[yor_on]

The point I try to make is that we all presume a arrow. All statistics must believe in that, otherwise there can be no logic to a 'history' or 'histories' proving a hypothesis. To me the question of this arrow is what best will represent it, as 'change' for example.

So I think the 'arrow of time' moves us forward, and does it equivalently so from a 'local' perspective. The next question then becomes what that makes of our ideas of 'motion' and 'propagation'?

If the arrow wasn't there?  Turn it around and wonder. If we had a field it would be static without a arrow, do you agree? No fluctuations in it.

[yor_on]

You can't put it to observer dependencies either. All observer dependencies involves two frames of reference, in where you measure the other using 'local time and ruler'. And they both involve 'change' as in a dynamic relation, depending on (relative) motion mass/gravity etc. So they too must hinge on a 'arrow of time' being involved allowing this to happen.

And if you use my definition of Planck scale as the correct minimalistic definition of one frame of reference, then..?

[yor_on]

To see my point better.

Consider if a frame of reference has its logical 'endpoint', locally at Planck scale?
If it has, where is the 'change' as defined by a local 'clock' and 'ruler' taking place?
The 'local clock' must then by definition relate to that scale.

And that must then become my 'arrow of time'.
Now tell me where the 'change' exist at that scale?

Then consider 'relative motion', as you observing something to change its position in our 3D environment.
That too must then be a description of a 'arrow' allowing it.
Just as you measuring a change in 'particles' interacting.

Both are descriptions of 'change', the first about 'motion', the second about interactions and transformations, but they are different. Both include the concept of a arrow, so where is it?

At Planck size locally? But with 'motion', as observed by you, existing as another 'degree of freedom'?
How can they coexist?

[yor_on]

Is there a way of collecting 'statistic evidence' without a arrow?
How?

To me such a situation, assuming that either it would be possible to arrange it 'linearly' as under a arrow of time, or, not possible at all to arrange as there is and can never be any arrow to it, either must become one similar to a quantum computer or something, second expression, I have no idea at all how to see?

To assume the first alternative, that there can be some mode in where we can ignore a arrow, builds on the expectation that this mode must be able to arrange linearly, as our normal experience shows us.

The second describes something where a arrow, as in 'arranging' outcomes and changes, never had a existence and never can be. What such a place would be like I can't imagine. We have a place where if the arrow is something different than what we think, still follow some principle allowing for statistics and probability of outcomes to exist. And what else is a arrow?

[yor_on]

Just a slightly weird thought..

How about energy and 'room time geometries'?
A higher energy compress the room time geometry?

Well, it does, but still?

(Rereading myself, it depends on where you are observing if one can call it a 'compression'. Think of a black hole as seen from outside (compressed) or inside (extended space) the event horizon (and all of it theoretically of course).

But it has to be a locally expressed and defined effect, as it makes no sense to me other wise as you can have all kind of masses getting the same effect if considered 'globally'. And how would you define a 'motion' from that perspective? It's as if all points were focuses for a whole SpaceTime, describing it differently depending on observer.

[yor_on]

But then you have uniform motion?

Does different uniform motion store different 'energies' into our SpaceTime?
Or are they truly equivalent?

Assume you see something, a planet with its sun, moving very fast, close to light as you measure it, but uniformly? Does that system have a greater impact on the 'warping of space' as a otherwise equivalent system, that you defined at a hundredth of that other systems speed?

Remember, they are both uniformly moving.

[yor_on]

And this. Consider a accelerating expansion, giving the observer a measurement in where he finds all object outside to accelerate away from his galaxy. Is there a energy involved in that acceleration?

In the objects apparent motion, as measured by you?
Can you disregard your measurements?

Maybe?

Myself I prefer direct measurements, not 'inferred' but so much of what physics do and is today is about deducing. We will never measure a Higgs boson, only infer that something 'was there'. In the end it all goes back to one question.

Is causality chains what makes it exist?
Or do we have other modes of 'reality' too?

People wants to ignore the arrow today, still they die
Relativity questions time, but not locally.
Only between frames of reference.

[yor_on]

I started wondering what makes a constant. We have 'c' which is a 'dimensional' constant, belonging to SpaceTimes dimensions and then we have 'dimension less' constants as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_number#Examples

Why I wonder is because if I assume that there is a 'ratio' between what I define as a distance and time for
some other frame of reference relative what some observer at that frame defines as mine, aka Lorentz transformations, could I interpret this as a 'constant' too?

Because there should be 'constants' describing SpaceTime, we could assume that they all change over time of course, but as you do you will also need to assume that there must be some over-binding non-changing constant defining those 'constants' relationships relative each other. Without such a one how do the dynamics balance each other? We have a 'stable SpaceTime' not a magical one in where things change from one moment to another. That chair you have will be a chair tomorrow too.

[yor_on]

I don't know really, but assuming that constants exist, and that they define balances between what we find to exist logically, spaciously and materially? And if we had some way of defining them as indisputable? Would they then represent the framework from where a SpaceTime can be constructed?

I presume that to be true. And then you have the Plank scale, defining a limit for the physics we know. And also the 'principle' of locality defining whatever 'objectivity' there can be in defining/finding 'repeatable experiments' as objective truths creating the platform from where we, experimentally, construct theories. The 'static' number space I use defining a SpaceTime, in my own thoughts that is has no 'dimensions'. The dimensions we find will all be represented by what relations and 'properties' different frames of reference has relative each other, if you see how I think there? And to me locality is what defines what 'objectivity' there can be.

[yor_on]

You see, even when assuming constants dynamically changing as a relation to a changing SpaceTime there should be some way to describe that relation in form of a unchanging constant. Either that or we need a new dynamic form of definition for how to describe a 'constant' in such a universe.

[yor_on]

To go back to different uniform motions, and their 'storing of energy' inside a SpaceTime. You can either assume that this is so and so also assume a 'whole SpaceTime', or you can assume that it is only in the relations meeting such a 'energy' will exist. Both ways assume frames of reference existing, although the first one differs in that it expect that what we see, looking out at the universe, is the exact same universe, no matter what 'time' or 'contractions' locally defined relative other frames. There is a subtle difference tough in the second example as it if you think of it stipulate that frames of reference exist, but doesn't state that we need a 'whole undifferentiated universe' for those to interact.

[yor_on]

As a byside The 2011 State of the Climate report. for those of us curious

And the actual report in low resolution pdf format.. 15 MB..   

[yor_on]

We can't 'measure' a vacuum. Not in the way we can measure a 'particle'. Although decays can't be the sole representation of 'change' as in what a 'arrow of time' might represent, as we have 'motion' etc we still have a 'number-space' in where there is a logic. Think of it as a field of led's, turning on and of, representing for example something moving. It's the geometry that needs to be understood and what makes it observer dependent.

There we have 'c'.

'c' is a constant, and local. If I stop envision a undivided SpaceTime and instead just work with what we have we have 'localities', definable down to Plank scale, each one containing a unique 'frame of reference' including the definition of distance as well as the local arrow of time, expressed through 'clocks' and 'rulers' of varying kind. Those localities (points), as there are as many as there are observers observing them, as in 'counting the amount' (observer dependent) all find a relation to all other 'points' through the mediation of radiation.

And radiation has two definitions, one is the recoil the other its annihilation. What else there might be between those two is not even assumptions to me, it's more of wanting to go back using a Newtonian world image with causality chains and action and reaction than anything revolutionary, and yes, it's called 'weak measurements'.

[yor_on]

Weak measurements will work of course, maybe not always but I expect it to give us a closer description of 'reality'. But what makes it work, as I think of it, is that SpaceTime has a logic, and as it has there will be 'chains' to be assumed, if you prefer the Newtonian concept. But you can as easily use a number space and then define some logic for it turning on and off 'points' depending on the relation it has relative all other points, or to simplify only those points that it 'interact' with as in having a relation too. But as all points are related, creating our SpaceTime as we look out, the first description is the more correct to me.

[yor_on]

Some of the ways those points relate to each other, as in entanglements ,should tell us how to relate to the idea of causality chains. A entanglement is 'instant', it's not restricted by distance or 'c'. But it is a relation relative its 'opposite'. In my imaginary number-space there is no distance and no motion but there is a logic defined through a arrow of time that, together with 'c', as they to me are complementary descriptions as defined earlier, will define the causality chains we observe. A entanglement must then become a expression outside those restrictions, and if it exist then it is wrong to assume that causality chains are what create a SpaceTime.

What creates a SpaceTime and what we see are different things.

[yor_on]

And all those 'unique points/frames of reference' are equivalent. The local time you have is mine too, as proven if superimposing our clocks and rulers (same frame of reference). But we still find a discrepancy in a Twin experiment where we theoretically can prove a time dilation. So what does that state about time? Or better expressed, what does it state about the room-time? Does it make the arrow illusionary? Nope, you aged, I aged, even though us finding a different age when meeting up again. But none of us found time to behave differently locally.

So what did we introduce making this possible?
Motion.

And as uniform accelrations then is equivalent to mass (GR), as tested and found in measuring gravitational time dilations by NIST.

What is motion?
And mass?

In what way do mass represent 'motion'?

[yor_on]

Thought I had finished this stuff but? Maybe not.
Let's wonder about gravity. Gravitons? Higgs bosons? Or a distorted space (GR)?

Or what combination of the above?

In a numberspace the only requirement I can see for anything resembling 'gravity' is that it has a logic. I don't need it to become a 'force' do I? Why do we still think of everything as involving forces? Well, maybe in a way we have them, as some sort of circular reasoning but Einsteins universe is as far as I see observer dependent. And what do that make of a 'force'?

What sort of gravitons are observer dependent, or Higgs bosons?

It's like the difference between SR and GR. GR speaks of SpaceTime as it is, although still keeping to what we 'know' from birth, looking out on a 'indivisible universe, same for us all'. But that's just not correct to me. The universe Einstein describes isn't 'indivisible', it's very much divisible, although still coherent in that what we see is the 'same' adjusting for our frame of reference, meaning 'where I am'.

Seems to me we have a really hard time letting go here.

[yor_on]

The point all seems to avoid is questioning 'c'. Get me right here though, I'm not talking about 'variable speeds' . That's just people wanting to avoid the universe Einstein describes and as I expect would destroy most of the subsequent theories existing if proofed, including QM. To my eyes the question should be 'Why can 'c' exist'? What type of universe demands 'frames of reference'?
=

Maybe 'destroy' is too hard a sentence, but it would certainly force everyone to reconsider all mediating of photons and change their calculations/ideas accordingly.

[yor_on]

'Forces' and 'virtual photons' seems to me to be very close together. Indeterminacy fits my number space much better though. I like the idea of statistics, what I don't like is the way we have of trying to fit everything into our preconceptions.

[yor_on]

There are two ways this universe present a 'coherence' to me. One is the way we can find a balance between 'frames of reference', aka Lorentz transformations, translating my universe to yours.

The other is 'locality' in where your local ruler and time never vary to you.
Then we have the mediation by radiation, making all this possible, being a 'constant'.

If you relate the arrow to 'c' it becomes very easy to see why your 'time' is unvarying.
When it comes to the ruler you have to look at what is a minimalistic definition of a 'frame of reference'.

And there we have Planck scale, defined as where light take one step in one 'time'. It makes a lot of sense to me to use that definition as a minimalistic 'frame of reference'. Then you introduce time dilations and LorentzFitzGerald contractions for those minimalistic frames of reference.

It expects you to accept Relativity as a true description of course.