An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2911 Replies
  • 293315 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #650 on: 08/02/2013 19:53:22 »
If it has no arrow, then it is wrong to expect it to intrinsically fit what we define as its properties, including a speed. Those properties are a effect of the limitations we meet, and how we measure, inside a arrow. When you measure a speed, you first define a way to measure a length and then a way to measure something moving that length, using a clock. The clock is arbitrarily defined into even chunks of 'time'.

But without a clock there can be no distance, you need both existing for you to be able to measure. If a photon is timeless intrinsically it will not propagate, as we define it, not from a local point of view. And that is what I wonder about, locality and measurements.
==

Assume it is a 'field'.
Why does it have excitations?
And what makes it ordered so that we experience our arrow of time?

Could you assume a constant excitation, with only those creating our 'room and arrow' perceivable by us?
(And that was presumably the weirdest thought I have today :)

Maybe a better way to put it is, how does something intrinsically timeless create a SpaceTime?
« Last Edit: 08/02/2013 20:06:46 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #651 on: 08/02/2013 20:21:33 »
There is a difference to photons versus waves if you think of it this way. A photon is a 'dot', a wave is something with a length, and heights/troughs. The first one is 'dimension less', but a wave needs our three degrees of freedom to be described (the room). Both though needs a arrow to become a 'outcome'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #652 on: 08/02/2013 20:50:36 »
What would you call a wave, two dimensional? Then you have a charge moving, it creates a electric and a magnetic field, perpendicular to each other, as observed by some 'inertial observer', standing still relative its 'motion'. That field needs three dimensions to be described classically. Although there seem to be ideas and equations assuming it to be possible to describe with fewer dimensions, it's not what we see. The forces act out from the charge in a three dimensional way, it's two vectors, not a scalar and a vector, so although you can reduct it mathematically it then becomes a description of something 'not here' as I think of it.

(A two dimensional lattice is a lattice in where you can ignore the third dimension as it have no direct influence on your measurements, as I understands it. That does not state that the third dimension have disappeared. It's used to describe graphene lattices for example)
« Last Edit: 08/02/2013 20:55:50 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #653 on: 08/02/2013 21:15:58 »
We live in a three dimensional world, every time you hug someone you can get that confirmed :) but the dimensions, including the fourth (the arrow) are also the 'degrees of freedom' that things can 'move in'. It's from that world we find a photon to have a 'speed', and it's from that world we find its 'timelessness' experimentally, primary through astronomical observations as I think.

Its timelessness depends then from where we stand, looking at it. Or you can turn that one around, we are the ones finding time to play a part for defining it, as in our 'arrow of time'.

So is the arrow an illusion?
It can't be for us, it's part of evolution and entropy. Both assumes arrows.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #654 on: 08/02/2013 21:25:45 »
One nice way to define it would be to give time some imaginary magnitude, from null as in a photon, to ??
But that is not how we perceive time locally. You moving relativistically will still find your clock and ruler to 'behave as always'. And any experiment you can do will verify that you're 'locally correct' thinking so. Imagining 'densities' of different 'time clouds' depending on where you are, or do, is not correct. Not if you accept that the only way we can verify 'reality' is by repeatable experiments confirming, and joining, our observations into one reality.
==

There is another simple argument against it. Your (local) measurement of some other 'frame of references' time depends on velocity/speed. So you changing your speed must find the 'other persons' to age differently. You can assume three observers having three speeds, relative one earth they all measure, getting three definitions of the 'aging' involved there. All of them originating at that earth, all of them returning to it in their life times. For simplicity we can assume that they left together, and arrive back together.

Are all three right?

As far as I understands it they are :)
So how would one earth have three different 'agings', simultaneously?

Earth, loosely defined as being in one 'frame of reference' have only one 'aging' locally, same for all involved, instead the people returning will find themselves to have aged differently relative that. And relative each other.

But no one found their 'time' to change locally, as experimentally verified.
« Last Edit: 08/02/2013 21:53:18 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #655 on: 08/02/2013 22:18:40 »
And all of this comes from one fact, as I see it at least. That 'c' exist. Or better expressed, is a 'constant', defining what 'time' is. And you can split 'c' down to Plank scale, getting those smallest, physically imaginable, even chunks of 'time'. But can you pass that scale? The arrow should scaling-wise end there as I expect. I'm not sure about 'time' though. As a wave in a medium, the arrow seems split-able into smaller and smaller parts, just as you can magnify that wave into smaller and smaller parts, but I think it breaks down at Plank scale. From there it seems to become meaningless trying to define smaller 'bits' of a 'speed' physically.

If this is true then the arrow needs us to exist :) All of us, and the room we exist in.
And 'time'? Is nothing we can define, maybe we can call it 'timelessness', but there needs to be something from where the arrow can emerge. That very small place is in a way the very place the Big Bang might have came from too. And in Einsteins world the universe needs to be four-dimensional, you can't just pick out time and treat it as something not existing, because then you left SpaceTime.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #656 on: 20/02/2013 09:39:34 »
Okay, how about this :)

If I relate 'c' to the arrow, then define it such as becoming a unchanging value locally, able to superimpose all frames of reference into one single frame, all frames becoming equal locally.

Then I might imagine the arrow as a constant unchanging value, introducing relative motion, accelerations and 'forces'. To do that I imagine something otherwise static, also assuming some more degree of freedom allowing us different descriptions of forces and motion, as described from our local measurements.

We have one degree of freedom in 'c' being 'c', no matter where you measure it locally. And I'm including accelerations in this, assuming that they are explained through Einsteins equivalence principle. Because to make it work we need 'c' to be a constant as I expect.

Then 'c' is a description of a arrow that you can cut into slices, each slice defined from locality, and each slice static. But you need something more to make it work. Assume that each point in each slice have a theoretically same value. Meaning that although I may measure that point differently than you, its 'intrinsic' value is unchanging from some theoretical standpoint.

At the same time as all points will be found to be the same, if joined, they present us with different value(s) when comparing points, as measured from locally done experiments.

You need something explaining why. What would be 'motion' in such a scenario?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #657 on: 20/02/2013 09:42:15 »
Isn't that a really weird property?

'c' being 'c' everywhere?
Does that tell you that our classical descriptions of motion is correct.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #658 on: 20/02/2013 09:53:56 »
If you go out from a strictly local perspective the degree of freedom seems like a cone, widening as you compare your point of reference to others. Like cones beside cones, beside cones, making up one single 'frozen' slice of SpaceTime, or a multitude of SpaceTimes, all joined through the 'force carriers' light becomes. Cones are not a good description in that it assumes a arrow, but it still feels as a working description to me. Maybe you could assign it some other value though, or degree of freedom?

What would make a lot of SpaceTimes into one?
'c'?
=

You might think of those cones as having a temporal direction though, then also imagine that each instant still being 'frozen'. One way of defining it could be from a perspective in where everything that is, and ever will come to be, already in some way exist, outside our limitations. Then the arrow (constantly same locally) would describe our journey through that static reality.

What that seems to imply to me is then that, as we all define reality differently according to relativity (and so locality), the degrees of freedom needed for such a perspective is all points ever existing, through it all.
« Last Edit: 20/02/2013 10:16:01 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #659 on: 26/02/2013 08:50:20 »
heh, I keep on writing, some of it just plain wrong, most probably. A wave is one dimensional according to the 'paper definition' in where you can see a wave as only needing one dimension, even though it has troughs and heights. But to me that wave, if it has the freedom to move in any way dissimilar to 'point like' feels more as something two dimensional. and it all goes back to what a dimension or degree of freedom should be seen as. I would call one dimensionality 'point like' as a photon, and as wave is depicted as well, a wave? It has more degrees of freedom than our point particle. I would not use a paper to describe it, instead I would look at what we believe it can do.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #660 on: 26/02/2013 08:56:01 »
We have four dimensions defined, and we all agree on them existing in our ordinary world. What if :) those dimensions all are 'point like' originally? But defined through a arrow we find them describing both photons and waves. A puzzle of dots, arranging themselves through a temporal arrow into what we observe.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #661 on: 26/02/2013 09:01:01 »
And as it is the temporal existence that defines what we see, it leaves you free to arrange experiments proving both concepts. And our free will actually existing from that very small planes uncertainty principle. Free will would then be a macroscopic redefinition of HUP, which I kind of like as I do think free will exist. You can have both, eat the cake and leave it, but only before a outcome.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #662 on: 26/02/2013 09:22:19 »
This kind of thinking leave us all in a constant super position, with our 'will' defining what outcomes will be. But particles don't have 'free will' do they? No, but they got two (three?) other things going for them. They got HUP, and they got 'interactions', also introducing 'frames of reference'. Interactions are the cage from where the probabilities come, super positions is the state existing before those interactions, and frame of references are what we measure.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #663 on: 26/02/2013 09:38:39 »
It's impossible to define a interaction without using some sort of arrow. So, as I see it, before the interaction there must be a arrow. A interaction must also be a series of 'outcomes' constantly emerging, just like splitting 'c' into some smallest parts, to then define/find a mathematical limit of what we can expect to observe.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #664 on: 26/02/2013 09:53:48 »
If you look at a 'arrow' from that point of view, it becomes something of a plane, constantly emerging through outcomes, like rings on the water. That plane is 'now' constantly, but we never experience that 'now' consciously although all particles defined exist in it. We have memories and histories over the 'past' defining what outcomes came to be, but they are not set in stone :) or if you like, 'logic' definitions explaining what we observe. And that sounds pretty weird don't it? But I think it eh, almost might :) be true, the past will be redefined from where we are depending on what and how we measure, and track your logic into the history of whatever phenomena we want to prove. A temporal plane lightening us up is what exists, and it 'moves' through 'outcomes'.

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

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #665 on: 26/02/2013 10:05:45 »
And that temporal plane is locally defined as unchanging, having a same rhythm, or 'local clock' at all 'times' in my view. It defines your existence, and you using it with those other three degrees of freedom will find a very centric view of reality. 'Rings on the water' is how I look at it, but it is still a static phenomena to me, as it is possible to freeze it at any instant imaginatively. Every point creating its own 'rings', or 'reality' interacting through what we call 'c', and those other constants we might define. Constants are really tricky to define, as they in a way is the 'delimiters' of our existence. Your life may be locally defined, as well as what you measure, but 'constants' are something else. They are 'objectives' in a ideal sense, something 'objectively true', if correctly found and defined. Which makes them more weird than me I think :) And so hard to define.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #667 on: 26/02/2013 10:56:43 »
There is a point to 'constants' that I really find enlightening. And it has to do with fractals too. It's not what you see but what orders it. Take a look at Feigenbaums constant, and those 'strange attractors' that orders physical phenomena. Let us assume that they exist. Are they then allowed a 'dimension'? I think they are, they represent some degree of freedom(s) that we indeed can measure indirectly but have no ordinary 'room' for, at least as I can see?

Does that mean that they don't exist?
They exist to me.

"Conformal dynamics of fractal growth patterns without randomness.

Many models of fractal growth patterns (such as diffusion limited aggregation and dielectric breakdown models) combine complex geometry with randomness; this double difficulty is a stumbling block to their elucidation. In this paper we introduce a wide class of fractal growth models with highly complex geometry but without any randomness in their growth rules. The models are defined in terms of deterministic itineraries of iterated conformal maps, generating the function Phi((n))(omega) which maps the exterior of the unit circle to the exterior of an n-particle growing aggregate. The complexity of the evolving interfaces is fully contained in the deterministic dynamics of the conformal map Phi((n))(omega). We focus attention on a class of growth models in which the itinerary is quasiperiodic. Such itineraries can be approached via a series of rational approximants. The analytic power gained is used to introduce a scaling theory of the fractal growth patterns and to identify the exponent that determines the fractal dimension."

From 2. Davidovitch B, Feigenbaum MJ, Hentschel HGE, Prscaccia I   Conformal dynamics of fractal growth patterns without randomness.   PHYS REV E 2000 AUG;62(2):1706-1715

and

" Mitchell Feigenbaum
Toyota Professor

Attempts at the analytical description of nature regularly encounter strong nonlinearities. The majority of existing methods treat only weak nonlinearities and consist of corrections to behaviors that are simple distortions of linear behavior. The methods in the strong case, on the other hand, are largely recent developments and pertain to behaviors qualitatively distinct from linear ones. One of the most striking such behaviors is the appearance of highly erratic spatial configurations and/or highly erratic temporal evolution, a phenomenon called "chaos."

The hallmark of chaotic motion is a lack of predictability despite the total absence of any random ingredients. Even if one should want to determine just statistical properties of these motions, the methods of statistics cannot be applied in any straightforward manner. This impediment is a consequence of the fact that the motion, rather than exploring all possibilities allowed to it by the constraints of finite energy, finite resources, etc., instead lies in a highly complicated subspace -- a so-called strange set or strange attractor. Thus an a priori calculated average over "everything" will generally produce erroneous results.

Since the equations of motion of an object usually can be cast in a form that is indifferent to where the origin of time is taken, one encounters a process that repeatedly applies the same rule to whatever happens to be there at a given moment. It also often transpires that these rules are "scale invariant," so that what the rule evolves from a given size detail is loosely proportional to that size. In consequence of those two observations, the strange sets encountered in chaotic dynamics can be amenable to a treatment that hierarchically, by rules of scaling, builds up more highly complicated details from those less so. Generically, such objects are called fractals. The method that treats them is termed "renormalization" from which it is to be inferred that after applying a scaling-down rule followed by readjustment of the overall size successively, a definite but highly complicated object continually reemerges.

It is the main effort of this laboratory to extend the scope of the problems over which these methods hold sway, to extend the methods themselves developing appropriate mathematics, and to improve the methods for extracting such information from actual experimental studies ranging from fluids to brains."
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #668 on: 26/02/2013 11:22:57 »
There is a really big difference though, between 'strange attractors' and 'weak experiments' (to me that is:). Weak experiments trying to prove a propagation, aka physically existing 'path' of photons for example, are to me hypothesis's at best. Strange attractors exist.
=

What I mean is that you can find Strange attractors physically measuring. In that manner they are a part of your reality. The 'path' of a photon though, is a reasoning building on the assumption that Newtonian world image must be correct, therefore photons must have a 'physically real path/trajectory".

There is a world of difference between those reasonings, and from where they go out, although they both becomes theoretical expectations/descriptions of a 'reality'.
« Last Edit: 26/02/2013 11:35:22 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #669 on: 06/03/2013 13:13:03 »
I want to go back to time and its arrow, because that what's really confounding me. I can't see any universe with ordered sequences existing without it. But then we have the idea of 'superpositions' to consider too. They imply another 'order' in where it all exist shoulder by shoulder, simultaneously. And if we accept superpositions and a arrow as 'co-existing', then methinks we have the best of both worlds :)

And what differs them?

Scales definitely do, as the smaller your scale, the more indeterministic things seem to become.
Amount interacting? I think that's part of it too. And there you need to consider what does the information (force carriers), and what restrictions define them? This one is important, more important than you might believe.

'Forces'? They exist, don't they?
Well, I think they do, but I also think that they go out from the very small local 'invariance/constants', becoming that strangely defined 'locality' we all exist through in my thoughts. And what we see comes from ..

'Emergences'? Nothing weird about that one, as long as you consider it from temperatures, which then ultimately must become a question about 'energy'.

But think of it as points, each point creating a unique universe, measurably so. Now, where is your 'reality'? Does it go out from you, or is it a collection of 'histories' over local universes, all translatable to each other? On a lighter tone, we're all egoists :) but we all also want to communicate, and tell each other about the way we perceive things, and what we think is the 'most important things in life', don't we?

So communication defines our position in space and time. And there we had the 'force carriers' again. Or as I think, the ultimate constant. 'c'.

Crack that one, and the universe, and physics, will change.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #670 on: 06/03/2013 13:33:32 »
What I mean with 'forces' is that they are mirrors of 'frames of reference' interacting, and a 'frame of reference', as a point in space and time, should have a scale. That scale should be Planck scale to me? And 'under that' we have 'indeterminism' as I expect, and no 'universe' defined either. The one about all 'forces becoming frames of reference interacting is tricky though, and I'm not sure how it should come to be.

But the arrow defines outcomes, not outcomes defining a arrow. You need a arrow to assume a outcome. To assume a outcome to become the arrow, is to me as looking back over histories. But I can't see how a outcome ever can come to be without arrow preexisting, giving it a temporal direction. If you know how that outcome can come to be without a ordered sequence to it though, you might convince me :)

And probability does not cut the meat there.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #671 on: 06/03/2013 13:43:37 »
Because if you consider frames of reference from locality I expect them to be a sort of 'constants', all of them able to superimpose into a same definition of room and time. So what 'frame of reference' would then interact with the 'locally same' points? You need some matrix, lattice, whatever, defining the room, as well as a arrow, and then also define the difference of measurements relative comparing different points.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #672 on: 06/03/2013 13:58:57 »
Think of uniform motion from my point of view, and how you can't measure any difference in energy locally. It's a slippery subject in that we have no clear definition of what 'locally' should mean here, but we can consider it as you measuring some atom vibrating in your laboratory. If the universe we see is description of points interacting then the 'energy' changing locally, in your measurement, only should be able to come to be in a acceleration, as I think. Because the other points you see, and define yourself relative, as well as them relative you, are separated. And what communicates between them are under local definitions.
==

Meaning that you can't measure directly, other than from those local definitions.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #673 on: 06/03/2013 14:10:03 »
We could define it such as different uniform motions exist.
A 'frame of reference' in this motto would then be you, being at rest with your laboratory.
Now accelerating it will introduce local changes in all points making you and your laboratory up.
Comparing your former uniform motion to the 'new' you expect to exist, and measurably can prove relative points not being 'at rest' with you and your laboratory, is illusionary though.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #674 on: 06/03/2013 14:17:10 »
Think it through.

I'm not contradicting myself, even though it seems I am :)
Different uniform motions exist, and you can prove it astronomically.
But, that is between frames not being at rest with each other.

Locally though, all uniform motions are the same.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #675 on: 06/03/2013 14:22:01 »
From a quantum reference I would define a 'frame of reference' as a point defined through four dimensions. The time and location in three degrees of freedom (all locally defined.)

From a point of discussing macroscopic phenomena we instead can use being 'at rest' with something.
=

Or maybe both are acceptable in both perspectives? The 'difference' being that from a quantum perspective each point becomes its own definition having a relation to each other point that will change in a acceleration. Not the points themselves, but their relation relative each other. And that craves a 'room' or some similar proposition. But you could also express it as those points aren't 'at rest' with each other, while accelerating. So yes, 'at rest' do work there too.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2013 14:28:26 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #676 on: 06/03/2013 14:46:43 »
Because that is close to how I feel 'motion' should be described. As existing in two separate definitions.
Uniform motion being locally illusionary, existing differently (as speeds) when compared, at rest.
Accelerations as something changing relations between 'points' locally, not being at rest under it.
=

But if it is so, what then would 'motion' be?
We need a room to define and experience it as both being 'the same'. But they don't seem to be, to me. although you can place them under one umbrella, they are locally very different.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #677 on: 06/03/2013 14:55:17 »
The room we see, what makes it?
Space and matter, you need both. Depending on how to see it you might consider it as a 'box' in where we have energy densities, some touch able, others not. Or from my slightly weird view, something created through mass, using gravity. In my view all points are, in a way, the same. And what we define as their locations are the restrictions 'c' place on us, as well as other constants presumably. In Einsteins view I don't think you can split the arrow from the room, and he's right. The room and the time are one and the same.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #678 on: 06/03/2013 15:05:44 »
Can you see how it might work from my point of view? You accelerating, changing all points relative each other, in your ship. From a looser definition though still being comparatively 'at rest' with each other, and all those points redefining all other points outside that ship, from distance to 'energy' and 'time'. And if the room and time you measure for other points are defined through your local clock and ruler, at rest with you. Then time and the room are the same, they are in a set relation to each other, invariant locally, redefining the universe you measure. But it does not cost 'energy', other than the locally expended for the acceleration.
=

But the room is one slippery bas*'d. Particles need room. Boson's don't :)
Locally we all reserve a place, as matter. So how can your measurements tell you that the 'room' shrunk? It consists of matter too, as well as space.

That takes us to what 'degrees of freedom' means. You can use the 'box' and define dimensions inside it, measuring. Or you can use locality and question what makes a 'box'.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2013 15:13:37 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #679 on: 06/03/2013 15:31:54 »
But if we give each point, let's say four values. A time, and a location in three dimensions, and then consider all points being equivalent, as in superimposing them. How big does a universe needs to be? In a way it's about time to me, as a flood, sweeping it all with it. Time defines distance. You don't need a ruler for that even though it is very handy when defining speeds. There is no way you can misunderstand the time it takes for you to locally traverse some distance, although you might put into different 'segments' describing it.

But particles still need a room. And you can redefine room and time when accelerating, and as far as I know? Those redefinitions will stay when you stop that acceleration, to subsequently (uniformly) coast away.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #680 on: 06/03/2013 16:38:03 »
But it is very strange. Imagine a box in where we have two descriptions.
Uniform motion, being illusionary locally described.
Accelerations, being 'real' locally described.

We always needing two different frames, not at rest relative each other, to find a energy when discussing uniform motion. But also finding that uniform motions can shrink the universe, locally defined.

What shrinks a universe differently, as described relative different uniform motions? And if all uniform motions are equivalent, or illusionary, why does the universe differ between them?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #681 on: 06/03/2013 16:46:24 »
It can't be energy, not as I can imagine it any way? It don't seem to have to do with energy transformations at all in fact. At least not from the point of you shrinking a whole universe by choosing a different uniform motion? And the time you measure other frames to have must differ too, depending on that motion. Take away all other objects, keep yourself, are you moving? You will know a acceleration, assuming it has to do with points not being able to stay 'at rest' with each other, but in a uniform motion they will be 'at rest'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #682 on: 06/03/2013 17:12:15 »
So we have four dimensions defined, and then we have motion. Motion becoming and describing interactions, splittable into uniform motion and acceleration. Uniform motion existing without cost, accelerations always costing. Why can't we define a energy to uniform motion locally? If the universe is a 'box', containing us, having a finite energy content, then uniform motions must be assigned different costs too. Otherwise I see no explanation for why we find different energies released in a collision?

But if all uniform motion are found equivalent, locally measured, you then need to define that energy to some other location than the objects moving. And that should be the stress energy tensors definitions.

Assuming it from locality, and not relating it to a 'box' at all, the definitions becomes slightly different. Then all uniform motion can be equivalent, and motion is ill defined from the beginning, not by Einsteins thoughts, but by assumptions grounded on how we have observed it locally from Earth, from the beginning of dawn, as they say :)

Einstein wanted realism before all, and he wanted the universe to be what we saw. One big place in where everything that is co-exist. Locality agrees on that what we see is what we get, but it uses the local invariants, or constants, to define what it is we see. And if you use them motion becomes so weird, both types do. And 'dimensions' becomes ill defined too, as they too goes out from a archetype of one big undifferentiated universe, same for us all. Instead the only anchor-points for a objective reality becomes local, or being 'at rest' with something, which in some strange way becomes the same from locality's view.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #683 on: 06/03/2013 17:30:46 »
And the really tricky thing about that 'local' realism is that what it describes is not what you see. Because as soon as you measure, you should be introducing another frame of reference, relative you and your detector. Can you see how I think there? You can't really measure strictly locally, although, if you can define it as being 'at rest' with what you measure it is a 'local description/measurement', possibly? Because the constants, as 'c', are in reality made through observations between 'frames of reference'.

Although it is those very constants that are the 'objective reality' that define each point in 'locality'. Meaning 'c', and a arrow defined through invariant even chunks of 'time', described by splitting 'c'. And those are the same in each point. And when it comes to 'distance' that by definition (of 'c') becomes just as invariant locally.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2013 00:12:53 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #684 on: 07/03/2013 00:32:29 »
Being at rest, versus accelerations. One free of costs, the other costing. One where all motions locally becomes equivalent, the other always noticeable locally. Uniform motion becoming a equilibrium, accelerations being what disturb the balance. Life consist of accelerations, as I suspect :) in a very wide meaning. Every time there is a transformation there should be a acceleration involved. Or can you see some part of the universe not fitting such a description? So, accelerations is about the arrow, but uniform motion?

That depends on if you think a uniform motion really exist. We use frames of reference to define those, but without a frame to compare it too, it disappear to me.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #685 on: 07/03/2013 00:53:14 »
There seems to be a balance to it though, a dynamic equilibrium sort of. We being somewhere in the 'middle' of a room-time geometry, where the parameters for both room and time, as defined from your local reality, dynamically adjust for accelerations/mass and uniform motions.

I could assume that as different uniform motions treat other frames of reference differently, as blue shifting light when moving uniformly close to light, there should be a local difference between different uniform motions, But I can't find it? Except, when measuring between frames of reference.

It's about reality, and the way we do measurements. We do them locally, then we theorize about why they act as they do. But if locality's measurements are what defines your life, do they lie? How should I define reality if I won't accept what the measurements tell me?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #686 on: 07/03/2013 01:12:51 »
Does a uniform motion blue shift light? Does the light on Earth blue shift due to any 'motion' defined relative some other heavenly body? Inside a 'black box scenario' the light from a light bulb (uniform motion) will be the same locally, doesn't matter how fast you define that box as moving. But when it comes to relative motion the light from other suns will both blue and red shift, depending on the direction relative those. We call very distant stars 'fixed stars', meaning that they are too far away for observing any 'motion'.

Uniform motions do not blue shift light locally, also described as that light-bulb being 'at rest' with your detector, enclosed in that 'black box'. Accelerations do it though, as well as red shifting it, again depending on from where you measure relative that light bulb, and the overall direction of your box. Meaning you are free to define a motion, or a 'gravity', depending on choice, inside that (uniformly) accelerating black box.

Mass also blue shift light, but does it equivalently over its whole surface, like on Earth. Meaning that there is no 'red shift' existing, depending on acceleration defined to some direction. Or if you want to describe mass as a acceleration (motion) then it should accelerate inward toward some center, equivalently, this assuming a perfect sphere without tidal influences. Better include a 'flat space' (no other 'gravity' existing) for it too :)
=

Now, if a acceleration is gravity, where in that 'black box' does it come from. After all, gravity is a preferred direction to me. Does it come from the end where you find light to be red shifted, or from the end where you find light to blue shift?

The blue shift defines the origin, don't you agree? And energy?
Is energy mass?

This one is easy to see if you think of light as waves, stretching or compressing relative you, depending on your motion relative that lights origin. But you can discuss it in form of photons too, and photons are not waves. They do not stretch, or compress, as far as I know. Inside that black box you either 'rush forward' to meet the light originating from the light-bulb, or constantly accelerate away from it (becoming a red shift)

But in a uniform motion there is no such thing definable?
Why?

If it now is a motion?
« Last Edit: 07/03/2013 01:36:04 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #687 on: 07/03/2013 01:51:43 »
How will you know your speed inside a black box? You will know it through the acceleration, as you will observe 'gravity', as well as 'blue/red shifts', depending on where you are relative that light bulb. But as soon as we have a uniform motion that definition disappear. Let us assume that there is a scale for the local blue shift, depending on acceleration. Let us define it such as (ignoring local gravity for the moment) 'distance' has no meaning for you inside the black box, there are no windows, and no way to measure what's outside it.

So forget distance, instead we need to define how we will know that we're close to 'c'.
How will we know?
« Last Edit: 07/03/2013 02:04:01 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #688 on: 07/03/2013 02:07:47 »
A 'infinite' blue shift, but depending on where you are, but observed from the other side of the light bulb?
A 'infinite' red shift?

And if we look at it as a energy distribution then?
Which side of the light bulb has the most 'energy'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #689 on: 07/03/2013 02:19:28 »
Then we look at uniform motion, and imagine a same scenario.

No blue shift, and no red shift. You can accelerate how much you like, you can through your acceleration define it to be very close to 'c'. But your subsequent uniform motion will not confirm it, inside that shielded black box the light will be 'as always'. and the energy distribution inside that room should be equivalent through all any direction measured, as I think.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #690 on: 07/03/2013 02:24:14 »
And there is one part more to it :) as always.

Would you define yourself to be at rest with the light bulb in both scenarios?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #691 on: 07/03/2013 02:32:49 »
From where I stand a uniform motion must be being 'at rest'. But a acceleration? Even though you can define it as you having a set distance to that light bulb and so be 'at rest' with it, it still seems to do things to you and your environment, aka particles. It's two definitions inside each other to me. The one macroscopic being 'at rest', but the one describing particles relations to each other, and 'energy', in a acceleration not being 'at rest' at all.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #692 on: 07/03/2013 09:27:37 »
The normal definition of something being at rest with something else don't discuss this, and it took me some time to realize that it primary considered itself with a geometric definition of what being 'at rest' meant. You being enclosed are indeed 'at rest' with that black box. But then we have quantum physics and small scales, and we have 'frames of reference'.

A frame of reference is a tricky definition to me, it's about you measuring some other point in space and time, using your clock and ruler. But there is nothing stating where one frame start and another one ends, as far as I can see it's more a question about what your definitions are. You as I believe that Planck scale is about 'constants'? Then you may use that as a definition. You want it to be about a geometric expression, as a black box, then that is correct too.

Whereas the first contain two frames, defined as one plank length as described relative another, or maybe one atom described relative another, a black box contains a multitude of atoms. In the one using a macroscopic black box we don't concern ourself with descriptions of how atoms might redefine themselves relative other atoms, but maybe we should?

Frames of reference is what Relativity is about, and from that small scale I would expect all accelerations to redefine any and all particles relations visavi the others, add infinitum. Or would you expect it to be otherwise? I take frames of reference very seriously (which is a odd thing to state :)

So, from my point of view then. First you need to come to grip with what you expect to be a smallest meaningful frame of reference. Then you need to find the same for a smallest meaningful description of lights propagation. Those two (clock and ruler) involved gives you also the smallest length of a segment of 'time' as well as 'length'. Then you need to ask yourself what that should mean from relativity's geometrical descriptions of macroscopic black boxes.

Because 'black boxes' are very powerful instruments for juggling ideas. Ideal definitions of something isolated, a 'perfect system' if you like. The hardest thing is to find some new angle there, as Einstein and his contemporaries was pretty da*n good at considering it all. But somehow they never took frames of reference to its conclusion, as being something 'real'. As I first meet it, it always came described as thought experiments, in where you are free to define it any which way as long as we other can follow your logic, and agree. Also see that it stays inside what limitations you set up.

But if there is a smallest meaningful frame of reference, then it exist. No mere thought experiment.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #693 on: 07/03/2013 09:45:56 »
And it is using both definitions I find a 'uniform motion' to fulfill whatever demands I can imagine for being 'at rest'. But I won't say the same for accelerations. I had some serious problems trying to understand 'relative motion' from my view. Because 'relative motion' is about degrees of motion, as defined by you, observing other suns for example.

If relative motion is 'no motion' then, how can you find it to have degrees? You need to consider that from frames of reference too. The 'trick', or thought juggling, is to realize that without another frame of reference there is no such thing as 'motion'. That statement would be untrue if I saw some way to define a local 'energy', measurable nota bene, to different uniform motions (the light bulb blue shifting). But I can't find it, and neither will you.

'Relative motion' then becomes a lot stranger, if you think it through.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #694 on: 07/03/2013 09:53:38 »
Another fallacy that is really confusing, and easy to get stuck on, is to consider that 'black box' from less than ideal descriptions. You point out that 'sure, inside it it is so, but that is relative the outside. If you only used fixed stars you would know your speed' for example.

That is wrong.

A black box is the perfect definition of a universe, small, easy to carry, just put into your pocket and take it up now and then to reflect on the universe :at large :) A black box is not about if the universe is 'closed' or 'open', It's about using a minimalistic approach to reality, trying to see what defines it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #695 on: 07/03/2013 10:00:25 »
And relative motion is what got me wondering about how we define 'dimensions' or 'degrees of freedom'. Because we do have 'degrees of freedom' to uniform motion :) And now some physicists will hate me ::))

But it is still true.
And it has to do with 'energy.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #696 on: 07/03/2013 10:03:57 »
Does the universe have a finite energy? Any which way you consider it, do you expect it to be a finite magnitude, or 'undefined' translatable into 'infinite'. We have laws of conservation, do those tell us anything about it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #697 on: 07/03/2013 10:15:21 »
'energy' is about transformations, as far as I can see. Also from a wider angle about 'emergences'  as heat. Is heat then 'energy'? Heat is kinetic energy to my eyes, particles interacting, transforming one another leaving a excess of radiation. One nice idea is to describe it from opposites, you drop a apple, the floor stops it, negating the 'force' you found the apple to get from 'gravity'. Applied on a universe this idea predicts that the energy needed to create a universe is, 'negligible' almost. Because you just need a little more than those opposites to 'unbalance' the equation, balance or equilibrium.

So, do you think this idea state that the universe has a 'finite energy'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #698 on: 07/03/2013 10:24:47 »
And it has to do with those 'degrees of freedom' to me. You can imagine it several ways I guess. The way we have choose is to define a 'box' of sorts, called a universe. In that box we can measure stuff, we also find that stuff as matter have three 'degrees of freedom' defined to them making a sphere possible. Take away one degree and you will have something that disappear from one angle, to exist from another. Take away one more and you get our ideal definition of a filled circle, only view able from the back and front (sort of). 'Degrees of freedom' is the perfect choice of words for it, much better than 'dimensions' to my eyes.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #699 on: 07/03/2013 10:29:15 »
Because a degree of freedom fits locality, dimensions don't. If you take a point and then draw a line from it, imagining that this line describes a path, you have gotten yourself a degree of freedom. Apply a 'dimension' on it instead, and you filled in a background for that path, all to my eyes. A degree of freedom is just a path.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."