[yor_on]

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'?

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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?

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

This is a sidetrack.

I've noticed many wanting to put GR into question. Finding blue and red-shift speculative, and the groundwork describing GR to be questionable. Some even going so far as wanting to in-cooperate their 'pet theories' in the wiki:s describing the experiments validating it (GR).

So I though it could be cool to see how it hold up to scrutiny.

The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment. and Testing General Relativity with Pulsar Timing.

As far as I can see it works as expected.

[yor_on]

Heh, maybe not a side track at all. I do like this

"In 2005, on the 100th anniversary of the introduction of special relativity, one might ask “what is there to test?”. Special relativity has been so thoroughly integrated into the fabric of modern physics that its validity is rarely challenged, except by cranks and crackpots. It is ironic then, that during the past several years, a vigorous theoretical and experimental effort has been launched, on an international scale, to find violations of special relativity.

The motivation for this effort is not a desire to repudiate Einstein, but to look for evidence of new physics “beyond” Einstein, such as apparent violations of Lorentz invariance that might result from certain models of quantum gravity. Quantum gravity asserts that there is a fundamental length scale given by the Planck length.. 

 [ Invalid Attachment ]


But since length is not an invariant quantity (Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction), then there could be a violation of Lorentz invariance at some level in quantum gravity. In brane world scenarios, while physics may be locally Lorentz invariant in the higher dimensional world, the confinement of the interactions of normal physics to our four-dimensional “brane” could induce apparent Lorentz violating effects. And in models such as string theory, the presence of additional scalar, vector, and tensor long-range fields that couple to matter of the standard model could induce effective violations of Lorentz symmetry."

As for the theoretical aspects of different definitions I offer no insights, but it's very nice realizing that I'm not the only one wondering where those 'contractions' end, and what to make of it. Though I included HUP there, at a greater scale than Planck length, as creating a possible definition of a background invariant 'smoothness' over Planck scale.

Not that I can know, and it it's highly speculative, especially as it depends on how you think of what HUP tells you about itself. To me it's talking about indeterminacy, 'defined' at your choice of measurement, which looking at it my way leaves what 'background' there is 'indeterministic' as it only will answer to what you measure, and what way you choose to get that answer.

It's about how real 'reality' is, sort of
Kind'a luve it.

And it's quite nice to me as it allow uncertainty at a very basic level, in some intricately weird way even representing a idea of 'free will' to me. Even though I have difficulties defining exactly what I mean there, there are many interpretations possible.
=

(Couldn't find the right mathematical expression so made a *.jpg instead. Ouch, can't center the jpg without the rest of the text becoming centered too. Ah well..)

[yor_on]

One way measuring of light?

I've been thinking of it, wondering what would happen if you take two points A and B. then measure the 'gravity' at those points and all points in between. As I expect it to be related to Planck scale, meaning that I expect that to be the smallest 'frame of reference' you can find, using 'clocks' as your definition of where one 'frame of reference' starts and the next ends.

Even as we don't have clocks that accurate we can still test it. And doing so will give us a 'gravity map' between A and B. Then one send a light pulse from A (source) to B (detector) using B:s local clock, and compensate for the gravity found in between. If that works out to be close to 'c', then we have a possible one way definition of lights speed in a vacuum, possibly

If it doesn't work out then there should be something wrong in my suggestion, alternatively something not considered like densities etc.

But what it would do is to test if Plank size could be defined as a 'frame of reference' relative other 'frames' using 'ideal clocks' as the definition.

Another thing that's started to nag me is how to define a speed/velocity. As all frames of reference is relative in the real world. Meaning that you conceptually can define a inertial frame, but that I do not know of any that will hold up to proof, measuring directly?

But we all expect us able to send some particle away, in the LHC for example, closing in on the speed of light in a vacuum. How do I define it? From what? Can't use the stars blue shift in front of me, can't use the CBR, can't use Earth? But we can accelerate particles, and we do define them as relativistically moving?

But relative what frame, and if I change that frame to another uniformly moving?
Maybe those two ideas are related? I need to see this a lot clearer.

[yor_on]

You can turn my reasoning around and point out that in a classical two way experiment all 'frames of reference' will give me 'c', which I also expect it to do. But the idea of a 'speed' then becomes meaningless to me, although the idea of a 'constant' becomes all important.

And using 'c' as a constant as well as the 'clock rate' related to my and yours local 'arrow of time', the same for us all as proven if we 'join up' together, makes then a lot more sense than discussing it in form of 'speeds'.

But, as a 'speed' is a definition relative a clock and a distance?

The 'clock' I think I understand, but 'distance'?

[yor_on]

I know, slightly mental maybe

But this is the way I think about it. All uniform motion inside a black box/room scenario is interchangeably 'at rest'. No matter your definition of your possible 'velocity/speed'. From that I draw the conclusion that it is true that they are interchangeable. So a 'velocity/speed' is already there doubtful as a objective definition, or, not correctly defined.

And then we have those Lorentz/Fitzgerald contractions, done the Einstein way. I see them as true statements, constant mirrors to a time dilation. But it's a very tricky one, and I can't be totally sure. Also I expect HUP to create a 'fogginess' at a quantum level, as atom scale, or maybe even larger? I can't be sure there either

Never the less, both question distances, although the later only at that 'conceptual plane' comparing them. That as you locally always will be able to define a distance, using your ruler and your clock.


But you know what
I find the idea of those black box scenarios pretty convincing in a intuitive way. So to me that is something truly diffuse, what a distance really mean.


Assume that there is a Higgs ocean.
It still doesn't explain a Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction.
And it does not answer where those 'Higgs bosons' went in a contraction, unless you define it as a 'field'. If you define it as waves, do they compress?

[yor_on]

Remember that using 'locality' relative your clock, distance will always be unambiguous.

It's about what I call 'conceptuality'. We live inside a conceptual world, we define it through a 'now' a 'past' and a 'future'. Every experiment, every thought, can be defined to the 'past', in that as it becomes your outcome it's already passed, using a 'arrow of time' defining the causality chain.

Everything we do involve this arrow. To argue about what it consist of is interesting, but it will still come down to the same experience for you. The 'past', 'now', and the 'future'. I define it as equivalent to 'c', using 'c' split up, as exactly as we can, becoming the local rate of your clock.

Lights smallest 'propagation', at one Plank length in one Plank time becoming the other 'constant' to me. Defining a smallest 'beat' of your local 'clock'. Also defining the smallest 'length' that will be meaningful inside SpaceTime.

NIST shows us that you can split Earth into 'frames of reference' time dilated relative each other. If that is a truth, then a Lorentz contraction should be there too? At least as I expect it to be. HUP seems, to me, to be what allows this contraction to be existent at that very small plane of existence.

You might consider it as that without HUP the chances of me arguing here would not exist. As our coherence macroscopically couldn't be. But it's a very long shot that one, although I still see HUP as the main reason allowing particles to 'join up' other definitions of HUP exist. Most automatically seeming to assume that at least some parameters of a particle always 'exist'. And that one goes back to the way we experience matter macroscopically.

To see my points you better consider your 'reality' as somewhat of the 'flavor of the game', but not the game itself.

But we still refer to each other and the universe each one of us percieve, as being the same, don't we? And that must be radiation communicating that impression to each one of us.

Radiation is a 'constant', not a 'speed', defining the limits for how we can exchange meaningful information inside SpaceTime. And SpaceTime then becomes a 'density' in my eyes, encased in the conservation laws, gravity and 'c'.

[yor_on]

If radiation is a constant, then using the idea of speed becomes wrong. Not in that it doesn't exist for us, but in that it can't be the complete description of how SpaceTime operates. That allows my idea of it 'ticking' from locality. If that is the way it would work at 'another plane', then the definitions we use is incomplete. And if so the description of a 'propagation of light' gets an added implication, in that it also could be seen as something not 'propagating' at all.

That might seem to solve some problems, but also creates new. If light doesn't 'propagate', what holds the 'beat' it show us? I call it the 'rules of the game' and, in fact, the same question can be stated for the light 'propagating'. Although, not in the exact same way.

What creates the 'reality' we see I expect to be our 'constants', which then becomes the limits defining SpaceTime.

[yor_on]

And that becomes my number space, in where nothing 'moves'. The 'motion' is our interpretation of those numbers changing. Each one of us having a unique definition of its change, hold together through 'c'. That constant then becoming what creates the common 'SpaceTime' Einstein defined. I don't think my interpretation is that different from his, he called SpaceTime a 'illusion' more than once, and I agree.

[yor_on]

So what creates constants? Do they create each other?

I think about a smallest definition of something as already being in three 'dimensions'. I don't expect it to be 'one dimensionally' connected inside SpaceTime. Outside SpaceTime it might be another description though.

But the point I want to make is that as soon as we can 'touch it' as in it being 'there', taking a place, then according to the Pauli exclusion principle it is defined in a three dimensional space as I see it. 

[yor_on]

And looking at it from Einsteins point of view. Defined in a four dimensional SpaceTime. Those of you finding my ideas weird really need to consider what you think of Einsteins Because most of you then missed what he was taking about, A four dimensional reality.