An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2903 Replies
  • 292790 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #450 on: 11/12/2011 07:55:46 »
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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #451 on: 11/12/2011 08:23:26 »
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.. 

[attachment=15659]


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..)
« Last Edit: 11/12/2011 08:48:15 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #452 on: 14/12/2011 02:40:50 »
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.
« Last Edit: 14/12/2011 02:42:40 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #453 on: 14/12/2011 02:58:48 »
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'?



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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #454 on: 14/12/2011 09:15:49 »
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?
« Last Edit: 14/12/2011 10:01:03 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #455 on: 15/12/2011 10:54:32 »
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'.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2011 11:36:28 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #456 on: 15/12/2011 11:05:41 »
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.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2011 11:53:55 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #457 on: 15/12/2011 11:16:13 »
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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #458 on: 15/12/2011 12:08:11 »
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. 
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #459 on: 15/12/2011 12:11:22 »
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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #460 on: 15/12/2011 12:53:09 »
You can look at it different ways, as it seems to me. the first being that we through 'scales' then can dissect 'SpaceTime', slicing it up into singular dimensions. Or the one I present in where 'SpaceTime' will hold until its bare limits are meet.

In fact, looking at it through Einsteins eyes I guess that you could describe the whole of SpaceTime as being one 'four-dimensional' thingie. Getting different positional values depending on each 'observers' mass/acceleration, 'energy' and 'relative motion'. But if considered a common SpaceTime, all being one expression, expressed in Lorentz transformations.
=

But scales exist, just as distances do, and the arrow. And using scaling we can magnify SpaceTime, down to that very quantum realm where we find it to 'break down'. Down there not much seems to be as above. Matter becomes a diffuse description of 'forces' creating and binding 'particles' into molecules, gravity seems to disappear or at least becomes very hard to find.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2011 13:02:24 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #461 on: 19/12/2011 03:09:00 »
Mass is particles, particles has a density. The density is defined through their size relative what invariant mass we find them to have, you can also translate it into 'energy'.

Two scenarios.

Assume a particle accelerator 'A', accelerating particle x to 99% of lights speed in a vaccum. This accelerator is placed on Earth 'A'. And relative the CBR (Cosmic Background radiation) moving at 0.5 the speed of light. The accelerator is linear, constructed  to point in the line of Earths motion, relative the CBR.

Then build an exact same linear accelerator on planet 'B', being a exact copy of Earth, but 'at rest' with the CBR. No apparent motion at all relative it. And assume everything from location to 'gravity' to be the exact same as with 'A'.

What energy do you expect to be expended to get particle 'x' to reach 99% of lights speed in a vacuum?

For 'A'
For 'B'

Relative what?


What will you see when accelerating 97% of lights speed in a vacuum? The Lorentz contraction will redefine the SpaceTime you see, it will be contracted in the direction of motion.

Assume a 'SpaceTime' of ten objects of varying mass, 'Gravity' will then be coupled to those objects defining it. From Earth you now define the distances locally, as well as the 'gravity' you expect. When you are at 99% of lights speed in a vacuum that distance must contract. Now define the 'gravity' there is in that SpaceTime, relative the ten objects.

Will the ten objects invariant mass change with your 'relative velocity'?

What will happen to those objects lined up in front of you as you close in to lights speed in a vacuum?
As they get closer to each other, according to your frame of reference, will they have a stronger attraction towards each other?

Why not?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #462 on: 19/12/2011 03:19:19 »
You could, as a very outlandish notion, assume that as you come for ever closer to 'c', relative whatever you define that apparent 'velocity' from, also assume that as 'time speeds up' relative your local clock for all 'frames of reference' not at rest with you. Then the universe must contract at some 'future time'
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #463 on: 19/12/2011 03:39:27 »
Why it would have to contract has to do with how we define 'events'. They must fit for all observers, even though we might disagree on time and position. But as I now use the 'speeding' frame of reference you can argue that in the former 'still frame' that Earth represented it won't be true.  But events must fit if you want us to have the same universe, So either is a Lorentz contraction a illusion, or the 'speeding frame' should be a true representation of a common 'future'.

And then we have 'light' itself, always at 'c'. The constant we call, a 'speed'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #464 on: 19/12/2011 04:56:02 »
There is one more. The arrow of time. Time symmetry is a very weird definition, and very theoretical in that no one ever has been able to travel 'backwards' in our 'arrow of time'. But the symmetry is there and able to be utilized as Feynman did in his Feynman diagrams.

"“There are many theoretical physicists who think the flow of time is an illusion,” he says. “And I think that’s a great mistake…according to quantum physics you don’t know the outcome of events until they happen. We know what happened in the past, there’s a time called the present when things are happening, and there’s a time in the future which is not yet determined. That’s my view on it, which is not a very widely supported one.”" Said by George Ellis, professor emeritus of applied mathematics at the University of Capetown.

I agree.

"Ellis adds that Einstein also hated the idea of a beginning of time. It does seem rather odd that something with a very distinct beginning would simply have no end, or to think that even 14 billion years after the big bang (if the universe is infinite) we are still infinitesimally close to the beginning.

It seems the discussion of time swings quickly between the largest scale and the smallest scale. Discussion of the ultimate length of time begs the question, is time quantized? Can we break it up into packets like photons and quarks?

Markopoulou-Kalamara says it depends on your notion of time. In terms of the geometric notion of time, as in the time dimension of a space-time, she says yes; she believes it has to break down. But if you’re referring to time as change, something that has happened, “I doubt it,” she says. Ellis adds that quantization of time may have to confront something like Zeno’s paradox of infinite halves:"

'c' as a 'clock beat' does it. And defines 'frames of references' relative local clocks, as ideally Plank sized. But it does not answer 'what' time is, it only tells you how our universe 'count its beats'.

But maybe that is the arrow. The 'inflation' and subsequent 'expansion' becoming the reason for creating those 'distances' we define. Those 'distances' that won't 'fit' conceptually, until Lorentz transformed. The arrow becoming a geometric expression of SpaceTime, relative 'c'. But if you then assume that with a expanding SpaceTime must come a 'slowing' of time, you're stuck in the old ways looking at invariant distances.

It's not a 'speed', it's a constant. And a 'distance' will always be real to you, but only from a local definition relative your own 'local' clock.

The universe has one, always strictly local, ground beat. That ground beat also becomes the 'curtain of light' that connects my locality and definitions of 'reality', to your definitions of the same. Created through 'locality', as interpreted through 'c', relative 'distance' as measured by your local clock.

The expansion needs a arrow, just as the arrow always need a distance to create itself.
Because that is how we define it.

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #465 on: 19/12/2011 05:59:45 »
This one is interesting to me, and maybe to you?

Internal Space-time Symmetries according to Einstein, Wigner, Dirac, and Feynman  By Y. S. Kim, Marilyn E. Noz.

"When Einstein formulated his special relativity in 1905, he established the law of Lorentz transformations for point particles. It is now known that particles have internal space-time structures. Particles, such as photons and electrons, have spin variables. Protons and other hadrons are regarded as bound states of more fundamental particles called quarks which have their internal variables. It is still one of the most outstanding problems whether these internal space-time variables are transformed according to Einstein's law of Lorentz transformations. It is noted that Wigner, Dirac, and Feynman made important contributions to this problem. By integrating their efforts, it is then shown possible to construct a picture of the internal space-time symmetry consistent with Einstein's Lorentz covariance. "
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #466 on: 19/12/2011 13:25:12 »
Better point out that I don't expect it to be true that a relativistic speed describe the SpaceTime you 'must meet in a future', staying at home. If it was it would be enough with one relativistic rocket for the whole of SpaceTime to 'contract', and that one seems quite improbable. But it has to do with 'events' and gravity. And that's one of my newest questions.

If a distance contract, what happens with the SpaceTime geometry? What happens with 'gravity'? And getting close to 'c' those objects should, according to you 'speeding away' be closer together. That must mean that they also will 'attract' each other, if a Lorentz contraction is as real a effect as what you define SpaceTime to be before taking of, being at rest at Earth.

Don't you agree?

Or can you keep the cookie, and eat it too?

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #467 on: 19/12/2011 13:29:29 »
And it also has to do with how you define a SpaceTime. As a 'common, whole' SpaceTime, defined through Lorentz transformations. Or as a SpaceTime defined through 'locality' relative the local constant 'c'?
=

'c' will give you Lorentz transformations any which way as I think of it. So I don't think you can use that as the final argument for any of the suggestions above?
« Last Edit: 19/12/2011 13:31:54 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #468 on: 19/12/2011 13:50:25 »
What I'm aiming at is the later approach. The one where we go out from 'locality' and define our 'common SpaceTime' as a effect of that local constant. It seems to me as the most realistic approach for now, where what you observe relative those objects Lorentz contracted is real. For you it will be, but for me, still being at home it will not be so in some 'future'.

But if I define it that way, what happens with the idea of 'events'?
Well, what happens with 'events' if I don't define it as that?
=

There might be some effect that I'm missing though, explaining why 'gravity' won't attract more, the more contracted you observe SpaceTime to become. And there is always the possibility of it being a 'illusion', although I don't expect that to be true myself.

There are some things here that I still has to come to grip with. One is my inability to see what a speed 'really', and I mean, really means? :) Another is uniform motion relative accelerations. The definitions I use rests on that all uniform motions becomes the same inside a 'black box scenario'. That means that no matter your speed, relativistic or not, you still can be defined as being 'at rest' in a uniform motion. But it also differs between different uniform motions, as being fast, faster, fastest. So as defined relative some common origin, or just by common agreement, we can define different 'speeds', which then can become 'relativistic'.

Because you can be Lorentz contracted and 'at rest'.

« Last Edit: 19/12/2011 14:22:48 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #469 on: 20/12/2011 11:36:06 »
You can turn the reasoning around of course. Pointing out that those ten objects in that SpaceTime, all in a uniform motion, won't find their 'space' to contract at all just because I speed up, which is true. So from their 'frame of reference' gravity won't change. But how does it fit? If I move uniformly very fast, at 99% of lights speed in a vacuum, being 'at rest'. Won't I still observe a Lorentz contracted SpaceTime before me? And now I'm actually 'at rest' too, definable as being the exact same in a black box scenario as all other 'speeds/velocities', indistinguishable from not moving at all inside that black room.

So 'locally' I'm at rest, but 'globally', as relative the SpaceTime outside that room I am 'moving'.

So, is there a Lorentz contraction uniformly moving? Well yes, there should be. Then I 'shrunk SpaceTime' right :) But that same SpaceTime will have their own definitions of the 'shrinking' I observe as my reality. and each one of those 'objects' most probably experiencing one unique SpaceTime per 'observer' on them.

So, does this make sense from a 'globally same' SpaceTime?
I don't know, but I like 'locality' better myself,
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #470 on: 20/12/2011 11:55:44 »
Let us put it like this.

You have three platforms in space, all three uniformly moving.
Each platform are measuring the other platforms uniform 'speed/motion'.

All three use Earth as a definition of a null speed, being 'still'.
Each one has a different uniform motion relative each other, as defined relative earth.

Each one send out an rocket, built to the same exact specifications, using the same acceleration as well as the 'same time' measured from each rockets own local clock.

Will it matter what speed they have relative Earth, or relative the platforms, for defining in local time when reaching 99% of lights speed in a vacuum? As their platforms uniformly moving 'fast, faster, fastest' relative each other.

All platforms uniformly moving, but when comparing their uniform motions finding speed differences. If you think it will matter, then you also should expect there to be a objective, 'globally' correct, way to define a 'speed' in SpaceTime, as a guess? And then, you and me both, look at 'c' as a 'proof' of a 'speed limit' :)

But..

=

Yes, they all accelerate in the direction of the platforms motion.
« Last Edit: 20/12/2011 12:00:13 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #471 on: 20/12/2011 12:05:57 »
You can't use the argument that with different speeds becomes different 'arrows of time'. That one will always need a different frame of reference. To do so we would have to imagine a observer on our, arbitrarily defined, 'still' Earth. If measured inside that black box all three platforms are 'still', no matter if they are moving relative earth. And using my definition of 'ideal clocks' all platforms will find their local time to be unchanged by their 'relative motion'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #472 on: 21/12/2011 10:35:41 »
So I started to wonder about potential energy and gravity again. In mathematics you can say that it has a value depending on where you measure it relative the 'gravitational field'. And you measuring infinitely far away, the way it is set up mathematically, will give you a negative value for potential gravity, and so also for the potential energy.

"For the conservation of energy to work, the sum of the Kinetic energy "T" of a body pulled by gravity, and it's gravitational potential energy "U", must be a constant.

T+U=C

Kinetic energy is always positive, and will increase as the body falls faster and faster towards your source of gravity. To compensate, U is going to have to be zero. If it was positive, the total energy C would not be constant. Sort of a fudge, but necessary if you want the conservation of energy to work. You get around it by making the gravitational force equal to minus the gradient of the potential energy. F=-\nabla U.

A negative U makes sense in some way, because your gravitational energy, though always negative, increases as you move away from the body, i.e. upwards. You expect gravitational potential to do this, increase, as you move up, so that you'll gain energy as you fall. If U was always positive, but decreasing, it would mean that potential energy would decrease as you moved away from the body. Also, if you tried to make it always positive but increasing, though the potential energy would approach a maximium, your effort would be confounded as you moved close to the body, i.e. as x->0.

The choice of negative potential energy is really the best of a bad bunch. Try graphing the equation, then graphing it's negative. Move both graphs up and down by constants to get a feel for why the canonical option really is the lesser of many evils." By ObsessiveMathsFreak.

So, what is gravity then?

Maybe a better question would be. What is SpaceTime? Because that's the real question. In Einsteins relativistic universe you have four acknowledged dimensions. three that I sum up as creating 'distances' in a three dimensional space and.. This is where so many miss the importance, exactly because the way it is presented.. Time, or its arrow.

It's not correct to write it like this. SpaceTime is one thing physically and mathematically as I understands it. Represented by four dimensions together. You can lift them out and 'isolate them' in mathematics, but not in reality. Too many seems to think that because I can turn something around then that must represent a true solution too. Mathematically it might, but you need some sense of proportions to see if it is consistent with the world you live in.

So, potential energy, and Gravity, outside the text book does not 'cling off' into negative expressions as far as I understand. If they did we would have anti gravity :) and ?? anti potential energy flowing all around us, whatever that would be? And disregarding fantasies, there are no such things observed in this universe, and no experiments validating it that I know of.

Potential energy is a relation, not something 'touch able'. Gravity is a relation too, expressed through accelerations (constant or variable 'inertia') invariant mass, also able to be converted into the notion we have of 'energy', that then might represents some ultimate quantity, or better seen, as transforming 'usable work -> into -> Work done. To imagine what 'energy' might be we either has to use a wave or a 'photon'. That's the cleanest expressions I know, allowing us to measure.

The SpaceTime we see is expanding. Using mathematical concepts, as differing from reality, of positive versus negative energy we then need a explanation to from where that 'expansion energy' comes from. In a closed universe you will expect a balance, we use the conservation laws to express that. So if the room expands the 'energy' for that has to come from somewhere. But it might be wrong. Maybe the room expanding has nothing to do with our notions of 'energy'. We might overreach in defining negative concepts that bears no mathematical resemblance to reality, not fitting what we see as we measure and experiment. Use my 'curtain of light' and imagine it to be a 'game' for a second. Then the 'discrepancies' we see in QM as related to SpaceTime becomes where the logic of the game points to something else.

People tend to believe in choices, QM is the 'truth', as it's describing the smallest constituents of our universe, and Relativity will need to adapt. Or Relativity is true, and it is QM that needs to adapt. QM does away with the notion of classical causality chains, or, QM is not describing it all (hidden parameters). How about a third one, neither QM nor Einstens relativity catches 'it all', but they both describe, the same universe? That' seems better to me. Both describe reality, from two perspectives, physics using 'scales' to find the differences. Both has a beautiful logic to them, although neither of them is what we see in our daily life. There we have a third description that works just fine, Newtonian mechanics.

But relativity does not state that conservation laws must hold. In fact it seems to depend on what you believe, not on Einsteins equations per se. You are the one bending them to your needs. I find conservation laws to make a enormous lot of sense myself, as describing interactions of various kinds. But I'm not sure if the universe is 'closed', and neither should you be. If it's not then Noether's theorem shouldn't be relevant for a SpaceTime geometry. That means that we don't have to look at 'energies' being shuffled around inside a closed 'box' as the geometry might have another definition. Space isn't there classically, and that one we can prove with any vacuum. So to expect nothing to grow into more 'nothing'? Becomes somewhat of a oxymoron looked at that way.

You only need to consider what different observers will define as being the 'energy' observed, to see that it is observer dependent. And that one is just like 'time' and 'distances'. Relativistically described your universe 'shrinks' with your relative motion, and mass. Your positional definition change both in time and in distance. And as you can measure it to be true for you, the question becomes what a measurement really should mean. There I prefer to define it from 'locality' instead from 'Lorentz transformations'. That actually makes me more in tune with what we deem a repeatable experiment, than placing myself and my definitions in a abstract 'mindspace' where nothing is 'true', before you made the necessary transformations. And as I see it it's not only relativistically time dilations and their complementary Lorentz transformations exist. They exist, as I expect, here and now. I don't need a relativistic 'speed' for it, although we may have trouble measuring it.

And yes, it can all be expressed in 'energy'. But what the he* does that mean? That we are 'energy'? Nope, we're 'matter'. Are we then, 'waves'? Nope, we're still 'matter'. 'Photons' then, we are the 'Photons', right? Nope, matter..

Matter is one thing, photons another, gluon s a third, Higgs bosons a fourth, etc etc, add infinitum. They are not the 'exact same'. If they were, we wouldn't be here arguing, well if you're not going to get mystical on me, telling me that we are the consciousness creating the 'world'? To say that we can follow a logic from 'matter' to 'energy' is not the same as stating them to be the exact same.  And neither does it demand that all 'bosons' must be 'waves', or for that sake 'photons'. The wave particle duality still exist, and is not solved into being one or the other. And if you to that add all other presumed bosons existing, and why not add 'thoughts' to the mix? After all, without those we wouldn't even care.

Are thoughts 'bosons' :)
« Last Edit: 21/12/2011 10:45:46 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #473 on: 21/12/2011 11:38:12 »
Luboš Motl might be seen as slightly confrontational at times :) But he has a clear mind when it comes to physics, and I enjoy reading him. He has this to say about  Why and how energy is not conserved in cosmology  and Michael Weiss and John Baez says this about Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity? I'm not sure any of them would agree with me in considering a vacuum to be a geometry, and at times I'm not sure if I agree with myself on it either. But, as someone once said "So I disagree with myself, Bah, so what? I contain multitudes."

And if that doesn't satisfy, here you have a third point of view. Square Root Of The Universe.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #474 on: 28/12/2011 14:16:42 »
Gravitational field, what is it?
And uniform motion, what does it have to do with geodesics?

Our three platforms above, they are in a uniform motion, but are they in a geodesic? Yep, as far as I define it they must be in a geodesic. If they weren't then they would be 'accelerating' in some manner. If they 'accelerate' the motion they describe will not be uniform.

You can move your arm uniformly, is that arm then in a geodesic as you move it? Is that a motion uniform, or is it a accelerating motion? As soon as you are in a gravitational field you will 'fight gravity', no matter what kind of motion you define that 'fight' to have. Accelerating or 'uniform'. Can you see what I mean?

The only time you will be close to a geodesic is when 'free falling' on Earth. So a geodesic must by definition become when you do not 'fight' gravity. What does that tell you about 'space'? What is needed for a geodesic to exist?

Gravity.

You need gravity as the definition from where you/it stops 'fighting' it.

Tell me again about those remarkable 'patches' of zero gravity in space? Where gravity doesn't 'exist', unmeasurable? How can I fit a geodesic to such a place? Gravity defines 'space' to me, so having no gravity, I would say you've run out of 'space' too. And so to me becoming similar to our ideas of singularities. Those weird 'places' in where we can't 'see in'. IN SR you use the concept, in GR, and reality, you can't, not as I see it at least. And that's also Einsteins genius. To build it from a concept which is purely theoretical and mathematical into something that fits the reality we see as a glove fits my hand.

Transformations then, and mathematical rotations. Are they magic? Nope, they are standard mathematic tools used to rotate and 'move' thingies, like vectors defining a direction as well as magnitude, to some other 'place' to then compare them, also allowing us to define how they differ in/with time.

Think of a circle, assume yourself rotating inside its center, you holding a rope stringed to a ball,the whole contraption tensed outwards at a straight tangent by your rotation. Any time you let that ball go it will do so at a straight tangent to your rotation. Let those tangents become lines pointing outward in your imagination. Let each one represent a vector, meaning that your line (vector) has a direction (and a defined 'time slot') as well as a magnitude (a 'force' of sorts). release the ball, let some time pass, release the ball again.
(Yep, a magic ball, always leaving:)

Now you got two lines pointing out at a straight angle from your circle, differently placed in time on it, representing two vectors. The trick with a vector is that you can 'lift a line up' to then move it, as long as you do so keeping its original magnitude and direction. When you do so you ignore the 'time' differing them, but it helps getting an idea.

Now, if you let those two lines (vectors) originate from a same 'point' on your circles circumference, you can easily measure how their directions differ. That new line you will find, measuring the two lines difference will invariantly point in, towards your circle's center. To prove it you just need to move that new line you got to touch the circumference of the circle. So the centrifugal force you felt can now be defined as to point inwards to that center. Can you see what I mean? Now becoming a centripetal force instead.

The acceleration that's hidden in this example is not the speed, as we will assume that to be uniform all the time you spun around. Instead you find it in the 'force' it took you to break the SpaceTime natural geodesics, loosely represented by the balls leaving you. And that's also what we measured rotating, or moving, those two vectors together, then measuring the angle between them, getting that new 'line'.

And that's also the difference between a speed and a 'velocity'. That ball you spun around with had a speed, but it didn't have a velocity. But as soon as you let it go, it begot a velocity, now having both a direction and a magnitude in SpaceTime. So when we speak of light having a speed instead of a velocity we give light a constant magnitude, but we say nothing about a direction. And that is perfectly correct, light only exist in its annihilation, and possibly also as defined by the recoil we observe its 'source' to have. But that last description is not a 'photon' strictly defined, that's just the effect of a 'change', as expected of the conservation laws.

So we can define a source and a sink to a photon. and we get an explanation of the recoil in the conservation laws. Doesn't that mean that we also can define it a 'path'? Weak measurements thinks it does, I don't.

All mathematics use coordinate systems, you do it too. Every time you want to meet someone you use a coordinate system to define it from. "We'll meet where Anna spilled the juice all over her" is defining a coordinate system, in space and time, using a common reference frame known to both of you. Or you could have used the name and number of the street where it happened. It all boils down to one thing, coordinate systems is a construct, humanly made. We use 'time' and some common references to define them from, as miles, km, feet, altitude, meridians, etc etc. All of them conceptual.

You can rotate and move coordinate systems, or, as they all are used to define locations of objects, instead rotate and transform the objects locations in some conceptually made coordinate system. Draw two lines y| _ x That's a coordinate system too. |_  it's now a 'frame' of a sorts, in where you can depict something, moving or not, also giving your 'x' and 'y' axis some values to measure that object from/in.

What defines a coordinate system in SpaceTime is 'time' and 'distance' relative some defined 'anchor points' like Earth for example. Distance being the 3D representation of a 'space', measured by your ruler relative your clock, as your wrist watch. This definition is the only one that will be comparatively true for you, measuring in Relativity. Using someones else's clock you will get the wrong measurements, same as if you used someone else's ruler. And that sounds weird but it all boils down to one thing.

Lights unvarying speed in a vacuum.

'c'

Nowadays a lot of the guys knowing math seem to have lost sight of that. The problem being that that the more advanced those mathematical concepts become, the less anchored they become in what we percieve directly. Axioms building on Axioms building on Axioms. Mathematics is not the truth. What you live and observe is the truth, all mathematics we have growing from such observations.

All our original axioms comes from direct observations of the world. Building and assuming from the original definitions we can get new axioms not directly observed, although logically inferred from the original axioms. The problem with all those kind of definitions that they in the end builds on so many assumptions, and sometimes presumptions, that they becomes almost impossible to untangle back to the original axioms they started from. And that's quite dangerous because what it ends with are like people only referring to the concept of simultaneity, somehow ignoring where we got Relativity from, 'c'. Use 'c', and you can reinvent Relativity. Don't need no simultaneity to do that, even though the concept follows naturally.

Like the Higgs. Assume that we do find a 'boson', is that then what we think it is? We did find a 'boson', but how can we prove that it is what creates 'gravity'? It will be a very theoretical 'fact', and as soon as someone comes up with another theoretical definition of what that Boson possibly does, a Higgs becoming questionable, leaving you to decide it from beliefs instead of 'science'. And that's not acceptable to me. But that's the problem today, too much 'esoteric' math combined with too few direct observations as we penetrate the quantum realm. Math is a very fine thing, and lots of its implications are of enormous value, even though difficult to prove. Symmetries for example, conservation laws, Noethers theorem, all extremely important to me for describing SpaceTime. And never forget, 'black box scenarios' for testing your logic. But using what we infer, expecting that to be the same as something directly observable, is to me like standing on a morass inviting your peers to admire your newly built motorway, "Yep, and it goes all the way, to the stars"


Don't think so.

« Last Edit: 28/12/2011 14:28:41 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #475 on: 11/01/2012 14:40:57 »
Just some slightly confused thoughts.

First of all. As I see it we have only certain energy levels reachable for us. Cern is the big definer of what we can do for now as they search for the Higgs boson.

"Theorists say the Higgs or something like it has to show up simply because the Standard Model breaks down and calculations using it go kerflooey at energies exceeding one trillion electron volts. If you try to predict what happens when two particles collide, it gives nonsense, explained Dr. Ellis . .

When they try to calculate the mass of the Higgs particle using the Standard Model and quantum mechanics, they get what Dr. Ellis called “a very infinite answer.”

Rather than a trillion electron volts or so, quantum effects push the mass all the way up to 10 quadrillion trillion electron volts, known as the Planck energy, where gravity and the other particle forces are equal.

The culprit is quantum weirdness, one principle of which is that anything that is not forbidden will happen. That means the Higgs calculation must include the effects of its interactions with all other known particles, including so-called virtual particles that can wink in and out of existence, which shift its mass off the scale.

As a result, if the Standard Model is valid for all energies, physicists say, they are at a loss to explain why the Higgs mass isn’t a quadrillion times bigger than it is. Another way to put it is to ask why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces — the theory wants them all to be equal.

Theorists can rig their calculations to have the numbers come out right, but it feels like cheating, and they would like to have a theory in which the numbers emerge naturally."


So, just how close to a Big Bang can we get?

" So far, CERN has cranked the cathedral-sized machine up to energy levels of 7.0 trillion electronvolts (TeV), or 3.5 TeV per beam, more than three times the level attained by any other accelerator.

It is aiming to trigger collisions at 14 TeV - equivalent to 99.99% of the speed of light - in the cryogenically-cooled machine after 2011."

So 14 TeV right? And when was the universe that 'hot'?

Well, first of all, we won't really get that energy as I understands it, except in rare conditions.

" Note that the energy is per degree of freedom, so you don't use all the 14 TeV (nor are they actually running at that energy yet).

So, how many degrees of freedom? Good question.

Each proton has three valence quarks, but these are generally agreed to make up a small portion of the mas (and to carry a small portion of the momentum) of the proton. The rest of the mass (or momentum) is carried by particles (qaurks and gluons mostly) from the so-called "sea"; these pop into and out-of existence owing to the uncertainty principle.

Worse, when the collision happens there is a great deal of energy available to put the virtual particles of the sea on to (or nearly on to) the mass shell, converting them into real particles, each equipped with their own swarm of ghostly hangers on. Then many of these decay in a very short time.

It is the average energy of this multitude of degrees of freedom which you are trying to measure/calculate, and it is non-trivial."

And then we have this concept of virtual particles giving me a constant headache.  I don't know what to think there.. Anyway, this gives a recent update on Higgs.

An update on Higgs.

What about it? Well, we are inferring a lot of stuff from the experiments we do, but do it fit? I'm not saying that it won't, or can't, but it becomes a very theoretical experience. And we won't get closer than those 14 TeV, possibly?

It's also a question of Space, as that is where all those bosons are expected to 'exist'. Do they exist still, created from those original energies at the BB? They should, shouldn't they? So the really high energies left us this 'sea' of new 'bosons', restricted inside a SpaceTime, just how?

They are imprints of a much higher energy level if so, than anything we'll ever reach.

==

As always, some spelling corrected.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2012 16:12:28 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #476 on: 16/01/2012 14:00:45 »
Another thing, I'm trying to see how a Higgs is thought to interact?

If we talk of bosons, do we have any bosons that will interact without annihilating?
Do the Higgs bosson annihilate as it 'interact' with 'matter'?

If it does, how do it (Higgs bosons/field) replenish itself?
And what exactly would a 'field' be in this motto?

And yeah, that makes me wonder about magnetic fields, again :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #477 on: 17/01/2012 13:04:59 »
Some more weird thoughts. I find 'scales' to be very interesting, that and 'patterns'. Sometime I wrote that I think that the reason 'intelligence' exist, as us observing, might be the universe wanting to 'see itself'. I really think so :)

If one looks at the newest research about our brains one will find that they put a lot of importance to the way the brains neurons are wired, and how some places becomes 'hubs' of a sort, having a lot of connections, others not so intensively coupled. It seems as the way we are 'connected' and the layout of those 'hubs', and their complexity, has a lot to do with the ability of thought.

That will in its turn open for a question of what 'intelligence', as in a conscious observer, is. If it is 'complexity' that creates thought, what about the universe?

And what about 'time'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #478 on: 18/01/2012 11:19:01 »
Okay, I know I sound weird, then again, I most probably am :)
Patterns, chaos theory, scales and 'time'.

And entanglements.

Imagine that first moment of a Big Bang. Do you expect everything coming from it to be more or less entangled? If you do you're not alone. Whatever comes to be should share some original property from that first moment.

1. Can you assume that entanglements can be overlaid on each other?
2. Do a entanglement collapse as we measure? Or is it still there in the final expression?

It has to do with interactions, don't you agree? Whatever a wave collapse should be seen as it should be finalized in the measurement. But, can we 'superimpose' entanglements?


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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #479 on: 18/01/2012 11:31:59 »
We have bosons all around us if you accept the ideas we have today. Bosons have this ability we call superimposing, you can in theory put all radiation there is in one 'location'. That location doesn't take any 'place' inside SpaceTime. It has to do with how I see light.

It doesn't propagate at all.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #480 on: 18/01/2012 11:44:50 »
Think of it in form of 'fields'. Then think of the probability of an interaction. All interactions are expressions in time. Then ask yourself what we mean by a 'constant'. Some 'constants' are explicitly easy to spot inside SpaceTime, 'c' is one, maybe 'one and one is two' can be seen as a SpaceTime constant too?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #481 on: 19/01/2012 14:23:44 »
If you look at it from relativity 'motion' is defined from your clock and ruler relative some other object. So, as long as you find something to 'move' relative your own position, which here becomes a arbitrarily made choice except in accelerations, will you then also find a electromagnetic force?

What I'm wondering about is magnetic fields, and if they can exist without a electrical component? A charge can be defined to propagate at light speed, but, assuming that a magnetic field could exist from a frame of reference, not accompanied by a electrical field?

It also goes back to how you see SpaceTime. If you think of it (SpaceTime) as something inside a 'box', of whatever dimensions, then it seems to me that? I'm not sure here at all? Let's turn it around, if you find a magnetic field to exist without a electrical, then that will be true from your frame of reference. Accepting that you now need to question the frames in where you find that electrical component. Does a purely magnetic 'field' have a propagating speed?

There seems to be a universal, although very weak, magnetic field existing in our universe, much in the same manner as the CBR.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/primordial-magnetic-field-may-pe.html

I will need to correct my spelling etc later. (Public computer)
« Last Edit: 20/01/2012 12:04:30 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #482 on: 23/01/2012 15:53:04 »
To me it is about time, and its arrow.

If 'time' can be described as a direction of sorts, paced out in even chunks, aka, by 'clocks'. And if those 'clocks' can be locally described from 'c', which I believe to be the right assumption. Then we all are geometrically 'displaced' relative each other. In fact I could go as far as to assume that you, as a person, also must be geometrically displaced (time dilated primary, possibly also Lorentz contracted). Your body cover quite some 'distance' in QM terms, and depending on your constituents (particles) relative motion and mass, also including gravity's variations acting on them, we must have time dilations. So, how do the particles creating your body 'compensate' for it?

But, there we have HUP too?

Am I weird enough :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #483 on: 04/02/2012 15:09:03 »
Just a short notice. I've seen some sources, amongst them a article in nature, expecting that GR can define 'universal positions' relative for example 'gravity'. That's not correct as I see it, GR defines all position relative your local ruler and local clock. That you can transform other frames of reference to 'making sense' relative your own is not the same as you can use their clock and ruler to describe your own position as defined by your ruler and clock.

And that's pretty important to define correctly. If you go out from an assumption that SpaceTime can be described as one thingie, using Lorentz transformations. Then you also, to me that is, invalidate Lorentz contractions and time dilations, more or less making into some sort of illusion. To do so you will need to find a way to redefine 'time' and more importantly its arrow. Also you must redefine what the muon sees as it moves towards Earths surface, finding a Lorentz contraction. I don't expect that to be possible, but I do think that you can use 'c', being a constant, and from there find a alternative description of what a SpaceTime might be. That is if you accept that your ruler and your clock defines what you see, and also that what you see is as 'real' as it can be, from your local viewpoint.

You have to differ between 'conceptual definitions' as a Lorentz transformation is, and your 'reality', as defined by your ruler and your clock.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2012 15:11:15 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #484 on: 07/02/2012 10:28:21 »
Inflation?
And that subsequent expansion we find, how does it fit?

One strong idea is the one about 'potential energy' and how it transforms in a inflation/expansion into, for example, dark energy/matter. Also the energy in such a scenario might be presumed to ‘move’ between the expansion and all other things we find, as particles. It builds on the concept of a ‘closed box’ naturally in where no ‘energy’ gets lost. Inflation and the later expansion make a lot of sense to me though. It explains and defines the CBR, as well as the main distribution of galaxies, also it explains the 'uniformity' we see in the universe. Against it you have the ideas of 'bad inflation' and what that might do for a universe. It would give us more galaxies, and inhabitable ones too. So, why didn't that happen? Roger Penrose made a study (1980) from thermo dynamics counting starting configurations of the universe in where he found no inflation to be the most probable outcome. George W Gibbons made a similar study 2008, reaching similar conclusions.

According to interpretations made from quantum mechanics (Andrei Linde) the inflation/expansion doesn't end at all, the expansion just keeps on accelerating, creating 'bubble universes', not necessary sharing the same 'constants'. Think of an unlimited sack in where you have two values existing. Depending on the count you make, and where you start and stop, you will get different results according to this. You might find a lot of 'A':s but few 'B':s making you believe that the ratio is 'skewed'. How will you know where to start and where to stop your count?

And from my view of locality? What would a 'inflation/expansion' become? That's a pretty convoluted question to answer. And defining light as non-propagating, although still presenting us macroscopically with its particle/wave duality (propagation)?

That's a really good question, as it seems to me? If both the ’arrow of time’ and the constant ’c’ is local expressions, and time as well as ’distance’ only can be directly defined from your local clock/ruler?

Then, what is a ’space/vacuum’?

(hope my spelling is correct here, public computer..)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #485 on: 12/02/2012 21:36:30 »
Weird, weirder and weirdest?
This is just thoughts.

Assume that we live on/in a two-dimensional reality. Or maybe a ‘brane’? Anyway, let’s call it a ‘sheet of information’. Everything that we are exist in this sheet. And everything that happens to us, all interactions we observe, are projected locally. Why it has to be locally is because the clock one use always will be a local definition, as well as ones ruler. We would all be local definitions, joined by radiation that locally always will be a constant ‘c’, no matter from where one measure it, or ones ‘speed’.. But as distances always must be locally defined the idea of it existing should be questioned. That means ‘length’ ‘width’ and ‘height’ is emergent qualities, although always the same locally, as defined by your clock and ruler. What I’m saying here is that your ruler according to you, as well as your ‘clock’, doesn’t lie. Whatever you do, wherever you go, it will to you have a same length, and duration.

Radiation is what joins us, and it being a constant tells us something.  To me it says that there is an emergence from locality into ‘universality’, creating both the distances, as well the ‘four dimensionality’ Einstein speaks of. In his view you can’t split those dimensions into singular ones, and accepting them as ‘emergences’ coming from locality he seems perfectly correct to me. Think of each of us as ‘focuses’, but forget the ‘sheet’ for this, as that implies those same ‘distances’ I don’t believe in anymore. Crazy, ain’t it? :)

We need a new definition for ‘dimensionless’, at the same time as we macroscopically find all those ‘laws’ and ‘rules’ defining distance, bosons, matter, propagation and ‘gravity’. Maybe our problem is that we automatically assume one 'joined SpaceTime’, defined locally per Einstein’s relativity. We already use dimension less particles as a mathematical standard, both bosons and fermions, we just need to take it a step further.

So, if everything is defined locally? Then that’s a beginning, then there is the radiation ‘c’ we use to define our ‘SpaceTime’, relative all other ‘frames of reference’. Lights speed in a vacuum that also is a (locally defined) constant. Then we have ‘distance’ ‘length width and height’ that somehow seems like a ‘byproduct’ of that same radiation to me, combined with the arrow of time. And if the arrow is ‘c’ (as I think about it) then it fits somehow. But, I don’t really believe in ‘world sheets’.

That as, to me, every definition we use seems to be created from what we see, but for something as basic as an ‘origin’ of it all? Maybe we all exist in one dimensionless ‘spot’, the rest becoming 'emergences', from added complexity as the arrow emerges locally and ‘split’ whatever that origin is into both QM and Relativity. And what would that make gravity?  An illusionary ‘force’? It all depends on how you look at it, doesn't it :) If you fall from a cliff it won’t be ‘illusionary’ at all, although, assuredly hurtful. What I name ‘emergences’ is then what we live under, and are steered by. So in that motto there’s nothing ‘illusionary’ about them. We also have the way a Lorentz  contraction is expected to work, only in direction of your relative motion, to consider for this. But what happens to that sideway placed rod as it reach infinitly close to ‘c’? Will it ‘disappear’, as it must contract over its width, even though not contracting over its length?

Yeah, thoughts, nothing more. I find Verlinde really interesting. He has written a paper I’m planning to read, (just downloaded from http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785) “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton” in where he seems to suggest some really interesting ideas. You should also read up on Jacob Bekenstein’s ideas, as well as Stephen Hawking. Then you have Gerardus 't Hooft and Leonard Susskind too, they shaped the first descriptions of a ‘holographic reality’, as well as another favorite of mine, Smolin. They seem all read able :)



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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #486 on: 13/02/2012 15:00:02 »
Well, I don't know if one can assume a two dimensionality, although it do make some sense. One of my eh, tenets perhaps, is that the three dimensionality we see inside our arrow is there from the beginning. Meaning that as, or perhaps, if, space do expand, which it to the best of my knowledge does, then the new 'space' that comes to be should be in three dimensions (or four, including 'time') from its very 'origin'. And I don't think you can split them, making all discussions about two-dimensional 'systems/thingies' inside SpaceTime slightly absurd to me.

But that doesn't rule out the possibility of it (SpaceTime) being a two-dimensional beast, using some holographic property to create the three(four) dimensional 'reality' we observe. It's as possible as the four dimensionality as long as the same rules adhere to it. That it emerges as a 'whole thing', not as singular dimensions 'glued' together.

Then we have black holes, entropy and gravity. Verlinde is very interesting but I still have some difficulties understanding how we can exchange what we see as 'the arrow' for entropy. To me entropy might be a direct result of us having a arrow, but does that makes it the absolute same? Maybe it does, but I'm not sure?

I do expect a arrow to exist, as well as something from where that arrow emerges. I call it 'Time' and 'the arrow of time', But what about entropy? Is that idea sufficient in itself? We don't need no 'origin'  for it? Only 'entropy'?

Read this and ponder.   

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #487 on: 19/02/2012 00:11:52 »
Let's look at QM from 'SpaceTime'.

SpaceTime is defined as a four dimensional continuum. So what happens when you 'scale' it down? Is there a scale where 'SpaceTime' disappear? Or is it so that 'SpaceTime' will follow us down to the scale (Planck) from where we can't measure anymore?

I think SpaceTime must exist to that point where we can't make sense of it anymore, aka, where physics 'breaks down'. That's also why I put importance to time dilations and Lorentz FitzGerald contractions, and so asks how 'particles' interact, becoming macroscopic phenomena, if they have those to consider? Which they have as I think of it, right down to Planck scale per my definitions.

SpaceTime is 'one thing' not really 'four'.



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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #488 on: 19/02/2012 19:44:08 »
And that takes us to HUP (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)

What is HUP?

Is it a statement about the impossibility to measure both momentum and position simultaneously? Or is it a statistical statement "about the standard deviations of momentum and position, not about individual measurements. Standard deviations are calculated from calculating the root mean square of many individual measurements. It says nothing about an individual measurement, indeed Jauch (1993) performs such a measurement that is much more precise than that would otherwise be indicated by HUP. Indeed, the rigorous HUP is not even a statement about simultaneous measurements."

There are also advocates for the interpretation that it is your measurement that derange the outcome. By measuring you always introduce something new into the system you want to observe (momentum). Interpreted that way all singular 'particles'  should have a exact momentum and position even when unknown, although destroyed in your measurement.

My own take is that HUP isn't about measurements disturbing a system, it's a basic assertion about that 'you can't know it all', to me saying that a particles momentum and simultaneous position indeed is a uncertainty, until measured.
=

What I mean there is that without a measurement both must be uncertain. Your choice of measurement will define one but not both, when done directly. All other definitions will use definitions assembled from the past, to me also called weak measurements.

And to take it a step further, if it's probability that defines what you expect to measure, then that too is built on past outcomes as I see it. That becomes a very strong argument for us having a 'now' and a 'past' where the probability of a 'future' then becomes a definition of past outcomes.

There is a difference there, you can't guarantee a outcome, other that statistically by probability. Which means that the 'future' indeed is uncertain. But you can use the 'past' to find its probability. And that is 'scales', meaning that the larger your 'system', the more certain the probability of what the 'past' tells you.

So, on a singular plane all may be uncertain, but read over a large assemble it?
==

Heisenberg formulated it (Chicago lectures 1930)

" "If the velocity of the electron is at first known, and the position then exactly measured, the position of the electron for times previous to the position measurement may be calculated. For these past times, δpδq is smaller than the usual bound. (Heisenberg 1930, p. 15)

Heisenberg continues : "the uncertainty relation does not hold for the past"."
« Last Edit: 19/02/2012 23:07:40 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #489 on: 19/02/2012 20:08:09 »
And that is 'time', and its arrow.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #490 on: 19/02/2012 22:57:22 »
Why does scaling up a 'system' make it more 'certain'? Is there border(s) from where quantum mechanical properties, probabilities and effects becomes what we observe as macroscopic reality? There should be as I think of it, although they might not express themselves so that we can see them. And, if we can't see them, does that mean that we are looking at it wrong?

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #491 on: 22/02/2012 18:29:18 »
So I'm wondering about 'fields' again, especially magnetic fields. That is, if you can find a magnetic field alone, without its electrical 'component' inside Einsteins SpaceTime? Also I'm wondering over 'probability' and indeterminism, as I want to explore my notion of light not propagating as far as I can. That idea isn't really new, but it's simple and I like simple. If you're interested in that, and 'emergences' maybe this is a good start? It's about Dirac and his 'Three Polarizers Experiment'.

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #492 on: 26/02/2012 23:10:38 »
As a mind game :)

In a uniform (relative) motion 'Space Times gravitational field' disappear locally. Although invariant mass still will 'bend SpaceTime' and give us 'gravity'. We use a description we call 'energy' that I primary see as descriptions of  'transformations'.  But also reminds of a description of the thought  'ground state' of any system, or universe for that sake. Let it then all transform into this 'ground state of energy', no invariant rest mass, aka matter, left in the universe..

Will there be gravity?
If not, is that (no gravity) then a equivalence to 'relative motion'?

It also has to do with the question of it being possible to define something as being 'at rest' relative something else. You can't assume that all is 'relative motion' as I see it. Because to assume any type of 'relative motion' you need a frame from where it 'materialize'. To state that all is 'relative motion' becomes a logical nightmare as you now define 'motion' without a beginning or reference frame.

What is needed for a universe to exist?
accelerations?

The arrow of time?

Alternatively, if 'relative (uniform) motion' always must be a local definition, do we really define it correctly?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #493 on: 26/02/2012 23:25:08 »
To see 'energy' one might consider 'bosons'. Some we can measure, others we can't (other than indirectly). We can induce that there should be something from experiments but there is no direct evidence other than the theoretical logical implications from what we see  happen in high energy collisions at, for example, CERN.

So there is a lot of 'unmeasurable bosons' around. Are they then 'pure energy'? like 'Photons' too maybe? Not as I think of it anyway. As they take on individual expressions none of them can be called 'energy', although they all may origin from the concept of 'energy'. And what about matter, isn't that too 'energy'?

So, 'energy'?

A 'ground state'? Or a description of transformations? Or both?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #494 on: 27/02/2012 00:38:20 »
It all goes back to one question.

What is 'reality'?

A locally defined phenomena, or something in where we all are 'seamlessly together'.

We think we are seamlessly together in 'one universe', but as I see it relativity questions it. Einstein used the fact that we could translate between different 'frames of reference' as a proof for a 'seamlessness' on a conceptual plane. I don't, I only use radiation, and I don't mean its speed. I use it purely as a constant, defining both a border as well as a 'reference frame' from where we get the idea of us being 'seamlessly together' in 'one universe'. And I lean to the idea of a static field, with the arrow of time becoming the illusion creating it. So 'constants', those are our borders. Of whatever shape you find them, as Feigenbaums constants for example. and using our idea of 'clocks' you can relate the constant 'c' to the most exact clock there is, always locally the same for you.

But then you have interactions, we all interact in so many ways. How can we do it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #495 on: 27/02/2012 00:55:05 »
Your clock, your ruler, your 'relative motion'.

Mine will differ from yours.

But if we meet, we will find ourselves to have the 'exact same time (clock) and ruler', at least if we're superimposed bosons :) So, distance is defined locally. But we can meet, which tell us that there must be 'distance' existing between us, but doesn't tell us if 'distance' is correctly defined. We grew up on a planet, we relate 'distance and clocks' relative that planet, and find it crudely to be the 'same' for us all. But if you use relativity, and locality, as your measure it's a conceptually 'plastic' definition. And then we have 'relative motion', which according to relativity will 'shrink' a distance with your 'speed/velocity'. So 'relative motion' as a locally phenomena defining a 'distance' too, but also as a true definition somehow existing between those locally defined 'frames of reference'. Then we have 'time dilations' that I expect to be consistent down to 'Plank scale', and if they are then we must have Lorentz FitzGerald contractions  too, as they seem a symmetry to me.

And that is confusing. If we are a 'static field' in where 'the arrow of time' creates the linearity we see in interactions, how do those allow for it?
« Last Edit: 27/02/2012 01:05:05 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #496 on: 29/02/2012 00:38:00 »
Bear with me here :)

A fractal. you can create a equation with an 'unknown', aka 'x'. Then you let it run with a first predefined number for 'x'. Then you lift in the outcome as the next 'x' , then let that reiterate, and lift in the product as the next 'x', ad infinitum. Voila, you got yourself a simple fractal. So each iteration creates the next, well, sort of. Could I call each product an 'emergence'?

What do we mean by an 'emergence'? Water becoming ice is a often used example of an 'emergence' due to the way its properties change as water freeze, or ice get heated. But imagine a 'field', that 'field' isn't doing anything by itself, 'motion' etc bears no meaning for it. Then use an 'arrow of time' to 'unfreeze' it.

That arrow is always a local phenomena although you, 'relatively moving', will find it to be the same wherever you go. So even though 'time dilations and Lorentz FitzGerald contractions' exist, they always must be a locally defined counterpart to your own, locally defined 'frame of reference' that in fact never change, no matter where you are or how fast (relatively speaking) you go.

That arrow gets its definition in 'locality', not in 'SpaceTime' as a unified 'universe'. So from a QM point of view you might say that the 'arrow' springs from each point, each particle, and express itself in 'change'. You might want to argue that the arrow must exist even where no discernible 'change' is found, but that could also be a question about what geometry you trust.

It's easier to define the arrow to 'changes', than to something not changing at all.

Free will contra predetermination.

In physics you meet this question, if one might assume that everything is preordained. But follow it to its end and see what you think. In its simplest clearest form such a notion mean that nothing you do is controlled by you. So, you 'change your mind'. No, you didn't, it's already preordained. So, science advance? No it doesn't, it's already preordained. So, there are things that are good, and there are things that are evil, some things are better than others. No there isn't. Evil and good then becomes equally meaningless descriptions, as there was no free choice in any situation.

Do you believe that.
« Last Edit: 29/02/2012 00:42:55 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #497 on: 29/02/2012 00:53:58 »
But then we have scales. Take thoughts for example.

How 'big' is a thought? Where do I place it, QM? Or is it a macroscopic phenomena?
With 'scales' things change. Indeterminism is something we define from QM, although variants of it exist macroscopically too. With a large assemble of data, I can find statistical correlations and trends, the larger the assemble, the easier to see.

But on that very small plane, indeterminacy is a very real phenomena. Probability use statistics to define outcomes. Those outcomes are very real, but on that 'individual' very small plane, indeterminacy is what rules.

So, what is 'free will', and, can we have both?
A predefined universe, and, 'free will'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #498 on: 04/03/2012 03:48:18 »
Okay, another weirdie I started to wonder about. Statistics..

somewhere I stated that both QM and relativity assumes an 'arrow of time', that as I expect it to be needed an order (causality chain) making it possible to define those statistic assumptions involving probabilities.

But then I started to wonder, what makes me so sure? Statistics is an assemble of data, you don't need it ordered in a past. present and future to see implications. Although statistics would fill no classical sense of 'logic' if so, in that if the arrow wasn't there then statistics wouldn't be able to make any 'predictions', as all ideas of a 'future' in where those predictions could be proven true wouldn't be definable.

So yes, on second thought. I think I could assume something without an arrow, containing a lot of data. But anyone 'reading' that data would automatically need an 'arrow of time' to do it in. Somehow this question also seems to connect to what indeterminacy and superpositions should be seen as?

A quantum computer needs to be read, without the 'observer' there can be no 'answers'.

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #499 on: 04/03/2012 04:12:17 »
Assume a SpaceTime of statistics, no arrow of time.

How would it look to you? Without the arrow it would all be there, some 'areas' should stand out as very certain, others would be more diffuse. As some still picture of a mountain chain with the tops representing the probability of outcomes, as seen classically. What would be needed for it to create the causality chains we observe? An arrow is one answer, but then you have the way nature order different systems, as particles becoming molecules, molecules becoming macroscopic dead and living matter.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."