how you look at it, energy is transformations. But what is it that 'transforms'? Gravity? Not as I know, 'gravity's slope' stays the same, no matter how many photons, or mass, that 'travels' it, loosely speaking here. The transformations we see either involves particles of mass, or massless. 'Gravity' is more of a roadsign for those, directing them.

But there is no denying that gravity's potential have a effect on what 'energy' something will express. But that is also a expression between 'frames of reference'. So, can you define 'gravity' as a frame of reference? I'm not sure, once again we find it has to do with definitions. If gravity either radiates or, at least, have a origin in mass and motion, then I would say no as we might have to define it from a source. But it's tricky and I'm not sure if I agree with myself here :)

The reason why I don't mention 'energy' is just that, for what we can observe today, only are defined from transformations, as far as I know. Seen another way you very well can define gravity as 'frames of reference'. That as gravity exist in all 'points' of this universe (as I presume), and that you nowhere will find points near to each other of the same 'gravitational potential'. Add to that, that we live in a universe defined by 'relative motion', meaning that there is a constant dynamic change of each points 'gravitational potential' inside times arrow.

I don't know really, the idea of some 'walls of the universe' seems pretty meaningless to me, to define it as such we first would have to agree on a 'distance' and even though you can Lorentz transform distances, and clocks, that doesn't give you a 'absolute frame', just a way of comparing them. And a universe without walls becomes a universe where you no longer can define 'energy' jumping from them to 'space', as the inflation seems to do, for the moment.

I like 'magnifying and contracting' better. It, to me, seems to be a better general description of change in SpaceTime, and it also seem to be observer dependent.
=

Can we define 'energy' as being on one invariable kind in a 'inertial frame'? Nope, we can't, that photon may give you one relation on Earth, but another on Jupiter. The 'energy' it express in your measurement/its annihilation will differ. But we still can define mass that way, can't we? Invariant (rest) mass is defined as being of the 'exact same' in all inertial, as well as accelerated, frames. There is one crucial difference between mass and radiation though. Radiation has no rest frame, it's always of one invariant 'speed' in all frames, and from all frames as measured locally. 'c'.

Rest/invariant mass can be 'at rest', if we by that define it such as in a uniform motion (geodesic) on its own, or relative something else. But different uniform motions, relative some agreed on origin, will give you a different outcome, in a impact. So how can we expect a 'invariant mass' to be the same? And actually, we do the same with 'quanta' of radiation, as a photon. We expect it too to be of one invariant 'energy'.

What is invariant mass and how do we define it?

"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 the custom is to assign to each object the "invariant" mass which is the inertia it WOULD have if it were sitting still." And 'sitting still' I here define as being in a uniform motion, then being, as I understands it, impossible to differ from being 'still', inside a 'black room scenario', as in your rocket. And then you have planets, etc, too, where your 'invariant mass' also can be said to be 'at rest' relative  the planet. Which in its turn are uniformly traveling a geodesic, as I see it being at rest with 'gravity', excepting its own gravitational potential.

So, ignoring the 'warping' a invariant mass 'influences' on the space around it, we may define a invariant mass 'rest frame' as being a uniform motion in where it will be at rest with 'gravity', 'weightless' if you like, following a geodesic. And the mass itself is measured from the 'inertia' created at a course change (acceleration). So, if this is right it then automatically assume all uniform motions (geodesics) to be the same, no matter what speed you have relative a origin. At least it assumes that the inertia created must be the same at a course change (acceleration). Is that correct? That no matter my 'speed' the inertia will be constant in a uniform motion?

What exactly is 'invariant' in a uniform motion. As I see it the only invariance you will find is relative the gravitational potential of the space surrounding you, allowing you a geodesic at any 'speed' relative some origin. I most definitely expect your inertia to change with your uniform 'relative motion'. So is 'inertia' a well chosen standard for this? (Also it seems to me that the 'inertia' will differ depending on how you choose to deflect that uniformly moving object. You will get one energy colliding head on, another if hitting it at a right angle to its motion.)

"Longitudinal" inertia, versus a sideways, or "transverse" inertia as Marcus expressed it. But there are no frames of reference in this universe that are 'still', except as defined as I did, against '(Space) gravity's potential' uniformly moving, and/or as defined against another object in your geodesic. Then again, mass should be of one invariant type, ideally. That as we relate it to a invariant 'energy'.

So, a question of locality maybe?


« Last Edit: 11/07/2011 00:50:26 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 #310 on: 13/07/2011 09:41:31 »
Time?

If you look at it from Einsteins perspective the arrow we have is a result of the room time geometry. Then you have a ground state, that also is our clock. It's defined from 'c'. Look at it that way and you will see why relativity works. The room you live in adapt all other frames you can see to yours. And a time dilation then becomes a result of you changing the parameters defining your relation to all other frames. Well, it's also the other way around, of course. And it's not really 'relative', in that you always will need a acceleration to change your motion, or better expressed, 'someone' have to expend 'energy' to change a relation (room time geometry).

It's really simple if you accept that a 'time dilation' is a description of a changed relation. The ground state I talk about is radiation giving us both ultimate (smallest sized) durations of SpaceTime, as well as the invariant definition 'c' from where both time dilations and Lorentz contractions come.

It doesn't answer the full mystery of times arrow though. But it give you a simple definition of how it express itself inside SpaceTime. It uses a constant and the room to redefine relations depending on mass,  acceleration (gravity), uniform motion and that scarlet pimpernel 'energy'. Then you have matter aging differently, but that has to do with the chemistry and biology.

So the arrows durations I define as 'c'. And that one I'm as sure of as I can be :)

The arrow itself though? The mere idea of one 'direction' in time? Well, we wouldn't be able to do this without a direction. I don't see 'times arrow' as the origin of 'time' though. Time and possibly gravity (as well as 'energy') are all human constructs describing something we can't 'touch', although they define SpaceTime. To me they all seem to rest on one principle and that is 'locality'. From there the arrow never change, neither do 'c', except gravity possibly, that somehow becomes the 'borders', or spaces 'metric' as I see it. But when it comes to locality (your own frame of reference) all your measurements will be the same, as well as time and distances. And we implicitly assume this to be a axiom, as we define reality as when you find repeatable experiments to state the same at different locality's. That is a very simple proof for what I say and it is true in that we perceive it so, although there can't be any point in SpaceTime that is the exact same, gravitationally/energy/'motion' and 'time'.

But the difference is not measurable for us normally, and our perception of time are defined by other things than 'c'. We down, or if you like, up-grade 'c' to what we can perceive with our senses, and from there we construct human 'clocks' and human 'time'. If the arrow was something you could 'see and touch' then we wouldn't have to agree on how to define it.

But the direction? Why is it there? Is it a effect of SpaceTime itself? I think so but I can't prove it, other than point out that you may assume all types of SpaceTimes, of all kinds of 'arrows', or without. But we wouldn't exist in them, so from that definition you have all kinds of 'meta SpaceTimes' or possibly only 'meta spaces' but we don't live there.

We can't.
==

So how does the 'room geometry' do it? We've assumed 'distances' to be invariant for the longest time. Even though the Chinese had 'Li' describing 'distance' in form of the energy, or time, it took you to travel uphill, relative downhill, they too probably thought of it as a same 'distance'. But that's no longer true, not in Einsteins definitions. There SpaceTime is one whole thing, where you, by changing your parameters in it locally, find it to express both 'time dilations' and 'Lorentz contractions'. So to me they are the two sides of a coin. And then you have Magnifying/Contracting as a better description, although not good. I suspect we will have to invent new words for describing how SpaceTime really treat itself, and I'm sure they are on their way :)

What you need to see here is that if 'distance' no longer is a gold standard, instead being a relation, then your universe is wrongly described. We use the wrong definitions, although they have worked very well at the 'human scale'.
==

And there is one thing more. In my universe light doesn't 'propagate' :)
« Last Edit: 13/07/2011 10:24:19 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 #311 on: 13/07/2011 14:38:23 »
So what about the difference between a 'uniform motion' and a acceleration then? Why do all uniform motions give you the same answer in that black room scenario?

If we look at a acceleration we have Einsteins definition of it as a 'gravity'. And that is correct as I see it. If you can't differ it from a planetary gravity inside that black room then it most probably is so. To see what really 'exist' for you it will always be the black room scenarios that tell you your truth. Using frames of reference will give the conceptual truth, but for you, a black room experiment will tell you what exist locally.

So a acceleration is a gravity.

Uniform motion? I like to define it as being at rest with 'gravity' placing you in a geodesic. And here we come to the metric of space. It's the ocean your spaceship travels, or maybe submarine in is a better expression. That is a presumption of mine, that without a gravity 'globally' there will be no 'space' to define. I have some reasons for it, amongst them the idea of 3D gravity space will paint for you. Also there is the dichotomy between space and matter. I don't need to look at radiation, as I define it as a 'clock' for this, not 'propagating'. And SpaceTime as a 'game', with rules. We want very much to understand SpaceTime, but if you look at as a game inside your computer you will find that although your game make a logic sense and have rules it doesn't necessary have to describe what you see outside your screen. And that is the way I look at it, I'm not suggesting that we are some 'data space' in some 'cosmic computer', it's just that looking at it this way make it possible to accept what I normally would find making a joke of all I think 'exist' around me. Einstein made his theory the most philosophical theory I know, with the best descriptions, also experimentally most verified of all theories, and that it still hold a hundred years later should tell you something about its validity.

So a uniform motion is where 'gravity disappear', But is it gone? Nope, not as I see it for now. On the other hand, maybe it really is? But that one hurts my head :) This is all about redefining what we call motion though. Defining 'gravity' this first way makes it a 'global phenomena' though as I see it, meaning that if it can exist 'unmeasurable' in a geodesic, it may well be so that whatever space you find, even if without a 'measurable gravity', still contain it. That we define motion as going from 'A' to 'B' in some positional space is the part we're used too. But there seems to be a lot more to 'motion' than just that.

You might want to define a uniform motion as a 'flat space', and I think it is, the flattest space that can exist (to us that means, not mathematically), but the 'gravity' still defines it globally, even if gone locally. Which then make it 'borders of SpaceTime'. So, in this definition of 'space' it's gravity that both define its measurable distances and its '3D'.


« Last Edit: 14/07/2011 19:13:58 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 #312 on: 13/07/2011 15:10:46 »
So now we can look at inflation again. I won't discuss the 'energy' for this, only gravity. Without 'gravity' I don't expect you to be able to measure a 'space'. I don't mean it will be a point either, it won't be there at all as I see it. I've used 'points' to define it but that is me adapting to our preconceptions of how things 'start'. In reality you can look at all 'points' of space, and in between, as possible 'carriers' and 'starting points' for any universe.

But as  soon as 'gravity' is established you will find 'distances' and so magnifying it into something 'measurable' for us. So that is my idea of a 'inflation', and a 'expansion' too. To me they have to be the same, although it seems that rules change when you have a 'gravity' established. You might assume that what we call the expansion either has to do with 'gravity' finding very little to couple too between galaxies and so allow 'small inflations' that we see as a 'expansion'. I don't know there, this is a rather new idea for me, although it seems as a logical continuance from defining 'gravity' as 'the metric' of space. To me gravity and energy seems very similar in the way we define it, as something 'untouchable', but needed for any SpaceTime.

And if you think of it, from my definition of 'gravity'  a 'expansion' has to be 'instant' to exist. And if it is so the best definition is that it 'breaks in' into SpaceTime, defining itself relative what 'space' already is there. But that is the 'inflation/expansion' specifically. Not the idea of gravitational distortions propagating at 'c'. Once established 'gravity' will have to obey the 'game rules' and those define 'c' as a border for all 'motion', excepting entanglements and tunnelings here. Although, those are phenomena existing at the level where radiations 'clock' breaks down, as I see it.
« Last Edit: 13/07/2011 15:12:25 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 #313 on: 13/07/2011 19:41:05 »
A magnetic field can exist in a vacuum. So what is a magnetic field?
Photons?

They are the carriers of the electromagnetic force.

And if a magnetic field can exist, so must a charge interact with it. Can you have a magnetic field without electricity interacting? If you find a monopole, which we haven't. So if this is correct all magnetic fields must have a correspondent electrical field or charge.

So, why can't we see them? And, why doesn't a photon have a charge?
And .. and :)

So maybe I'm wrong, we have symmetries and the 'vacuums symmetry breaking' as the idea behind electroweak force/theory, and the Higgs particle. And it's the vacuum that are expected to bring forth EM in a vacuum too. Or ..

I'll come back to this.

 
"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 #314 on: 14/07/2011 18:44:29 »
So we are stepping into the domains of QM now. And I'm not really that good at it, so what I'm going to do is too look at it from what I think I got some weak notion of, at least, and that is the theory of relativity.

The main reason for me questioning if radiation 'propagates' is all those experiments we have done, in where we can find countless definitions, ideas and explanations. All made by reputable folks, all wanting it to be true. I have some things I think is true, symmetries is. I'm sure of that one, what I'm not sure of if our ideas of what a symmetry is will be our universe's ideas. That also hangs together with the question of how much of our universe we actually can observe. I heard someone say that about four percent of the universe is observable to us, and I don't mean stars.

Before we start, and because people often slips over the most important things, assuming that they don't 'need to know' to make their assumptions.

What is a symmetry?

Well, water -> ice -> steam. Where is the symmetry most visible in those three states?

Snowflakes.

"Both the hydrogen and oxygen molecules are quite symmetric when they are isolated. The electric force which governs their actions as atoms is also a symmetrically acting force. But when their temperature is lowered and they form a water molecule, the symmetry of the individual atoms is broken as they form a molecule with 105 degrees between the hydrogen-oxygen bonds. When they freeze to form a snowflake, they form another type of symmetry, but the symmetry of the original atoms has been lost. Since this loss of symmetry occurs without any external intervention, we say that it has undergone spontaneous symmetry breaking."

Symmetry can be expressed by you rotating a object, in a mathematical way, or as with the  snowflake, in real time. As long as the rotations show you a unbroken symmetric pattern you have a symmetry as I understands it.

"Summing up 50 years of progress in fundamental physics, David Gross recently concluded: “The secret of nature is symmetry.” Everyone gets seduced by symmetry in one form or another, whether it’s the symmetry inherent in snowflakes or snail shells, kaleidoscopes or decorative tiles. But in physics, symmetry is more than just a pretty face. As Emmy Noether showed, there are symmetries behind every fundamental law.

This makes sense, because a symmetry describes what doesn’t vary even as things change—the solid truth beneath the superficial difference. Einstein, who first made symmetry central to physics, exposed a wealth of these pseudo-differences—including those between energy and matter, space and time. (As Einstein so often pointed out, his theories aren’t so much about things that are relative as things which are invariant.)

The late Frank Oppenheimer even cited the Golden Rule as an example of symmetry: If you do unto others as you’d like others to do unto you, and the doer and doee change places, it shouldn’t make a difference. Of course, a snowflake is symmetrical in that you can rotate it 60 degrees without making a discernible difference. But if you rotate it 5 degrees, the symmetry is shattered. To a physicist, the puddle the snowflake melts into is much more symmetrical: snowflakes can be individuals, but drops of water all look alike. Turning snowflakes into drops of water is essentially what the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Geneva will be trying to do—melting matter to reveal underlying symmetries.

If supersymmetric particles turn up at high energies, for example, it will mean that bosons and fermions—which seem like apples and oranges—have fallen off the same family tree. Each quark will have its squark; each photon its photino—a perfectly symmetrical team. The symmetry lost when the universe cooled will be, for the moment, restored. Even more beautiful symmetries appear at even higher energies. Heat up the universe to big bang temperatures, and the wildly diverse family of forces turns into one. String theory, with its tangled 10-dimensional topologies, is more symmetrical still; with so much room to move about, there are ample ways for the same thing (the string) to appear in radically different forms (quarks, gravity).

Alas, the universe we know isn’t very symmetrical. Somewhere along the line, it lost its symmetries—if not its innocence—like water freezing into ice. Today, the whole thing is embarrassingly unbalanced: Time goes only one way; gravity isn’t a bit like the weak force; there’s matter, matter everywhere, but not a drop of antimatter in sight. “Beauty in; garbage out,” Gross puts it. (Though we shouldn’t complain, since the garbage is us.) What happened to all that lovely symmetry? Part of the blame almost certainly goes to the Higgs field—that unseen influence that makes even our vacuum unsymmetrical, giving particles different masses. With luck, the LHC will knock a piece of it into a detector. On a different front, those busy B physicists are searching for hints of the mechanisms that make matter different from antimatter.

Of course, having a mechanism only explains how—not why. Why does water freeze into crystals? Since ice is the lower energy state, it’s as natural as flowing downhill. Perhaps the universe is the same—a cosmic drop of water that froze into an asymmetrical but still rather appealing snowflake. In fact, our universe could once have been so symmetrical that it amounted to nothing at all. “Nothing” is as perfect a symmetry as you can imagine, since there’s nothing you can do to it that makes a difference. This nothing would have been unstable, however—like a pencil balanced perfectly (which is to say, symmetrically) on its tip. And that means—as Frank Wilczek has put it—the answer to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” would simply be that “nothing” is unstable. "  by K.C. Cole.

And for those of you both mathematically and historically inclined Symmetries in Physics. Even if you're not that mathematically inclined you should read it.
« Last Edit: 14/07/2011 18:51:51 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 #315 on: 14/07/2011 20:19:26 »
So, what is 'phase transitions' and a 'false vacuum'. And why do I go from symmetries to that? I asked you what was most 'symmetric' in the post above, didn't I? Water, ice, or steam. When ice turn to water then that's a phase transition and as it then turn to steam that will be another phase transition. Water is quite symmetric under rotational transformations, but ice is not. "The liquid phase of water is rotationally symmetric, that is, it looks the same around each point regardless of the direction in which we look. We could represent this large three-dimensional symmetry by the group G (actually SO(3)).

The solid form of frozen water, however, is not uniform in all directions; the ice crystal has preferential lattice directions along which the water molecules align. The group describing these different discrete directions H, say, will be smaller than G. Through the process of freezing, therefore, the original symmetry G is broken down to H."

Then we have steam left, so, is steam more or less symmetric? Well, "The cosmological significance of symmetry breaking is due to the fact that symmetries are restored at high temperature (just as it is for liquid water when ice melts). For extremely high temperatures in the early universe, we will even achieve a grand unified state G. Viewed from the moment of creation forward, the universe will pass through a sucession of phase transitions at which the strong nuclear force will become differentiated and then the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism."

Is steam of a higher temperature (heat), containing more 'energy' than the water? What does that tell you? But how does it express itself then, this higher symmetry? It should be a higher symmetry under rotations. And a gas is quite homogeneous, isn't it?

But it also has to do with 'energy', in this case heat.
"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 #316 on: 14/07/2011 20:47:08 »
There is one more thing. There is a name for when something stands at the point of not being what is was, yet not being what it will become, well, chaos theory have some names too, but we'll leave that out for the moment.

It's called the 'critical point' in physics. It's a state that, maybe(?) all systems share.

"Most people are quite familiar with the standard types of phase transition. Water freezes to ice, boils to water vapour and so on. Taking the liquid to gas transition, if you switch on your kettle at atmospheric pressure then when the temperature passes 100 degrees centigrade all the liquid boils. If you did this again at a higher pressure then the boiling point would be at a higher temperature - and the gas produced at a higher density. If you keep pushing up the pressure the boiling point goes higher and higher and the difference in density between the gas and the liquid becomes smaller and smaller. At a certain point, the critical point, that difference goes to zero and for any higher pressure/temperature the distinction between the liquid and gas becomes meaningless, you can only call it a fluid."

Read it again. Did you get it?

One of the consequences of 'criticality' is a loss of scale. Scale invariance in the critical Ising model. " This is why, for instance, a critical fluid looks cloudy. Light is being scattered by structure at every scale. This insight is embodied in the theory of the renormalisation group, and it got lots of people prizes. A second feature of critical phenomena is universality. Close to the critical point it turns out that the physics of a system doesn't depend on the exact details of what the little pieces are doing, --- but only on broad characteristics such as dimension, symmetry or whether the interaction is long or short ranged. --- Two systems that share these properties are in the same universality class and will behave identically around the critical point.... ...This kind of scale invariance is a bit like the fractals you get in mathematics (Mandelbrot set etc) except that this is not deterministic, it is a statistical distribution.

How does it demonstrate that the details of our system (particles, magnetic spins, voting intentions - whatever) are not important? In all these cases the interactions are short ranged and the symmetry and dimension are the same. Now imagine that you have a picture of your system (like above) at the critical point and you just keep zooming out. After a while you'll be so far away that you can't tell if it's particles or zebras interacting at the bottom as that level of detail has been coarse grained out and all the pictures look the same."

Magnetic spin? Well water and magnets seems the same at 'criticality', they behave the same at that point. "Magnets also have a critical point. Above the critical temperature all the little magnetic dipoles inside the material are pointing in different directions and the net magnetisation is zero. Below the critical temperature they can line up all the in the same direction and create a powerful magnet. While the details of this transition are different from the liquid-gas case, it turns out that close to the critical point the details do not matter. The physics of the magnet and the liquid (and many other systems I won't mention) are identical."

Universality at the critical point.
"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 #317 on: 17/07/2011 03:13:09 »
So what is a magnetic field? A sea of 'virtual photons' creating the static field? So it's a function of time if so, wouldn't you agree? We live inside a 'clock' ticking in one direction but 'virtual thingies' are freed from that concept. But they still seem to have to express themselves inside that clock if this is correct. The same goes for all 'zero point energy'. So, in just what way does the 'energy' stays the same, if we constantly are tapping some from 'virtuality' to 'reality'?

It has to do with 'dimensions' doesn't it? The idea of 'folds', and of 'SpaceTime corners', as well as strings and loops and 'size'. They all describes something we can't see, or measure, but we still expect to exist in some strange way.

Can you relate those to 'sizes'? Like Planck defines one limit, 'c' an opposite. And the thing(s) in between being both a clock, and also potential 'symmetry breaks'? What does a symmetry need for 'breaking'?

A 'arrow'?
A 'Energy'?

What more?
"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 #318 on: 17/07/2011 03:31:00 »
You can't really use heat, can you. Heat is a function of times arrow and real particles getting their average 'energy' changed by 'colliding' with photons,virtual or not, and each other (still photons though). But 'virtual photons' do not give of any heat, if they did the vacuum should 'boil'. But they still can exceed any 'heat' a ordinary photon can deliver, just by being outside of our 'reality' according to HUP. So 'times arrow' is definitely a divider of 'reality', which makes Planck scales very interesting to me as that is where 'c' treated as 'photons' becomes 'still'. Imagine yourself at that scale looking at 'reality'. There would be no 'arrow' any longer, and without a arrow, how would there be a change? What I expect should be something totally symmetric, looking the same from any and all 'directions'.
==

Can you see how I think of it? When you consider 'traveling' alongside a photon, you're actually doing the exact same as I describe above, and you will see the exact same.

=

What does that make times arrow? If you can find the same outcome two ways. You can't 'travel' beside a photon in 'reality' though. So, can we traverse Planck scale? I don't expect that to be possible myself. We're 'stuck' in between Planck and 'c'. There still is one major difference between those two, at least if we think along our normal pathways. To get to 'c' invariant mass need to expend a 'infinite energy', but to magnify? Seen another way, to get to 'c' you need to find a way to do it without 'expending energy', and that one is only 'bosons'.

And what is it you use magnifying, and where is its 'limits'.
« Last Edit: 17/07/2011 04:09:24 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 #319 on: 17/07/2011 10:30:40 »
I think I'm wrong in defining inertia as growing with your uniform motion. Think of it this way. If you draw a wide circle around a object on frictionless table on earth, and then give it a 'speed'. Will the direction it travel in towards that line (velocity relative the table) make a difference for its inertia? It won't, will it? But if we define a direction to Earths uniform motion it should. It also would mean that you could define a 'unmoving frame' as you then could expect that inertia would 'diminish' if we just chose the right direction, in where it would lose that 'energy' built up by its speed.

So the definition of any uniform motion as being a same 'rest frame' for invariant mass is perfectly correct. I should have seen that before, but I haven't thought that much about it in terms of inertia, although I have wondered a lot about 'gravity' :)

That means that the 'energy' we define to a uniformly moving object, relative some origin, can't be defined as the same as its inertia. But it means that all uniform motions must be at rest with both gravity and inertia, if I'm thinking right here? And I think I am actually.

Embarrassing this one :)
But better late than never huh.
"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 #320 on: 17/07/2011 10:41:55 »
So there is no such thing a 'potential inertia', but there is 'potential energy'. That is, instead of a circle let there be a wall. With different velocities there must be different impacts, and so energies expended too. But, the deceleration then? Isn't that also a form of inertia?

Weird stuff, I will need to think more about this one. Is inertia expressed differently in a deceleration? How about a acceleration? Is inertia only changing in decelerations and accelerations then?

I better get some sleep here.
"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 #321 on: 17/07/2011 10:46:23 »
It actually comes down to the same problem I've been wrestling with for a long time. I would love to define a time dilation & Lorentz contraction to only the acceleration/deceleration, but I can't see how that is possible. And now we see a similar possibility with inertia, the difference being that there it seems that you can?
"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 #322 on: 17/07/2011 11:17:05 »
It would solve a lot of strangeness for me if there was a way to define it so, but consider the traveler. If he was near light speed then the Lorentz contraction only should be apparent in his acceleration (and even weirder, deceleration:), and that would destroy the symmetry we assume between the travelers Lorentz contraction, relative the earths observers definition of his time dilation. Also it would make the muon definition invalid.

And when it comes to the 'energy stored', a uniform motion will do as well as a deceleration/acceleration. In fact I might prefer to define both expressions to 'energy stored'. That is a simpler definition, but then we will find that gravity and inertia does not fit this expression at all, as 'energy stored' have nothing to do with inertia/gravity in a uniform motion.

If I'm thinking right, and now I will go to sleep, if I can :)
Da*n
==

Also it makes me wonder about how decelerations/accelerations. Both will express a 'gravity/inertia' locally, and so easy to define to a 'time dilation'. But a uniform motion seems like a different expression when thinking of it in form of mass? But, it's still a relation where, if 'stored' in space, must express itself as a Lorentz contraction.

Which leaves us 'energy', as the best definition for it locally.
« Last Edit: 17/07/2011 11:40:58 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 #323 on: 17/07/2011 11:59:30 »
So, if we look at a time dilation as following mass, then a uniform motion can't be right, according to this definition, as there is no mass involved, neither any inertia. Which leaves us the relative motion versus the universe expressing itself in storing its 'energy' in 'space'. That as there will be no more 'jiggling of atoms' in that spacecrafts hull, and you, due to its 'relative velocity'.

All of this from one simple fact, that even relative motion kills :) Meaning that it does matter what uniform velocity you have, relative your origin. And that is your 'potential energy'. But that is also a definition between frames of reference, but for 'space' to be able to store it and translate it into a time dilation?

He* it doesn't matter if you define yourself as unmoving or not, the 'speed' you will measure relative some other object should be a 'time dilation' anyway, but who will be the younger one then you ask :) Well, that's a definition that only comes into play as defined by a same origin. As soon as you can't backtrack 'yourselves' to that 'exact same frame of reference originally', that question loses its validity. And the 'time dilation' you expect to measure will then be unmeasurable. The only way you ever can measure it will be relative the blue shift, and 'energy' your acceleration will create relative the outside (universe). And there you will have use a average measured from all stars, or the CBR to make a educated guess.

If I'm thinking right that is.
I probably will have to look at this later, to see if it makes any sense :)
« Last Edit: 17/07/2011 12:16:31 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 #324 on: 17/07/2011 23:27:36 »
Why doesn't inertia change with your relative motion? The (potential) energy does?

This one is a headache, on Earth we definitely expect the inertia to change with motion. What fools us is the fact that it only express itself in accelerations and decelerations. Which makes it all to easy to assume that it has to be 'stored' somewhere in the motion too. And that was what I did too, but thinking of that table and earths motion I don't think I'm right?

So which is it? Will inertia keep track of relative motion or won't it? Will it 'know' my 'speed' relative a origin (like Earth) or won't it in space. That it does it ('knows') on Earth has to do with the gravitational field. But that's not a geodesic in space, is it? The only thing you will have there will be the invariant mass your spacecraft creates, you included. And in a uniform motion I can define you as being at rest with gravity's potential (surrounding you in space).
"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 #325 on: 17/07/2011 23:36:42 »
I'll make some presumptions.

Just to get the ball rolling, sort of.
(Kind'a like those, presumptions that is:)

1. Inertia has to work from what 'gravity' that can exist?
Which will mean that a boson has no inertia, ever, and that one makes sense at least.

2. Inertia and gravity are not the same? Which then would mean that they are two things coupled to each other, but not the same? I don't know, that one is weird, and very difficult to define?

3. Inertia and gravity are the same, a symmetry. That one I like, it's simplest, and I guess most of you agree in that they seem to come together.
"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 #326 on: 17/07/2011 23:51:17 »
The Higgs field don't seem to explain Inertia. Did you know that?

"Even if the Higgs field is experimentally discovered, however, that will still not explain the origin of inertial mass of ordinary matter. The Higgs field applies only to the electro-weak sector of the Standard Model. The mass of ordinary matter is overwhelmingly due to the protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms. Protons and neutrons are comprised of the two lightest quarks: the up and down quarks. The rest masses of their constituent quarks (approx. 0.005 and 0.010 GeV/c2 for the up and down quarks respectively) which could be attributed to the Higgs field comprise only about one percent of the masses of the protons and neutrons (0.938 and 0.940 GeV/c2 respectively). The remainder of the proton and neutron masses would have to be attributed to contributions from the gluon field strong interaction energies plus smaller electromagnetic and weak fields contributions which would not be affected by a Higgs field. The origin of inertial mass of ordinary matter is thus a wide open question.

The following description of the Higgs mass-generating process was published by M. J. G. Veldman (Scientific American, Nov. 1986).

"The way particles are thought to acquire mass in their interactions with the Higgs field is somewhat analogous to the way pieces of blotting paper absorb ink. In such an analogy the pieces of paper represent individual particles and the ink represents energy, or mass. Just as pieces of paper of different sizes and thicknesses soak up varying amounts of ink, different particles 'soak up' varying amounts of energy or mass. The observed mass of a particle depends on the particle's 'energy absorbing' ability, and on the strength of the Higgs field in space."

This is basically a transfer of energy from a field to a particle. Note that this does not address a deeper question: why does the energy "soaked up" from the Higgs field resist acceleration? Perhaps that is not a legitimate question. Perhaps mass and energy intrinsically possess the property of inertia and that is the end of the story. On the other hand, we have found a very intriguing interaction with the electromagnetic quantum vacuum that appears to provide just this property of resistance to acceleration that defines inertia."

From  Inertia and the Higg.

But it also has to do with how you define the universe. Those wanting it to be 'electrical' would have it easier as one then could presume 'EM forces' expressing it through the universe, carried by those 'virtual/real' photons that we already have defined as carriers of the electromagnetic force.
"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 #327 on: 18/07/2011 00:06:32 »
Let us assume that they're not the same. Then Inertia could be defined as a property of EM-forces created in your acceleration/deceleration relative your 'energy expended' (involving Space 'virtual photons'). But then you have to answer why it would express itself differently in space as relative a planet.

And gravity will still be there, not answered by such a definition.
==

And it would use the 'time dilation' that rocket express relative the 'space' surrounding it as I see it. Which then open for the question of what times arrow is, again. It's a rather straightforward approach though, if we go from a relational approach in where you 'change' the parameters by accelerating/decelerating. But you can use the same definition not involving EM-forces, as the Higgs seems to do, as that particle has no 'charge'.
« Last Edit: 18/07/2011 00:14:32 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 #328 on: 18/07/2011 00:22:21 »
It has to go back to what symmetries, and dimensions, are.

What is 'space'. Where are the symmetry breaks in it. Because that is what space should represent to me. Several symmetry breaks as it seems for now, to explain all those 'properties'. And it also goes back to 'size', as that is what we expect to express those 'properties'. It has to do with very short fluctuations, still expressing themselves constantly.

If they do it uniformly will that give us a average continuous force? And if they do it acceleratingly, what would that give us? I know, just testing the waters :)
==

Can 'energy' be defined as accelerating on its own? How about interference, quenching and reinforcing waves?
« Last Edit: 18/07/2011 00:26:10 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 #329 on: 18/07/2011 05:53:52 »
Now, here is what I don't like "why does the energy "soaked up" from the Higgs field resist acceleration? Perhaps that is not a legitimate question. Perhaps mass and energy intrinsically possess the property of inertia and that is the end of the story." Not because it can't be true. Maybe it is a 'property' of something else, but we should still try to define it as narrowly as we can.

You see, assume that we get it all explained. We know it all one day, SpaceTime being our oyster :)Well, what's 'outside' it then? And when we've got that one cleared up, well what's 'outside that' then :)

There will always be the possibility of defining whatever we find 'resting' in something else, even if we define it as without a 'background'. Because it is 'somewhere' even if coming from itself, through symmetries breaking. So the concept of finding out never ends it seems.
==

The mere fact of it existing should do that. Although it may be a philosophical concept more than measuring if so. You could assume that what defines something is relations, where those relations end there will be no more to find out. It's a question of borders of the universe, there can very well be so that the universe is infinite in some aspect, meaning that you never will find a stop sign, walking a geodesic, as is the straightest 'lines' in SpaceTime due to its 'gravity' forming it. But it doesn't state that there isn't a 'border'.

To me the borders seems to be motion and size. Then you have fermions and bosons too but those are both restricted by our arrow. And as motion falls under the arrow too? But size? In a way it too seems a description of the arrow, if 'chopped up' to its smallest bits. So maybe we will be left with 'c'?
« Last Edit: 18/07/2011 06:04:39 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 #330 on: 18/07/2011 06:34:12 »
And 'c' is the arrow, well, at least its clock as I think of it. We use it as our final description of a ultimate 'speed', as well as the definition of a 'smallest size' (Planck scales). And it's between those two borders we seem to exist.

'Time' as such flows in one direction, but that may just be a consequence of there being a SpaceTime. So in a way time is as much of a 'dimension' as length, height and width. That's also why I think of it as a fractal, it's not so much a concept of linear distances to me as it is of something 'opening up' or 'closing down' depending on your choice of parameters locally, speeding away for example.

If you stop thinking linearly you will see how I mean.

When it comes to 'time dilations' then that is a concept coming from 'frames of reference', having no real substance for me. As far as I can see we all 'locally' have one measurement, that is our measured timespan. I don't expect 'time travels' as in you going back to see your forefather to be possible. If it was we surely would have noticed it already. Also that concept brings with it all kind of difficulties, looking at time loops and time spiraling into endless bifurcations, although I can't state that it is impossible. But I do not expect it.

And a Lorentz contraction is just a 'fractal way' of expressing a change in parameters relative you/the observer. That makes it rather meaningless defining a certain 'size' to this universe. We might agree on it being 'infinite' but that doesn't define a size. What defines sizes is the way we measure in time, the arrow 'chopped up' defines a smallest size.
« Last Edit: 18/07/2011 07:29:18 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 #331 on: 18/07/2011 07:06:35 »
The real mystery when it comes to 'size' are uniform motion versus accelerations. Assume that what defines a ground state of energy and gravity to be a uniform motion. Do that mean that motion relative a origin doesn't matter?

As all uniform motions will be the same, inside that black room? Remember that all other definitions you can use must involve other 'frames of reference'.

If I was correct about inertia, then inertia and a uniform motion seems equivalent to me, in that a inertia will not differ in a course-change, no matter your 'velocity', as defined from some point of origin (Earth). It will only react to the change relative that uniform motion so that we, for this, can define the inertia as being 'equally null' in all geodesics, the same way as your 'uniform motion' always will be 'null' relative gravity's potential, no matter your velocity.

So, is this a way the universe defines 'motion'? And a acceleration becomes a gravity, and a constant inertia acting on you. And as Inertia and accelerations goes together, as it seems to me, then are they the same? If you look at it as a fractal then the acceleration expends energy, exchanging it in gravity, inertia, time dilation and contraction. To the 'inertial observer' left at home, expending no 'energy', it also brings with it a time dilation and contraction, but only defined relative you.

So loosely we can say that he sees you shrinking as well as 'slowing down'. You see the universe 'shrinking' and its time 'speeding up'.
=

Then we have the 'energy'.

The observer do not see the universe change, only you, becoming red shifted as you speed away from him. You, on the other hand ,will find the universal 'frame' to blue shift before you, expending more energy, red shift behind you.

So how many of those effects can we place as 'relations', existing as a description between frames?

Well, to find out you will have to use 'black room scenarios' and in those all uniform motion is the same, all accelerations are gravity/inertia, and your time will never differ.

« Last Edit: 18/07/2011 07:31:28 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 #332 on: 18/07/2011 08:54:12 »
But then we come to light. If you define light as 'propagating' which makes perfect sense :) for this, you need to ask yourself two things.

Does light have a mass?

Does light show inertia?

As far as I can see light has no discernible mass. What we have is definitions of how 'big' a possible mass could be still allowing light to do what it does. And that is the same as defining my chances of being the one and only Santa as I see it.

But has it a inertia?
==

To test it you can use 'matter waves'.

Think of everything as representations of waves. All matter can be set equivalent to a 'energy' and also to waves. Doing so we ignore the uniqueness of matter and it might be seen as flawed but we can use it for imagining how inertia/accelerations would express itself.

The question also seems to be what 'comes first', the acceleration, or the inertia?
Can you differ those two?
« Last Edit: 18/07/2011 09:12:43 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 #333 on: 19/07/2011 19:07:26 »
Yeah I know, haven't really thought about it in terms of 'inertia'. It's a truly weird subject, where gravity at least have a kind of definition in a geometry, inertia is more of something acting like a 'syrup', but as far as I can see, not 'growing' with uniform motion? Einstein discussed it in form of 'energy' though, and doing so? Then again, he pressed for the definition of mass as 'invariant', not relativistic, meaning that there was no added 'mass' to something being in a motion relative some origin.

If I think of SpaceTime as 'slices', split at Planck size, would I see a 'quantum foam' there? It's irritating in that you can imagine it two ways, either as you 'magnifying' something by radiation (light), or delivering 'energy' to it visualizing it in its interactions.

But assume that there would be a way of showing that 'quantum foam', by 'magnifying it'. Would you still see 'SpaceTime'? Would 'SpaceTime' exist at all at that level. What I'm discussing here is how to see a 'symmetry break' actually.
"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 #334 on: 19/07/2011 19:16:05 »
When you deliver a energy to something through the LHC, doesn't you also introduce the possibility of symmetry breaks? The only way to define something seems to me to be doing it at a 'ground state', if now that one makes sense? But I will presume it does, seems to be when at rest with whatever you're observing. When it comes to motion you do it by having the exact same velocity and so be at rest. How do you do it with 'energies'?

A ground state of motion I would define as 'uniform motion'. Can I use that definition for defining 'energy' too?
"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 #335 on: 19/07/2011 22:58:55 »
So, we define 'states' from their 'energy' as well as temperature. What is a temperature? Something 'jiggling'? Not on its own is it? The temperature of something jiggling on its own can't be measured as I think of it. You need at least two 'thingies', as 'particles', interacting to measure a temperature. Can waves have a temperature, without interaction? How about interference, do 'reinforcing' give them a temperature?
=

Better point out that by 'measuring' you always will introduce that other 'thingie' interacting. What I'm wondering about is if temperature and 'energy' is the same and also, if they can be said to be 'equivalent', where they will differ. Something 'on its own' may have a temperature when measured, but does it exist on its own? Or is that 'energy' only?
« Last Edit: 19/07/2011 23:03:38 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 #336 on: 20/07/2011 18:35:20 »
Well, it's interesting. I've been reading a little about his definitions and to me it seems as if he equalized 'gravity' and 'inertia', discussing 'inertial mass' instead of what we name 'invariant mass'. So his definition was simply the equivalence principle, stating that you can't differ an (inertial) acceleration from its equivalent gravity.

I kind'a feel a little stupid here :) But as I said, I haven't really considered inertia on its own, and somehow I missed what it was in his equivalence principle, thinking of both 'types' invariant mass and accelerations as 'gravity'. but it's perfectly correct, you can't differ it.

And it's 'gravity' they discuss, both of them. Forget about 'invariant mass', and forget about 'accelerations'. Define both from a local point of view and they will be inseparable. And then a acceleration always is 'the same' if defined from a uniform motion, no matter its velocity relative some 'third party'. If you're already inside a gravitational field it's different though as that will add to the effect, as on earth.

I really feel stupid about this one. Still, it made me look at something from another point of view.
« Last Edit: 20/07/2011 18:38:09 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 #337 on: 20/07/2011 18:45:58 »
The problem is that before the equivalence principle people saw it as 'two definitions' in where one was the inertial reaction to a acceleration, and the other was 'gravity' as defined by 'invariant rest mass'. I think I jump started pass that definition some time long ago :) reading about Einsteins gravity. Ah well, enough excuses.

Inertia is just a symmetry to invariant mass, coupled to gravity, just as matter is. But one interesting thing is still left, can light have a inertia without having a mass? Most people questioning why 'photons' doesn't have 'mass' seems to consider 'gravity' a intrinsic property of mass? I don't, and the equivalence principle doesn't seem to do it either. How else would 'inertia' become gravity?
"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 #338 on: 20/07/2011 19:08:36 »
The question I guess people want defined is just how 'inertia' can be 'gravity' though. First you have to admit that it is inseparable in a black room sceniario. If you do that the right question might be, if they are the same, why do we differ them?

One is about a very specific kind of 'motion', accelerations. There are only two states of motion in Einsteins universe, 'uniform motion' and 'accelerations'.

Then we have 'invariant mass' that, as I understands it, we define from geodesics, the so called 'inertial mass' existing when being 'at rest' in a uniform motion. And a 'uniform motion' is as I see it at rest with 'gravity's potential' leaving only the 'rest mass' to influence that 'flat space' locally.

It's quite beautifully defined, and Einstein did it before me :)
He was a very smart guy.
"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 #339 on: 20/07/2011 19:35:13 »
You might want to see the equivalence principle as a proof of 'energy' becoming gravity though? And that would make all inertial reactions a definition of 'energy'. I don't know? Vacuum fluctuations knocking on that door again :)

Or you could define it as a 'symmetry break'.
"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 #340 on: 22/07/2011 06:10:02 »
Things that bother me :)

Imagine yourself in a 'room', like a space.
You can't state if you're still or moving, there are no references.

That's your uniform motion.

Now turn on on the rocket engine. That one needs no other medium to work against except its engines chamber, that it 'pushes' on.

Now you will find 'gravity'.

Uniform motion is 'space', a ground state of it. Accelerations is gravity.
=

Remember that there are no references here. You can not state that either of those two states are moving.
=

So why do we see it differently?

Radiation is what binds invariant mass together in our universe. Radiation defines the 'clock' we Lorentz transform comparing 'frames of reference'. We have two types of 'accelerations', or 'gravity. One is invariant mass, expressed as energy a planet is an awful lot of energy, defined in a symmetry of sorts. The other is 'local accelerations' that won't express as much energy, or gravity. But that doesn't explain how I can reach the same 'velocity' in so many ways, or is the energy expended equivalent? And it fails to explain why I won't 'bend' the space around me as a planet does, neutron star, and finally close to being a Black Hole.

To assume the energy equivalent I will have to count over extended amounts of time, finding it so, and it will still not be equivalent to what a planet is, in form of energy.
« Last Edit: 22/07/2011 06:12:34 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 #341 on: 22/07/2011 07:45:04 »
Don't forget that gravity accelerates objects unless something stops them. Gravity inertia and inertia from acceleration are not exactly the same processes, they have different causes, but their relative effects on an elementary particle are the same. They both cause the particles to shrink or expand, relatively speaking. The way i see it is: elastic strings between elementary particles which oppose changes in relative speed between them for acceleration inertia and opposing incrementation in the distance integral over time for gravity inertia. So there is two differential orders between both types of inertia. This is why you feel gravity inertia without moving in a gravitational field and you need to accelerate to feel acceleration inertia. If you take the rocket and its fuel as the entire system, there is no spending of energy, only entropy is growing...

If you are in a free fall, accelerating in a gravity well, you don't feel anything: Both types of inertia seem to be the two opposite sides of the same coin...

It may seems awkward to talk about integral of distance over time for gravity but think about the changes in the rotation period of a particle in those circumstances. Gravity is opposing to differential of timerate between two elementary particles... Acceleration causes differential in timerate. All matter was once entangled in a big particle, THE Black Ring of Origin... :o)

Oh, and something important i have to add: Massive particles are made of charges always rotating at the speed of light in their own frame, so a particle at rest is not really at rest.
« Last Edit: 22/07/2011 10:29:39 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 #342 on: 22/07/2011 18:26:44 »
Well, there is different approaches to reality CPT. I don't know which one is 'right', this is more me discussing things I don't understand. And those of you reading don't need to look that smug reading me here:).

I have my own way of thinking of it, doesn't exclude other definitions though, not until I found a way to define something that makes a experimental difference, pointing one way or another. I discuss it from Einsteins definitions, hopefully? Can't be sure there, my ideas are like a mongrel, healthy but not pure :)

His was the importance of 'symmetries' 'equivalences', and possibly 'symmetry breaks' (?) although I think symmetry breaks have become more and more defined since he once started to propose symmetries.

But if we go from a 'space' defined by 'uniform motion', inseparable from being 'at rest' as I see it, then what do we have? Does it have 'dimensions'? I don't think so, I think that what we call 'dimensions' is the way matter gets defined against each other. And that it gets by radiation. You need to see that I'm discussing the 'classical' definition first here, the one where we say that 'space' is empty, free from particles.

How can that be? It falls back on what we call gravity. If gravity really is a metric of space, then gravity defines 'distances', at least macroscopically. And then I will say what I always seems to say :) We're defining it wrong. The 'distances' we measure is naturally true from our perspective, and it isn't just a question of 'macroscopicallity' against 'microscopicallity'. It's a function of a whole 'SpaceTime', in where you have to look at both 'dimensions' and 'times arrow', or time if you like.

And we have to differ between a 'direction' in time, and a 'clock'. We have one 'clock' as I define it. That one is 'c', and it is because of that 'clocks' invariance we have Lorentz transformations and time dilations.

We also need to differ between conceptualizing 'SpaceTime', as a whole, from 'locality'. They are not the same, they are also what Einstein called, well, the way I think of it at least, symmetries. The simplest definitions will always be found 'locally' and in 'black room scenarios'. From there you will need to find the simplest ways of conceptualizing those into a 'whole SpaceTime'. And to me that is radiation, the messengers of 'change'.

By the way, do radiation have a inertia? How about a BEC? Do a 'photon' lose 'energy' by getting 'stayed' inside that BEC? Not as I know? The 'energy' will be unchanged as the 'temperature' raises releasing the 'photon'.

So, I do not think a 'photon/radiation' has a inertia, as for now at least. It also make the idea of a symmetry between what we call 'inertia', and the 'gravity' of invariant mass, one and the same to me.

« Last Edit: 22/07/2011 18:29:41 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 #343 on: 22/07/2011 18:40:07 »
In my world, 'uniform motion', whether gravitationally induced or far from 'matter' is the same. Both will be geodesics, and the 'velocity/speed' you measure will be a function of comparisons between 'frames of reference'. You see something 'falling' in a 'free fall', some space debris for example. To you it will be accelerating, to the debris itself there is no 'energy expended', and so it can't be accelerating in my universe.
"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 #344 on: 22/07/2011 18:58:54 »
SpaceTime isn't that complicated really, not if you look at the 'wide picture' :)

It's defined by 'uniform motion' relative 'accelerations'. Seen locally all 'uniform motion' is being at rest, not expending 'energy' locally. All accelerations are 'gravity'.

Radiation is what defines 'SpaceTime' to us. It binds 'frames of reference' aka your 'room time geometry', that to its nature always will be one and the same no matter where you are, to all other 'room time geometries'.

That's where all confusion comes from, our inability to accept that what we see, and what is is, as two different approaches to 'reality'. We want SpaceTime to adapt to what we think is 'true', and so we construct for ever more complicated and tortuous equations and definitions, each one fitting a small niche somewhere in 'reality'. But SpaceTime doesn't do it that way, it's just us.

Start with a empty room, introduce uniform motion. Define it such as everything 'changing' will need to expend energy. Stop thinking of it in form of uniform motion 'moving' objects. They are at rest.

And find a way of making the changes point in one 'direction'.
"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 #345 on: 22/07/2011 21:13:02 »
By 'changes' I'm really discussing 'interactions'. And preferably local ones. When you use a conceptual frame of logic, every thing seems to 'move' relative each other, doesn't it?

But as defined locally, only acceleration can introduce a change.

I think this is the right way to define it. SpaceTime either will expend 'energy' or it will not. And the 'things' expending that energy always does it locally. If you accept my definition of locality then there is no such things as a whole SpaceTime acting. Well, there is, conceptually but in reality that 'wholeness' always will be defined 'locally'. And from locality's point of view you either expend energy, or you don't. Any interactions, or transformations, locally must follow that principle.

So when we discuss the 'energy' of a whole SpaceTime? What do we mean? All of those local phenomena put together? Representing our 'reality'? Why not, it's one way of defining it. And if you look at the way we reproduce, and grow, it makes real sense to do so. From strict 'locality' though, you're some sort of nucleus, defining a unchanging frame of reference although highly conceptual if you think of it in form of 'clocks' defining each point of SpaceTime uniquely. You also change dynamically in each of those points with your earth rotating and 'uniformly moving' as defined against all other objects/points existing.

And that is somewhat of a mystery, ain't it? If you accept my definition SpaceTime as such have some pretty simple definitions but then we come to the way we all 'interact' both locally and over 'distances'. And it must have to do with radiation, and our 'time', or arrow.

"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 #346 on: 22/07/2011 21:26:22 »
So a uniformly moving SpaceTime, all 'objects of locality' included, does not expend energy. But all things 'interacting' and 'transforming' should break that principle. If I assume that uniform SpaceTime to represent a measure of 'fresh energy' shouldn't that mean that we are using it up? Transforming it into 'stale energy' of some sort :)or are we actually taking it away from SpaceTime? And that is about 'dimensions' and the question of how we differ them and if there are 'unseen' ones joining us up into some other definition of a 'greater SpaceTime'. It is also the question of 'velocity/speed' and how we by manipulating that can get both 'motion', as well as 'Magnifying/Contracting' effects. It's, to me that is, the question of how we define 'c' and how we by picking a 'size' can chop 'c' into pieces, and what we see happening when we do so.

Macroscopicallity against Quantum mechanics.
"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 #347 on: 22/07/2011 21:41:25 »
And there is where we find some rules.


1. Constants.
2. Symmetries.
3. Symmetry breaks
4. 'Fractal behaviors' as non-linearity, inside linearity, inside non-linearity inside.. Ad infinitum.

What more?

(Add to that the question why we perceive a arrow?)
"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 #348 on: 22/07/2011 21:56:45 »
Let's define the radiation 'duality' (wave/particle) as a 'symmetry'. Is that symmetry a 'global phenomena' spanning a whole SpaceTime, or is it a 'local phenomena' changing in each point?

If it is changing in each point, what makes it do so?

All other 'things' defining it? How can they 'define' it? There is nothing communicating faster than 'c', not making sense at least, ah, in my 'universe' that is :)

Stop thinking of it as 'propagating' and it will make more sense, well, in a way it will :) In others it becomes a headache. If light is your 'clock' then we are 'ticking' constantly. Your whole universe, if thought of as a 'global' frozen 'SpaceTime slice', lifted forward in 'time' by each 'tick', according to us observing.

The 'energy' expended are defined from 'locality', but conceptually radiations 'clock' binds it all together into big SpaceTime slices 'tick by tock', defined by rules that you both can see as 'local' and 'global', depending on preferences. Going out from locality makes them easier to see for me though.

With a clock and no 'propagation' light gets its definition from where it is observed.
"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 #349 on: 22/07/2011 22:18:01 »
What can a entanglement tell you?

That there are 'rules' on the quantum mechanical plane too?
Rules that have little to do with our definitions of 'motion', 'communication', and 'propagation'?

If there is a way of defining a state over far distances from my locality, instantly. Then there is no necessity for light to 'propagate' either. And it has to do with 'size', doesn't it? Size of observation, Planck scales, chopping up light into its smallest constituents.
=

(Fractal) ?
Symmetry breaks ?
« Last Edit: 22/07/2011 22:19:37 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."