An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2848 Replies
  • 287340 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #400 on: 22/10/2011 05:43:42 »
And all of this makes HUP so incredibly important to me. It's a principle for 'motion' without 'motion', it allows things to be 'manycolored' even though we know that, when 'falling out', there can only be one color existing 'historically'.

It does not involve a arrow, it does not discuss motion, although I used it as a weird analogue :) It's just a state of indeterminacy. And it's close to the 'probability functions' we discussed before. They both point out one thing, that we won't know until we measured.

(Now you can point out that we won't know all qualities of our measurement, simultaneously, even after measuring according to HUP, and that is true. But it's weirder than that, by choosing one of those properties, you actually can be seen as 'forcing' it to come true, making its probability a 'certainty', and that is what I'm aiming at here.)

You can argue that the probability for the moon to be there are as near certainty to make it meaningless to question. But the beauty of it is that there still will be a probability of it not existing, however small. We live in a universe of probability. But macroscopically we don't find it indeterministic, and that should have to do with 'scales'. Does a greater scale imply a larger quantity?
=

What about a Lorenz contraction?
And the way we expect it possible to create energy (radiation) from relative motion.

Scales are weird.
« Last Edit: 22/10/2011 06:22:16 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #401 on: 22/10/2011 06:00:03 »
Vacuum fluctuations is not anything fluctuating. It's that exact state of indeterminacy in where it has a probability of 'energy'. And a vacuum is classically 'empty', without 'energy' as I see it. Both statements works together. You will only find a vacuum 'effect' as the Casimir effect when introducing a relation that disturbs that 'emptiness' at a quantum scale.
==

And the idea of a negative 'energy' can't be true in a universe steered by conservations laws. If it was we should lose 'energy', and as far as I know we don't. What we have instead is symmetries, anti-particles/particles for example. Exchange the idea of 'negative' for indeterminacy, and I will agree though. Not that they are the same, but its as close to it as I can come for now. Except in the case of there being proved that 'negative energy' really exist. And the proof for that would be something annihilating something else leaving no trace, and no radiation/energy.

==

Defining 'gravity' as 'negative energy' makes no sense to me. Imagine a gravity well, imagine one photon falling into it, another 'climbing' it. Where is the negative result? They will take each other out, and what 'energy' one 'gained' relative the observer, the other one lost. If it was truly 'negative', all universe would be one single gravity well pointing 'up', no matter your direction, everything getting red shifted, but I don't see that?

('Negative' is in this case the idea of something 'losing energy' relative 'gravity'.)
« Last Edit: 22/10/2011 06:47:10 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #402 on: 22/10/2011 23:53:01 »
So, what is time? Keep coming back to that one don't I :)

I don't really know, to me it is something giving us a temporal direction, but I believe it uses a 'clock', and that is radiation. Assume you're 100 lightyears away, at rest relative me on earth. You use your laser and send me a light pulse. How long will it take? Now you stand up and start to walk away from my position relative your planet, as you do you send me a new light pulse. What do you expect the time difference to be, walking at 10 meters a second away from me, if compared to the time it would take that light pulse you sent sitting down, at rest relative me?

I've seen some reasoning around the idea of the sheer geometry making a 'time dilation' larger,  in the definition of your 'now', relative mine 'now', displacing it into the past, and if you went towards me displacing your now into my future. That's a really weird way of defining 'time' to me.

That light pulse you sent, will be slightly displaced by the durations differing as you sent it, as defined from your frame of reference. But the speed of it will be the same, and the time dilation those ten meters made negligible, as I think of it. Why would the distance between two frames, at rest with each other, change the time dilation? It's a geometric idea that light will kill, when sent.

Simply put, lights speed is 'c', the distance measured between two frames of reference, at rest relative each other, must give the same measure from both frames. A motion at 10 meters/s will produce a slight time dilation, but it shouldn't matter if those frames of reference is one mile from each other, or a hundred light years, as I see it.

Relative motion is just relative motion. It doesn't care about the distance measured between those frames of reference. It's lights invariant speed that defines a time dilation, relative motion and mass (energy).
=

But if you have a proof of it being different, feel free to correct this. And not 'geometry' per se, a proof.
« Last Edit: 23/10/2011 00:13:57 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #403 on: 23/10/2011 00:10:12 »
So tell me, do you assume all stars and planets in this universe to be 'at rest' relative each other, in that uniform motion they should have? No matter what 'energy' they may have? Relative Earths uniform motion? If so, do you assume that they all have a same 'speed/velocity'?

The question here is, assume that stars have different 'speeds/velocities' relative each other, but also that they are 'at rest' relative each other, having a uniform motion. If a 'energy' is found relative that 'speed' as defined relative Earths 'speed/velocity', will they then have a time dilation relative Earth?

And, can they then be said to be 'at rest' relative Earth?
=

And as mass is a equivalence to 'energy' that is enough for proofing different 'energies' here.
« Last Edit: 23/10/2011 00:25:03 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #404 on: 23/10/2011 00:19:37 »
To me it doesn't matter what speed you define them, but if you think that 'energy' is related to relative motion, and also localized to whatever object you define to move relative you.

It must..

Then there is a new definition of 'being at rest' too. In that definition you will now have to define a 'absolute speed scale' for the universe to know that 'energy' localized to whatever object you measure.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #405 on: 23/10/2011 06:40:52 »
Maybe I'm angling those questions a little. But it comes back to what that 'uniform motion' should be seen as. I assume here that being 'at rest' should mean that we have no time dilation and that the distance should be the same for all observers. But if we consider that all mass should be different, you will have a time dilation and Lorentz contraction in that fact only. If you then also consider the possibility of the relative motion to differ you will find that you will get different answers for it, depending on your choice of coordinates, earth as being 'still' for example.

So a uniform motion can not be assumed to present a same time dilation, Lorentz contraction, and I don't need to consider 'potential energy/relative motion' at all, only mass will do.

So I'm wrong in assuming that 'at rest' should represent a 'system' where both parties find distance, and time dilation, to fit. It must differ with mass. But it is still so that all uniform motion is impossible to differ in a black box scenario.

This one is more tricky than I first though.

The question becomes two folded. From the point of 'locality', which is the one I prefer, this is uninteresting. Because it doesn't matter what you find the time dilation to be, or distance. It's my definitions that are true for me, and the only thing we really share is a state in which we both will get the same results from experiments done in a black box scenario. But if I consider it from the idea of a 'whole SpaceTime' where simultaneity defines the reasons why we measure it differently?

I need to think about this one.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #406 on: 23/10/2011 07:10:27 »
Maybe I can put it like this? To me there are some properties of the universe that are 'common'. 'c' is one, being 'at rest' is another, gravity/accelerations is a third. Those binds this universe together, and to me they seem to be the closest thing to what might be seen as a collective frame of reference. And it is the way they present us with a universe that makes us think we 'share the same universe'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #407 on: 23/10/2011 19:20:17 »
Let us have a look at another thing.
'Energy'.

Energy isn't 'here', and it isn't 'there' either. The purest expression of it, as I know, that we can observe is 'radiation'. And the reason why it is 'pure' is our mainstream definitions of a 'photon' as being intrinsically massless and timeless.

But it is also so that 'energy' is 'mass'.

"The mass of a proton is about 938 MeV. It consists of three quarks, each of which have a mass on the order of 3 MeV (more or less, not very accurate.) There is a huge discrepancy between 938 and 9. The remainder of the mass of the proton is the potential and kinetic energy of the gluons holding the whole thing together. The correct vision of a proton is a little subatomic gluonic lightning storm, buffeting three nearly insignificant quarks. "

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #408 on: 23/10/2011 19:25:25 »
Potential 'energy' huh?

The same we should see in that relative motion? If I can't seem to define it for uniform motion, what makes you expect it to be there? Can you define it? Maybe it's not 'energy' at all, maybe it's some sort of 'nested' geometry?

But why would that give 'forces'?
Accelerations and decelerations, what are they?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #409 on: 23/10/2011 19:36:05 »
How about this then?

Assume that we have 'network' of borders, at a very small scale. They define something that is 'still'. Then as we scale it up the borders disappear and transforms, introducing us to the 'arrow of time' we know. The 'arrow of time' allows us a 'illusion' of motion, as well as 'energy'? And what we see is a effect of 'scales'. Too weird? Maybe.

Don't take 'illusion' too seriously here. It's no illusion from where we are, we built all of physics from the 'reality' we see and can experiment about.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #410 on: 23/10/2011 19:41:49 »
But then we have HUP, and indeterminacy.

A 'still motion' not in time.
=

If there is 'borders' at a microscopic plane, then what is HUP doing there?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #411 on: 23/10/2011 20:11:53 »
If space is observer dependent, will the 'flatness' we ascribe to the universe be 'flat' in all observations? And what makes you sure that one observation is more 'true' than another? If uniform motion, as I see it, is a 'universal description' of something shared by all observers, no matter their relative motion. Then we can imagine someone at a very high velocity, still being in a uniform motion.

What would he see? A 'flat' universe?
« Last Edit: 23/10/2011 20:17:24 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #412 on: 23/10/2011 20:19:14 »
When we imagine a 'density' of 'energy' we actually assume that there must be a border. Without a border a constant density is meaningless. But all of our definitions has to do with the way we experience things. We find borders everywhere on Earth, that can of tuna represent a border, differing the containments of it from the space outside that can. So we use that terminology when trying to understand the universe.

But it doesn't make sense. Look at our proposals. We come from a 'dimension less' point, we assume a 'even density' to it, then we assume a inflation to 'split' this density into the clusters we see today, being the same in every direction. We define it such as the 'distances' we measure is 'real', and that 'space' exist.

If you have a 'dimension less point', what makes you define what we have now as something different?

If there is no 'arrow of time', what makes you expect that you can deduct it.
« Last Edit: 23/10/2011 20:30:08 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #413 on: 23/10/2011 20:59:49 »
I find this one to present a fairly understandable description of what we see, and think us to know about the universe today. The Expanding Universe

But it does not discuss the observer dependence.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #414 on: 24/10/2011 04:16:33 »
For those of you wanting to argue that this observer dependence only is applicable to relativistic speeds, and neutron stars/Black Holes, check on those atomic clocks that NIST used.

I expect them to exist on a Planck scale, and if so, not to be ignored in any description of a universe or quantum realm. The question is naturally also if you see Einsteins length contractions and time dilations as being true descriptions, but if you read this far I suspect you do :)

The idea of 'gravity' as a negative 'energy' do make for a balanced universe, but it also implies that we would have two opposite principles. But space do not negate 'energy', so to define it as 'negative' seems wrong to me. Once again I find myself liking the idea of 'symmetry' better.

So what was that 'dimension less point', maybe at Planck size, as that is where we start make sense of the physics we have. A symmetry break? Does a symmetry break crave a 'distance', or is that our definition of it from the inside?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #415 on: 24/10/2011 04:28:56 »
Assume that it is a symmetry break. Then what it shows us are durations ordered into a causality chain. What we define as a 'arrow', as in 'clocks', could then be the way we get our descriptions from, as it is from that we define a 'distance', as well as anything else you find making a 'change'. It's like having two simultaneous 'realities', one where the arrow defines our descriptions, another where 'time' has no meaning and where this 'symmetry break' just is.

That would fit the way different manipulations can contract the 'SpaceTime' we observe. But it's just a thought, nothing I can prove.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2011 04:58:52 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #416 on: 24/10/2011 04:37:47 »
But if it was so, then why would that 'arrow' always be the same to you? If we set for example 'c' as some limit, like a border for our SpaceTime. Why would that (invariant) clock still exist near the limit?

What I mean is that the 'arrow' still will be there for you, your 'intrinsic measure of time' no different from before, if we define it as your watch relative your heartbeats. That it, to me, is equivalent to our description of radiation as a constant, makes no difference for this. What makes 'time' and its 'arrow' so invariantly, locally, consistent?
« Last Edit: 24/10/2011 05:03:07 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #417 on: 24/10/2011 04:52:00 »
If it so that your intrinsic measure of life is constant, no matter where you are and do, then there is a arrow of time. Meaning that it contain a limited amount of durations (life span) that never will differ from your frame of reference. I assume this to be the truth. But that 'constant' makes all you see around you adapt relative motion/mass/gravity/energy.

So whatever 'time' is, to my eyes it's a local phenomena first, and a 'shared 'universal'', only in that restricted sense of us all experiencing it in the same (local) manner.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2011 04:56:13 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #418 on: 24/10/2011 05:14:54 »
And one weird thing more. Lately I've started to wonder about if 'scales' and 'distance' is the same? How do you define a 'scale'? :)

Dam*d if I know, I mean we have them, and we use them. That is what makes that 'quantum spookiness' visible to us. If you, as I, assume that 'dimensions' isn't something you 'glue together', but really exist as whole descriptions? That is what Einstein assumed too in his definitions, as I think of it, at least when presenting the idea of a SpaceTime.

How can I differ a contraction/magnifying, as in expanding a volume of interest, from a contraction/magnifying perceived in a relative motion/mass/gravity/energy?

I'm sure there must be a way, but I can't see it. Even if they are the same we percieve it differently. And now I'm sounding :) quite 'wacky'.

It's about geometry, and 'space'.
==

And before you tell me that there is no 'magnifying' in relative motion :) That depends on your relative motion, and mass, as compared to another frame of reference, as I think of it.

It's all about light, isn't it? And the way it conveys 'information'.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2011 05:35:34 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #419 on: 28/10/2011 04:21:21 »
So, if 'c' is the clock, what does it make time?

This is my view.

I see time as having both a value and a direction. And that is not wrong, although not the usual way to define it. Normally time is defined as a scalar, having only a value. From a entropic point of view in where you expect 'time' to evolve in each point, according to some entropic principle, you might want to argue that this is the best definition.

But my view is that time has a lot to do with 'c', and using that we will find that although we all find others 'time' to vary, we also can agree on that the 'local clock' we then use is, in some means, 'universal', meaning that all 'local frames' have a same defined 'ground state' as defined by 'c' locally (clock).

And that gives SpaceTime a 'direction', not only locally.

You might ignore the universality there, I usually do, as I define it all locally to keep it simple. But on the other hand, if that 'ground state' didn't exist we would have a lot of trouble assuming that 'entropic view' for example, as we then might find that there was no clear definitions of 'entropy' as in a radioactive decay relative another expected to be the 'exact same'. Also we have the fact that all atoms behave the same, and that one interaction with one atom is interchangeable with a same action on another 'same' atom, etc.

So it is a important principle to me, and if we let our imagination run free for a moment all points in SpaceTime then should be 'moving locally' at a same temporal speed/rate, but in this case also describing a (universal) vector at that 'ground state'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #420 on: 30/10/2011 16:39:44 »
Heisenberg Uncertainty relation.



"Note that the indeterminacy of the microscopic world has little effect on macroscopic objects. This is due to the fact that wave function for large objects is extremely small compared to the size of the macroscopic world. Your personal wave function is much smaller than any currently measurable sizes. And the indeterminacy of the quantum world is not complete because it is possible to assign probabilities to the wave function.

But, as Schrodinger's Cat paradox show us, the probability rules of the microscopic world can leak into the macroscopic world. The paradox of Schrodinger's cat has provoked a great deal of debate among theoretical physicists and philosophers. Although some thinkers have argued that the cat actually does exist in two superposed states, most contend that superposition only occurs when a quantum system is isolated from the rest of its environment. Various explanations have been advanced to account for this paradox--including the idea that the cat, or simply the animal's physical environment (such as the photons in the box), can act as an observer.

The question is, at what point, or scale, do the probabilistic rules of the quantum realm give way to the deterministic laws that govern the macroscopic world? This question has been brought into vivid relief by the recent work where an NIST group confined a charged beryllium atom in a tiny electromagnetic cage and then cooled it with a laser to its lowest energy state. In this state the position of the atom and its "spin" (a quantum property that is only metaphorically analogous to spin in the ordinary sense) could be ascertained to within a very high degree of accuracy, limited by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

The workers then stimulated the atom with a laser just enough to change its wave function; according to the new wave function of the atom, it now had a 50 percent probability of being in a "spin-up" state in its initial position and an equal probability of being in a "spin-down" state in a position as much as 80 nanometers away, a vast distance indeed for the atomic realm. In effect, the atom was in two different places, as well as two different spin states, at the same time--an atomic analog of a cat both living and dead. The clinching evidence that the NIST researchers had achieved their goal came from their observation of an interference pattern; that phenomenon is a telltale sign that a single beryllium atom produced two distinct wave functions that interfered with each other.

The modern view of quantum mechanics states that Schrodinger's cat, or any macroscopic object, does not exist as superpositions of existence due to decoherence. A pristine wave function is coherent, i.e. undisturbed by observation. But Schrodinger's cat is not a pristine wave function, its is constantly interacting with other objects, such as air molecules in the box, or the box itself. Thus a macroscopic object becomes decoherent by many atomic interactions with its surrounding environment.

Decoherence explains why we do not routinely see quantum superpositions in the world around us. It is not because quantum mechanics intrinsically stops working for objects larger than some magic size. Instead, macroscopic objects such as cats and cards are almost impossible to keep isolated to the extent needed to prevent decoherence. Microscopic objects, in contrast, are more easily isolated from their surroundings so that they retain their quantum secrets and quantum behavior." From Uncertainty Principle:

Decoherence?

Where, and how, do I define that?
Through scales?

Number of atoms?

Einstein Bose condensates?

If I take a system of atoms (gas) and chill them, what do I get? Is there a limit to that, or is it just a practical question about what we can do?

I don't like the idea of 'virtual particles' that much any more. But I'm starting to wonder a lot about HUP.
« Last Edit: 30/10/2011 16:41:37 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #421 on: 30/10/2011 17:37:09 »
In what way do decoherence define the 'bridge' between what we see macroscopically versus microscopically? Does it say anything about temperatures? Do they matter at all? (yeah I know, a pun)

The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics.

One more thing, did Einstein demand a time symmetry (the symmetry of physical laws under a time reversal)? That is, did he think that time was a symmetry that could be turned both ways? What I'm wondering about is whether he saw this as a primary mathematical solution, or one that already exist in our universe? There is a big difference between what we can prove by experiments, relative by theory as I see it. And symmetries is one of the strangest, at the same time as they seem to me as one of the most obvious, things that I know of.

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #422 on: 31/10/2011 06:58:40 »
So if you make some 'system' to study, we then need to define borders for it to state that nothing interfere with its wave function. And one way is to use temperatures, as a condensate, right?

What more does this lead to? Many worlds theories is one, in which every interaction is taken, although only one 'visible' to you observing, or Feynman's in where 'interference' kills of those other possible outcomes, leaving only one realizable. The later one avoids those other possibilities and so is easier to handle, from the idea of conservation laws. I expect the first to lean on the assumption that in a 'superposition' conservation laws can't exist, only in the realized outcomes.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #423 on: 01/11/2011 05:47:55 »
So let's look at time symmetries again. Using my way of looking at it radiation is a 'clock' giving you a same duration locally. That gives us a 'same' surface of durations. 'Time' as such is something more than that though, we expect it to construct causality chains, don't we? The idea is that it do have a direction and that we by backtracking that direction can draw conclusions, and build models, of what's going to happen in the future.

From entropy's side it builds on that everything seems to have a direction from 'ordered' to 'unordered'. That things move from what we define as useful energy, to 'unuseful' seems true enough. If you like, we could say that we have two states of high entropy (evenness/order). One at the beginning, according to the Big Bang, and one at the 'end' according to 'entropy'. That's also a definition in where we expect a 'heat bath' for the cosmos as I understands it, making 'heat', not 'energy' per se, becoming a ultimate definition for a 'final stage'.

So is it true? That we can turn all 'interactions' around, and that they then will give us a 'same origin' as we remember it to have been when we 'started'? Nope. It doesn't seem to be true. CPT symmetries shows us that some interactions, k-and b-mesons for example, will have a CPT- invariance but not under T (time) alone. It also can be shown with mesons that you by their behavior can know if they are going 'forward' in time, or 'backward'. The idea of all 'stuff'  being able to be played 'backward and 'forward' in 'time' is particularly expressibly described in so called Feynman diagrams.

Some physicists, most studying quantum levels, as I get it, ignore this as a unfortunate exception to a rule. Then again, what is a 'history', and 'virtual particles'?

« Last Edit: 01/11/2011 05:56:57 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #424 on: 01/11/2011 08:21:59 »
From entropy's side all processes should be irreversible, in that they all cost some 'energy', described as heat loss mostly, as I've seen. So you can't really turn back the process to its original state. As I too often state, I don't know what 'energy' is, except something describing transformations. But somehow the idea of a universe in where nothing gets lost must contain whatever disappears in a transformation. Which then points to 'heat' thermodynamically.

'Virtual particles' is a very faceted idea that hurts my head. Over the years it seem to have gone from an idea to a 'fact', without no experimental evidence I know of. The idea of the Casimir effect proving it is, as far as I know, still disputed. I've seen it explained as a effect of the matter involved, as well as of 'virtual particles'.

"Virtual particles must not be considered real since they arise only in
a particular approach to high energy physics - perturbation theory
before renormalization - that does not even survive the modifications
needed to remove the infinities. Moreover, the virtual particle content
of a real state depends so much on the details of the computational
scheme (canonical or light front quantization, standard or
renormalization group enhances perturbation theory, etc.) that
calling virtual particles real would produce a very weird picture of
reality.

Whenever we observe a system we make a number of idealizations
that serve to identify the objects in reality with the
mathematical concepts we are using to describe them. Then we calculate
something, and at the end we retranslate it into reality. If our initial
initialization was good enough and our theory is good enough, the final
result will match reality well. Because of this idealization,
'real' real particles (moving in the universe) are slightly different
from 'mathematical' real particles (figuring in equations).


Modern quantum electrodynamics and other field theories are based on
the theory developed for modeling scattering events.
Scattering events take a very short time compared to the
lifetime of the objects involved before and after the event. Therefore,
we represent a prepared beam of particles hitting a target as a single
particle hitting another single particle, and whenever this in fact
happens, we observe end products, e.g. in a wire chamber.
Strictly speaking (i.e., in a fuller model of reality), we'd have to
use a multiparticle (statistical mechanics) setting, but this is never
done since it does not give better information and the added
complications are formidable.

As long as we prepare the particles long (compared to the scattering
time) before they scatter and observe them long enough afterwards,
they behave essentially as in and out states, respectively.
(They are not quite free, because of the electromagnetic self-field
they generate, this gives rise to the infrared problem in quantum
electrodynamics and can be corrected by using coherent states.)
The preparation and detection of the particles is outside this model,
since it would produce only minute corrections to the scattering event.
But to treat it would require to increase the system to include source
and detector, which makes the problem completely different.

Therefore at the level appropriate to a scattering event, the 'real'
real particles are modeled by 'mathematical' in/out states, which
therefore are also called 'real'. On the other hand, 'mathematical'
virtual particles have nothing to do with observations, hence have no
counterpart in reality; therefore they are called 'virtual'."

And

"Virtual particles are an artifact of perturbation theory that
give an intuitive (but if taken too far, misleading) interpretation
for Feynman diagrams. More precisely, a virtual photon, say,
is an internal photon line in one of the Feynman diagrams. But there
is nothing real associated with it. Detectable photons are never
virtual, but always real, 'dressed' photons.

Virtual particles, and the Feynman diagrams they appear in,
are just a visual tool of keeping track of the different terms
in a formal expansion of scattering amplitudes into multi-dimensional
integrals involving multiple propaators - the momenta of the virtual
particles represent the integration variables.
They have no meaning at all outside these integrals.
They get out of mathematical existence once one changes the
formula for computing a scattering amplitude.

Therefore virtual particles are essentially analogous to virtual
integers k obtained by computing
  log(1-x) = sum_k x^k/k
by expansion into a Taylor series. Since we can compute the
logarithm in many other ways, it is ridiculous to attach to
k any intrinsic meaning. But ...

... in QFT, we have no good ways to compute scattering amplitudes
without at least some form of expansion (unless we only use the
lowest order of some approximation method), which makes
virtual particles look a little more real. But the analogy
to the Taylor series shows that it's best not to look at them
that way."

By Arnold. Neumaier How real are 'virtual particles'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #425 on: 03/11/2011 04:56:09 »
So, I've been looking at Smolins, Laurent Freidels, Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman and Giovanni Amelino-Camelia ideas of a curved phase space. At first it seems very natural, the idea is that we have SpaceTime with its four dimensions 'distances' 3 & 'time' 1. Then you combine that with a four-momentum vector space, and voila, we have us a eight dimensional universe, combining the best from QM (momentum, as in radiation hitting your retina) with Einsteins SpaceTime.

Time for some quotes.

"In special relativity, four-momentum is the generalization of the classical three-dimensional momentum to four-dimensional spacetime. Momentum is a vector in three dimensions; similarly four-momentum is a four-vector in spacetime."

"In the literature of relativity, space-time coordinates and the energy/momentum of a particle are often expressed in four-vector form. They are defined so that the length of a four-vector is invariant under a coordinate transformation. This invariance is associated with physical ideas.

The invariance of the space-time four-vector is associated with the fact that the speed of light is a constant. The invariance of the energy-momentum four-vector is associated with the fact that the rest mass of a particle is invariant under coordinate transformations."

So we have the invariant 'energy' belonging to the momentums 'rest frame', like the bullet resting in the chamber before fired, and then we have the dimensions that bullet exist in. So phase space could be seen as all possible values of its position and momentum variables. And that fits very well with SpaceTime.

Then we come to what is different with this momentum space. Smolin started to wonder what would happen with the Lorentz transformations we expect to steer SpaceTime, allowing us to define the universe conceptually as a 'whole', following the invariance of 'c' in, and from, all frames possible according to GR, if he treated this momentum space as 'curved'. They found it to lose the Lorentz transformations coherence, and so instead become extremely local. But when including all eight 'dimensions' you will still find Lorentz transformations to work, as I understands this, that is.

But then we have 'time', or the arrow. In QM you don't treat the arrow the same way as we do macroscopically, at very small scales it becomes indeterministic (HUP) and 'time reversible', meaning that probability steps in, instead of the timely arrow we see. So to get it to work there will be a need to join a macroscopic arrow to QM as I see it. Doesn't mean I don't like the idea, it's close to how I see SpaceTime and 'c', as a primary local phenomena, radiation and gravity presenting us with the 'unified' SpaceTime we describe macroscopically.

« Last Edit: 03/11/2011 04:59:59 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #426 on: 03/11/2011 05:12:58 »
The question is.

What is 'time' and its 'arrow'. Why do we have it macroscopically, but find it replaced by probability at small scales. And what the he* is HUP? How can it restrict us from knowing all possible outcomes. HUP comes in at a earlier stage than Planck scales, so you can't really define it to 'c' taking one Plank length in one Planck time, that is rather where physics breaks down. But before that stage we find HUP.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #427 on: 03/11/2011 05:23:40 »
The main reason why I won't exclude time and its arrow from QM is because all measurements done is done in 'times arrow'. There is no way around this, everything you do have a time coordinate 'ticking away'. Moving you positionally inside SpaceTime even if you never 'move' at all. That is the way I see SpaceTime. The single definition of 'times arrow' losing its coherence, that I know of, is at Plank scale, 'c' moving one Planck length, in one Plank time.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2011 05:27:13 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #428 on: 03/11/2011 06:46:24 »
So let's use that. How about defining 'time reversibility' to single particles only? That means that the reason we don't see time go backwards macroscopically is that those particles interacts and so disturb the 'time <- -> symmetry'. A particle will then be as a atom, no bigger.

I might have liked it more if I could define it to Plank size solely, but then again, if I use 'c' as my measure of a ideal 'clock' there can be no reversibility as that Plank length can be seen as 'frozen in time' well, as I see it.

But then we meet HUP again, don't we?
=

What I mean here, rereading myself, is that if we set up a 'ideal experiment', with single particles representing all objects, you might find a 'time reversibility', but only there. Still, it doesn't help that much, does it? As everything, at least classically is defined as 'interactions' in a causality chain, involving just those atoms interacting. A very tricky one. But what about superpositions etc? Do they fit a simple causality chain?

« Last Edit: 03/11/2011 07:05:29 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #429 on: 15/11/2011 23:15:50 »
Read this first Interaction Free Measurements.

It sort of hurts my head this one, but it's about the collapse of the wave function, as I think of it, and entanglements, and before all, about 'Photons'.

I like to think that it is what you have around you that define you, sort of :) And so it should be with particles too. They get defined by what is 'around them', but entanglements is weird. Either you belong to the school where you see them as FTL in some weird manner, or to the school where they are 'instantaneous'. and then you have those defining a entanglement as undefined even after measuring 'A', meaning that it is as valid to state that your later measurement on 'B' sets that 'wave function', the idea involving a whole 'system', not only your first measurement. Add to that the question if you can, or can not impart 'information', opening the can of worms of what 'information' should be defined as if you could, for example, impart 'energy' in 'A', to then also be 'found' and lifted out at 'B'

So, where do that wave function collapse? That one is very interesting.

I tried to look at it from a definition where the 'circumstances' defined the outcome. In such a scenario I made some assumptions. That 'times arrow' don't go two ways, it goes one, the one we experience. That should mean that, as we split 'the arrow' into smaller chunks, we come to 'instants' around Planck scale. So maybe one could take any experiment and 'split' it into such chunks?

Or maybe just ignore time? If I think of it as 'instants', and they are defined from Planck size, then what defines a experiment must be what is 'closest' to it, as a vague idea? That we can assume that those too, in their turn, are influenced by what is closest to them can be ignored for this I think. And it must include all 'interactions' making everything that 'interacts' into 'observers', no 'consciousness' needed for that.

I'm not sure about it at all though, it's more of a feeling that anything I can prove.

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #430 on: 15/11/2011 23:27:41 »
Also it has to do with how to define a distance. If Lorentz contractions exist and to the local observer is real then 'distance' is a vague description from a 'global perspective/a whole SpaceTime'. In my definition a 'distance' is as real as you measure it to be, although differing between observers. But it still tells us something, that there are no certain 'distances' except from a strictly local perspective.

So where does one frame of reference 'end' and the next one 'start'? Plank size as a idealised definition (in my thoughts)

So, how many Plank sizes is a experiment, and what do they 'see'? What communicates interactions should be 'light', but 'light' will also be the 'local clocks' for, and in, each 'instant'. I don't know how to put this together, but there should be some way.

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #431 on: 16/11/2011 09:57:53 »
So where did that wave function collapse disappear in the 'Interaction Free Measurement'? Can you argue that it exist if you can use statistics to define it? It's another circular argument to me. In this case (if working) you will 'know' the final state, without observing that last annihilation, and even though you can't 'prove it' without your final measurement you can still do a million experiments and run statistics on it. Can I expect those statistics to define it otherwise?

So, what is a wave collapse, a super position, and statistics? If I define it from statistics there can't be any doubt to the outcome in this one, can it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #432 on: 26/11/2011 04:37:12 »
Just a question. How do QM treat the expansion?

If I assume that everything bogs down to 'energy' and 'quanta', what happens as the 'space' expands. The 'energy' gets redistributed I presume, but if seen as 'quanta' alternatively 'bosons', indeterministic or not. Where do they come from?

Or does QM allow for 'empty space'?

Would indeterminacy be a answer to that one?
Maybe?
===

There is one more thing linked to this one. The idea of a universe in where nothing gets lost, only transformed. If I assume quanta, and then assume a 'size' I will need a explanation to why the universe can expand, and also to how 'it fill up the holes' created by the 'expansion'. If I assume 'fields' I don't need quanta of any size, but I will still need to see how they 'expand', and from where that 'expansion' lends its 'energy'. This is assuming the idea of 'space' as some sort of dormant pool of 'energy' whether being 'non interacting' or at some balance, from where we define levels both over and under it, as I understand the Higgs field to be?

For example, assuming Higgs bosons, do it becomes more of them as the expansion grow?
Where from?

In a closed universe all redistribution of 'energy' should leave a mark somewhere, as it seems to me?
==

That's actually one of the advantages with describing SpaceTime as a geometry, as I see it. I don't have to answer those questions, but if you put your trust in 'discrete bits / events' then it should have a relevance. Also you will need to define it as background independent to get away from the purely geometric definition. If you don't it seems to me as if you just painted quanta on a empty space?
« Last Edit: 26/11/2011 19:59:15 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #433 on: 27/11/2011 22:10:38 »
Here's a recent paper discussing quantum states, 'wave collapses' and its definitions.

Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states. 

To get another view, and perhaps make the paper a little easier to digest you should read Can the quantum state be interpreted statistically? By Matt Leifer first.

I found it when I started to wonder what a 'wave collapse' really mean. It's a first step to see what the he* a entanglement might be, as I see it. To start from entanglements directly may seem faster, but I doubt it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #434 on: 28/11/2011 02:05:41 »
How about this :)

Assume that for any given volume there can be only so many states existing (at any given point/instant and always as defined relative you, and your subsequent measurement.). Assume that there always will be a doubt of knowing all data describing some experiment you do, when being inside this volume. Where is then all data 'known', and from where is it accessible for you?

To me it seems that the volume could be said to 'know', but also that it won't be accessible for you experimenting.

==

Had to add, not that it made it watertight :)
« Last Edit: 28/11/2011 02:21:00 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #435 on: 28/11/2011 03:11:57 »
Also assume that what we see is what exists, meaning that the hands you write with actually is there, and will be there for any observer, even though they might not agree on the time, or place they saw it (now, that came out weird:).

If that is true then a grain of sand always will 'exist' for all observers, no matter who observes it, or how.

That seems plausible, doesn't it?

Then we come to this impossibility of knowing all data. That's also Chaos theory to me, where a small initial input may have great and unforeseen effects. But there is also a periodicity to Chaos, as the Feigenbaum constants shows us. All of this is macroscopically, not QM.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #436 on: 28/11/2011 18:36:19 »
"Assume that for any given volume there can be only so many states existing (at any given point/instant and always as defined relative you, and your subsequent measurement.)"

There's two ways, or three, too look at this.

1. The 'states' exist, just as that grain of sand does.
2. The 'states' are a probabilistic definition of possibilities.
3. The 'states' gets defined by what circumstances it.

2 and 3 seems to me to be possible to join, if one like. And actually you should be able to join 1 and 3 too, if we define it through the outcome?
=

What I was thinking with 1 and 3 is that if we define everything from where and how we find it to be, in a measurement, then 1 is correct, or at least as correct as can be. In that nothing will exist without getting its definitions from what surrounds it. If that was possible then the state you measure will always be there, at your measurement. That you would find another state measuring it at some other point, and way, doesn't negate the fact that it always 'exists', even though not the same. Although it isn't the 'grain of sand' in the same way as it should be macroscopically, so the metaphor isn't that good.

But the point with 1 would be, ignoring the grain, that a 'state' still would be existent, at all times, even though differently expressed. Not probability per se, although that still should be the tool of choice, defining that state without measuring.
« Last Edit: 28/11/2011 21:28:06 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #437 on: 28/11/2011 21:43:05 »
It's also a question of how 'identical' particles and photons are. The simplest way to disprove 3 should be to assume that they are 'indistinguishable' and then measure photons from the exact same source in the exact same circumstances. But that will open other cans of worms, like if I can expect them to have a same spin originally too? If I define them as identical I would expect all properties to be the same. Also HUP will step into it, making all definitions difficult as it there is a measure over how you decide to set up the experiment. And then we have 'time'. How identical can two objects be when differed through time?

There should be some way though.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #438 on: 28/11/2011 21:52:01 »
The thing is, if I follow Einstein's definitions of SpaceTime, then we have a arrow of time. That arrow combined with the other three 'dimensions' defines SpaceTime. So from that perspective nothing can be the exact same, or 'identical', if separated by time. And it doesn't even help if I could assume all photons to have a same 'spin' as defined through the source. They will still not be the exact same, as I understands it.

Because SpaceTime isn't about three dimensions and 'time', it's about all four entwined.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #439 on: 28/11/2011 22:02:49 »
And that takes us to the idea of 'locality'. 'c' always being 'c' when measured locally, in a accelerated frame of reference, or uniformly moving.

If that is correct then any measurement done will be your definition of 'reality'. That I can do the same experiment and get the same outcome will then depend on us sharing a same 'ground state' defined by locality. In that way you might want to call it a 'global  (though always done locally) phenomena'. But we also know that with other observers, observing your experiment from other 'frames of reference', we can get other definitions than your own. It won't stop them from confirming your experiment 'when repeated locally' though. So they are 'repeatable'.

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #440 on: 01/12/2011 22:38:09 »
okay, some more truly pure speculations.

Assume that Planck scale is correct for a smallest definition of a frame of reference. Assume that radiation and our 'arrow of time' is a equivalent phenomena, using radiation as a definition of a 'clock rate'. That will mean that everything smallest constituents comes to be at that scale. It will also open for the question of how those 'instants of distance/time' can 'couple' to each other, becoming particles, atoms, etc.

Does indeterminacy as in HUP have anything to do with allowing that coupling? Every Plank size becomes in my ideas a idealised 'frame of reference' relative the observer/measurement, meaning that all 'instants of time/distance' should be ever so slightly time dilated as well as, possibly, contracted? I'm not sure on the contraction in this case, but as it is a time dilations counterpart it seems to have a relevance?

So, how do they 'connect'?
« Last Edit: 01/12/2011 22:41:27 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #441 on: 01/12/2011 22:48:34 »
The question becomes one of 'fuzziness' in my mind. A 'background' of indeterminacy from where we find particles as we go up in scale, all the way to Einstein's relativity.

I like that, because I'm getting real tired of seeing everything explained in form of 'virtual particles'. All such descriptions involve a 'arrow', even if just implicitly. Because using that description I create 'forces' moving in my mind, and to have something 'moving' you will need 'time'.

Indeterminacy isn't anything 'moving', it's a state, defined through your subsequent observation/measurement.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #442 on: 01/12/2011 23:02:09 »
It's like some weird 'universal cloud', having two 'motions'. One is the observers choice of scale, defining the impression of 'densities' you get, relative what you observe, the other is our 'arrow of time' defining outcomes.

And then there is entanglements :) Something able to 'know' instantaneously, no matter the 'distance' defined. But 'distance' is a local definition in Relativity, not a 'global'. So, does 'distances' exist? Or is that 'radiation', defining our local room, with 'gravity' coming in as another property anchoring that impression?

If I ignore 'distance' entanglements becomes definitions of a special state, unique to the scale we see it take place in, QM. That doesn't mean it is impossible to have something similar macroscopically, but as far as I've read, there is no evidence so far for it taking place?

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #443 on: 01/12/2011 23:25:50 »
And then the arrow is radiation, which fits very well from a local perspective. That same radiation becomes your local description of distance and 'gravity'. As they only are descriptions, not really existing, 'motion' as a definition would need to be re-evaluated. It makes for a 'still' universe, compatible with my idea of a number space in where no 'motion' exist, only a clock, always locally defined, changing the numbers. That clock defines all 'forces' you know, and also interprets them differently through scales.

And it becomes simple, although rather weird.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #444 on: 01/12/2011 23:41:22 »
In such a universe consciousness might be as a focus gathered by all local interactions, defined through a arrow :) We need a outcome to have an idea defined, we need a arrow. Even Quantum computing needs the arrow to get a 'result'. And this is a eh, rather 'far flung idea' I willingly admit.

But consciousness is very alike a 'frame of reference', in that even if we all have a local 'frame of reference' defining the universe for us, I dare you to show me where you have yours.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #445 on: 02/12/2011 20:01:34 »
What more?

Well assume that you have a grain of sand and then tunnel into it, magnifying. Suddenly that grain is defined by your measurements according to QM. and depending on how and what you measure you will find the picture of what makes up that grain 'fuzzy' as you can't define all properties simultaneously. But the friend at your side can see the grain, and it will be the exact same, according to his observation.

So somewhere between QM and the macroscopic world there is something defining it as a unchanging 'grain of sand', or why not use a 'grain of diamond' instead just to get a larger time measure for its unchanging properties macroscopically.

That's scales.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #446 on: 02/12/2011 20:11:15 »
Can one Planck length in one Plank time make a moving picture? Not as I can see. We need more 'discrete events' at those Planck scales to get a movie. So, can times arrow exist at one Planck time/length? When you measure something you always take the arrow for granted, you use it and then maybe even 'discard it', depending on your definitions. But it was there in your measurement.

Without that arrow, what is there to see? Indeterminacy or something not moving? Indeterminacy is to me a 'fuzzy picture' depending on HUP. Something not moving on the other hand, is something I should be able to get into focus.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #447 on: 08/12/2011 19:03:38 »
Ok, crazy as it seems I have this view that 'distances' doesn't exist. I've had it a long time, although it's hard to define what I mean there. Then on the other hand, what should exist making us think it does?

If light and all radiation is bosons, and we define that as waves, does darkness, exist? Think about it, what you can see it just a small window, and some of those 'bosons' we speculate about we'll never see. But they should then all be 'waves', meaning that darkness is your lack of 'vision'.
=
Alternatively you can define it from lights smallest propagation.

"The Planck length is related to Planck energy by the uncertainty principle. At this scale, the concepts of size and distance break down, as quantum indeterminacy becomes virtually absolute. Because the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole is roughly equal to the Compton wavelength at the Planck scale, a photon with sufficient energy to probe this realm would yield no information whatsoever.

Any photon energetic enough to precisely measure a Planck-sized object could actually create a particle of that dimension, but it would be massive enough to immediately become a black hole (a.k.a Planck particle), thus completely distorting that region of space, and swallowing the photon."

Those are all theoretical assumptions naturally, until experimentally proven. And where one should place a quanta of light/energy, as a 'photon'? Indeterminacy is directly coupled to your choice of measuring as I see it, your choice defining what then will become impossible to 'pin point'. Conceptually I can then see the possibility of either assuming that all parameters could be said to be 'unmeasurable' as in 'indeterministic/undefined', as they all will depend on what choice of measurement you make. Or that all can be 'known', as they all will be there, although not simultaneously in your measurement. What 'weak measurements' builds on is just that idea, as I see it, that they are supposed to be there. But if 'photons' exist at Plank length, then a good question might be if they exist under it? They are called 'point particles' meaning that we don't assume a 'size' for them at all. So, as far as I can see, no 'distance' can exist where they 'are'.
==

If radiation would behave 'classically' I would have no problems accepting 'distances', but it doesn't. It will define itself locally, and it will create time dilations and Lorentz contractions. How light, to me, must be a 'clock' I've already defined. And with that you can forget 'speeds' and 'distances', although it is from those concepts we get the definition of a 'constant'.

'c' is to me a definition of how SpaceTime works, with Planck scales limiting the other 'end' of it. We're right in the middle of it sort of, not relativistically moving, not ever being able to define what is 'still'. But we still have a definition. One Planck length in one Plank time, as the smallest definition we expect to make sense for lights 'propagation', or 'clock beat'.

That 'clock beat' is always locally invariant. You can use those distances and space the 'clocks' out, to then measure 'variations'. But this is the wrong assumption, the better one is to define it from locality. Then there is only one arrow of time, measured in lights smallest propagation, which also will be the definition of 'frames of reference' relative a clock.

And all other radiation, not belonging to that 'local frame of reference' will then become the description from where we find 'distances' and 'motion'. And it will always locally be the same, no matter from where you measure it.

So, does this mean that 'distances' doesn't exist? I don't know, to me it's about conceptuality, and what we see as our 'reality'. It's a matter of 'scales' to me, some look at it from QM, others from Relativity. We are defined through the way we observe, and as we widen our conceptual definitions of things we can't observe directly, our conceptual 'reality' change. But our macroscopic observations stays the same, the impressions and senses each one of us live from, and in, stays the same for us. It won't matter if gravitons exist or not to the way you observe your 'reality' around you. And my ideas won't matter either, we all will find those 'distances' when we 'move'.

But, myself, I don't think they exist :) But that's on a purely conceptual plane, not related to the way my eyes, senses, measurements work, etc. What I do think exist is 'constants'. And when we find more of those we will get a better conceptual 'reality'.

Radiation is to me the 'rules' of the game, defining your immediate 'reality' from locality, relative all other 'frames of reference'. And the 'space' we exist in is from that point of view, not even there, except as defined locally. You can take it a step further, and define all 'space' as a construction from radiation presenting you with its local beat. We see it as one thing, including motion and distance in our descriptions, but it might be another.

We still have the fact that we are 'many' existing, not 'one' though :)
And, being philosophical here, consciousness is a really strange idea.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2011 21:09:45 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #448 on: 08/12/2011 19:13:31 »
Simply expressed, can you prove a 'globally same' distance for all observers? Not conceptually through a Lorentz transformation, but by letting them measure?

And exactly how do you get your definition of a distance? From what and where?

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #449 on: 08/12/2011 20:04:20 »
And using my definition, gravity can easily become a pure 'geometry', as it will be defined through the way you read that radiation, and define it through your measurements/observations.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."